Scientists around the world are beginning to accept the theory that human beings could have actually been genetically engineered from superior alien species. This would make us some sort of experiment. Could this all be true? Where do you stand on this subject? Do you believe humans came about as means of evolution or were we purposely placed on this planet?
I have a hard time believing we are somebody else's science project.
The question of how life began is not all that hard to figure out if one simply understands that muddy swamps do not contain or create the DNA to form the first tiny spark life. DNA had to be created by an intellegent being. All living things are supernatural; But when you die you become natural and your proteans .
All living things are made of 100% left handed proteans. When left alone proteans mix naturally 50% left handed and 5o% right handed naturally. when you die you become natural and your proteaind begin changing to their 50/50% and you rot and then you are natural. When anything dies it goes back to the earth of which it is made.
DNA is just a bunch of molecules stuck together in a particular order. There's no real reason it couldn't have arisen out of the primordial ooze just like any other polymer.
I want to see more science about the stuff that holds stuff together. I saw one documentary recently that was fascinating, but my little ones made a lot of noise and I missed some of it.
If I ever learn to use the foxtel remote control I may find it again.
Fair enough question, however it begs the question, how did the aliens who purposely placed us here originate? Were they purposely placed or were they a product of evolution. If the evolved, why can't we have evolved?
"Scientists around the world are beginning to accept the theory that human beings could have actually been genetically engineered from superior alien species."
Wow, someone actually said that?
ew... I share genetic material with them...
GET IT OFF!! GET IT OFF!!!
Scientists around the world are NOT beginning to accept any such theory - this is pure bu!!sh!t.
I don't mind the occasional moron visiting, but to post this kind of rubbish you must think the good people of HubPages are morons !
Hey idiot, this is a forum post. Express your opinion without offending others. Actually I now do think one particular hubpages user is a moron, and that you would be you. This post wasn't meant for ignorant, brainwashed, close minded scumbags like yourself. Take your crap somewhere else.
Well don't you feel smart and accomplished now? Good for you. Not everyone uses abbreviations. Some people, like the ones who can actually spell, like to write the full word. OP can stand for anything.
And your point? If you have one.
I'm sure it cannot even stand on what was written, much less, stand for anything.
That makes no sense. Your conversation is absolutely moronic. Stop acting like the Dalai Lama. You said "And, like your OP is anywhere in reality? Not!" and the only part I didn't understand was the "OP" abbreviation. Your last post has nothing to do with what I was talking about...
See, I told you that you wouldn't understand.
Really, what part of this conversation is moronic, as you say.
OP = Opening Post
Your OP makes an initial statement that is completely and utterly untrue. So, that means, anything else you speak of is completely and utterly irrational and has nothing to DO with reality.
Well thank you, that's all I needed you to say. There was no need to act like a stuck up jerk. See the problem with people nowadays, and you are a perfect example, is that you think just because you read a book on a specific subject, or just because your religion says so, that is the way things are. The truth is you don't know anything about anything unless you experience it yourself. My opening post is simply a theory. I never stated it was a fact. The true origins of human kind might never be revealed to humanity, at least not in our lifetime. So your conception of what's real and what's not, and your idea that my opening statement is "utterly untrue" is nothing more than your opinion.
It seems as though you lack any understanding of how to use your own perception. I'm not surprised. You're also apparently interested in reading the rules of the forum either. Good to know.
Boy you could not be further for truth than the above statement. And, show you lack understanding of the human species and myself, and my position.
Yes it is a theory, completely and utterly irrational.
I would hope. With your perceptions skewed as it is, you're not like to know when you actually find a fact and/or truth.
With your perception skewed, and the amount of distortion and misinformation already going around on this planet, is why truth isn't already revealed.
Says you, but not all knowledge already presently available to humankind. But, nice try.
The funny thing is you try to make yourself sound so intelligent and superior in knowledge to everyone else but you still did not answer my question and you keep drifting away from the subject. Again, all of the BS you wrote, is nothing more than a personal opinion. That is what you THINK! Where are your facts? All you do is try to bring down my views by saying "your this" and "your that" and "untrue", "irrational" and blah blah blah. Apparently, you lack the necessary intelligence needed to engage in a CONVERSATION. All you're doing is judging what I write, and giving your useless opinion on how it is "untrue" and how I am "misinformed". Thanks for wasting my time. Take your crap somewhere else, Mr. wanna be Dalai Lama. Since I am so far from the truth, according to your "OPINOIN", then what is the truth? Since you know everything there is to know about everything, why don't you enlighten the rest of us? No one here needs your crappy judgement and your cockiness. Your words and your statements just prove your ignorance and how primitive your thoughts are. You wanted to sound smart. I'm sorry to inform you, you failed. You sound like an idiot going around judging other people and talking like you're some sort of prophet only because you enjoy the comfort and safety of being behind a computer screen. But, nice try.
I have no need for answering your question, because you're already accepted that it cannot be answered. So what would be the sense. It has nothing to do with being superior in knowledge or intelligence. Yet, you fail to see or understand that.
I'm sure you say the same thing to everyone who you talk to that disagrees with you.
I don't need to tell you exactly what I think. I only need to address your irrational thought process. Nothing more.
And, exactly what FACTS are you not going to accept? Considering you've already told me that all I have is opinion.
Well, that's all I need to address, because you've already made the decision that what is offered to you is opinion.
Untrue, yet again. Your own words defeat your own conversation, yet you're too blind to see it.
See what I mean...
Another sign you're not interested in anything anyone has to say on the matter.
An attempt at insulting me. I guess it's a good thing you're unable to do so.
Why tell you when you're not open to receive it. WOW! Repeat yourself much?
Are you talking to hear yourself talk? I never made the claim to know everything there is to know and you talk about my intelligence. WOW! Grow up!
You're the one with ego issue, not me.
Actually, it doesn't, but you're just not smart enough to see it.
And, your actions prove what you are and I don't have to proceed any further. As for failing? Never.
Really? Judging people's actions and their individual irrationality is my place to do, when it is out in the open for everyone else to see. So, stick that in your pipe and smoke it, until the cows come home.
Again, all you're doing is speculating and talking straight out of your a**. You have yet to provide one single fact that proves me wrong. Not one. All you're doing is using 1000 fancy words to say "I think you're wrong". Ok, I get that. According to you I'm wrong. So why don't you tell me what's right since you're so enlightened? Yet, you keep judging my way of thought with your ignorant, judgmental, primitive way of jumping to conclusions without knowing anything. Seriously Mister, I don't what your problem is, but it sounds to me like you need help, professional help. This post was meant to be about the origins of human kind and not your stupid opinion of what kind of person you think I am and how my brain works. LOL you're just too pathetic for words...I'm just going to stop wasting my time. Maybe you should get out of your mommy's basement and do something with your life. That might teach you how to talk to people and engage in intelligent conversations.
Oh and, way to contradict yourself there buddy. "You're the one with the ego issue, not me. As for failing? Never." LOL wow...do you have any idea how ridiculous you sound?
Interesting thought. Some people would say that would be a *fart*. You seem to be talking, but basing your entire conversation on irrationality. Which is what is making YOU wrong.
Do you NOT read what is written. I don't have to dismiss irrationality. I only have to show that YOU are irrational. Thus, making your words work against you.
Apparently not, otherwise you would have dropped this ridiculous notion, which is irrational.
You're words defeat you. I don't have to tell you that you are wrong. Just point out the irrationality of your theory. Which is what I have done.
You don't read do you?
Another attempt at insulting me? How nice of you. Nice rational conversation.
You say I need help, yet you fail to see your own posts? You're too funny.
Another attempt at insulting me. Twice within one post. You must be proud of yourself. The origins of Humankind, as far as the human species is concerned is HERE ON EARTH!
Are you learning impaired? Or didn't you know humans came from Earth, as far as the knowable knowledge available has already told the human species.
Okay, now you resort to talking about my mother. What a great show of character you are displaying. Mindless and meaningless to say the least.
I can hold my own with some of the most intelligent on HP and if you think not, then YOU have gravely mistaken. But, all you continue to do is come up with one irrational thought after another.
Only in YOUR mind.
Only to the irrational, do I sound like I have a problem. If you could think straight, then just maybe you would enable yourself to have a good conversation. I never fail to get my point across, which is what the above statement, that you quoted. I can see past my ego, you cannot.
Truely, none of scientists are beginning to accept such a theory. My friend! Where did you get this?
How is this possible that science would begin accepting such a preposterous notion? No empirical evidence exists to even form a hypothesis. No other outside life force has come forth to show it exists or that it had anything to do with human creation. Nor have they left clues as to why the up and skipped town like a deadbeat parent. How could they even begin to construct tests to determine whether or not it is possible? What parameters of experiment can be applied using present...umm...unknowing of alien life? This only furthers shows how blind the left side of Theos is. Coming up with new ways to pretend they are not religion, because they have 150 years of mechanical toys as proof.
Side bar: There is no empirical evidence of human evolution either. Humans seem to be the only creatures on this planet not directly effected by the evolution of nature itself. In fact, they seem to be "left behind" should the timetable be even remotely accurate. 4 million years is a long time to figure out how to make fire, a wheel, bend light through melted sand tubes called fiber optics and that burning fossil fuel is bad for you.
It didn't come out of the blue. This theory has been around for thousands of years. It was originally found in ancient Summerian texts. Honestly, I don't believe in religion, at all. I posted this because I became curious on the subject after a watching a documentary, which actually did provide FACTS that this theory might hold ground. I'm not saying there were 100% accurate because I don't know much on the subject, but they sounded pretty logical.
I don't know about any credible scientists making those assertions, but science fiction has been presenting those ideas for a long time. A book titled Star Tide Rising by David Brin came out around '85 or so and had this concept of "uplift" where beings with intelligence (dolphins at first, but moving towards dogs) could be "uplifted" genetically... made more sentient than just alive. Great book.
In addition, there are a books and short stories that have various contemporary religions spawned by aliens (Scientology the most obvious, and LDS up in there in my opinion), and even one that has the immaculate conception an implanted foetus that was neuroprogrammed to improve the primitive culture (with help from the special effects people in the labratory ship up above to make his miracles/divine magic work). Good stuff.
I noticed a conspicuous absence of any credible links to the scientists you speak of, perhaps some good links to .edu sites with credible academic, peer reviewed papers would get you some slack from the others here. For me, I think it is more far fetched to claim it was aliens rather than natural selection which has been so overwhelming supported by evidence from literally thousands and thousands of various studies over the last century. However, it is fun to think that maybe some aliens came down and tweaked a gene here or there to speed things along, like they do in Star Tide Rising. (There's a movie coming out sometime too, BTW, you'll love it--if they don't screw it up.)
Bottom line, alien programming is plausible, just like intelligent gods are, or even any gods at all. No way to know unless something falls glaringly into our laps. Some dude on an internet forum claiming "lots of scientists say this" is not quite glaring enough, though.
This "dude" is claiming that out of the blue. I've watched a few videos and documentaries on the subject. They all featured tens, or hundreds, of scientists, historians and anthropologists from all around the globe who believed this might be an answer to the origins of man kind.
What utter nonsense. No scientists are "beginning to accept," any such thing. We have plenty of evidence that we evolved. Why would you start a thread like this with a lie?
You wouldn't happen to be a Christian would you?
I don't know if that last bit was meant to be serious or in jest but as a Christian, I do not hold to the theory of evolution. Those who follow evolution say that those who believe in God are wrong because there is no evidence that God exists. However, I put forth the notion that there is no evidence that evolution exists. How come there is nothing in the flux of evolution now? If so, where is it? Oh, I forgot, it takes thousands of years for something to evolve. Where are the skeletal remains of evolved animals? How come there has been no news story of a gorilla giving birth to a man? Where is the proof? And you call Christianity foolish? It is easier to believe in an Intelligent Deisnger than a fish giving birth to a frog anyday.
You're mistaken. There is an immense amount of evidence if you chose to open your eyes. It's called strata.
I must ask a question that has been bugging me for many years. If so called Christians know so much, why is it that 99.9% of them are unable to speak the languages of their own religious text? After all, the Bible was created from many different sources and none of them were English which did not exist at the time of the bible’s compilation by the council that created it.
But I digress.
Rock Strata exists, as do the fossils within said strata. I can show you the rock; can you show me a single Christian that can speak Aramaic, Hebrew, Ancient Greek, Latin, etc. etc?
My point is this. Since Christians have no clue what the real message is, how can they tell people (much less murder them for not agreeing with them) what to believe and what not to believe?
By contrast; scientists offer empirical evidence of their findings in clear languages for all to read. As necessarily true as 1+1=2 is, so is the earth not the center of the universe and so is man not the chosen creature of divinity. To argue the contrary is pure vanity.
You said it, Don, and hit the nail right square on the head. Any Christian that thinks evolution indicates that a gorilla has ever given birth to a man is foolish indeed.
Of course anyone with even the tiniest bit of knowledge about the subject knows as well that evolution says that CAN'T happen. Nevertheless a great number of Christians are foolish enough to claim otherwise. Christian education is soooo...well....wrong when the best it can do is present outright lies about accepted concepts.
You're right, though - I would rather accept ID than believe fish gave birth to frogs. Thank goodness we have a perfectly reasonable and widely accepted understanding of evolution that shows how such a thing happens. Without fairies in the sky.
You really shouldn't spread such outright lies in an emotional appeal to get gullible people to believe such obvious falsehoods. Not even all Christians are that foolish.
Wilderness, is the tenet of your philosophy that man evolved from primates eons ago and that was it? Is not evolution ongoing?
Of course we are still evolving. It's how the world works.
Americans are growing in size (look at clothing and old sets of armor) while Japanese may be shrinking. We are losing our wisdom teeth and hymen. We are losing our toes. Removal of barriers, both social and physical, has resulted in the vast mixing pot of America where all races are slowly becoming one. Jaw size is shrinking (which is what is causing lack of wisdom teeth and removal of those that do come in.
All of these things are a result of the "forces" (poor usage of term, I know, but I'll use it anyway) of evolution and are readily detectable to anyone that will open their eyes. Have you not seen them? Ask your dentist what percentage of youngsters never get their wisdom teeth as opposed to 100 years ago.
These examples are not the tenet of my philosophy, however. Rather they are evidence, readily observable by the layman such as ourselves, of the concept and forces of evolution.
My philosophy, I suppose, would be that they way to learning and Truth is to search for and look at evidence, study that evidence and draw conclusions from it. It is not to read a 2,000 year old book written by ignorant sheephearders and decide that they had all the knowledge of the world because the book says what you want to hear (you will live forever, you are special, you have a purpose, etc.)
Why do you ask? Because evolution is an ongoing thing will you now demand to see the next species of homo as the only possible proof of evolution? Or to watch a fish giving birth to a frog?
Odd - you think this is a "philosophy"? I suggest a new dictionary as you do not appear to understand what that word means. Perhaps one that was not written by religionists.
Good luck in your quest for knowledge instead of nonsense.
I do not believe, that anyone who looks honestly into what we have discovered (and uncovered), would come to any conclusion other than that humans are a species of ape, sharing a common ancestor with the chimpanzee and the bonobo; and that evolution - more or less as we know it - was the mechanism that generated the variation in species we encounter on Earth.
The sheer amount of evidence is *Staggering*. We have far, far, FAR more proof supporting the theory of evolution than we do supporting the theory of gravity.
What exactly or where exactly is this proof?
What, you want 50,000 bits of evidence laid for your perusal?
You might begin the study by reading "The Origin of Species" by Charles Darwin. It's a little out of date, but certainly more current than your own 2000 year old book of fantasy. Follow that with a thorough grounding in biology, geology, physics and chemistry.
But you won't read it, will you? Instead you will attempt to extract serious answers from more knowledgeable folk in order to ridicule them and make the subject (which you obviously know absolutely nothing about) look stupid.
Bah. Your motives are as transparent as window glass.
Actually, I have no desire to ridicule you or your beliefs. It seems to me you're doing the ridiculing with your " 2000 year old book of fantasy' comment. Actually, the Bible is older than that, by a couple of thousand years. All I asked what where is this proof that everyone is talking about. Where are the skeletal remains of the missing link? Why is there nothing in the process of evolving? Why do you automatically discount God?
You and I and everything else is in the process of evolving.
??? Because God is merely imaginary!
Why do you harp on the "missing link". That seems to have become a catch-word for the religious group that will never be satisfied until each and every small evolutionary change is found in human remains. You know as well as I do that is impossible - we will not sift the entire surface of the planet looking for old bones. You know where those bones are, though - in the ground. Either intact, in pieces, or rotted to nothing but a few molecules. So why do you ask?
Every living species is evolving. God is discounted because there has never, in 2,000 years of searching, been any evidence at all for His existence. This too, you know and are aware of.
The bible is older than 2,000 years? Can you really be that ignorant of your own tome? The bible was written by the church several hundred years after the death of Christ. It was a compilation, translation and selection of certain writings from others - some well after that death, some from centuries before. Those writings were very carefully selected to maintain the power base of the church and had little to do with actually searching for truth. For instance, all writings by women were deliberately left out as such things were not acceptable to the all male political power structure.
All human being was started from Adam and Eva (We, in Islam call them Nabiyullah Adam 'Alaihissalaam and Siti Hawa). It was started thousands of years ago. I totally reject all opinions that say out of this scope. We do believe, human only stay on the earth. if it is said, there is another creature out of human that occupy this world... the ones which also have community and culture like us .... yes, there is; it is genie. Before, they live side by side with human. But, after the time of Solomon (We call him Nabiyullah Sulaiman 'Alaihissalaam), through a prayer of Nabi Sulaiman, we can not see them anymore; they are invisible; and some us call them spirits. Indeed, in some cases, they have ability in doing something in which impossible for human in common. But, it is also impossible if human is the evolution of the genie, the posture of genie is really animal alike -- as far as I have read from some literature. Human is human ----genie is genie. I interpret the alien that you say is genie. Human is unique...................................!
Actually, OP, your claim is an impossibility. Wherever you read that, your source was, at best disingenuous, or at worst (and I suspect likely) a hoax intentionally designed to spread misinformation.
That "Humans were Genetically Engineered by Aliens" can not, by definition, be a scientific theory because it is non-falsifiable. It can be what lay-people may call a theory, but no scientist would define it as such.
It's as if I said "All humans die". That can be a thought... a musing... but not a scientific theory, because it can not be proven false - someone would have to live for infinite time hence there is no possibility of proving the claim false. Contrarily, the claim "No humans die" can be falsified by presenting a dead human.
Like existential questions and philosophical ponderings about gods and other supernatural beings, the claim that "we were created by aliens" is outside the realm of science.
Incidentally, the *only* method science has to progress is by proving things false. Science does not prove anything true, it just describes systems to explain observed phenomena, which progressively get more and more accurate, by requiring new, better theories every time we find out how the current one is wrong.
Actually people came from the dirt. Popped up like a flower.
recommend1- while not putting it tactfully, is correct, any sort of "intelligent design" argument is ridiculous. If it were true, it aliens, God, or some other intelligence would have to be stupid! God or aliens would have to be morons. Every animal and organism has some incredibly "backwards" building because nature was working with what was already there, not sitting down with a clean piece of paper and starting from scratch like an engineer. Hummm...I'm making a bi-ped now which way should I make the knees bend, oh I know backwards so it has to lift and swing its leg forward, to walk or run- genius...NOT! Hell life isn't even built for the survival of the organism, but the survival of the DNA, RNA; which implies that God or aliens don't care about you and my that we care about a single frame in a movie.
Kinda funny to me that evolutionists so calmly accept that we could have been engineered by an intelligence, but believe that intelligence can't be God. They will believe in aliens, though they have no proof, or even any reason to believe so.
You think that's funny?
How about believing in a sky daddy from a 2,000 year old myth?
For a start the statement is a blatant lie - scientists are not coming to believe anything of the sort, as you would have realised if you had read the thread before commenting. Then, with trillions of planets out there the possibility of intelligent life evolving somewhere is quite high, especially when placed against the chances of the existence of a super creator being.
LOL Evolutionists don't accept any such thing.
Admittedly - it is slightly less far fetched than your Invisible Super Being, but - not much. You liars for Jesus really astound me with the lengths you will go to to attack anyone who does not believe the religious nonsense you push. I thought lying was a sin and your Super Daddy told you not to do it? How does that work?
Of course we are related to primates and the nonsense that started this thread is a total lie. We are primates. Read a book or two why don't you?
I've never heard any scientific evidence to support such a claim, but there have been a few cult leaders who tried to peddle the concept. Krishna Ventna of a cult in So Cal throught something similar. Until he slept with a few of the married women in his flock and a disgruntled member blew him to kingdom come with a homemade bomb.
Really? I don't think there are any credible scientists who would take that as a theory of how we came to earth. Maybe you can provide some proof of the alien theory...area 51 perhaps.
For a scientist to accept this theory tehre would need to be evidence. Since there is no evidence it merely remains a theory.
Not even a theory, since a theory implies that there is some sort of evidence that supports it. It's a hypothesis at best.
First tell me what these nutbar websites have to do with the discussion?
I believe the original post had to do with whether we evolved from apes or from an extrateresstrial race. Right? Well, there arent too many sources that can offer an argument for the latter.
Sorry that my simply pointing out that such a theory exists created such hostility in you. Really wasnt my intention. Was just trying to point out that there are people making the argument no matter how unreasonable it might be to some or even most. Frankly, I find it more unreasonable to believe that slightly intelligent hominids that had just conquered stone toolmaking managed to build the pyramids with perfect geometric exactness.
I don't think anyone questions that such theories exist--but that they come from scientists. Hence my non-hostile confusion as how how sites where weird theories are being put forward by weird (non-scientist) people was relevant.
I find it easiest to believe that the pyramids were built just the way archeologists have shown they were. The same argument has been made about a lot of ancient works but strangely enough persists the strongest when those ancient persons were not white (c.f. ancient Greece etc).
Interesting post, but let me clarify some misconceptions you have presented.
You would seem to indicate that homo sapiens evolved from apes, but evolution does not make that claim. We did not come from any of the other great apes although we all share a common ancestor. That claim is typically made by someone refusing to understand or accept the fact of evolution and is used as an emotional presentation (Ugh! I'm not an ape!) in a misguided effort to deride the concept of evolution.
Although the pyramids were built about 5000 years by hominids, they were not "slightly intelligent hominids that had just conquered stone toolmaking".
The nearest "homo" relative (homo neanderthalis) had died out some 45,000 years prior to the building of the pyramids - modern homo sapiens built the pyramids (unless you are proposing that a group of gorillas or chimpanzees invaded Egypt, kicked out homo sapiens and did it?).
In addition, the stone age ended in the middle east at around 8,000 years ago - long before the pyramids were built. The people there had not just learned stone toolmaking but were making metal tools by then.
Yes the pyramids are a geometrical shape, but "perfect"? Anyone in the building trades can lay out a perfect square with nothing but a piece of string as long as the diagonal of that square and then you build it up. Not too difficult and those "hominids" were at least as intelligent as modern man (as they were modern man!).
While it is of course possible that ET came to earth and helped our ancestors build the wonders of the ancient world there neither is, nor was then, a need for them. Those folk were quite capable of doing these things themselves without outside help. They were fully as intelligent as we are now and far more knowledge about the use of their tools and methods than we will ever be.
Hello Wilderness, welcome to the topic! I wouldn't bother trying to put forth logical, rationed, and reasonable discourse based on hundreds of years of observation and meticulous note-taking from thousands of the brightest minds in history.
This, has been tried. It failed.
I think it's time for someone to just go ahead and invoke Godwin's Law and be done with it. Everything that could've been said has been said, and everyone of the participants in the conversation have fortified their stances to such great sturdiness that God herself couldn't convince them otherwise.
Know what I hate about Creationists and ...well.. people without that particular ridiculous delusion?
They're all Nazi's.
There, it's done. Everyone can go home now :-P
Oh, I don't know, TlC - if I can get just one mind to question what has been poured into their mind by pointing out obvious falsities it's worth it. Just get one person to actually question and think about the nonsense they spout verbatim from someone else.
You might want to look in to how the egyptions created the pyramids, it is entirely fascinating and you can still see the types of tools used in egypt today that helped create teh pyramids.
Just because you cannot understand how they did it does not mean that aliens did it. Just because we cannot understand everything about the universe does not men something did it. Humans are a very young spececies, and limited. A lot of people have trouble accepting that.
Actually, I don't believe that we are at all limited. But that's for another discussion. And just because I decide to express that maybe there's a possibility of extrateresstrial interference/intervention in our history doesnt mean I'm ramming it into people's heads as the absolute truth. I'm not a Bible thumper or a savage Darwinist. I draw my own conclusions based on the information I accrete and I am interested in what others actually think, so just because I express something doesnt necessarily mean I'm wearing it as a badge of belief, so enough of the d!ck waving! I dont care how big it is it doesnt impress me!
I come to these forums (and apparantly with only the tiniest glimmer of hope) that there will be an actual discussion on one of these topics that are pretended to be addressed. But it seems most people just are desparate to prove what the other person doesnt know. We'll let me be (not the first or the only, obviously) a person who dares to have a little bit of humility on these forums to say, "YOU'RE ALL CORRECT!!! I DONT KNOW SH!T!!! HAPPY?!"
That's why I say 'what if?' or 'could it be?' and get ripped to shreads by people assuming what I am presenting is under the pretense of factual or even proveable. I've seen so many good people in these forums run screaming from them after looking for intellectual debate and discussion and finding nothing but an endless stream of stroke jobs.
Have fun spitting on each other. You all won't have me to spit on ay longer.
I always find these discussions entertaining, and sometimes quite educational. What many do not understand about evolution is that it isn’t restricted to biological creatures. Take for instance the Car. When one compares say, a Stanley Steamer to a SL 350 Mercedes Benz it would be difficult for any one of a sound mind to disagree that we have come a very long way. What I mean here is simple. An idea, (such as the wheel for instance) can be built upon by an individual, or even a group of individuals. Over time the idea can barely resemble the original concept other than by its basic function. The wheel’s design enables speedier travel, while an SL 350 gets you there at over 180 kph.
Now, let’s look at the genome. From the very first life form (bacteria) known (or at least universally accepted by scientists) re-production has created modifications from the parent to the offspring. Now expand the process to encompass billions of years and generations and mutations too numerous to predict. The mutations and adaptations of the myriad of organisms are quite literally uncountable. Now add to the equation massive die offs. What these die offs have caused is global mutation as we can see from the last major die off that killed the dinosaurs. Scientists agree that this die off and the ice age brought forth the age of the Mammal. Sometime after this major die off the first ancestor for modern humans began to succeed by innovation and adaptation. As Darwin very clearly proved, organisms survive to re-produce. With that said, as food production and tool use equals and then tips the survival scales, it is as easy to see how evolution has effected humans as it is easy to see those same aspects causing the Stanley Steamer to evolve into automobiles that race down the autobahn at staggering speeds. Ideas, like survival traits mutate from one generation to the next. Ideas are built and improved upon.
What most humans continually fail to see is that we are a relatively new kid on the block. Not only that, we live a short time in regards to geology etc. so we have trouble getting over our cultures that tell us that we are the be all, end all super organism on the planet. These cultures tell us that we are created in divine images and that it is ok to simply take and destroy as we see fit. The problem here is easy to see (for the objective thinker) and the result if left unchecked is also predictable. Just as every other hugely successful creature on the planet has gone through a “J” curve cycle due to its ignorance, so shall we.
Now to the real question: Did we humans come from someplace else other than earth?
My answer is simple. Given the many strikes by extra terrestrial masses on the planet (to include those that caused the massive global iridium layer), I don’t see how anyone could rule out the possibility.
Very nicely offered!
You have just made my point eloquently, that "...we humans are a relatively new kid on the block. Not only that, we live a short time in regards to geology etc."
Because of that, we are functioning, at this moment in our evolution, like a newborn, sentient baby in it's crib.
We are "sensing" what we are able to "sense" and trying to make "sense" of a pristine environment we have, yet, hardly experienced.
We are making "intelligent" guesses and responding.
In so doing we are making mistakes and having successes which is a learning process that will broaden our knowledge and may, one day, guide us to becoming a successful, earthly life form...or may be the perpetrator of our eventual demise.
That is defined as the process of "evolution!"
The possiblities are endless.
Its really tough to answer but i think human beings did so...
# Many people believe that man did not evolve from apes at all, we were created by God in His own image. That God gave man a human soul that makes them individual.
# The only other option is a theory called evolution, by which over billions of years, the whole earth and everything in it was formed by hydrogen, which spread through the universe at the Big Bang, an explosion in which the hydrogen was formed.
# Human beings (homo sapiens) related faintly related. Humans and other apes might share a common ape or ape-like ancestor.
# A species only evolves to help it in its survival. The apes' ancestors could survive being an ape so they didn't continue to evolve, whereas our ancestors kept evolving to help them stay alive. Survival of the fittest is what drives evolution, and our ancestors just happened to "need" evolution more than the apes. Evolutionary process is performed by mutations, which are usually harmful or fatal. For evolution to occur, an incredible chance happened so that the mutation would not harm or kill the new creature.
# Apes and humans evolved from an unknown common ancestor. This ancestor split up and evolved into different species, one became erect and the other continued as it was.
# Humans didn't evolve from apes; rather, we and apes evolved from a common ancestor (who is no longer with us, we have no fossils proving this fact, but we believe it anyway). The relationship is more like cousins than parent-child.
# By a very great chance, humans developed a brain that allows them to think, love, and be individual persons. Christians call this a soul. It elevates us above beasts.
No, of course we didn't evolve from apes, nor from any "alien" experiment.
Those are just theories used by some people trying to excuse their behavior.
Being a person who believe in Allah/God, I totally disagree with so called scientist who come up with half baked theories which they themselves cannot explain with proof and yet are willing to ridicule people who have faith in a Creator.
As an example in brief - a wonderful thing like Hubpages started life:
(1) As an idea in someones head THEN
(2) This idea had to conceptualized into stories by someone WHICH THEN
(3) Got designed into a solution that can be built THIS WAS THEN
(4) Developed by another group or person into being a tangible product which we are using today to communicate in the forum.
If something as simple as this required all this effort and thinking, then how can you believe that the whole world just happened to appear without a Creator.
It's like having a baby without being impregnated with a sperm.
We know that cannot happen 'bar cloning' so how can you accept that all this wonder in this world and sophisticated as we are came into being without a cause.
Agreed, people who say they believe in Allah/God should not be ridiculed for dismissing scientific theories just because they don't understand the theories they dismiss and prefer to believe in creation stories instead.
Maybe they just need a time out and a serious talk.
this subject is so arguementive that it causes anger which just shows how people believe differently. i have no reason not to believe that we evolved from another species but i do have a hard time believing were either an experiment or that we were created by some god or such. evolution makes perfect sense to me.
Who said human beings evolved from primates?
Nobody I know or have read that’s for sure.
If on the other hand you are referring to Charles Darwin’s, ‘Origin of Species’ wherein he stated that somewhere along our evolutionary path we must have shared a common ancestor with the other primates that is quite different.
I know the education system in the USA seem to have a hard time accepting what they refer to ‘Darwinism’ in that wonderful derogatory way. However I think that it has a lot to do with the interference of the Christian church, that and the so called ‘Monkey Trial’ of 1925 where the State of Tennessee brought a school teacher to trial for teaching Evolution.
The whole trial was a nonsense of course, trying to justify that the only explanation for the creation of the world and mankind was that written in the Bible. However as a result of newspaper coverage and Headlines at the time describing Evolution as man descending from monkeys the misrepresentation of the true facts were distorted and the lie was born.
Even to this day, yeah even here on Hubpages the argument continues, with Creationists arguing still that a mere six thousand years ago their God created the Heaven and the Earth in six days before having a day off, presumably on Sunday, even although God forgot to create the calendar or the days of the week.
As for aliens passing by and stopping off at the local brothel, Shoot...! Have you seen pictures of our ancestors ? Would you fancy spending the night with one ? True I know space is a bloody big place and if you’d spent a few thousand million years getting here you might be a bit randy and not too fussy but PLEASE !
If they did where did they go ? Are they still here...which might help to explain California... Why have they not been back to check up on their protégée...? How come with our present technology we haven’t been able to find even a hint of their existence...?
Or could it be they’re too embarrassed to speak to us in our current form and have to admit to us we are the result of a rough night out with the boys !!!
How can you possibly rely on our technology? This theory, and it is nothing more than a theory, consists of alien beings which came to our planet from other GALAXIES. Our crappy technology can't even take humans to Mars! Your argument that "How come with our present technology we haven’t been able to find even a hint of their existence" sounds pretty ignorant. No offense intended.
Other Galaxcy ? Given that the nearest decent sized one is about 2 million light years away, were they planning to go home after their visit ?
I think in reality the fact that nothing can exceed the speed of light then I would venture to suggest that Inter Galactic travel is probably not a feasible theory. Given that our own Galxcy is over 100 million light years from one side to the other I doubt we are going to run out of holiday destinations of our own.
My reference to our technology was more to do with us looking for ET life which we have been doing now for many, many years, rather than our ablity to travel anywhere in space.
Given the sheer distances involved even if we were to travel at near to the speed of light makes an attempt at such journeys near impossible.
Same rules apply to those out there looking at us....
Nobody has been here and nobody is coming, nothing to do with ignorance just pure basic logic, please argue if you want but stow the insults, it's neither necessary or polite.
I apologize. I did not mean it in that manner. It was just a poor choice of words.
I understand what you are saying. However, don't you think that if this theory holds ground and these aliens beings would be advanced enough to support such travels? And if they are able to create worlds and genetically engineer intelligent beings, don't you think their technology would be advanced enough to control our discoveries?
You can go to their sites, and they have set out all their arguments.
The site I posted in the last comment, was to their statement... follow along the trail and you will find their arguments and reasonings. It is simple, the links are all back there.
You have not read their positions, so you do not know them... easier to dismiss that way.
You're funny.. because they do not agree with you, then they must have simply attached their names to a non-specific reason statement... and in that, they simply invalidate their opinion... what a way to reason it all away.
Is that what you would do.... let anyone attach your name to something without actually supporting it yourself? A lot of those men and women are quite intelligent and have serious careers in the fields... but no... they are just going to piss that away to argue with you over the validity of a theory.
What a winner you are, Wild.
What's funny about your post is that you automatically think some American ditz wrote that. From what I've gleaned, the most religious right of the creationist posters on Hub Pages are from Australia, New Zealand and Canada. Oddly, the person who posted this thread is originally from Albania. You may be looking under the wrong rocks for trouble.
You are quite right originally from Albania but now New York, not your normal Stateside Bible Belt I grant you.
However, the point I was making was more about the General disregard for Darwin's books on Evolution and the origin of species and the US educational system. How else can you explain the high percentage of ignorance and denial with regard to the subject of Evolution by many US citizens. No insult intended this is merely a statement of fact based upon surveys taken and a matter of public record.
I make no comment as to Creationist and where they reside !
If you place your hand on the base of your back you will feel the remainder of your tail, as we dont need to climb trees anymore we dont need our tail
No - we were placed here for a reason.
"To everything there is a season"
Not only does everything come and go, in due time, but everything has order - not chaos - and a purpose for being.
one simple sentence can really say so much!
There is no doubt that humans share a common ancestor with today's primates. The world's science museums and anthropology departments are full of the evidence. Anyone who has looked at the various skulls, can see the evolution from a shared ancestor to the skull of modern man. People, choose not to accept the evidence of their own eyes, because it may go against their religious or supernatural beliefs. To believe that we are the creation of an alien species ignores the huge amount of evidence that we are the product of evolution, and places the "mystery" one stage back to the question of where such aliens came from and how they evolved. What would be the point in that, especially when we know evidentially how we developed on this planet? Also, I have yet to hear any scientist, from whichever field state that they believe humans are the product of alien creation. I think this idea belongs more to the pages of a science fiction book than to real science.
My biggest problem with it? One species cannot interbreed with another so...when was the last time scientists tried to fertilize a primate egg with a human sperm or vice versa? Let's see if it happens...or if it doesn't.
Different species don't need to interbreed with each other for evolution to happen, so I don't see how that is any kind of problem at all.
In fact, the whole concept of evolution involves one species splitting into two or more as a result of different populations becoming separated either geographically or in some other way. If the populations continued interbreeding, there'd only be a single species on the entire planet.
Seriously? You expect people to believe that just because the human race (or primates - whichever came first, I suppose) became separated (geographically or in some other way) the populations suddenly split into more than one species?
Only an Evolutionist could believe that one species would, without proof, suddenly become two yet, at the same time, this singular split was a once in a few hundred thousand millenniums occurrence. What are the odds of that??
I tell ya, if a Great Dane and a Rottweiler can make babies, since they're only different breeds among a singular species, then why can't humans and primates since it's "believed" humans and primates share common ancestry? If humans and primates cannot interbreed, as I believe they cannot, then there is no reason to believe in a singular common ancestor.
Dogs and wolves split from each other roughly 10,000 to 30,000 years ago and can still interbreed. The most recent common ancestor of humans and chimpanzees (our closest living genetic relative) lived roughly 5 million years ago.
5 million years is plenty of time to develop enough genetic difference to lose the ability to interbreed, especially since ancestral chimps lived in forests and ancestral humans lived on savannas. Living in different environments resulted in more rapid genetic change than, say, horses and zebras, whose latest common ancestor lived about 6 million years back but who lived in similar environments and so developed genetic changes at a slower rate than the ancestors of humans and chimps and can still interbreed, though the offspring is infertile.
To say that we "suddenly" turned into separate species is also inaccurate. Genetic and archaeological evidence suggests that the chimp and human families started splitting roughly 6-8 million years ago, so it took a million years or more before we actually stopped being able to interbreed with each other and became truly separate species.
well, according to evolution theory, *everything* shares common ancestry - even frogs and trees evolved from the same organism that lived a maybe a billion years ago.
The reason why we cannot breed with chimpanzees is because they are a different species. A species can, essentially, be defined as separate from another species when it can no longer mate with it. Great danes can interbreed with rottweilers because they are are the same species, just as a caucasoid ("white person") can breed with a negroid ("black person").
However, if you separated the Dane and the Rottweiler into two separate gene pools that did not interact with each other, the two groups will each continue to slowly evolve along separate paths until they cannot interbreed - at this point they are considered different species. The same would happen with separated groups of humans, over hundreds of thousands or millions of years.
Some *excellent* examples of this process are 'Ring Species', such as the Ensatina Salamander. They live along a long stretch of California. So long, in fact, that the forests where they live - the predators, the temperature, the types of trees are so different that the Ensatina has begun to cluster into distinct gene pools and are evolving to fit different niches in their given area. They are an excellent example of "speciation" - what I was talking about earlier - because although every one of the 19 distinct "breeds" of this salamander can successfully breed with each other, the ones on either end can *Not* interbreed! It's quite fascinating!
The salamander example is fascinating....
My thoughts run differently (I am really, really, so totally against this evolution deal. lol)
I think the differences were intended and manufactured by God through creation. That's my explanation for primates & humans, too. I think God created primates first, in his attempt to create man (God is imperfect, therefore it would take more than one attempt) and, being disappointed in the result, kept going until He was satisfied. (if at first you don't succeed, try, try again)
I also look at it this way - If I'm wrong, I'll know it after I die.
Actually, though it has little to do with evolution, species do interbreed, especially amongst birds. Most viable offspring across species lines are infertile, but even there occasionally you get a fertile mule. Humans "can't mate with chimpanzees?" I find that statement doubtful. Chimps and humans are closer in their genetic structure than donkeys and horses, so I suspect they can; which might explain the laws against it. Modern biology makes it possible to just about cross humans with anything, which is why there are laws against letting such crossing develop beyond a certain point, I believe the forth cell division.
This assumes evolution relies upon inter or cross breeding of species which is not true. Yes if the species remain relatively close you will get different sub species, look atall the close relatives of the horse and wolves.
However you need to look closer to Genetics and the results of the slightest alteration in DNA which can happen as a mutation which if repeated over time will result in a different species.
We already know that we share some common DNA with Neanderthals we would have to look back thousands indeed millions of years to see who they were descended from.
My assumptions of evolution are Biblical, not scientific.
I do have new questions to ponder, however. Such as: why can a horse & donkey breed? Why can a horse & zebra breed? Are they different species or simply different breeds of the same species? What makes a species? (damn! these questions weren't exactly answered in my Anthropology class!!)
I like the way you ponder, Rafini! You are talking about a "Humanzee" - a theoretical animal which would be a hybrid of a human and a chimpanzee. Some experimentation has actually been performed to see if they were possible!
Back in 1927, a Russian biologist named Ivonovish Ivanov inseminated 3 female chimpanzees with human sperm, but none of the chimps became pregnant. Several years later, Ivanov tried to arrange to inseminate human women with chimpanzee sperm, but the French government intervened because it was just a little too freaky for them.
Now, granted, the last (known) tests were done with what today would be considered ancient technology, and the tests only used a sample size of 3; so you couldn't say that the experiments proved or disproved the possibility of a Humanzee, but most biologists and geneticists today believe that the 5 - 7 million years since we diverged from chimps is way too long to successfully breed with them. There is a great debate raging among evolutionary anthropologists these days as to whether homo sapiens (us) interbred (or even could) with neanderthals, and we only diverged from them 1/3 - 1/2 million years ago!
TIC Publishing, that is a fascinating tale about the Russian biologist. Crazy, but interesting.
There seems to be some evidence that Neanderthals did mate with humans. A trace of Homo neanderthalensis DNA resides in a portion humanity's population. Perhaps humans interbred with Denisovans, too.
Not to get religious, but my research in Genesis shows that as a literary work it seems to contain many layers of meaning, including a biblical timeline compatible with those in science. The upshot of this is that Noah's Flood on this new timeline coincides with the disappearance of Neanderthals -- 27,970 BC. Suddenly, the enigmatic "daughters of men" takes on a new meaning. Interbreeding with them brought down wholesale destruction. The only wickedness or violence that the Flood could have solved, if it indeed was a real event, would have been one that has never been repeated since that date. The only thing that seems to fit this description is the current inability of humans to mate with Neanderthals.
Why would that be wicked? If the purpose of awakening the sleeping spiritual component were jeopardized by the failure of a human-Neanderthal hybrid from creating civilization, then such a situation could be considered "wicked" by any superior force (aliens, God, or whatever) interested in our spiritual future.
There is one interpretation of the Sodom and Gomorrah story which has bestiality as the reason for their destruction. If sex with animals had become institutionalized over a number of years or decades, and if the "impossible" likelihood of a human-animal hybrid was realized, then the same wickedness could have been involved. Too bad for the twin towns of wickedness and naughty fun.
If the 1927 Russian biologist had not been stopped with his experiments, I have to wonder if France might have suffered from a storm of heavy meteor showers aimed at the Russian's laboratory.
How strange that your "research," does not gel with accepted knowledge. There is 100% utterly no evidence of a world wide flood and the Neanderthals did not die out all at the same time. Perhaps you could share your "evidence," instead of stating nonsense as fact?
As you called another religionist on exactly the same thing.
Otherwise - it appears as though you are simply sharing religious nonsense.
Thank you, E.G. If you had asked nicely, I might have discussed this with you. But seeing that you already made up your mind and call anything you don't understand "nonsense," well,... why bother?
I do understand. It is nonsense. Continually calling into question my comprehension skills is not helping your case and aptly demonstrates the root cause of the conflicts your religion starts. Just because I disagree with you does not mean I do not understand.
Why would I ask nicely when you insist on claiming intellectual superiority over me and tell me I am not understanding something that you do understand?
Once again, you appear to be mixing science into your belief system as if you believe it adds some sort of credibility or makes your beliefs valid in some way. Compatible? Hilarious.
Interesting thought regarding Noah's flood dealing with the end of neanderthal man. I'm going to go have a think about that. Personally, though, I have a hard time believing that a 1,000 generation long 'telephone message' game of oral history would preserve any semblance of accuracy.
The idea of a flood myth date coinciding with the disappearance of Neanderthal is pure BS. And not only because Neanderthal appears to have become extinct over a period of a few thousand years in different areas of the world.
Oral transmission of history however - can be shown to be remarkably accurate. It is quite conceivable that poetry originated from the way to accurately remember long passages such as the still surviving saga tales like the Odyssey and the tales from bronze age Britain, Ireland and Scandinavia.
Could you point me to any evidence that oral history holds significant accuracy? I am very skeptical that it does. Prof Gilbert Garraghan, author of A Guide to Historical Method claims that a culture with a tradition of very accurate oral history are only reliable for a maximum of 150 years - and that's for very popular events witnessed by many people.
You make a valid point about oral history being passed in poetry form helps to preserve the accuracy of the words of a story, but still... even *if* there was no errors of omission, misinterpretation, or forgetting of a single verse in 1,000 generations, the languages it was passed down changed *dramatically* over this time.
If you look at middle English - 500 years ago - a fair amount of the words used had very different meanings than they do today - for example, the word "peruse" to read, whereas in middle English it meant to wear out. Same word, Completely different meaning. That variation only required going back 1/3 of the way within the *same* language.
English is 3 complete languages away from what our linguistical ancestors spoke just 2,500 years ago. The time we're talking about, the time of the neanderthals were over 10 X that long! In addition, language has been anchored down from change over the past 3,000 - 5,000 years ago because civilizations meant large populations using the same words for a long period of time. The time between 5,000 years ago and 30,000 years ago, however, we had no such thing in place, and language would be distinct from tribe to tribe, changing very rapidly due to the small amount of people sharing it, and the far smaller importance and development pre-historic man put into language & vocabulary.
Specially trained "memories" of tribes that rote learn lineages seem to have held up pretty well.
That is a bit different from paraphrased traditions.
This does not change the likelihood of major events being recalled.
A great flood may have been called "Dafw@#Rn )Ejea9 ..adlf" in some language way back when, but the MEANING of those language symbols didn't change. A deluge of water is a deluge of water, regardless of the sounds being made by someone to describe it to those for whom the sounds hold meaning. As language changed, the tellers would have, in the slow progression of culture, used the correct words for their time to convey the same deluge of water.
Yes, details are lost, others added--we've all played "telephone" in school. But a carefully wrought system made by intelligent people who were certainly aware of the "telephone" phenomenon certainly takes that into account (which to me explains why verse was used and confirms how intelligent and determined to get the historical record as right as possible) can't have lost all relevance. And when tons of histories all have similar stories, there is more than just plausible merit in the history.
I have my doubts that 20,000 years before the age that was before the bronze age, people were 'well aware of the "telephone" phenomenon'
I'll agree. And, even take it a step further.....they would have been lucky to even know that they themselves even existed.
I think you underestimate the intelligence of this creature that we are and have been for thousands of years based on relative technology. Or else you over estimate the creature we are based on the same evidence.
Sure, they were as modern as the time permitted them to be. However, this did not prevent them from placing much more faith in the supernatural and unknown phenomena than we do today.
We too shall be considered "primitive" someday if our species can survive long enough. We do know lightening and thunder isn't caused by angry gods now. At least some of us do!
Recommend1! B.S.? Don't hurt yourself using such big words.
But a very interesting point you made about transmission of oral history. I like it.
TIC Pubs, I became aware of one example of amazing oral tradition in the TV mini-series, Roots -- the true story of a man's search for his past -- his roots. He finally found the tribe of his forefathers in Africa, and after hours of recitation, the story came to that of his ancestor who had been captured by slave traders. Alex Haley had finally found proof of Kunta Kinte in Africa, right where the tribe was described to have been.
But there might be more ways of transmitting such knowledge than merely oral tradition. If indeed spiritual forces are at work in the universe, then why not a Jungian "universal consciousness" -- a permanent body of knowledge in the "mind of God?" The spiritually adept might be able to read such a record. I know it's not as fancy as scientific discovery.
On the subject of Noah's Flood, skeptics like to say "there's no proof," as if that proves something. But that's an "argument to ignorance" (a logical fallacy). It was said a few decades ago that Atlantis could not have existed because there is no evidence of civilization existing that long ago. What shallow logic that is. A few years ago, archaeologists found evidence of buildings and sculpture at Gobekli Tepe, Turkey dated right about the time of the destruction of Plato's Atlantis -- 9500 BC. That, by itself, doesn't prove Atlantis, but it blasts the heck out of the "argument to ignorance" used against Atlantis a few decades ago.
But would a skeptical scientist have the ethics to report such evidence if they found it? If a brave soul like Luis Alvarez were to find such evidence, we might stand a chance of hearing about it.
Trying to make sense of Genesis is not an easy task. It takes logic, creativity, an understanding of the culture and it also required a little mathematics (one of my specialties).
First of all, the seemingly outrageous longevity of the early patriarchs is bogus. Look at Gen.5:2 for a major clue. Also, why did a loving God give such outrageous protection to a liar and a murderer, Cain. Simple answer, He didn't -- it was code for a formula and an even more startling discovery of the Kabbalah's "Tree of Life" embedded in two chapters of Genesis. And most scholars think the Kabbalists didn't exist until the Middle Ages.
Interesting to discover that they were around when the Bible was first written/compiled.
What's also interesting is that an American clairvoyant, Edgar Cayce, gave two dates that exist on my biblical timeline, but he got them from his Jungian "akashic record." My dates calculated from Genesis were within 1% of his rounded approximations -- 10,434,130 BC for Adam, and 27,970 BC for the Flood.
Was the Flood real? Who knows. There are many scientific problems with it. Was the story merely a metaphor for some other agency of destruction?
But the real killer question is "why?" Genesis only mentions wickedness, violence and a corruption of flesh. If Homo sapiens was the only hope we had of spiritual awakening, because of their ability to create civilization, would mixing the gene pool with Neanderthal and even Denisovans create a corruption of flesh and a wickedness thwarting the spiritual purpose? All other forms of wickedness man has continued to do. So, the Flood or whatever, did not cure those. Genesis has left that question unanswered since it was written. God was pleased by the results. Gave a rainbow as His promise never again to use the Flood. If not Neanderthals, then what would have been the need for such a drastic action?
Whether Homo sapiens were merely evolved, grown in a testtube, or genetically engineered, this species is unique in its ability to create civilization. If God exists, and His children had fallen asleep under the influence of physicality, Homo sapiens would be something worth protecting in its pure form.
On another Hub, there are pictures of comely young female Neanderthals. I can imagine some Homo sapiens males getting aroused, especially after months of denial or a night's worth of drinking. If no human woman wanted you, would you (as a male) find these "daughters of men" intriguing possibilities as wifes?
The Neanderthals were far to spread out to be killed off by a flood.
The flood story most likely has some truth to it, but world would have been much smaller then. Really, is it surprising to anyone that there would be a flood story out of a civilization that emerged along a river, along the whole of their world?
Very, very interesting! When I was quite young, I wanted to grow up and do that type of research and prove what you're saying. Course, since I've grown up, I've changed my mind. But, I still theorize from time to time.
Science fiction huh? Well, 100 years ago, going to the Moon sounded like freak-ish science fiction also.
A hundred years ago, going to the moon was science fiction, because the technology did not then exist to make it a reality. Just as travelling to Mars is still science fiction, but may one day be a reality. However, science does not need to develop in order to prove evolution to be a reality, because the evidence is already here, and has been for a long time.
This is nothing new. The ancient Sumerians documented this in cuneiform, with mentions of a place called Edin and a man named Adama.
Read up on it!
Yes, you are absolutely right Jacob. That is how I stumbled upon this theory and I became extremely curious on the subject. However, I guess it was wrong to ask for people's opinions here on HubPages. Everyone tries to bring down everyone else's views and opinions. Everyone argues and talks based on nothing. People are just to close minded and ignorant for such theories.
Not at all - you lied when you posted your thread - scientists are not coming to believe any such thing - it is a crackpot view of one crackpot that a few people have written up to make a few dollars out of gullible people, you bought these books I guess
The outright lie with which you started this thread does not exclude the possibility that man might be descended partly from alien DNA, or that aliens landed here and deliberately engineered us. The original sin of the lie however does stop people discussing it.
We are but a life form.
We consist of the same elements all other life are created from.
Micro evolution has been emperically proved.
The micro world of life is made up of the same elements as all "macro" (complex) life.
Because noticeable evolutionary changes in "complex" life take hundreds of thousands of yrs and there were many fewer of the types of life forms that would leave evidence of their having existed. Many connecting proofs are still hidden.
Top all that off with the processes of diastrophism morphing earths surface so drastically, that finding proofs of mans evolution keep "macro" evolution a "theory."
The "fact" is, that being that we are simply another species of life which responds to environmental changes very slowly, and cannot be witnessed, as it can be in microbial life, there is enuf cirmustantial evidence of "man" being just another result of the processes of natural selection that
"his" evolution can be considered to be just as certain as that of micro life, but happening at a much slower rate.
We've only been, seriously, hunting for proofs of evolution for a century.
That has only been a nano moment in the 4+ billion yrs of our earths existence.
If we survive as a species, macro evolution will be proved and life will be understood and re-created.....IF we survive!
We've only been, seriously, hunting for proofs of evolution for a century.
Your statement is soo true. However, for me, the theory of evolution does more to prove the existence of God than to disprove His Existence. I cannot accept the idea that primates & humans have a common ancestor, unless the common ancestor is God.
Since man was created in God's image, from the earth, and God also created all creatures - presumably from the earth - as well as having created earth itself, I have to believe His "DNA" or skin oils (or what have you) was basically embedded in the earth and became part of what He used to create all creatures & mankind. This would explain the 96-98% shared DNA between man, earth, & creatures.
jmho. Just a thought.
What is this god thing yer talking about?
You know to expect that response from me
Raf, you say man was created in God's image, but I would never think of God as having DNA. A physical thing cannot create a universe. That's like having a software program re-design and alter the hardware on which it runs.
For me, if God exists, He is a non-physical, spiritual and immortal source of creation. If Genesis 1:26 is correct, then that would make us non-physical, spiritual and immortal sources of creation. The Nazarene teacher echoed this sentiment when he told his enemies, "ye are gods."
When you talk of DNA, you're talking of the second creation of man in Genesis 2:7. Thus "man" is immortal spirit wrapped in Homo sapiens flesh.
And ... quick point: "earth" does not have DNA; only the creatures living on it.
Evolution is a mechanism of physical existence, like gravity, electromagnetic radiation, co-valent bonds, absorption and emission spectra, and such. It may seem seductive to think that such elegant design comes from an intelligent creator, but that's carrying the logic a bit too far. God doesn't need that bridge of logic to exist, any more than you need your birth certificate to exist.
Hiya lone77star -
For one thing, I didn't say anything about God having DNA, I suggested "DNA" due to the fact that humans and primates share about 98% of their DNA, and, according to the Bible, God created man & beast from the dust of the earth. What is dust? From what I understand, the majority of dust is discarded skin cells (is that the right term? lol, suddenly it doesn't sound right).
Makes sense to me, to consider the possibility that the dust of the earth is comprised mostly of discarded "skin cells" of God. Thus, not only would humans be created in the image of God, but would be formed with similar material (dust, "DNA", not 100% the same as) and given the breath of life from God in order to be considered as 'ye are gods'.
(Where does DNA come from??)
A bridge of logic does not equal a birth certificate....by the way, I believe God to be imperfect, in such a way that He cannot break the laws of logic just as we humans cannot (without assistance) break the law of gravity.
I agree, Raf. We are all, every creature on earth, from the same source of materials, so why wouldn't we all share similarities and DNA.
And besides, they can deny it all they want, many a geneticist and Biologist, among many others, do not buy their fairy-tale either.
Macro evolution is not taught as a theory anymore, it's a fact. Treating it as a theory seems exceptionally dense considering how much collaborating evidence there is. It boggles the mind to think macro evolution doesn't happen, it defies reason to think it doesn't; it must; the only way it would be possible for evolution not to happen is for children to be exact copies of one of their parents; otherwise evolution is a natural (deducible) result of time and the laws of survival.
I've got a fundamentalist friend who kicks my butt in Chess all the time; the mind works in mysterious ways. People like TMMason use their intelligence to process their facts into the result they want to get. We all do to a point, we all very rational, but our emotions define the parameters of our reasoning. It's pointless to argue rationally with someone "fixed" in an emotion, not a rational understanding. Still, "wow" how can someone know there's such a thing as DNA, that changing the DNA, alters what is created, that DNA is subject to miss copying, random mutations, damage or alteration from viruses, radiation, and so on, and then add a million years of changes and what happens? This is the same kind of thinking as believing the Bible is the literal and unchanging word of God, or the kind of thinking that refused to believe in a round Earth. Remember just a few generations ago, they argued against evolution because there was no mechanism to make it happen, genes were genes being swapped back and forth, never a new gene created, then DNA was discovered, and....but it's pointless. It's better to ignore them and move on to educating people unfixed.
The "primate" Homo/sapienssapiens, is an infant species which has "evolved" an awareness of itself and of its surroundings that no other form of life has...as yet.
I've written this before in the forums and in hubs: We are infants in our crib. We are sentient creatures trying to make meaning of all that surrounds us. We are kicking, squealing and reacting to everything our 5 senses can respond to.
Knowledge and wisdom come with time. WE have gained an unique ability to "understand" and react "willfully."
Lesser life would respond "instinctively" and ensuing response would be a "learned response."
There is no doubt that we exist far below the first rung of the "evolutionary ladder."
We are reaching.
If we can make it thru this century without experiencing a massive, population reducing catastrophe, we may be able to finally reach that "first rung" and "progress" with light speed into our future and become a successful species.
At the moment, the odds seem to be against us achieving that goal.
Of course everyone in the forum knows me a being a "forever pessimist." :
Can you tell me what you mean by this:
"When did we evolve?"
If you think we are evolved, I've got a bridge to sell you.
There was an episode of StarTrek once....
The Dr. and Kirk went back in time to the 20th century.
They watched a medical operation, and the Dr. said: "How barbaric."
That's how I think of us....as barbaric. And not because of gay people, like Bahmann's hubby, but because of how we treat each other.
How we treat each other is not a trait of the species, but a trait of individual personalities. Some people show great kindness and love, even anonymously (altruistically). Some people show great arrogance, hatred and brutality. That's a matter of choice, not evolution. That's a matter of ego (the root of selfishness).
Ego is a hard wired structure in all higher life, http://hubpages.com/hub/Ego-and-Value-Systems, but you are incorrect to say the way we treat each other is not a trait of a species, look at Bonobos and Chimps, our two closest kin, but very different behaviors. Yes, there are individual fluctuations, but a cat is cat, a dog is dog, and humans are humans; we have "behaviors" programmed into us.
If you have watched enough documentaries on how human's evolved, you would believe that we evolved from primates
I've seen the documentary series Ancient Aliens on The History Channel. It's based on the book "Chariot of the Gods". It's an interesting show. One theory was that aliens manipulated our DNA so we evolved faster than would be usually possible and caused floods, famines and disease to eliminate substandard examples of human DNA. Can't say I believe it, but I think it's interesting. I've seen ruins of ancient civilizations that I never heard of on that show and technologies of the ancients that are extrodinary.
I think as a species, there is something innate, which makes us need to look outside of ourselves for answers. Once the heavens were populated with angels, now it is aliens. We need not to be alone, and we need supernatural explanations to give meaning and validity to our short, often unhappy lives. If science has shown that we no longer need gods to explain how we got here, then aliens are possibly the next best thing, because at least it would mean that we are not alone. This, I believe is the reason people cling to the supernatural, even in the face of evidence from the natural sciences. But evolution is not a mundane explanation, but is in fact a wonderful description of the ingenuity of nature. The downside of believing in scientific evidence, is that it leaves people with a reduced idea of themselves, one where they are not the centre of creation, around which every other living and celestial body orbits. It means, that Jesus doesn't want us for a sunbeam or that Allah doesn't have a place set aside in paradise for us. In the West, science has gradually eroded our sense of importance and old religious certainties have disappeared. So now, some turn to alien visitations to give life that added bit of excitement and wonder, but there is no more evidence for little green men than there is for the angelic host. It is just the latest in a long line of beliefs created by the human mind, to enable it not to feel so alone.
The ancient alien thing was big in the 70s. I don't think even the new-agers get that excited about it anymore.
The most I have heard a credible scientist with relevant expertise say is that the very earlier single celled forms of life on earth might possibly have arrived on meteors. But even that is considered a little "out there".
It would certainly explain why we are here on our own. A bad experiment that went wrong!!
No, I will stick with the theory of evolution for now.
klevifusha, can you remember the name of any of the documentaries or videos which purportedly support this thesis?
That would add so much to the discussion.
I'm not omniscient like some of your detractors. I don't think you're lying or writing "utter nonsense," simply because I don't know everything. I have never heard any scientists saying such a thing.
But it would help the credibility of your statements if you gave us some background to discuss, rather than simply relying on your memory and your interpretation of what you saw and heard.
Can you tell us more? Like the cartoon said, "citation please."
Evolution as applied to Humans is full of holes and at this point, unsupportable as a fact regarding such, thus the term, "theory".
Ans yes I understand there are some facts contained in the theory itself's construct, that doesn't change it. I also understand Micro-Evolution can be ovserved, but that doesn't make Human Evolution a fact either.
So no, I don't think, no... I know, we didn't evolve from the primates.
As for your claims about alien engineering of Humans, it is true the Ananaki and others are mentioned in the writings you speak of, and it is also true some think if God and ther Angels come, or the Devil and deomns, that thier technology, and their coming from somewhere other than this world, -ie; from somewhere in space,- then some would probrably call them alien.
Alot of people have combined alien theories and the Bible and many are quite elaborate, such as the one you're speaking of, and quite in depth.
It would not surprise me if many mistook God, or Demons for aliens. The technology would be out of this world... literally magical in it appearence most likely.
I checked out those links:
"Uncommon Descent: Serving the Intelligent Design Community."
Those guys are lying, the first article talks about proteins and their assertion that proteins could not have evolved. Absolutely hilarious considering how much we know about proteins.
First of all the links to the Intelligent Design site are not to be taken seriously, because they clearly have an agenda.
Secondly, how does finding flaws in the theory of evolution default to believeing in all of these different nonsensical religions? Each with their own made-up version of what created life. There is still no way of knowing if there is a God, or if evolution is an irrefutible fact, but evolution makes more sense than your outlandish, mind numbing beliefs.
I am simply exemplifying that you all have your faith, unsupported as it is, as you said flaws exist all throughout, which while they do not point to a God, they certainly do not point to the fairy tale you all have designed, either.
Evolution is based on Faith just as the Homo-Gene is, amazing how alike scientists and religionists are.
We all need something to believe.
And uncommon descent is a science based site ran by scientists... too bad.
Unlike the fable you all push with your agenda, not all scientists believe your spin or BS, as many if not more than do, do not, and I believe more, I will look for the stats again.
And I know for a fact 60 percent of Medical doctors do not believe in your fable of evolution. But you all make sure to push it around the schools and convince all the children of the lies... they will grow up one day, and having looked for themselves, many will see the retarded positions you all push as fact for what they are. Junk theories based on incomplete science and twistings of evidence that doesn't speak to what you all say it does.
Not to mention the dozens upon dozens of sources and links supplied on the Conservapedia site which dispute the assertions of the Leant Left on this issue.
Anything you do not agree with and which shows your BS for what it is, is distortion to you... whatever Cags.
Go back to your classroom and indoctranate some more lil children who are not old enough nor intelligent enough to know your peddling horse-puckey.
I swear to God in Heaven, you are a Teacher if I have ever heard one rant at being questioned. I am almost sure of it! I would bet money you are an educator.
That's all you know how to do is tell someone that they are wrong and then post distortion links to stuff only morons would believe.
You must be really proud of yourself. Now run along and go find some more useless links. You use your religious belief as your foundation and cannot ever see beyond yourself long enough to see you do more harm than good.
What a shame.
Cags.,.. you have no proof of "theory of Evolution" as you all push it, is true... none.
Just giant leaps and assumptions based on a 99% missing fossil record, and your own imaginations and agendas. Not to mention all the lies science pushes about such things as, the black peppered moths, faked--- Pilt-down man, faked---, Miller Urey wrong atmosphere and admitted to be flawed by MIller Urey themselves, (and besides a bunch of guys in a lab creating life, is the definition of Itelligent Design), and so many, many, more. All faked and still taught to this day.. BS it what it is.
That has been shown over and over on this site... and it comes down to the same answer as you all give for the Gay Gene theory... "well we believe"... "we assume"... "We have FIATH one day".. blah blah blah... just like those religionists you hate so much.
See how alike we all are Cags? Probrably not. We all need something to believe in, you have your "faith", I have mine. And your "faith" has not dis-proved mine, and the same is true for my "Faith" to yours.
I can see the truth... you and many others here cannot, though.
But as I must keep repeating for you: To default to the position that your imaginary God is responsible for the design of the universe and all existence is the MOST ludicrous and narrow position to take. Your position requires no deep thought, just BLIND faith.
BUT...your position is based on BLIND faith. There is evidence to suggest that the theory of evolution is valid. You just conveniently left those out. But there is NO evidence that your God even exists...let alone created ANYTHING!
So if that is the case, why was your Intelligent Design bull$#%t rejected in court? It's because although Evolution is still a scientific theory, it has more veracity than your alternative, which is complete childish nonsense.
You just described the lies that religionists have pushed for the last thousand or so years. I'm glad I grew up to see the outright crap these stupid beliefs are. And here you are still trying to push this fraudulent garbage. Completely backward.
You should direct that anger toward your beliefs. Have you ever actually read your religious books? If the science of evolution seems to be fraudulent to you, then you should be outside burning bibles on a bonfire.
We did not evolve from primates . We and the other great apes are primates and we are part of the great ape family. All apes, including us, evolved from a common ancestor about 35 million years ago. Man separated from gorillas, chimps, and other great apes about 14 million years ago. Question, where did this notion of aliens created us come from and where they now? Get real.
Personally I think that we not only evolved here, but that we actually reached advanced levels of evolution hundreds of thousands of years ago, only to have some kind of disaster wipe out those civilisations leaving only a few survivors to rebuild humanity from the wreckage. Man-made objects have been discovered embedded in coal many times over the centuries. A sophisticated society must have existed far earlier than we are led to believe for these objects to exist at the same time as the coal was being formed.
It is not possible to verify any of it - as none of it seems to be available for one reason or another. To add to the list, in Kent southern England a miner friend of mine found a perfectly round ball in the coal that appeared to be very hard black steel, about 1 inch diameter, that he assumed would be a big ball bearing. Some official took it off him and it was never mentioned again, and yet another conspiracy theory was born
Ya, 99.9999999999 percent of life evolved and we share the same DNA as it, the same blueprints, but there's not enough evidence that "we" evolved. Well, what ever standard you have, there is no evidence that we didn't.
What I believe is that using the past tense in your question starts the discussion off on the wrong foot.
We are evolving still is the point. From what - who cares - there are many possibilities.
I know somebody, who in all seriousness claims to be being regularly abducted by aliens from her bed at night. She seems really to believe it. She even went to the doctor to tell him that the aliens had implanted a metal device in her nose. I don't know what the doctor thought. But, she was sent for an
X-ray which revealed that there was in fact nothing in her nose. Yet still she believes it, and explains the lack of evidence by saying that alien technology cannot be detected by human methods. She obviously has a very vivid dream life, and has hypnopompic experiences, which to her are very real.
The thing is, I am ultra skeptic of any site that has a forgone conclusions and it trying to find science to support it.
Compared, for example, to a site that is about doing science, and finding whatever they find.
It's hard to be open minded sometimes but the whole point of science is to collect the evidence and base your conclusion on that.
In fact it is kind of mind blowing when you do an experiment that actually changes your mind about something. It has happened to me more than once and it is a blend of 'oh crap, I was wrong' and 'science is so fricking amazing'.
I think that it is a modern arrogance when people say that we are 'advanced' and ancient peoples were 'stupid'.
They worked out how to hunt, cook, make tools, speak and ultimately write. After more than 2000 years of 'modern' times we have weapons that are little more than an extension of throwing a rock, we managed to invent the microwave so that morons could drag themselves from their computer 'game' to heat a magic plastic bag of processed mush, and with the gift of speech and writing that our ancestors took so long in developing we txt each other trash, talk about entertainment gossip and write the total crock of BS that we see in these threads. I doubt if even one of the so-clever modern man could make even a block of soap for themself to stop stinking - let alone invent it
Too bad, GIR.
And GIR I stated plainly the Theory of Evolution being false, does not speak to God existing or not. Go read my reply, it was in there, plainly penned for your consumption.
But your faith in the Theory of Evolution, does not equal proof of the non-existence of God.
See how it works?...
They are not mutually exclusive... your faith and mine. And my faith is not blind... I have as much proof of God, as you do for evolution.
Your faith has been outed.
You all rely on faith as much as any religionist, period.
I know it hurts to accept that your the same as all other People Groups... but you are.
Especially those 7graders... the Biology Teachers.
Bunch of rebelous children, thinking they have to revolt aginst thier father's faith.. and in so doing, create thier own faith system and deny it as such.
Wow... you all have "created", "Intelligently desinged", your owen faith. And pretty soon you may be able to intelligently design a man, clonin,g etc... next maybe we could extend lives for centuries... or even immortality, and it would be all intelligently designed.
So if we, Man, can do it... Why couldn't there be some force or entity, that we consider God, who would be able to do it?...
Doesn't seem so far fetched to me, when you think about what man can do, and will be able to do in the future.
I cannot dismiss God on the basis that he is unbelievable at what he promises and says he can and has done.
We, Science says, will one day be able to do all those things God claims he can do for us... so what is the big leap?
Children are just so funny.
Maybe you should look into this evidence, and compare it to the evidence for your totally imagined evidence for a totally imaginary being. Your deception is extreme.
1. Homology - E.g. the same bones in the same relative positions in primate hands, bat wings, bird wings, mammals, whale and penguin flippers, pterosaur wings, horse legs, the forelimbs of moles, and webbed amphibian legs.
2. Fossil evidence - (So much to list). The way fossils appear in the layers of rock always corresponds to relative development ... more primitive creatures in lower (older) layers. Absolute dating of fossils using radiometry. Constant discovery of new transitional forms. E.g. reptile-birds, reptile-mammals, legged whales, legged sea cows. The *locations* on the planet on which fossils are found (e.g. hominids don't appear simultaneously around the world, but appear first in Africa, and spread slowly to other regions).
3. Genetic evidence - E.g. the fact that humans have a huge number of genes (as much as 96%) in common with other great apes ... and (as much as 50%) with wheat plants. The pattern of genetic evidence follows the tell-tale patterns of ancestral relationships (more genes in common between recently related species, and fading the further back in time).
4. Molecular evidence - These are commonalities in DNA ... which is separate from genetic commonalities ... much of our DNA does not code for genes at all. But random mutations (basically 'typos') enter into DNA at a known rate over the centuries. This is called the 'molecular clock' and again gives excellent evidence of when humans diverged from other apes (about 6 million years ago, according to this molecular clock), and this corresponds perfectly with when these fossils first appear in the fossil record (using radiometric dating). The very fact that the vast majority of DNA shared between species is junk DNA that serves no purpose to any of the species sharing it ... explainable only by common descent.
5. Evidence from proteins - Proteins - E.g., things like blood proteins (the things that give us our A, B, O blood typing and the Rh factor (the plus/minus thing) which incidentally stands for 'rhesus monkey'); the exact structure of the insulin molecule; and a favorite, the proteins responsible for color vision. The specific proteins found in human color vision are exactly the same as those found in Old World primates (the great apes and the monkeys found in Africa and Asia). These proteins are absent in New World primates (the Central and South American monkeys), and from all other mammals. In fact among the New World primates, only the howler monkey has color vision ... but these use slightly *different* proteins, coded on different locations and chromosomes, than humans and the OW primates. This is yet more evidence of a closer link between humans and the OW primates.
6. Vestigial and atavistic organs - E.g. Leg and pelvic bones in whales, dolphins, and some snakes; unused eyes in blind cave fish, unused wings in flightless birds and insects; flowers in non-fertilizing plants (like dandelions); in humans, wisdom teeth, tailbones, appendix, the plantaris muscle in the calf (useless in humans, used for grasping with the feet in primates).
7. Embryology - E.g. Legs on dolphin embryos; tails and gill folds on human embryos; snake embryos with legs; marsupial eggshell and carnuncle.
8. Biogeography - The current and past distribution of species on the planet. E.g. almost all marsupials and almost no placental mammals are native to Australia ...
Truly excellent and thorough reply, but you know the money is in selling people the lies they want to believe. It's great "a child" can understand the "world view" of a creationist, (God made it in seven days) but it takes more than a decade of study to understand even a fraction of what science has discovered. So is the world a place, ay child can understand, or is it a place non of us can wholly comprehend?
I am already aware of all you speak of, and it is a nice little jumping base for your "Leap of Faith". We are made from this world, the elements in it, we will have commonality, that does not extend to proving your faith of the "Theory of Evolution", as applied to man.
I have not said that evolution does not exist. I know of Micro-, and Macro- which has bad troubles in its field-, but that doesn't prove any assertion that Man came from the same evolutionary process.
I actually said that it in my first post, but not in so many words.
Yes animals could have evolved, I do not believe man did though. Not how you all push it.
The fact is man far excedes all the animals on this planet in so many ways it is almost mind-boggling. And you seem to dismiss that casually...
Too bad, your beliefs are based on "faith" just like a religionists.
And the Fossil Record has so many holes in it, no real Evolutionary Scientist would ever throw it up for evidence of that theory as your trying to use it.
Richard Goldshmidt, in the, "Material Basis for Evolution, stated that a new theory of evolution was necessary since the required transitional forms in the fossil record were not being discovered.
He hypothesized the “Hopeful Monster Theory” which suggested that occasionally a two-legged sheep or a two-headed turtle is born, and that two such monsters could mate and create something new. The similarity of his Hopeful Monster Theory to the punctuated equilibrium theory is obvious.
Explain the Cambrian Explosion?... You cannot, evolution does not account for it.
Another hole is the apparent lack of transitional fossils. A transitional fossil is the 'missing link', NOT-every fossil-, but the fossil that shows a species in between species. We have never, not in the lab, nor in nature, nor in your fossil record, obseved any new species arise from another. NEVER! Cannot be shown to be real.
Your belief is faith!
For example, if birds evolved from dinosaurs, we might expect to see a dinosaur with wings, on its way to becoming a bird. Several of these have purportedly been discovered, the most boasted about being a bird named Archaeopteryx, but more and more it seems to be accepted that in fact this bird was just another bird.
And another problem with the so-called transitional species evidence that is slung around today, is that it is clearly subject to interpretation and pre-supposition.
Lining up to similar fossils and claiming they are proofs of evolution is far from conclusive, and it sure helps to believe it, if you already or want to believe that God is not in the equation.
There is also NO example of NEW information being created, or the front-loaded process of it insertion, into DNA. None... and do not sling that Down Syndrome BS the others tried, duplicate info is not new.
Michael Behe cites a clever analogy that describes the situation in which all evolutionists find themselves today.
He says... "Suppose there exists a ditch between you and your neighbor that is 100 feet wide, running to the horizon in both directions. You ask your neighbor how he came to be on your side, and he claims that he jumped from his side to yours. You would be wise to doubt this claim...but suppose your neighbor then qualifies himself:
"I did not come across in one jump. Rather", he says, "in the canyon there were a number of buttes, no more than 10 feet apart from one another; I jumped from one narrowly spaced butte to another to reach your side." Glancing toward the canyon, you tell your neighbor that you see no buttes, just a wide chasm separating your yard from his. He agrees, but explains that it took him years and years to come over. During that time buttes occasionally arose in the chasm, and he progressed as they popped up. After he left a butte it usually eroded pretty quickly and crumbled back into the canyon. Very dubious, but with no easy way to prove him wrong, you change the subject to baseball.
Darwin's Black Box; Michael J. Behe.
Your buttes are all crumbling under your feet.
What a joke!
"The fact is man far excedes all the animals on this planet in so many ways it is almost mind-boggling. And you seem to dismiss that casually... "
Not really. We exceed other animals by degree only, there is nothing we do that doesn't have primitive parallels in the animal kingdom. Many different animals use tools, for example, and several other species have sophisticated language systems, including whales and prairie dogs. There is even some evidence of the sensation of awe in chimpanzees, which could be the beginnings of religious faith.
Additionally, when you consider that biologically modern humans have existed for 200,000 years and it took us 190,000 of those to invent agriculture (something even ants can practice), and another 4,000 after that to come up with civilization, our accomplishments seem a little less impressive.
"Richard Goldshmidt, in the, "Material Basis for Evolution, stated that a new theory of evolution was necessary since the required transitional forms in the fossil record were not being discovered."
"Another hole is the apparent lack of transitional fossils. A transitional fossil is the 'missing link', NOT-every fossil-, but the fossil that shows a species in between species. We have never, not in the lab, nor in nature, nor in your fossil record, obseved any new species arise from another. NEVER! Cannot be shown to be real. "
Richard Goldshmidt doesn't understand the theory of evolution, and neither, apparently do you. No transitional fossils have been found because EVERYTHING is a transitional fossil. Every individual of every species that has ever existed has been on its way to turning into something else, including you and me.
We haven't observed one species suddenly turning into another because it doesn't happen suddenly, it happens over hundreds of thousands or millions of years. Last time I checked, the human lifespan rarely extends beyond 100 years and the scientific method has existed for only about 500 (2500 if you want to be really generous and count the Greeks), which is still about 1% of the time we'd need to actually observe both the beginning and the ending forms.
"For example, if birds evolved from dinosaurs, we might expect to see a dinosaur with wings, on its way to becoming a bird. Several of these have purportedly been discovered, the most boasted about being a bird named Archaeopteryx, but more and more it seems to be accepted that in fact this bird was just another bird."
It's considered to be a primitive bird, but it had a mix of both bird and dinosaur features. There's some evidence, incidentally, that T-Rex may have been feathered. It was a close cousin of the dinosaurs that turned into birds, although it wasn't smart enough to go down the same path itself.
"Explain the Cambrian Explosion?... You cannot, evolution does not account for it."
The so-called Cambrian Explosion is a somewhat outdated concept. Pre-Cambrian precursors to many of the species that were once thought to have emerged suddenly in the Cambrian era have now been found, and though life certainly did diversify impressively during the period, it is now known that it didn't do so significantly faster than in any other period of Earth's history.
"There is also NO example of NEW information being created, or the front-loaded process of it insertion, into DNA. None... and do not sling that Down Syndrome BS the others tried, duplicate info is not new."
Mutations increase the genetic diversity of a species. That's all you need for evolution to take place.
"The fact is man far excedes all the animals on this planet in so many ways it is almost mind-boggling. And you seem to dismiss that casually... "
That coming from a human... not a very un-bias source for such a statement.
The thought that we're the center of the reality, the center of the solar system, some supreme being's favoured creation, the only beings capable of reason or emotion... In some ways, science in its entirety is nothing more than an exercise in chiseling away at mankind's bloated image of self-importance.
Perhaps therein lies the true magnificence of science - by applying reason to observation, we've managed to stand still, feet firmly planted on the ground, while the stupefying grandness of the Universe expands Ad Infinitum.
It takes some kind of dense thinking to think man doesn't or hasn't evolved. You can't keep making copies of something and not have those copies change slightly or time, and given enough time, you will not being able to identify the copy as an image of the original. So if you don't believe in evolution, you don't believe in time.
It is as un-bias as any other man's opinion.
And you can compare and insult me all youwant regarding the middle-ages, I am not a Catholic, nor does my Bible say anywhere that the sun is the center of the universe, man's interpretation, not God's words.
So... try again.
I agree science is a great thing, TIC. But it is not absolute in any way shape or form, as of yet.
And to thhink and act like it is... well that is the same arrogance you accuse those others of suffering from. Theories are theories for a reason, they are not facts or laws.
You do know the difference I would assume. A THEORY can become a FACT... but a FACT can never become a THEORY.
Simple and true.
You are more like religionist then you all want to admit.
I find it unbelievable that in this day and age, people willnot go read and compare the results for themselves. That so many would just rely on thoise who claim to know, and trust so blindly in them. When looking and learning for yourself would certainly clear a lot of mis-conceptions and p[ropaganda right up.
Amazing... and a sad and pathetic commentary on the state of affairs of education in this nation.
But that was the plan.
A theory cannot become a fact. A hypothesis can be supported by evidence (facts) but the theory always remains a theory.
yes a theory can become a fact. Just not the ones you all push. And yes some of the larger more complex one certainly do seem as if they could never be proven to be fact... but a theory can become a fact.
Wow... I wouldn't have expected that dodge from you, Psyche.
A good definition could be like, a scientific theory is a general statement intending to explain nature that is confirmed by all available evidence, such that it can be used to predict new, as yet unobserved phenomena. a theory is worth very little if it doesn't correctly predict all known evidence.
Very importantly, theories are subject to changes as new evidence becomes available. Most theories that you will discuss in a high school science class are well-confirmed and are unlikely to be revised in any significant sense. Theories that are less confirmed are abundant in fields like theoretical physics and cosmology, such as String Theory, M-Theory, Big Bang, Tmie travel, Quantum Randomne theory, et...
The words "fact" and "theory" are often used in Science. A fact is any phenomenon or action that is verified. In other words what you can "verify" or "PROVE!" is called a fact.
Newton observed the action of an apple falling from the tree. You and I observe a ball that is thrown up in the air returns back at you. These are facts, the observable actions or happenings, thus can be verified.
A theory, on the other hand is offering of an explanation to what has been observed or varified. (An, "educated guess", based on obvservable evidence and happenings, of which many of thos eobservations and happenings can be seen to be facts and are incorporated into said theory, theories, to helps in its support), It so happens in Science that certain verified actions or happenings need explanations, so we make our educated guesses, suppported by certain facts, in an attempt to explain these "happenings".
When you can prove it, it is a fact.
When your just "guessing", regardless of whether or not your basing it off scattered facts, and making an educated guess, it is a theory, untill proven.
"yes a theory can become a fact. Just not the ones you all push. And yes some of the larger more complex one certainly do seem as if they could never be proven to be fact... but a theory can become a fact.
Wow... I wouldn't have expected that dodge from you, Psyche."
You have some basic misunderstandings about what scientific theories and facts are. Please don't mistake this for condescendence. The information is pertinent to a particular field so it's to be expected that the vast majority of laypeople do not know either.
Wikipedia has some excellent articles describing what science considers to be a fact, a hypothesis, and a theory. If you want to know more about evolution, their page would be an excellent place to start for that as well.
I'll give you a quick synopsis here: in the realm of science, a Fact (known as a "provable concept"), is a verified statement which can been observed and measured. Evolution (specifically micro-evolution) is fact. We have seen it in laboratories. The all-encompassing understanding of how it works (the theory of evolution, and to a certain extent macro-evolution) can never become fact... well... unless we put two dogs in a sealed room and watch them for 2 million years.
A Law, in the realm of science, is a universal, invariable truth about the Universe which is considered always true, everywhere, and can typically be expressed as an equation. E = MC^2, the conservation of energy law, and the second law of thermodynamics (entropy), are all examples of this.
A Theory, in the realm of science, is a "comprehensive explanation of an important feature of nature which is supported by facts gathered over time". So a theory is an understanding of something, based on facts and interpreted with laws. A theory is a carefully thought (and calculated) out comprehensive description of something, created by a scientist, and submitted to the scientific community so that other scientists can try to prove it wrong. A THEORY NEVER BECOMES A FACT OR A LAW. As far as science is considered, we will *never* understand evolution, gravitation, quantum particles, or cells with 100% certainty, so they will always remain theories.
A theory will also make predictions about the natural world. If A SINGLE EXPERIMENT of any sort proves a theory's prediction wrong, then the theory is considered incorrect and a new one must be made. We have theories today which we know are wrong, but we still base our understanding on them either for simplicity or because we haven't figured out anything better. Newton's theory of gravity, and (I think) string theory are examples of these. Evolution, like Einstein's theory of relativity, has withstood the test of time (so far) and is a valid and "true" theory, because none of their predictions have been proven wrong.
Scientists do not have "faith" in evolution... or in any theory. We simply believe them, with the tiniest grain of salt, and are always ready to abandon them when the time comes.
Religionists... all of you.
Not so different from anyone else in the end.
Clinging to your faith, that your explanation of certain facts, is in itself a fact, because you have faith in your educated guesses structured on the foundations of some other facts.
You may have a theory peppered full of FACTS, and that theory may not be right in the least when we get to the truth of a thing, so it is not a fact, no matter how many facts are contained within its structure.
It is an educated guess, looked at as fact by scientists so as to have a solid ground to work from and base other theories off, that does not make it a FACT.
I have said for days in all the other threads, nothing is something else, -theories and facts, immoral and moral, natural and un-natural, good and evil-, just cause some want to claim them to be so. They are what they are... and your wanting, wishing, and having FAITH that they are true, does not change that FACT.
That does not make it a fact.
You can muddy the waters all you want with the BS as to how one is looked at as compared to the others, but in the end, if it is not proved to be true... it is not a fact.
Welcome to the world of FAITH.
So when I see FACTS that show the regular progression in fossils of species development to their current development and some one proposes a theory that explains these FACTS - that is the same as you having FAITH in nonsense? When we replicate the process in a laboratory and PROVE it happens - you say this is FAITH?
I think you need a better dictionary.
Look... we know that Classical physics, which were elucidated in the seventeenth century explained how objects move, and the theory worked well for many years, until it was found to fail at very high speeds and in the subatomic world. Objects travelling near the speed of light and tiny particles do not obey the laws of physics, and a new areas of physics known as relativity and quantum mechanics was required.
Now, classical physics still worked well for traditional types of problems, but it was now understood to be a special case of a more general description provided by relativity and quantum mechanics. It seems obvious that classical physics or "Evolution", ought not to be dropped. It simply has a limited domain of applicability.
And your exagerations of Evolution, when it should be looked at in this light, is the smoke screen you all throw around. We know that within a species there is evolution, that does not equate to one Species giving rise to another. And we have never observed that in a lab, nor in Nature, nor in the Fossl Record.
The basic definition of evolution is the process in which characteristics that are already present in an animal become dominant because it helps the animal survive in the wild. Thus the wide varieties between finches on the Galapagos, all of these birds are still finches, though.
And they will never have such a great change, which requires completely redoing their whole genetic makeup, to make them into cats, dogs, etc. So yes, evolution is the process and explanation for why animals become more adapted to their environment, but not how an amino acid can become so varied in life.
And niether pointing to a trillion trillion piece puzzle, of which you sling around a relative few pieces and scream about proof, nor pointing to occurances on the Micro, or sub-atomic levels, proves your lil faith as fact routine.
So welcome to the wonderful world of FAITH.
When you can show one species rise from another, without your intelligent control over your specially designed enviroments... come talk to me.
Like I said - you need a better dictionary. Willful ignorance and mis-using words - well that is Christians for you. This is why your religion has caused 2,000 years of war.
Well lets give communist/atheists their time, in only a short hundred years or so they've only managed to murder 94 million of their own people.
Give them time to catch up, and I'm sure they will do more damage than any misguided Christian could ever hope to achieve.
Stop accusing religions of causing wars; war happen perfectly well without religion. You don't need to believe in a god to want what someone else has and be willing to kill for it. The Church did not create nuclear weapons.
On the contrary about what you said about amino acids.
You think they are varied, but there is evidence that amino acids evolve into other amino acids where there was origionaly 1.
In fact, scientists have been able to make amino acids in the laboratory 0 remember the miller urey experiment? Well amino acids like leucine and many others were made AS WELL as the 4 nucleotides (cytocine, adenine, guanine, and thymine).
There are 20 amino acids (Leucine, tyrocine, glutamic acid, etc). They are in fact not diversed at all and they all share almost the EXACT same structure. Most likely the amino acids formed from gene duplication in which the mutation created 2 separate copies of the same sequence. These sequences deviated and they performed 2 different but related functions.
Bottom line is: YOU HAVE NO CLUE WHAT YOU'RE TALKING ABOUT. YOU BARELY KNOW ANY BIOLOGY AND YOU THINK YOU'RE RIGHT?
Seriously......Read a little.
The Miller-Urey Experiement was flawed and a failure.
And if it had been a success... it would have been the definition of intelligent design... a bunch a guys in lab coats creating an atmosphere to try and produce life is the definitioon of itelligent design...
---"The Miller Urey experiment claimed to reproduce the atmosphere of the primordial earth and, using these conditions, create amino acids. The main problem with the experiment is that it used the wrong type of atmosphere, consisting of hydrogen, ammonia methane and water vapour. Most evolutionary geochemists today believe that our earliest atmosphere probably consisted of carbon dioxide, nitrogen and water vapour, which gives much less favourable results. Even if the early atmosphere had been like the one in the Miller–Urey experiment, a few amino acids is far from a living cell; the amino acids would still need to be isolated from the surrounding material and assembled by chance and against the chemical barriers.
Firstly, consider the gaseous mixture. This was supposed to replicate the primeval atmosphere on the Earth. You will notice that there is an absence of oxygen and nitrogen which are the main elemental constituents of our present environment. The problem recognised by Miller and his colleagues was that oxygen would destroy any organic material in the experiment and certainly in the period of time they allocated to the early period on the planet. For example, when we die, we decay. A part of that process (in addition to bacterial action) is the oxidation of the organic materials in the body, generating carbon dioxide and water.
Consequently, evolutionary scientists have proposed that the early Earth had no elemental oxygen. It would, in fact, be a “reducing atmosphere”, the opposite of the modern oxidising one. (They go on to hypothesise that this would gradually change as primitive life produced oxygen through processes such as photosynthesis). However, the evidence for this reducing atmosphere is very tenuous. Increasingly we are finding from geological and palaeontological research that an oxygen-based atmosphere must have existed from the earliest times.
But, we can ask whether the atmosphere proposed by Miller was likely to be stable. Abelson reports that the ammonia in the atmosphere would have decomposed within 30,000 years: it is inherently unstable, decomposing into nitrogen and hydrogen. Also, much of it would dissolve out of the atmosphere due to its great solubility in water. Methane would only have lasted for about 1% of the time required for the appearance of life by this process, according to Shimzu. Brinkman has shown that even the water vapour would have been broken down due to the sun’s radiation. The trouble is that we think of these gases as stable – indeed they are relative to our lifetime, but not on the evolutionary timescales. And hydrogen? We know that hydrogen does not exist as an element on this planet: it escapes into space very rapidly due to its low density..."---
http://www.truthinscience.org.uk/site/c … iew/51/65/
So... too bad. You obviously do not know what you are talking about if you think these flawed and failed experiments prove your case. That is as funny as the Fossil Record BS you all spout. The school text books are filled with out-right lies to support the "proof" you all throw around and you all never bother to read beyond what you're handed by the lil teachers and Professors, learn to look and find the truth for yourselves.
Miller Urey- failed and flawed, Black pepper moths -failed as they were moved by hand to wehere they wanted them, Pilt-down man glued together was a fake among many other fakes in history-name another... a lot of the ones taught in the texts books have been shown to have been faked or just plain wrong.
Go learn something for yourselves now and stop parroting mis-information back like you are all incapable of learning anything on your own. Go find the facts. And learn to have a debate without screaming and insulting, it goes a lot further in the credibility area. Like a screaming child having a fit when told, no... it does not work.
As I said above, the only way to define the evolution you all push, is within a species and slight modifications to adapt within an enviroment, other than that is has not been proved at all.
@-TIC I am well aware of what the differences are... and evolution is a theory, not a fact. The sooner you all get that straight and understand that evolution in no way accounts for many aspects of Man, nor the rise of the diversity of species upon this rock, the easier it will be for you all to accept your faith.
You can all insult and call me all, -(Not you TIC.)-, the names you want, doesn't change the facts that your BS is an exagerration of what Evolution could reasonably be applied to... just as the Pysics example I put forth.
It exists, yes... (and as I stated above, Micro- Evolution in no way proves Macro-Evolution in the way you all want to apply it. Not at all.) --not in the broad sweeping way, and toward the rise of Man, that you all claim. Within a species there is evolution... no species has ever been seen to give rise to another. And there is nothing in the science to support such.
And your, "we don't have the time to watch", BS, is just that...BS
Continuing to misuse the words I am supplying definitions for, stubbornly refusing to research the topics you are discussing and simply calling me a "religionist" to dismiss me is your prerogative. It's not the path I would take, but it's certainly an available one.
It is a way of bringing you down to their level. You cannot use facts or reasoning, therefore their religion is the same as believing scientific facts.
This one is just a troll who likes to fight and cause as much conflict as possible like a good Christian should. It says to do this in the bible apparently. Go figure.
Evolution is not something that happens in steps or single events, it is a gradual changing. Generally the ability to reason is accepted as the only evolutionary advantage that has promoted homo sapiens. Perhaps the ability to reason at a higher level is the only logical evolutionary path forward for man, the basic advantages are clearly obvious to anyone who can play chess, and those same advantages give a clear edge in daily life and in the workplace.
If this is so, perhaps those unable to reason at the higher level such as creationists, science deniers, and born again fools are a dead end of evolution and will remain to become pets and playthings of the evolving thinkers ? Or maybe they will try to destroy the world that they clearly no longer fit into through religious inspired wars - oh yeah, they already are ! Maybe it is time they went the way of the Neanderthals, it would be simple to do, just let them slide off into their mumbo jumbo and away from the science of modern medicine, real education and reality. They should just die out in a few hundred years or so.
I''m not certain that evolution is gradual. I think there is ample evidence that it has steps; actually I know it must, because higher life, in a manner knows it is changing and needs to change in order to survive; hence the preference both sexual and other for certain species traits. If some random mutation comes about that gives an advantage to a species member, the other members are likely to recognize this and want to "mate" with that member or to enhance its chances of survival in other ways, and this accelerates the species change, so that "transition" states might be very short, steps; and single events happen as well, I think. If you think about the beak of the finch you can imagine a place where wide adaptation is alive in a species because the relative conditions are fairly benign, but then suddenly the environment is radically altered and only a narrow sliver of a wider adaptation can survive in the new environment.
of-course humans are evolved from primates. Similarity in our DNA with theirs is the proof. And you can see the similarity in the skeleton system of humans, primitive humans and primates, it's almost same. The difference is that we have straight backbone, shorter hands, small jaw, different brain capacity, difference in location of vocal cords etc. But these differences doesn't change the basic structure. All these differences are the result of evolution.
The Evidence is absolutely UNDENIABLE.
It's safe to say that anyone who denies it now are either ignorant or in denial.
Evolution from early apes to humans are traced on the cladogram based on trait similarities. In addition, we always have the similar DNA between monkeys and humans - this means that both species shared an earlier parent.
Evolution is a fact - we know that from the fossil records as well as the shared DNA, proteins, structures, etc. Evolution is defined as change over time within a species, thus each species have evolved from a previous species. Humans are most related to modern apes and monkeys and so it's obvious that we shared a common parent.
The only people you will see denying this fact are a handful of religious fanatics who WANT to believe that humans are these majestic god-like beings who rule over the animals but are not one themselves.
Wow...it takes 10 minutes to scroll to the bottom lol
Do you think human beings really evolved from primates?
To answer the original question...no.
My reason...the missing link is, well, STILL missing. Period.
We do not have a fossil record of one(ANY) species evolving into another.
You can have 1000 species of dog...but it's still all dog...not cat...or bird.
Furthermore, evolution is mainly conjecture, meaning if we expand our consciousness to think of evolution taking place over millions and billions of years maybe people won't pay attention to the fact we have no real provable repeatable scientific evidence for any of this or any immutable FACTS besides ones we theorize about.
This is why it is much easier to have scientists jump to the idea that HUMANS were created by an alien ancient race.
As much as we all want to believe we are impartial skeptical scientists....we all really want to believe anything we want to believe...we want the facts to reflect whatever is in our heart....and we want everyone to agree with us.
Even the atheist or skeptical scientist...is a spiritual person. Spiritual because they take there beliefs on faith.
Faith in evolution, that we evolved....
Faith in an ancient alien race...
We need to believe things...
The atheist believes life is life, that there is no God or afterlife. No atonement for the good or bad things that take place in the world. We are on our own....the perks of believing this is...no one can tell you how to live your life. There is no right or wrong or purpose in life besides what we all individually decide for ourselves.
The agnostic, is skeptical...there may be a God...maybe not, we may have evolved...aliens may have engineered out species millions of years ago. An agnostic isn't sure....but finds every point of view interesting. The perks as an agnostic is by and large they get to stand on the fence...you get to mingle with everybody whatever others beliefs are. An agnostic likes to hear peoples arguments, and never has to offend anyone or be offended by anyone's ideas...an agnostic is unsure themselves. An agnostic can have a variety of ideas about life, and the here after, but generally has no absolute facts to base their faith on except for neutrality. An agnostic generally does not see any philosophy or divine being as an authority over there life. Like the atheist...an agnostic can accept whatever morality or see purpose in life however they choose, and live in complete spiritual freedom. Agnostics differ from atheists in that they live in a world where the sky is the limit...anything is possible. And that can be very exciting.
The Creationist believes in God. Believes in an afterlife and that justice or forgiveness awaits everyone. That there is a heaven, or hell. That morality is decreed by the divine. Creationists differ in the sense that Creationists believe God has authority over there lives. That there are rules....and there are consequences for leading a sinful life. Creationists strongly believe there is a reason we all are here, purpose, and design.
Regardless of where you stand, most people have faith in what they feel will serve them best. Not on what is real. How many of you decided to seek the real truth out for yourselves? Put hours into really seeing what's made up...and what's not? Without relying on what's popular, easy, or self serving...who has done some real soul searching...and if they did...made their choice based on the truth they had tirelessly sought out.
I would say very few of us.
Faith is a choice....
No matter how many facts you have, great arguments, evidence, science, experts, proof...you can believe in whatever the hell you want too. That is what faith is. It's free will. It's choice...a belief, or believing.
So what do you believe?
Why were you born?
What's going to happen to you when you die?
What is going to happen when your son or daughter dies, if they asked you "what happens" what would you say to them?
Is there a God? Are you sure?
Where does morality come from? Why do we know right from wrong? Why can't people be good? Why are some people bad?
If there was a God and He asked to have a relationship with you, how would you respond? What would you ask him?
I am a strong believer in Science, and I believe in evolution.
Why are you comparing the transition from cats to dogs?
Why not lions to cats? Or horses/donkeys to mules?
The earth is over 10 billion years old. Do you seriously think we have fossil records for every century of it? Of course not. Fossils are hard to come by but the ones we do come by show definite changes in organisms.
Lions are cats look almost exact alike, but they're not related? That's crap!
Humans are apes look almost exactly alike but we're not related? That's crap again.....
If you don't want to listen to the word Fossil evidence, by all means, the genetic evidence is absolutely undeniable. For every animal on the cladogram, it's relationship can be verified by the similarities in the genome. A bacteria will be much different than a human, but share similar features. Monkeys are nearly identical to humans. Are you saying neither a bacteria nor monkeys are related despite this evidence?
THAT is the evidence for macroevolution. Not through fossils, but through the essence of our being - DNA.
Actually there are plenty of fossil records connecting evolutionary paths. And just so you know, the dog is an evolved form of the wolf, and the different breeds of dogs are all going down different evolutionary paths, most of which have been forced by human hands, rather than natural selection.
Likewise, you will not find an evolutionary path form cat to dog, because their common ancestor goes way, way back, before there were cats and dogs as we know tehm today.
Modern fish did not evolve in to land animals, types of fish which no longer exist today did most of the evolving, although there are some remenants in the form of - wait for it, shrimp!
The problem with the missing link theory is that the missing links keep getting found, and anti-evolutionists keep asking for scientists to fill smaller and smaller gaps. The truth of the matter is that if you went to the national history museum in london and looked through the fossil record for a few years, you would see plenty of connections, and plenty of evolutionary paths.
Like many gardners force their plants down evolutionary routes, like many breeders send horses and dogs down evolutionary paths, the force that nature exerts in a myriad of ways forces animals to evolve.
When it comes to faith, faith is insubstantial, I will stick with facts.
Typically thread, I guess.
1) Make assertion and pretend in some way that it is scientific or academic.
2) Make it about God
3) Insult each other
4) Rinse, later, repeat.
DNA far from proves Evolution.... please man, give it up.
Welcome to the world of FAITH.
We are so far from understanding the entire coding of DNA, never mind the assembly process and mechanisms information systems etc... which evolution has no way to explain their origins.
More BS.... and many know it.
Dean Kenyon, a biology professor who repudiated his earlier book on Darwinian evolution—mostly due to the discoveries of the information FOUND IN DNA states: "This new realm of molecular genetics (is) where we see the most compelling evidence of design on the Earth" (ibid., p. 221).
"It was once expected," writes Professor Behe, "that the basis of life would be exceedingly simple. That expectation has been smashed. Vision, motion, and other biological functions have proven to be no less sophisticated than television cameras and automobiles. Science has made enormous progress in understanding how the chemistry of life works, but the elegance and complexity of biological systems at the molecular level have paralyzed science's attempt to explain their origins" (Behe, p. x).
Dr. Meyer considers the recent discoveries about DNA as the Achilles" heel of evolutionary theory. He observes: "Evolutionists are still trying to apply Darwin's nineteenth-century thinking to a twenty-first century reality, and it's not working ... I think the information revolution taking place in biology is sounding the death knell for Darwinism and chemical evolutionary theories" (quoted by Strobel, p. 243).
Dr. Meyer's conclusion? "I believe that the testimony of science supports theism. While there will always be points of tension or unresolved conflict, the major developments in science in the past five decades have been running in a strongly theistic direction" (ibid., p. 77).
Just recently, one of the world's most famous atheists, Professor Antony Flew, admitted he couldn't explain how DNA was created and developed through evolution. He now accepts the need for an intelligent source to have been involved in the making of the DNA code.
"What I think the DNA material has done is show that intelligence must have been involved in getting these extraordinary diverse elements together," he said (quoted by Richard Ostling, "Leading Atheist Now Believes in God," Associated Press report, Dec. 9, 2004).
DNA evidence in no way supports any conclusion in favor of evolution as you all wish to apply it.
That is as fraudulent a piece of evidence as Miller/Urey and the Black Peppered Moths scam. And the scam of one species giving rise to another, for whoich there is absolutely no evidence anywhere. And again, Micro- evolution does not prove Macro-evolution... period... to assume such is absurd!
That as good as your pen is red ink... so all pens are red ink.
I do not believe in this theory. God created us and the world we live in. Looking at our beautiful world alone is proof that something bigger is in charge. How could all of this come from nothing? It gives me peace to know that someone is looking out for me and has a plan for my life.
Seriously Hui? SERIOUSLY? What scientists have you talked to? I can't believe evolution is still a debate. The genetic evidence is UNDENIABLE. ABSOLUTELY. Seriously guys...*sigh....you're hopeless. All I gotta say.
All the evvidence has been shown for the fakes, failures and frauds, and exagerations that it is.
You can comment every on reply in the thread. They all spewed the same BS as you. and the same insults as you... and it was all shot down and thrown away.
Science does not support Evolution as you all want to apply it.
Just a fact you cannot escape.
Every last myth you are spouting is replied to and shot down above, enjoy the read.
There is plenty of evidence that has not been debunked, there have been a few frauds, mostly by scientists looking to make a name for themselves.
There is a whole lot more evidence behind evolution than creationism.
yes but we evolved not as hairy anymore
except for Tom Jones, he is still evolving
Oh, didn't mean to imply that it isn't gradual also, I just also think it moves swifter at times, than others.
Wil, thanks for taking the time to hammer out all those specifics. I'm not an archaeologist or historian nor claim to be, but I still stand by my perception that a couple of millenia post-stone age is not a particularly long time in the course of human evolution. Do I really believe we were helped/engineered by intergalactic intruders? Not necessarily. But I chose to open my mind to the possibility because from what I perceive of history and what I remember from Anthropology class in 12th grd, that human evolution acheived what seemed to be a rapid acceleration in intelligence and sophistication in the centuries predating the rise of Sumeria.
I'm sure it's absolutely possible in natural evolution, but I dare to ask if there are other possibilities.
Evidence for creationism: Whenever we do not understand something, we say it is the work of God. The origin of the universe, and in the past - diseases, the stars, the building of the pyramids, and nearly EVERYTHING else which we now understand to has nothing to do with a God.
The only thing God serves to justify is the fact that we do not know everything. God is not an answer - it is the lack one.
Evolution has evidence as I previously explained.
It's like a debate between harry potter and gravity.
I don't know that understanding something has much to do with it. God has been blamed and praised for nearly everything that has ever happened. You put down extra fertilizer and water, the crop yield goes up and it was God rewarding you. 911 was Gods punishment for American immorality at the same time it was Gods reward to believers.
Example: http://hubpages.com/forum/topic/78477 where the OP explains that the Phoenix dust storm is "the hand of God smacking America.".
on the contrary...primates probably evolved from human beings.
lol....WE ARE PRIMATES.
It's too damned hot here.
It's been over 100 for a week.
Quite. Primates are in fact what we evolved into.
I think that Evolution Guy is the dude who can answer this question. This is his expertise...
I bet the other primates figure they made the right choice by staying up in the trees.
Sometimes I read of people's beliefs in little green men, or fairies at the bottom of the garden, or that rubbing a crystal will cure someone of cancer, and I begin to wonder what the point in evolution was. Maybe there is intelligent life up there, but there seems to be bugger all down here.
There is a reason you all are 2.3% of the world's population.
Shall I explain to you all again?
No. I think it was pretty well laid out throughout the entire thread.
Your leaps and bounds, assumptions and guesses, are nothing more than "faith", in your view of what the science can be interpreted to say... nothing more.
Many a scientist does not buy into your interpretations... many, many, many...
http://www.discovery.org/scripts/viewDB … amp;id=660
and that is by no means all... and there are more by the hour.
Welcome to the wonderful world of "faith", denial cannot change it... facts are facts.
Most of those scientists are talking about how more needs to be done to show how more than just natural selection and random mutation affect Evolution, they are not against evolutionary theory, they want to expand upon it.
Personally I welcome scientist who want to challenge theory and expand upon it, there is always more to understand.
They state that they do not at this point, support or see proof of Evolution as it is so blatently over applied by some in the field, as being fact.
---“We are skeptical of claims for the ability of random mutation and natural selection to account for the complexity of life. Careful examination of the evidence for Darwinian theory should be encouraged.”---
Which is the point.
Not all scientists consider Evolution as applied across a wide swath by some, to be fact... not at all. Evolution as a process exists within species, we all know this, and micr-evolution can be shown to be a fact. But not evolution as many wish to applly it across the spectrum of creation. Not at all. Iether DNA, nor the fossil record, nor any other study, or supposed evidence.
The quote is taken out of context, they believe there is more to evolutionary theory and that it should be explored in greater detail. And personally I agree. I think while natural selection explains a lot of how evolutionary theory works, there are still aspects that need to be explored if we are to understand the future of Evolution.
Read some of the work from some of the people on that list if you disagree.
You are correct. They are skeptical, don't want to understand or accept and thus demand additional centuries of study. Whereupon they will demand additional centuries irregardless of any results that confirm the theory.
They understand and see what you term micro evolution (I assume evolution in microscopic creatures?). They see species of animals diverging until they cannot interbreed with each other. They see isolated groups of animals changing to the point they cannot live with their "original" group in that groups environment. They even see different species breeding to create a new animal, different from each parent in "macro" qualities.
These types of things are then declared to be "non-evolutionary" somehow (in spite of the fact they are the basis of evolution) because they don't want to believe.
Seems like a good group to stay away from in spite of their encouragement to continue the study of evolution.
That is what makes science the best available way of understanding the universe and everything in it. Scientists are usually more than willing to be proven wrong, if new evidence shows them to be so. This is why science is so reluctant to use the word "fact" in the sense that it is commonly understood. Scientific theory can change as a result of the evidence it discovers. Those scientists listed have not stated that they do not believe in evolution or that they believe in creationism, simply that they question natural selection and random mutation, which although part of the modern Darwinian explanation is not fully understood or accepted. At least scientists are willing to raise questions based on evidence or the lack of it, instead of saying that they accept something because it is part of their creed to do so. This is where some religions differ with science, because they refuse to even look at the evidence or to raise perfectly legitimate questions.
I would have to disagree in this particular case. You make some very good points, but I doubt they are applicable here.
I can conceive of a group of scientists getting together to endorse a new finding, having done the research and repeated the tests, etc. It would not be particularly unusual.
To have a group get together to declare "I don't understand it and want someone else to do more research to prove it to me" is a different matter. No scientist worth his salt would make such a comment.
Are you saying that you do not believe this declaration by scientists to be the truth, or that this particular group of scientists do not have credibility? I can only go on what I have read in the link provided, and the words of the declaration do seem to me to state their skepticism in the ability of natural selection and random mutation to account for the complexity of life. They do not seem to be bringing new findings to the debate, simply suggesting that examination of the Darwinian theory is needed.
Whilst it is good to question the views of these scientists, I don't think it would be fair to dismiss them out-of-hand. They are experts in their fields after all. They are entitled to their conclusions based upon their own experiences and observations, as much as a scientist like Richard Dawkins is. If we, as evolutionists start making a distinction between scientists considered as having credibility and those not having credibility, based on whether they support our own view of how evolution works, then we will fall into the trap of dogma, that the religious believer falls into. This will surely give ammunition to the religious creationist. If evolutionists start to consider some scientists as heretics, because they diverge from the majority view, the religious world will be watching and will jump on anything they perceive as the collapse of evolutionary theory. If we value the very real discoveries which prove evolution to be a fact, then we owe an obligation to the scientific community as a whole, not to discredit out-of-hand what these scientists are saying. Challenge them, yes, debate with them, yes, but the scientific approach should not include the belittling of professional scientists, who have years of experience and are as qualified as scientists like Richard Dawkins.
There is an unfortunate trend amongst the religious to refer to evolution as a religion, which of course is nonsense. Any perceived split caused by different conclusions being reached by different scientsts should therefore be out in the open. To dismiss such differences as being unimportant or to try and keep such differences hidden from the public would play into the hands of the creationists, and they will find out about it, in this world of the Internet and instant communication. Also, if science is not to stand still, but to progress, then differences need to be examined and new theories need to be considered. Believing that science is complete in its current state and does not need to debate, challenge or be willing to consider new possibilites never before considered, will result in stagnation, and science never has and never should operate this way. There are no heretics in science, only professionals who have and are entitled to have different opinions. Science cannot operate as religion does, by stating that to belong to the club, you must believe in A. B and C. It should be an open-minded, endeavour, willing to explore all possibilites. If doctrine were ever to become part of the fundamental nature of science, then it will have no superiority over the narrow-minded theist, who is unwilling to engage with anyone with different opinions.
I agree with nearly everything you have said here. Unfortunately I do not see this group of "scientists" truly requesting that further research be done. Rather, it seems to be a political/religious statement with nothing to do with scientific study at all.
It is proper and expected that scientists disagree with each other. With reasons behind that disagreement. As you point out they bring nothing to the debate but a hope that their name will produce skepticism in others that require little but a big name and/or title.
This group is from Geologists, physicists, astronomers, "senior scientists", mechanical engineers, computer scientists, mathematicians, philosophers, electrical engineers, psychologists, professors of aviation and others that are quite unlikely to ever have studied the theory in depth or produced any original thought or evidence in it. They thus have little to no known credibility in the subject. The rest of the group includes biologists, geologists, veterinarians, chemists; people that might reasonably be expected to have some expertise and knowledge to contribute. The inclusion of the first group, however, throws that into doubt as I question just why those other big names are there. That has nothing to do with their belief though, just their expected field of knowledge. They appear to be trading on their reputation and name rather than their knowledge.
Should this group of unknowledgeable individuals (in the study of evolution) care to present reasons then their name and education entitles them to be listened to and evaluated. They have not done that, but instead simply got together and said "we don't believe".
I could be wrong in my assumptions that most of these people have no expertise in the field or that they have no real evidential objections and thus my conclusions would be seriously flawed.
I don't think I am. This document reeks of a bunch of people pushing a social or religious agenda without regard to scientific principles of study or evidence. This does not indicate falling into some kind of dogma but rather demands that scientific procedures be followed when skepticism is presented.
A mere indication of lack of "belief" doesn't make it - that is the method of religion and not science. Bring some real reasons to the table for discussion. Until they do I'm not real interested in the evolutionary beliefs or lack of beliefs of a bunch of computer programmers whether they teach at a college or not. Names and titles don't make evolutionary scientists in and of themselves. Real, original work with real and original evidence and results does and they have made no effort to produce that.
Scientists themselves are allowed to determine what is "valid" with in their field. Time and time again scientists have rejected the views of other scientists as too outlandish, too bias, or too corrupt; and sometimes what they reject comes around to be proven right, but often the body of evidence that mounts only further proves how wholly inaccurate some hypothesis is. we do not have to debate very "crack pot" that comes along. If the "crack pot" is right, then it's up to him to "prove it," we don't need to abandon the considered opinion of the vast majority of the world scientists for a hypothesis that doesn't have any proof at all, that no has come up with a way to "test" and that the most ignorant people in our society cling to with statements like, "Do you know what the odd are for evolution to happen..why it's impossible." No, because if it was impossible one couldn't give odds on it. I'm not going to turn against evolution, because a handful of scientists have nothing but some "feelings," ideas, and questions, when I know how fallible even the brightest minds can be to their emotional thinking. It wouldn't be "intelligent design" it would be "stupid design" because why life is very complex, it also idiotically put together, but that idiocy is explained because nature has repeatedly taken a submarine and made boat and mad a car out of it; then taken that car and made a plane out of it, and then that plane with was a car which was boat which was a submarine, is then turned partially back into a car and boat again, and so on, metaphorically speaking. No intelligent being design our back or legs the way the are; and why design life to die; why not design life just to go one regenerating new clean cells; wait I know why- evolution. If order for life to survive it has to change, to adapt to changes, so it has to bear offspring potentially slightly different , and the old versions become irrelevant, so life goes on, lives eternally, as strand of DNA or RNA, changing as it needs to. It doesn't die; we dies because we are just a vehicle for its continuation, not the end result or purpose as our "egos" think.
"Scientists themselves are allowed to determine what is "valid" with in their field". Yes and no. Obviously these scientists consider themselves to be valid. But when they attempt to convince ME of something then I must determine their validity, not them.
"we do not have to debate every "crack pot" that comes along. If the "crack pot" is right, then it's up to him to "prove it"." That's my point here - this crack pot idea, far removed from mainstream science, may in fact be true. But it is up to the crackpots to produce the evidence, not to require others to provide the evidence they so want to see.
Humbling to think that I am nothing more than a temporary carrier to maintain the existence of a long string of chemicals, that that is my sole purpose in life. True, though.
Yes, we determine, but I base my determination upon their determination. The only thing I determine is who's smarter and more objective, not which theory in science is correct or in correct, I'm not that smart; except evolution is really obvious; even a person's personality and belief system can't stand still in time; it evolves. Nothing stands still in time; everything changes.
Yes, a long string of chemicals that may one day create a being that creates a universe, where chemical evolves (accidentally) until it creates a being that creates a universe where chemicals evolve until it creates a being...is our DNA a fraction of God? Just musing...
Of course. I do no experiments, I dig up no bones and even if I did I haven't the background to understand what I find. At best I can try to understand their explanations and cram it into my feeble brain.
What I can do, though, is give my best shot at determining the credibility, the motives and reasons that any particular individual promotes the ideas they do. In this day and age of every other scientist (it seems, anyway) having a political, religious or financial incentive for their agenda it seems necessary.
I once read a sci fi novel by James Blish where the universe was collapsing and it was found that every intelligent creature at the right point could, by picturing it and providing their own mass as a starting point, create a universe of their design. Each became God in a manner of speaking. A dead God, but God nonetheless.
Perhaps you are right and my multi-great grandchild, carrying a bit of my DNA, will become a God, creating his own universe.
Very nice response Wilderness. I'm majoring in biology and I've studied the evolution of chromosomes, proteins, etc pretty well. Maybe I'll write a hub on the evidence supporting evolution. That way I won't have to repeat myself over and over again.
Yes Wild... dismiss them all because they do not agree with you, that is fully expected of the Leant Left today.
That is just the way you all are, fortunately the rest of us actually listen to all sides and base our conclusions on what they are saying and showing to us.
Not just let our bias dismiss them out of hand.
You have dismissed them all, even the quotes from others who have all the needed requirements, also. Your dismissive bias is on full display... we can all see it.
If someone in the fields, no matter how much experiance they have, how well regarded they are, speaks in contrary to you and your beliefs.... they are dismissed.
Yes, TM, read the words and then change them into something that agrees with what you want them to say. That is expected of the Rabid Right today. You do understand that I dismiss them not for what they say ("I don't believe") but for the way they said it? It was pretty clear, after all. They are dismissed as a group of which half has no discernable expertise or knowledge to contribute, which throws the intent of the whole into doubt.
That is just the way you all are, all too willing to change what is said to what you want or expect to hear. Fortunately the rest of us actually read the words and accept them unchanged, with no effort to twist them into the opposite of what was plainly stated and meant.
Not just allow our bias to change the words and their meaning into something more acceptable to us or expected from one with different views.
I do indeed dismiss them all. As I very clearly stated the group has presented no arguments and no evidence. They saw fit to include other names in what I can only conclude is a misguided effort to lend credulence to their belief rather than present such arguments or evidence. They request that others do the work to promote their beliefs rather than doing it themselves. In my opinion their credibility takes an enormous hit whatever their beliefs are. All are scientists (even the computer programmers could very loosely be termed that) but all have left behind their understanding of scientific methodology to present an emotional argument based solely on the value of their name. Is that clear enough for you?
If someone in the fields, with experience and knowledge I don't have, with thoughts I haven't had or with conclusions that I can follow speaks....I listen. Can you say the same? I know I have watched as you yourself dismiss out of hand as "nonexistent" any and all the evidence for evolution. Evidence that very definitely exists but is wiped from the slate as it might prove to be the undoing of your own fantasies of ID.
Methinks you have very often exhibited the very fallacies you (untruthfully) accuse me of.
I understand perfectly well, Wild.
You are very transparent in your actions. And that statement reads as it reads.
I have no twisted anything about it...
---“We are skeptical of claims for the ability of random mutation and natural selection to account for the complexity of life. Careful examination of the evidence for Darwinian theory should be encouraged.”---
It is right there as the HEADER to THEIR page... not mine.
Just cause they do not agree with you... dismiss dismiss... sad.
"I do indeed dismiss them all. As I very clearly stated the group has presented no arguments and no evidence. They saw fit to include other names in what I can only conclude is a misguided effort to lend credulence to their belief rather than present such arguments or evidence. They request that others do the work to promote their beliefs rather than doing it themselves. In my opinion their credibility takes an enormous hit whatever their beliefs are. All are scientists (even the computer programmers could very loosely be termed that) but all have left behind their understanding of scientific methodology to present an emotional argument based solely on the value of their name. Is that clear enough for you?" (Bolding added)
What part of this copied paragraph do you not understand? Do you disagree that they presented no evidence? Do you disagree that they presented no arguments or reasoned conclusions? Do you disagree that they have failed to follow scientific protocol by presenting nothing but an unsupported belief? Do you disagree that most of those signing the document likely have no expertise in the field?
Somewhere in there must be the reason that you keep insisting that "Just cause they do not agree with you... dismiss " but for the life of me I can't find it. Help me out here, TM - tell me which sentence causes you to come up with such a ridiculous statement in spite of the fact that my words very clearly say otherwise. Or is it that (say it quietly) that you simply choose to "interpret" my words to mean that rather than view the document you provided as seriously flawed?
If all those "scientific facts" are just allowed to be subjectively determined, why people go to doctors? How do those so-called illnesses get healed by chemical medicine and material machines? Why people including "devotional" christians so care about money when they are asked to make donation to the church? (I ever carefully observed how those christians make donation)
What is knowledge? It is basically the understanding of the objective material world. What does improve civilization? Bottom line, it is that material production get developed and developed, then humans seek spiritual life.
Enthusiasm towards entertaining possibilities of intelligent life elsewhere in the universe is by no means an argument for or against. It's human nature to speculate about possibilities when understanding or comprehension are not necessarily solid options. I like to be open minded to the possibilities. After all, when did we discover Pluto? Wasnt that long ago, right? And very recently we discovered it wasnt much of a planet, more like a subplanet. We used to think Uranus was a star. Now we're hearing there may be more planets in our own solar system. It's not impossible that there are intelligent species that far out. They just probably wouldnt be anything like us.
Although it can only ever be an opinion, with I believe no possibility of proving it one way or the other, statistics alone could be used to suggest that there has to be life on other planets. When we consider how unlikely life was to begin on our own planet, it is not impossible to imagine that on one of the however many trillions of trillions of other planets there are out there, that life could have developed on at least some of these. However, even if this has happened, the possibility that such life could have developed enough to be able to travel possibly billions of light years makes it statistically highly unlikely. There are now speculations that everything that makes up what we call the universe, and which may have begun with the Big Bang may actually be only one part of a multiverse, made up of endless other universes, each created by its own Big Bang. The speculation is mind-blowing. How speculation though can develop into proof is at the moment unanswerable. Personally I doubt the human species will last long enough to be able to answer these questions. Even if we weren't destroying the world as we are, it seems that all species are finite, and I don't see why the human animal should be any different.
I can see where people would believe the evolution theory on how man became. However, I do no believe we came from primates or any other animal evolved from another. My friend and I were talking about this one day as I was driving and her college professor who use to believe this had a change of heart when he heard someone describe the giraffe. A giraffe has this extremely long neck as everyone can see. Now when the giraffe lengthens his neck down to drink, why does his blood rush to his head and he pass out. Well, there are these glands that suck in just the right amount of blood to where it does not rush to his head to pass out. Now, when he swoops his head back up to standing position, why does his blood not rush back down to his feet and he pass out. Well, these same glands that keep just the right amount of blood from rushing to his head, slowly secrete his blood down instead of it rushing toward his feet so he does not pass out. This is so extraordinarily intricate, how can we believe that this evolved from something else? It seems so unreasonable. There had to be something to think this up, to make this. Not only to just make this but to make it where it glorifies themselves. This person who made this has to so smart and great and powerful. Now I truly believe with all of my heart that this person is our Creator, God almighty. When someone does not want to believe in the reasonable, they take things to an unreasonable state to take their minds off of what they do not want to believe.
First, if a person made "designed" animals, they don't have to be incredibly smart, they have to be incredibly "stupid." Again, every animal on the planet has some incredibly stupid design features, as well a some fairly useless features, which is all explained very well by evolution, since animals inherent much of the features of the animals they evolved from; some of that structure is bound to be inefficient to counter productive for an animals new from; so ya, God designed us if he's dumb; it's like putting wheels on a boat, or a sail on a plane- animals have truly efficient and marvelous mechanisms, but they also have junk left over from an earlier form. Second if God made all the species separate why did he make all the animals out of the same parts, and use basically the same blueprints; really chimpanzees and humans are more alike than a dodge pickup and a ford pickup; really why didn't he make some life out of silicon, or have another encoding process other than RND and DNA, and so and so on; why did he make it to look like all life is related, even a tree had 50% the same genetic encode information, why not be really creative; third, because DNA and RNA is the instruction book for making life, and since those instructions are subject to changes, given enough time, it is impossible for evolution not to happen.
by G. Diane Nelson Trotter 5 years ago
If humans evolved from fish or chimpanzees, why are there still fish and chimpanzees?Many scientists agree that man evolved from fish or chimpanzees. If that is the case, why are there still fish and chimpanzees. Why are there not stages of evolution going on now? There may be a...
by Kevin Peter 5 years ago
God has created only two human beings. Then how come the next generation came into existance?Adam and Eve were the two human beings. They had only two children. Both were males. Who did they marry to form the next generation of human beings?
by Terrex 2 years ago
Are there holes in theory of evolution?Creationism is regarded by sceptics as a fanciful theory which does not stand up to scrutiny.The alternatives they offer seem credible on the surface, but are there problems with them, too?
by boyatdelhi 7 years ago
If man evolved from monkeys and apes, why do we still have monkeys and apes?
by Baileybear 7 years ago
Or do they find it too much of a threat to their beliefs?
by Eng.M 9 years ago
was there for ever????????????
Copyright © 2018 HubPages Inc. and respective owners. Other product and company names shown may be trademarks of their respective owners. HubPages® is a registered Service Mark of HubPages, Inc. HubPages and Hubbers (authors) may earn revenue on this page based on affiliate relationships and advertisements with partners including Amazon, Google, and others.
|HubPages Device ID||This is used to identify particular browsers or devices when the access the service, and is used for security reasons.|
|Login||This is necessary to sign in to the HubPages Service.|
|HubPages Traffic Pixel||This is used to collect data on traffic to articles and other pages on our site. Unless you are signed in to a HubPages account, all personally identifiable information is anonymized.|
|Remarketing Pixels||We may use remarketing pixels from advertising networks such as Google AdWords, Bing Ads, and Facebook in order to advertise the HubPages Service to people that have visited our sites.|
|Conversion Tracking Pixels||We may use conversion tracking pixels from advertising networks such as Google AdWords, Bing Ads, and Facebook in order to identify when an advertisement has successfully resulted in the desired action, such as signing up for the HubPages Service or publishing an article on the HubPages Service.|