Quote :

"they got skeletons of people that are like 6 million years old, and one named lucy thats like 4 million years old, and so basically what i dont get is that its obvious humans have changed over time, which kinda makes evolution sound like the logical statement"

Quick question...I'm not trying to disprove anything because I don't really have a stance on evolution and I consider myself uneducated on the subject:

If Lucy was the middle-man between apes and modern humans, why aren't there a lot of similar skeletons? Where are all the 5 million year old skeletons? I mean, there are a plenty of T-Rex skeletons that are over 60 million years old, but the evolution of mankind is proven by one skeleton? How do we know she wasn't some extinct species of apes or a deformed midget or something? What does one skeleton really tell us?

1/31/2006 4:02:05 PM

Quote :

"I mean, there are a plenty of T-Rex skeletons that are over 60 million years old"

Uh...there aren't a ton of T-Rex skeletons in the world. IIRC, there aren't more than 5 complete T-Rex skeletons on Earth.

Quote :

"How do we know she wasn't some extinct species of apes or a deformed midget or something?"

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Biology

Quote :

"What does one skeleton really tell us?"

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Australopithecus_afarensis#Physical_characteristics

1/31/2006 4:06:15 PM

Dicussing "Missing Links"

Quote :

"Time refers to the "astonishingly complete skeleton of Lucy"– but those words belie the fact that about 60 percent of Lucy's skeleton, including most of the skull, was missing."

Quote :

"In 1922, paleontologist Henry Fairfield Osborn, an ardent evolutionist, was shown a single tooth found in Nebraska by geologist Harold Cook. After examining it, Osborn declared it belonged to an early ape-man, whom he named Hesperopithecus haroldcookii in Cook's honor. .......further excavations at Cook's site revealed that the tooth belonged neither to ape nor man, but to a peccary, a close relative of the pig."

To many main points to pull out, heres the article
http://www.drdino.com/articles.php?spec=59

1/31/2006 7:45:24 PM

Quote :

"If Lucy was the middle-man between apes and modern humans, why aren't there a lot of similar skeletons? Where are all the 5 million year old skeletons?"

adjectives that describe you:

IGNORANT

MISINFORMED

INDOCTRINATED




there are TONS (hundreds) of fossils of hominds like lucy that date fluidly from 1 to 6 million years old. take physical athropology before making stupid motherfucking statements like this.

you should question the bullshit people feed you and actually search for the truth yourself.




[Edited on January 31, 2006 at 7:52 PM. Reason : -]

1/31/2006 7:50:02 PM

dude, didn't you read the first sentence he wrote?

1/31/2006 7:59:13 PM

^who's dude, and him and you in that last statement?

^^Lets not just throw around insults....atleast he's asking. You're telling the guy to do research and he's looking around obviously. don't need to get so angry on the wolf web about a guy asking about evolution.....
[Edited on January 31, 2006 at 8:06 PM. Reason : ]

[Edited on January 31, 2006 at 8:08 PM. Reason : ]

1/31/2006 8:02:32 PM

i was referring to Joshxxxx, saying pretty much the same thing you did.

1/31/2006 8:26:42 PM

I thought we were saying the complete opposite....he's arguing for evolution, and I'm showing evidence against missing links.

1/31/2006 8:40:01 PM

yes i shouldnt insult people... i just dont get why people engage in debate about biology when they dont know the facts?

if they truly cared would they not go learn?

[Edited on January 31, 2006 at 9:31 PM. Reason : -]

1/31/2006 9:31:17 PM

^^ no, i meant i was saying that the guy he was berating was asking a legitimate question, not campaigning for his personal beliefs on the matter

^ haha, yeah, i insult people from time to time when they're being really stupid...but:

Quote :

"Quick question...I'm not trying to disprove anything because I don't really have a stance on evolution and I consider myself uneducated on the subject:"

1/31/2006 10:17:28 PM

Yes and it bothers me that some seek tdub for answers to really complex problems. Its one thing to say "how do i lose weight"....its another to inquire about the fundamental concepts of phyics and biology. I just plain cant adequatly explain hominid origins in a paragraph.







[Edited on January 31, 2006 at 10:26 PM. Reason : -]

1/31/2006 10:22:24 PM

Wow joshnumbers. There is nothing I can say to make you look like more of an ass than you already do.

gg.

2/1/2006 12:05:03 AM

Id rather be an ass then ignorant as shit.

[Edited on February 1, 2006 at 12:12 AM. Reason : -]

2/1/2006 12:07:14 AM

Quote :

" "1 a : the use of means (as charms or spells) believed to have supernatural power over natural forces b : magic rites or incantations 2 a : an extraordinary power or influence seemingly from a supernatural source b : something that seems to cast a spell :" in other words "physics which we haven't discovered yet" is NOT the same as magic. i learned this in 6th grade."

Well, maybe you should think about the fact that modern physics indicates all kinds of possiblities that were probably not included in your 6th grade education.

String theory is not necessarily true, but it certainly opens the door for many processes that are impossible in the framework of current physics. Such processes could rightly be called "magic" by people such as you. If we could at some future date manage to exploit the possibilities that arise
in extra-dimensional physics, wormholes, hyperfast travel,... then we would be doing magic by today's standards.

Much of what was considered "magic" in the past is now math or physics. Gun-powder for example.
Imagine what people would have thought of a 2-way radio system a few hundered years ago. It
doesn't take to much imagination to see that advanced technology can be viewed as magic in any time. I would not assume our time is any different.

On the other hand, I don't really think we'll ever get to the point of implementing technology that
string theory might allow for. God on the other hand does not suffer our physical limitations.

Anyway, my point is simply that the concept of "magic" is relative to your notion of "natural". What
is rightly considered as "natural" is plastic, as time goes on we change our conception of what "natural" means. Consequently, what is magic now may not be magic later. I suppose if we had all
knowledge then there would be no "magic". But, we don't, and as such we must admit that "magic" may be real. We cannot prove the non-existance of "magic" with a system of physics which is incomplete. In short, just because there is no "natural" explaination for some phenomenon that does not mean the phenomenon is not real.

[Edited on February 1, 2006 at 12:13 AM. Reason : .]

2/1/2006 12:13:11 AM

Quote :

"Much of what was considered "magic" in the past is now math or physics."

yes.....but we now know better. when we see magical-like things happen with magicians like david copperfield, you dont think, oh thats magic becuase i cant prove it isnt!

we use our brains and say 'we know in the past, magic has been shown to alwaye not be magic, therefor the existence of magic is incredibly unlikely, but of course unprovable'.

it would be like trying to disprove god exists. your whole argument is pointless. you cant disprove supernatural shit doesnt exist, so science doesnt even deal with it. we deal with how the universe works. and we've yet to see ANY magic (who care if we used to think some stuff was magic, now when we see seemingly supernatural stuff, we know to pospone the assumption of magic bc we've now studied physics)

[Edited on February 1, 2006 at 12:31 AM. Reason : 0]

2/1/2006 12:28:24 AM

^Yes because all the ancient peoples were itiots, only now has humanity finally become enlightened. What presumption.

2/1/2006 12:32:36 AM

^ The word is "myopia." Many well-meaning, but utterly moronic rationalists have been declaring it the "end of history" ever since the Enlightenment.


^^ I insist that magic does exist.

Quote :

"Gamecat: Is that what the wizards at the Federal Reserve do to our small, greenish, portraits of Presidents that gives them a greater marketable value than small, greenish, portraits of Presidents made by Uncle Tony's basement printer in Queens?"

[Edited on February 1, 2006 at 12:34 AM. Reason : ...]

2/1/2006 12:32:47 AM

Quote :

"String theory is not necessarily true, but it certainly opens the door for many processes that are impossible in the framework of current physics. Such processes could rightly be called "magic" by people such as you. If we could at some future date manage to exploit the possibilities that arise in extra-dimensional physics, wormholes, hyperfast travel,... then we would be doing magic by today's standards. "

Complete nonsense.

String theory leads to things that could SEEM magical, therefor magic could exists?

Ok buddy. Science changes, if something can be explained by natural laws, its not magic. This is basic.

Quote :

"^Yes because all the ancient peoples were itiots, only now has humanity finally become enlightened. What presumption."

Look I dont mean to shatter your understanding of culture, but many people used to, and still do believe in magic. These groups (like some tribes in africa for example) are uneducated.



[Edited on February 1, 2006 at 12:39 AM. Reason : =]

2/1/2006 12:35:51 AM

Semantics in 3...2...1...

2/1/2006 12:38:02 AM

contact. (the source of my name, but I guess that's to old for many of you to remember)

Gamecat, I agree your example of "magic" has always bothered me whenever I thought about it
what is money anyway? Ok, getting back to the semantics as you say,

part of your defintion of magic was,

Quote :

"extraordinary power or influence seemingly from a supernatural source"

Mr. numbers, I of course do not think that David Copperfield and his ilk are doing magic. What he and his peers do does not even defy current physical explaination. They're just con-artists. But, what about miracles, prayer, and more generally the interaction of God and demons with the world? Is all of that "magic", certainly many people think so.

Such people would argue you can't explain it in terms of natural laws so it doesn't exist. I heard just such an argument in Dr. Austin's philosophy of science class here at NCSU a few years back. An important point in his argument against the existence of the soul had to do with the idea there was no natural mechanism for the body and soul to interact.

I suppose you don't think that God answering prayers is "magic", but can you rule that out from purely logical grounds. I think under your definition of "magic" we could argue that answered prayer is magic.

[Edited on February 1, 2006 at 9:05 AM. Reason : .]

2/1/2006 9:03:46 AM

philosophy of science should have been called "DUALISM IS WRONG AND I WEAR FUNNY SHIRTS AND LOOK LIKE A FUCKING HOBO class"

2/1/2006 9:16:29 AM

Quote :

"Much of what was considered "magic" in the past is now math or physics."

Wait, what was considered "magic" in the past, but is now considered math!?!?

2/1/2006 9:25:20 AM

Quote :

"I don't really have a stance on evolution and I consider myself uneducated on the subject:"

that's obvious from this

Quote :

"How do we know she wasn't some extinct species of apes or a deformed midget or something? What does one skeleton really tell us?"

there's this thing called dna that you can sample from organic material...

Quote :

"contact. (the source of my name, but I guess that's to old for many of you to remember)"

wasn't mathman from square 1, and not 321 contact?
yep, he was

Quote :

"One of the most memorable segments of Square One TV, our math-loving number eater, Mathman! In this clip, Mathman earns himself a free game by eating all the symmetrical polygons, woohoo!"

http://home.comcast.net/~nspil/sq1.htm

shows what you know

[Edited on February 1, 2006 at 9:31 AM. Reason : .]

2/1/2006 9:27:50 AM

Quote :

"Wait, what was considered "magic" in the past, but is now considered math!?!?"

...

Quote :

"Much of what was considered "magic" in the past is now math or physics."

...

You didnt know that phyiscs/math now explain what was once thought was magic? Im not suprised.

Quote :

"An important point in his argument against the existence of the soul had to do with the idea there was no natural mechanism for the body and soul to interact."

before even entertaining that the soul is supernatural, one must show that soul exists.


[Edited on February 1, 2006 at 10:44 AM. Reason : =]

2/1/2006 10:41:24 AM

Quote :

""How do we know she wasn't some extinct species of apes or a deformed midget or something? What does one skeleton really tell us?" there's this thing called dna that you can sample from organic material..."

Did you seriously just say that they can get DNA from 4 million year old fossils? Damn dude...And I thought I was uneducated.

OMG JURRASSIC PARK WILL DESTROY US ALL!

[Edited on February 1, 2006 at 11:11 AM. Reason : s]

2/1/2006 11:10:26 AM

I SWEAR TO MOTHER FUCKING GOD IF YOU MAKE ONE MORE STUPID ASS FUCKING STATEMENT

WITHOUT DOING ONE FUCKING SECOND
ONE FUCKING SECOND

OF ACTUALY THINKING OR RESEARCH I WILL KILL YOU

Quote :

"NC State Paleontologist Discovers Soft Tissue in Dinosaur Bones Dr. Mary Schweitzer, assistant professor of paleontology with a joint appointment at the N.C. Museum of Natural Sciences, has succeeded in isolating soft tissue from the femur of a 68-million-year-old dinosaur. Not only is the tissue largely intact, it’s still transparent and pliable, and microscopic interior structures resembling blood vessels and even cells are still present."

http://www.ncsu.edu/news/press_releases/05_03/075.htm

(they are currently working on piecing the DNA fragments together)


this was at NCSU.
fucking, NCSU.
fucking.


[Edited on February 1, 2006 at 11:21 AM. Reason : -]

2/1/2006 11:19:57 AM

Quote :

"PorchTwo: Have any DNA tests been possible with Lucy (teeth or anything)? Dr. Johanson: The oldest DNA we have from a human ancestor is from a Neanderthal that takes us back to about 100,000 years. Unfortunately, the process of fossilization destroys all of the DNA evidence. So, we do not have any DNA from early human ancestors like Lucy."

http://www.pbs.org/wnet/secrets/case_firsthuman/chat.html

^ Thanks for playing bitch.

2/1/2006 11:27:13 AM

Quote :

"Did you seriously just say that they can get DNA from 4 million year old fossils? "

Quote :

"Jennifer Wittmeyer, isolated soft organic tissue from the leg bone of a 68-million-year-old Tyrannosaurus rex."

^of course its impossible for nearly every old fossil. but youre still wrong.

2/1/2006 11:35:49 AM

And you're still the one making gross assumptions about me and getting owned for it.

Quote :

" There is nothing I can say to make you look like more of an ass than you already do."

Truer words were never spoken.

2/1/2006 11:41:17 AM

Id rather be an ass then not have a clue.

2/1/2006 11:43:24 AM

i know both mary schweitzer and jenna wittmeyer. They are in my department (and i'm actually supposed to go out on a date with jenna sometimes soon i think, we'll see). Jenna has had many drunken conversations with me about the research, etc.

anyways, as far as I know, i don't think they found any actual DNA... just soft connective tissue and possible remnants of cells.

2/1/2006 3:01:32 PM

man, I am so glad that this topic hasn't been discussed ad nauseum before

2/1/2006 3:53:43 PM

she is currently working on it.

regardless;

Quote :

"How do we know she wasn't some extinct species of apes or a deformed midget or something? What does one skeleton really tell us"

this is just crazy to say that hominids could be 'deformed midgets' for so many different reasons.

2/1/2006 7:06:52 PM

Quote :

"philosophy of science should have been called "DUALISM IS WRONG AND I WEAR FUNNY SHIRTS AND LOOK LIKE A FUCKING HOBO class""

all to true, I kind forgot, till you said that. lol.

Quote :

"Wait, what was considered "magic" in the past, but is now considered math!?!?"

As usual your comment has merit. In the strictest sense of pure math I probably should retract that
statement, but on the otherhand math and physics are really inseparable. Physics without math
is ill-defined.

From another perspective, consider Kepler's work. You might argue it was just math. Remember he found that Tycho Brahae's data about the planetary orbits fit a certain math formula. He gave no explaination for the formula, he just observed the math fit. Before that, it was commonly believed
that angels pushed the planets around, but he replaced that "magic" with math. Only later did
Newton give a physical explaination for his Kepler's formula.

Besides examples like the above, it is possible to use math to perform some seemingly impossible
tasks. Personally, I can't , but these people like to explore such activity

http://members.aol.com/AJRoberti/math/index.htm

overall point, previous ignorance of math allows the few who know math to use it much like
an advanced technology.

Quote :

"wasn't mathman from square 1, and not 321 contact? yep, he was"

Sadly, I find myself in the position of agreeing with you. Curses on my stupid memory.

Quote :

"You didnt know that phyiscs/math now explain what was once thought was magic? Im not suprised."

Um, I think that was my point from the beginning. I have been saying is that what seems to be magic (or supernatural as they certainly overlap) will later possibly be understood in terms of well-defined physical law. This has happened before, it'll likely happen again.

Quote :

"But, what about miracles, prayer, and more generally the interaction of God and demons with the world? Is all of that "magic", certainly many people think so.... I suppose you don't think that God answering prayers is "magic", but can you rule that out from purely logical grounds. I think under your definition of "magic" we could argue that answered prayer is magic."

Since I don't care to get sidetracked on some inane discussion about the existence/nonexistence
of the soul, lets focus on something above that you do think exists( you pick). Again are these thing "magic", if not why?


At the risk of beating a dead horse,

Quote :

"Ok buddy. Science changes, if something can be explained by natural laws, its not magic. This is basic. "

Rather, we should say "it is not magic now". It might have been considered magic before
but that changed when science evolved.

Magic is really just some phenomenon that has no naturalistic explaination when you get to the root
of it.

2/1/2006 7:43:13 PM

Quote :

"anyways, as far as I know, i don't think they found any actual DNA... just soft connective tissue and possible remnants of cells."

Quote :

"she is currently working on it. "

So, basically what you're saying is that my statement was correct based on current scientific principles. You suck at science almost as badly as you suck at debating. Sad.

(You can commence with your "ALL CAPS OMG I'M SO PISSED OFF I'M YELLING" again.)

[Edited on February 2, 2006 at 12:11 AM. Reason : s]

2/2/2006 12:09:47 AM

Quote :

""How do we know she wasn't some extinct species of apes or a deformed midget or something? What does one skeleton really tell us?" "

I dont need to make you look any dumber then by just quoting you.

[Edited on February 2, 2006 at 12:33 AM. Reason : -]

2/2/2006 12:33:26 AM

Quote :

"Id rather be an ass then not have a clue."

Quote :

"I dont need to make you look any dumber then by just quoting you."

You don't even know the fucking difference between "then" and "than." I let it slide the first time, but you are in no position to call anyone dumb when you don't understand basic english.

Never once did I say or even imply that I believe Lucy was a deformed midget or an extinct species of ape. The extinct species of ape is the most common argument I've heard and the deformed midget part just sounded damn funny. You tried to impose that as my belief and failed miserably. I'm sure you are used to failure by now, but for the rest of us it is sad watching you make an ass of yourself.

If you knew jack shit about this it should be easy for you to discredit the extinct species of ape statement. Instead, you attack me personally and point to research that has yet to be completed as a source. I can only assume that this means you don't really have the facts to back up this or anything else you have said in regards to my post.

One day, we'll look back on this and laugh...




at you.

that day is today

and probably tomorrow too, but we won't know until than.

2/2/2006 1:32:27 AM

Quote :

"I'm not trying to disprove anything because I don't really have a stance on evolution "

evolution is hard fact: observable, and repeatedly reproducible.

it is only the mechanism by which it occurs, that is debatable. currently theory of "natural selection" is the front runner.

2/2/2006 1:42:14 AM

Quote :

"You don't even know the fucking difference between "then" and "than.""

its like im not even using proper capitilzation and punctualization and spelling either!! SHIT

Quote :

"Quick question...I'm not trying to disprove anything because I don't really have a stance on evolution and I consider myself uneducated on the subject:"

look at all those errors in the use of language.

I SAID GOOD DAY.

[Edited on February 2, 2006 at 3:05 AM. Reason : 0]

2/2/2006 2:55:58 AM

regarding the comment about preserved DNA earlier: although rare, there is still enough "fossil" DNA out there to actually carry out quiet a bit of genomic analysis and, recently, compare the phylogeny of existing vs. extinct animals.

http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/abstract/1123360v1 is a pretty interesting read. in fact, that article alone is pretty impressive proof for the veracity of evolutionary theory (or at the very least our understanding of genomic changes over time).

as to the lack of a complete fossil record of humans, this can most likely be explained by some form of punctuated equilibrium. relatively simple mutations can also cause extensive changes in genotype. there is some evidence that such a mutation could have been involved in the concurrent evolution of increased intelligence and bipedalism.



[Edited on February 2, 2006 at 5:04 AM. Reason : .]

2/2/2006 4:41:27 AM

evolution is one of those issues i dont get

like its obvious we came from some kinda thing that was a mix between an ape and a human(its name was lucy, its like 4 million years old) so wheres the confusion come in

2/2/2006 5:28:26 AM

Quote :

"punctuated equilibrium"

now that's magic

2/2/2006 7:55:24 PM

^^literal int. of bible

2/2/2006 8:03:24 PM

I'm surprised so many people were aware that magicians were in the employ of the Federal Reserve. I thought they kept that info kinda hush-hush.

[Edited on February 2, 2006 at 8:09 PM. Reason : proprietary secret]

2/2/2006 8:08:47 PM

Quote :

"man, I am so glad that this topic hasn't been discussed ad nauseum before"

Quote :

"evolution is hard fact: observable, and repeatedly reproducible. "

really? when was the last time you observed evolution in real time? when was the last experiment that successfully produced a vast range of multi-celled organisms from primordial goo?

2/3/2006 10:41:49 PM

Quote :

"when was the last experiment that successfully produced a vast range of multi-celled organisms from primordial goo?"

evolution refers to speciation and gradual genetic changes, not the origin of fucking life.

jesus dont you think you should know what the theory of evolution states by now?

the central theme of evolution is natrual selection.

it has been oberserved over and over, that some people are naturally selected, and genetic drift causes changes in population. its been seen in humans....viruses...ect.

you dont need to watch a species evolve, we know it happen becuase of such aforomentioned principles of evolution.

we dont need to see the big bang, but we know it happened.


[Edited on February 3, 2006 at 10:48 PM. Reason : 0]

2/3/2006 10:43:46 PM

^It is not hard fact, you are speaking of micro evolution, yes, everyone excepts natural selection. You error when you somehow assume that natural selection implies incredible changes in all species. The point made above is basically we have never seen one species produce another. If that were to occur then you would have your proof for evolution. Now I'm sure you're quick answer will be "gradual change". Now the only problem with that is that with genetics you have a set of "blueprints" and while in genetics you will find gradual changes in these, you will never find different charateristics (even with mutations, which are only copies, or lack of part of the "blueprints" so for example: Dogs. you may have big dogs, you may have small dogs, dogs with different kinds of fur, dogs of different weights. All specific qualties that vary. Now what you will never find is a dog with fins, and there is no way for a dog to start to aquire fins because there is nothing in his gene's to get this way.

So looking back at dogs in general (exceptions will be covered in a second): Dogs will have 4 legs, fur, two eyes, two ears, a tail, etc etc. So, while these basic qualities may vary through getetics, you will never be able to produce another animal because the blue prints don't have information to apply something else, there is no information for anything else, and no way for that information to occur.

So now "well what about mutations": 99.9% of mutations are harmful, and as far as I know, There haven't been any observed beneficial mutations with any animal. Mutations do not allow for alternate parts, but only repeating/lack of current information. Example: A dog may have two heads, 5 legs, 3 Ears, to many of something, to little of something, but a dog will never grow a beak, or a some mutation that is different from the original genetics of a dog, just mixed up versions of what's already there.

So looking at these facts which are observable somewhat testable, biology I believe it's pretty logical to question how one species comes from another. I see how a 1 eared 5 legged creature with short fur and no tail can come from an earlier version of something that was a dog, but what I don't see is how a fish could evolve into a horse (through other species and time). I just see too many barrier's

and finally if there are errors in my biology or logic I'm welcome to corrections, but please be mature about it.

2/3/2006 11:14:51 PM

^ You are brutally retarded.

Quote :

"I'm welcome to corrections, but please be mature about it."

WHOOPS.

2/3/2006 11:29:25 PM

Quote :

"So looking back at dogs in general (exceptions will be covered in a second): Dogs will have 4 legs, fur, two eyes, two ears, a tail, etc etc. So, while these basic qualities may vary through getetics, you will never be able to produce another animal because the blue prints don't have information to apply something else, there is no information for anything else, and no way for that information to occur."

This is just patently false.

Variation can produce ANYTHING. Any fucking thing. Not all dogs have four legs. This is a fact. Not all humans have five fingers.

You are just creating arbitrary bariers, and saying everything within that is a species. You are just picking random qualities that seem like good choices from your ass.



The whole point is YOU DONT NEED INFORMATION, just like you said. Variation produces an infinite amount of information. And the information that is good, is kept.

Im just curious, where do you get your propaganda? From a scientist, or you bible school teacher of preacher?

Quote :

"but what I don't see is how a fish could evolve into a horse"

Thats becuase it probably couldnt.

They share a common ancestor somewhere in the distant past.

Quote :

"A dog may have two heads, 5 legs, 3 Ears, to many of something, to little of something, but a dog will never grow a beak, or a some mutation that is different from the original genetics of a dog, just mixed up versions of what's already there."

Ok....variation mixes things up, and mutations can create ANYTHING new (slowly). I dont think you grasp the concept of slow change.

Beaks dont appear, they start as simpler things, like a normal mouth. The shape changes slowly. Perhaps youll get a pointy mouth. Then the composition changes to something more stiff. And thats that.

Quote :

"So now "well what about mutations": 99.9% of mutations are harmful, and as far as I know, There haven't been any observed beneficial mutations with any animal."

#1. Youve contradicted yourself.

#2. Youre wrong on both statements.


Are you really... REALLY gonna tell me that you cant think of ONE beneficial mutation to an animal or human?

Ever heard of







MALARIA?




Have you? It was more prevalent a while ago. It killed a shit load of people. Then all the sudden, people with a mutation in hemoglobin started being born more frequently. This mutation allowed us to be resistant to malaria. It also caused sicke cell anemia. (very very beneficial, at the time). There are many other diseases like this where some human populations have immunity. Often its just a point mutation. Literaly one point on a DNA strand, one base, caused it. No information, just one random flip at ONE point.


Even heard of


INSECTS AND PESTICIDES?


Many insects are immune to pesticides we've been using. So these insects already had that info for resistance to an aritifically sythesized compound that never previously existed?????? No. One insect got lucky. And then she had a lot of babies.


I regret to inform you that your level of knowledge is not on par with someone qualified to debate me. While you are smart enough, you simply lack knowledge. So this will be my only response. I suggest you read about the counter argumetns to your propaganda before embracing them as fact.




[Edited on February 4, 2006 at 12:00 AM. Reason : =]

2/3/2006 11:39:28 PM

Hi Josh8315! Have you managed to get your car running exclusively on water yet? I'd like to come over and see it sometime.

2/4/2006 1:03:30 AM