ijawkid:

Lol......when will that happen??.....maybe in the next 5 million years to come...right??...........

Can you be specific about when that would happen mr evolutionist!??

its already happening

Seun:
I'm not sure about what human beings and animals looked like millions of years ago. Many scientists have tried to figure it out, by making educated guesses, but those guesses are not perfectly reliable. However, we have enough evidence to support the idea that life has evolved over a very long period of time. We have found bones under the ground that cannot be matched with any animals that live today, and we have discovered patterns in where the bones are located that suggest how the changes may have gradually happened over time. There is no other theory that explains the evidence that has been uncovered, so it makes sense to believe in evolution. However, science is not rigid. We do not accept evolution by faith; we accept it because it's the best explanation that fits the evidence. If someone comes with a better explanation tomorrow, it will be accepted by scientists. That's how science works. Science is not a collection of hard facts; it's a way of figuring things out.

ITS REALLY NICE MEETING AN HONEST ATHEIST.
The truth is, as humans we can never be 100% (based on facts) sure of hw we came to be. Most of what we believe in is: FAITH(being sure of what we hope for, and certain of what we cant see).

Logicboy03:


Why dont you go and educate yourself before you ask these silly questions? Hmm?


Speciation = new species


We (monkeys and humans) split from a common ancestor thousands of years ago. We have speciated apart.




Regarding your question about humans being more evolved now. We know for a fact that humans are bigger and now have less teeth than those in medieval times.

And so you belive for sure that by the next 100,000,000,000,000 years, human beings will evolve into some other animal not yet known.

Bélla3: ITS REALLY NICE MEETING AN HONEST ATHEIST.
The truth is, as humans we can never be 100% (based on facts) sure of hw we came to be. Most of what we believe in is: FAITH(being sure of what we hope for, and certain of what we cant see).

Funny how the xtains love an atheist that agrees with their worldview

Logicboy03:


its already happening

Lol...........oh really??....what's recent??.......humans have evolved into wolverine or incredible hawk??....

Lovethywilbedon: And so you belive for sure that by the next 100,000,000,000,000 years, human beings will evolve into some other animal not yet known.

Why not?

We are already bigger than our ancestors from the medieval times

Logicboy03:


Funny how the xtains love an atheist that agrees with their worldview

An 'atheist' that agrees with the world view of Christians is not an atheist, he is confused!

Logicboy03:


Funny how the xtains love an atheist that agrees with their worldview

Whats funny there? Dont you love when you and frosbel attack the Islam section?

Logicboy03:




Regarding your question about humans being more evolved now. We know for a fact that humans are bigger and now have less teeth than those in medieval times.

I guess maybe by the time the evolutionary process reaches its climax we might be left with just 1 tooth or none...............

How I wish the 1st child you give birth to comes out as a very ugly chimpanze(evolution)........I would be the happiest man that ever lived......

honeychild:
No I am saying the Genesis account was not a Ph.D thesis on "how life began." It is a highly simplified summary of our origins. Highly simplified so as to be easily understood by humans of all backgrounds civilisations and I.Q. levels. It does not contain all the details.....if it did, an ignoramus like myself would probably not understand it ..... but it does contain enough details that I am not reduced to making 'educated guesses' about my origins by looking at teeth and jaw bones.

That's new twist. So it is now a simplified tale of complicated uncertain beginnings for low IQ people.

advocate666:

That's new twist. So it is now a simplified tale of complicated [/s]uncertain[s] beginnings for low IQ people.

No it is not uncertain. It is just that the technical details were not included so that said low I.Q people (who are by far the majority anyway) would be able to understand it.

Logicboy03:


Why not?

We are already bigger than our ancestors from the medieval times

And what made you think you are correct and how were you able to compaire all sizes of theirs and ours since human beings have different sizes at any paticular generation of study and considering the fact that whatever size of human being they had then, we have them now and whatever size we have now they had them then. And the sizes of our teeth are not the same. Whatever size they had then we have them now and vice versa

honeychild:
No it is not uncertain. It is just that the technical details were not included so that said low I.Q people (who are by far the majority anyway) would be able to understand it.

So you call 99.9% of all species that ever existed a "technical details"?
Omnipotent god was incapable of giving you a brain to understand complicated things? He prefers to dumb you down with summaries.

Logicboy03:



Wrong. The theory of evolution and its mechanisms are quite clear and well grounded. You have to understand the difference between the theory itself and the study of the anatomy of the animals

The speculation comes in when determining the lifestyle of the prehistoric creatures. They make deductions or assumptions on the feeding habits of these animals based on their jawbones and their limbs (how they hunt).

Here is a random quote:
Leakey believed that habilis was a direct human ancestor, with erectus out of the picture. While H. habilis is a generally accepted species, they (sic)opinion that it was a direct human ancestor seems to be in question. There are now at least two species of early Homo (whether habilis and rudolfensis or an undescribed species) living prior to 2.0 myr. In addition, H. erectus (which is almost universally accepted as a direct human ancestor) continues to be pushed further back into the paleontological record, making it possible that it is the first Homo ancestor of modern humans.

Other problems include that [b]some people see KNM-ER 1813 as a near perfect erectus,[/b] except for its small brain and size. It could be an erectus that was at the small scale of a wide variation of traits, or it may belong to ergaster, which some believe to be the ancestor of erectus. The questions are far from solved, and new specimens are needed. Homo habilis may be a direct human ancestor, a dead-end side-branch that leads nowhere, an invalid species whose designated examples belong in other species, or Wolpoff may be right, and all these species are basically part of one highly variable widespread species. - http://archaeologyinfo.com/homo-habilis/

And you say evolution is not just made up of 'probables', 'perhaps', 'maybes' or 'could bes'. Not even one 'definitely'. And all this conjecture is based on one side of half of a skull. Hope you know that your 'complete Homo Habilis specimen' (KNM ER 1830) is just the right side of the upper part of a skull. The left side is completely crushed. There are no lower teeth. And from this the entire 'first human' is constructed.

ijawkid:

Lol...........oh really??....what's recent??.......humans have evolved into wolverine or incredible hawk??....

Human Beings evolved from apes over a period of millions of years just like the baby evolves to the toddler the child the teenager then adult and the TV evolved from old black and white models to colour TVs with remote control then then 40 inch flat screen TVs then High Definition TVs with home cinema speakers. The house you live in now evolved from a hut that our ancestors lived in less than 200 years ago. Would you really ask a dumb question like would your house evolve into a spaceship in a hundred years or whether your TV would evolve into silverbird cinema. Don't you realize how naive you sound?

manmustwac: Human Beings evolved from apes over a period of millions of years just like the baby evolves to the toddler the child the teenager then adult and the TV evolved from old black and white models to colour TVs with remote control then then 40 inch flat screen TVs then High Definition TVs with home cinema speakers. The house you live in now evolved from a hut that our ancestors lived in less than 200 years ago. Would you really ask a dumb question like would your house evolve into a spaceship in a hundred years or whether your TV would evolve into silverbird cinema. Don't you realize how naive you sound?

Lol...
...it seems you mistake growth for the theory of evolution.................so I guess we should wait for another millions of years to see ourselves evolve into what I don't know.....abi??.....

It's the tradition in science as well as in crime detection to make the most out of the tiniest bit of information. you may never get any more. If you wait until everybody sees the whole picture, Science would still be in the era of the pre medieval ages (where religionists want it to be, I am sure); how much time have you got to live? Intelligent people can't afford to wait for slow pokes!

honeychild:
Here is a random quote:
Leakey believed that habilis was a direct human ancestor, with erectus out of the picture. While H. habilis is a generally accepted species, they (sic)opinion that it was a direct human ancestor seems to be in question. There are now at least two species of early Homo (whether habilis and rudolfensis or an undescribed species) living prior to 2.0 myr. In addition, H. erectus (which is almost universally accepted as a direct human ancestor) continues to be pushed further back into the paleontological record, making it possible that it is the first Homo ancestor of modern humans.

Other problems include that [b]some people see KNM-ER 1813 as a near perfect erectus,[/b] except for its small brain and size. It could be an erectus that was at the small scale of a wide variation of traits, or it may belong to ergaster, which some believe to be the ancestor of erectus. The questions are far from solved, and new specimens are needed. Homo habilis may be a direct human ancestor, a dead-end side-branch that leads nowhere, an invalid species whose designated examples belong in other species, or Wolpoff may be right, and all these species are basically part of one highly variable widespread species. - http://archaeologyinfo.com/homo-habilis/

And you say evolution is not just made up of 'probables', 'perhaps', 'maybes' or 'could bes'. Not even one 'definitely'. And all this conjecture is based on one side of half of a skull. Hope you know that your 'complete Homo Habilis specimen' (KNM ER 1830) is just the right side of the upper part of a skull. The left side is completely crushed. There are no lower teeth. And from this the entire 'first human' is constructed.

if FIFA can do bone tests to determine the age of players, or if scientists can run tests to determine if a bone fragment is male or female...and these are "animals" of the same species....what is so incomprehensible about testing a bone to determine what type of animal it belonged to?

manmustwac: Human Beings evolved from apes over a period of millions of years just like the baby evolves to the toddler the child the teenager then adult and the TV evolved from old black and white models to colour TVs with remote control then then 40 inch flat screen TVs then High Definition TVs with home cinema speakers. The house you live in now evolved from a hut that our ancestors lived in less than 200 years ago. Would you really ask a dumb question like would your house evolve into a spaceship in a hundred years or whether your TV would evolve into silverbird cinema. Don't you realize how naive you sound?

Are you absolutely sure that it not apes that evolved from human beings?

Lovethywilbedon: And what made you think you are correct and how were you able to compaire all sizes of theirs and ours since human beings have different sizes at any paticular generation of study and considering the fact that whatever size of human being they had then, we have them now and whatever size we have now they had them then. And the sizes of our teeth are not the same. Whatever size they had then we have them now and vice versa

The human population is losing their wisdom teeth. We dont eat as much grass anymore. We have smaller jaws

We look at the armours that medieval knights use and they are small. Keep in mind tht these were meant to be the alpha warriors of their time. even the armour of some eastern cultures are small. Even looking at the skeletons of peoples past, they are smaller.

Agiliti:

if FIFA can do bone tests to determine the age of players, or if scientists can run tests to determine if a bone fragment is male or female...and these are "animals" of the same species....what is so incomprehensible about testing a bone to determine what type of animal it belonged to?

The last time I checked fifa could not tell that the nigerian boys who played the U-19 world cup were far over aged...........

Most times as I have seen is that what ever scientists say becomes so perfect to some persons,especially atheist,simply because they never want to hear the word ""GOD""

honeychild: and how is that different from me? I choose to put my faith in the Bible's creation account because quite frankly it makes the most sense to me....but I am labeled 'ignorant'. You choose to put your faith in the 'educated' guesses of fallible humans and you are 'enlightened' and 'logical'.

I didn't choose to put my faith in evolution. I chose to believe what makes the most sense and fits the available evidence, most accurately. On the issue of the origin of species, that happens to be evolution. If someone develops a theory that better explains the evidence tomorrow, we will switch to it immediately. Science is not dogmatic. Good scientists are committed only to the truth; they do not swear allegiance to evolution or any other theory. They are only committed to discovering the truths of the universe, as revealed by evidence and sound logic.

turnstoner: An 'atheist' that agrees with the world view of Christians is not an atheist, he is confused!

I don't agree with their worldview. I'm trying to make it clear that science is not merely a dogmatic worldview that happens to be different from the one they have chosen to believe. If there was a way to prove the existence of God or the truthfulness of Christianity beyond reasonable doubt, every scientist would believe in God. I think what we need religious people to do is not to accept evolution per se, but to cast aside unproven dogmas and approach the world with open minds and sound judgement.

ijawkid:

Lol...
...it seems you mistake growth for the theory of evolution.................so I guess we should wait for another millions of years to see ourselves evolve into what I don't know.....abi??.....

Isn't growth part of evolving? You find it hard to believe that human beings evolved but have no trouble believing that the entire black white chinese and indian race evolved from Adam & Eve

honeychild:
Here is a random quote:
Leakey believed that habilis was a direct human ancestor, with erectus out of the picture. While H. habilis is a generally accepted species, they (sic)opinion that it was a direct human ancestor seems to be in question. There are now at least two species of early Homo (whether habilis and rudolfensis or an undescribed species) living prior to 2.0 myr. In addition, H. erectus (which is almost universally accepted as a direct human ancestor) continues to be pushed further back into the paleontological record, making it possible that it is the first Homo ancestor of modern humans.

Other problems include that [b]some people see KNM-ER 1813 as a near perfect erectus,[/b] except for its small brain and size. It could be an erectus that was at the small scale of a wide variation of traits, or it may belong to ergaster, which some believe to be the ancestor of erectus. The questions are far from solved, and new specimens are needed. Homo habilis may be a direct human ancestor, a dead-end side-branch that leads nowhere, an invalid species whose designated examples belong in other species, or Wolpoff may be right, and all these species are basically part of one highly variable widespread species. - http://archaeologyinfo.com/homo-habilis/

And you say evolution is not just made up of 'probables', 'perhaps', 'maybes' or 'could bes'. Not even one 'definitely'. And all this conjecture is based on one side of half of a skull. Hope you know that your 'complete Homo Habilis specimen' (KNM ER 1830) is just the right side of the upper part of a skull. The left side is completely crushed. There are no lower teeth. And from this the entire 'first human' is constructed.

See how dubious you are? what claims did I make about KM-ER 813? Why didnt you quote the comment? Furthermore, you are foolish to avoid the issue we are talking about; the distinction between the theory of evolution itself and the study of the fossils themselves.



Here is my quote

Logicboy03: Ignorance. I am sure you went to a creationist website. You would have to assume that that is the only Homo habilis fossil ever found


Here is a nearly complete fossil of homo habilis; KNM ER 1813

.

advocate666:

So you call 99.9% of all species that ever existed a "technical details"?
Omnipotent god was incapable of giving you a brain to understand complicated things? He prefers to dumb you down with summaries.

I seem to have read somewhere (correct me if I am wrong) that most humans do not use up to 1% of our brains. If this is true then:
1. My Omnipotent God gave me a brain capable of understanding complicated things. But knowing that as a lazy human who would probably prefer not to live up to my potential, I would be unwilling to task my brain, he dumbed it down for me so that no matter how intellectually lazy I got, I would at least have an idea as to how I came about.

2. A question for you that comes up is: if it's really true that we do not use up to 1% of our brains, how and why did homo-whatever (the one who first evolved the huge brain capacity) do so? I thought species evolved new capabilities based on necessity? What necessitated the invention of a huge brain that even now we do not fully utilize?

Logicboy03:



See how dubious you are? what claims did I make about KM-ER 813? Why didnt you quote the comment? Furthermore, you are foolish to avoid the issue we are talking about; the distinction between the theory of evolution itself and the study of the fossils themselves.



Here is my quote

You know you have exercised rare self control till now.... I was wondering when the insults would come pouring out.... You have not disappointed me
Anyway my quote above from the archeological website was just to show that evolution is not a science. It is full of 'maybes' 'perhaps' and 'probablys'.
I was not aware we were discussing the distinction between the theory of evolution and the study of fossils. What I was discussing was how 'scientists' take a few fragments of bones and teeth and from there they deduce that the animal that left the fossil remains walked semi-upright, used tools, had a hairy face but no tail etc. And that was why I quoted the article showing that they are not even certain if KNM ER 1813 (which is just an incomplete part of a skull)is Homo habilis, Homo rudolfensis, Homo erectus or none of the above.

But by all means if you want to show me how evolution has been [/b]scientifically proven[b] without the evidence of fossil records please feel free to do so.

honeychild:
You know you have exercised rare self control till now.... I was wondering when the insults would come pouring out.... You have not disappointed me
Anyway my quote above was to show that evolution is not a science. It is full of 'maybes' 'perhaps' and 'probablys'.

If after all that has been said in this thread you still believe that evolution is not a science then either we've all been wasting time with you or you just want to argue: you're not thinking at all- trait of a perfect religious bigot!

Logicboy03:



Well, they have fossils, DNA and current animals to work with. That is far more than a guess.

Are you aware that working with DNA of ancient bone specimens is by no means an exact science? It is fraught with risks of misinterpretation.
'Although it is possible to recover mtDNA and occasionally even nuclear DNA sequences from well-preserved remains of organisms that are less than a few hundred thousand years old, determination of ancient hominid sequences is fraught with special difficulties and pitfalls. In addition to degradation and chemical damage to the DNA that can cause any ancient DNA to be irretrievable or misread, contamination of specimens, laboratory reagents and instruments with traces of DNA from modern humans must be avoided.
- Green, et al., Nature, 16 November 2006, “Analysis of one million base pairs of Neanderthal DNA”, pages 330-336

turnstoner:

If after all that has been said in this thread you still believe that evolution is not a science then either we've all been wasting time with you or you just want to argue: you're not thinking at all- trait of a perfect religious bigot!

yeah of course....the classic atheist-evolutionist defence. When all fails call your opponent a religious bigot!!

honeychild:
You know you have exercised rare self control till now.... I was wondering when the insults would come pouring out.... You have not disappointed me
Anyway my quote above was to show that evolution is not a science. It is full of 'maybes' 'perhaps' and 'probablys'.

You were being dubious and willfully ignorant. I dont insult people unless it is necessary.


All you were showing is that you are ignorant of the distinction between the theory of evolution and the study of the fossils.

There is no doubt that we and chimpanzees split from a common ancestor. The fossils give a general picture of the history of evolution but not specifics because some are incomplete and also even when we have useful fossils, we discover new information or even new fossils.


So, there is no doubt that we evolved from other animals or the timeline (from dating techniques) of human evolution from the fossils.

turnstoner:
Put your faith in the educated guesses of fallible humans because they are enlightened and logical. Not only that,they also gave us quantum physics, test-tube babies, modern medicine,cell phones and what have you?

It's the tradition in science as well as in crime detection to make the most out of the tiniest bit of information. you may never get any more. If you wait until everybody sees the whole picture, Science would still be in the era of the pre medieval ages (where religionists want it to be, I am sure); how much time have you got to live? Intelligent people can't afford to wait for slow pokes!

And your above quotes are supposed to have convinced me that evolution is a science? I do not think I am that stupid. So because scientists have a tradition of making mountains out of molehills, I am now to believe that indeed the molehill I can see clearly is actually a mountain? True science gave us quantum physics, test-tube babies, cell phones etc. There is a huge difference between the scientific method and evolution.

Charles Darwin postulated his hypothesis over a hundred years ago. At the time, he was fully confident that the fossil record would corroborate his hypothesis. Overzealous evolutionists jumped ahead, made it a theory and began to teach it as a fact [/b]before[b] they got any real fossil support. Now they are running around in circles trying to make the evidence fit their theory. That looks like putting the cart before the horse to me.