₦airaland Forum

So we'll become extinct like the dinosaurs and other beigns will take over?

Dont box me to a corner. I am against the evolution theory not science. .
Creationism tells us there was a beginning and there will be an end.
I'm glad science now agrees to that.
If i quote scripture you'ld cry foul so i had to even use science.

What u also fail to realise is that we have scientists as creationists. We can use science to refute science. I Have been using science since the thread started. I have not resulted to scripture yet.

Its only becomes Ironical if i quote the same source i have been refuting to back up a point.

I am a christian who believes that if scriptures is true, it should have back ups from other sources. I mustn't always use scripture to explain scripture. I'll be deceiving myself that way. I'm well aversed wit scriptures but i prefer to debate science wit science.

Also go through this link http://www-astronomy.mps.ohio-state.edu/~pogge/Lectures/vistas97.html by astrologers
You'll learn about the projected life of the sun and how it'll end.

I gotta be careful how i post now. I might use just links and lil texts from now on

I have heard that several times as well. 5 billion yrs more for the earth. If its not deteriorating why would it be timed? I've heard its loosing heat gradually.
Here is a link: http://www.los-molinos.hlpusd.k12.ca.us/Signature/The%20Sun
"The sun is the only star in our solar system. The average density is 1.4 times the density of water. The mass of the sun is 1.99 million, trillion, trillion tons. Nuclear reactions in the heart of the sun turn 5 million tons of matter each second. Even so the sun has another 5 billion years to live. "

Another: http://www.astrosociety.org/education/publications/tnl/39/sun2.html
"And how much longer will it continue to shine? For an idea of the Sun's life expectancy, astronomers look to clusters of stars, such as one named Messier 67, which is about the same age as our Sun. By simulating the life cycles of these stars on a computer, astronomers have ascertained how long stars live. They predict that the Sun will be able to fuse hydrogen into helium in its core at about the same rate for another 5 billion years."

Thats Jamais' Vu

This is what i said

If i had paraphrased would it have make them my points?

Should I call it an oversight on your part or what? I said I did not paraphrase those words and u keep hitting on that.

I still don't see the relevance here. I read this points all over the net and when i can't paraphrase i copy them. U insist i always give the links which is absolutely uncessary. Its of no use here. they are not articles under such intelectual properties that can be plagiarised. This is obviously not plagiarising. And i don't see why the links are neccessary. I could write my own book around those points and it wont be plagiarism.Go check wit a lawyer what plagiarism entails.

Good we have obviously veered of course. Seems we wont be able to keep such sensitive matters like this flowing without touching some strings. Since my debating style seems dishonest to you when in actual fact it is not, no need countering or continuing. I agree Evolution theory is flawless. 

What you call paraphrasing, I call copying and pasting without mentioning the source.

Is that your own meaning of paraphrasing?

Anyway here is the dictionary meaning:
par·a·phrase    (pr-frz) KEY 

NOUN:

A restatement of a text or passage in another form or other words.

If i had paraphrased would it have made them my points? Everything you pasted here. U learnt from somewhere else. They are not YOUR points as well.
My question again is what makes them less my points. Does posing someones questions that i totally agree with make them less my own questions? Would u have been satisfied if i said Creationists Case Against Evolution or GnMagazine Case against evolution (when in actual fact it is not)? You are obviously not making any point with that accusation. If you accuse me of plagiarism, go through my posts again where quotes were made I gave props to the source.
This style is unbefitting of an intellectual debate. Its of no relevance here

If i had gotten those question froma book offline and pasted themhere. Would that have made me honest?
Did your own points arrive from thing air?
Would it have made a diference if i had paraphrased them?
The fact that those points made me rethink on evolution makes it My Case as well. Its English language Sir.
Evrything u wrote on this thread, U read somewhere else (a bulk of it from www.talkorigin.org). Paraphrasing makes no difference.
You have killed this debate by coming up wit such approach. If i wasnt able to counter your points intelligibly, it would have been a different case. Your last post is can be likened to this:

"Its dishonest to tell me that you know smoking is bad when in actual fact you only read is somewhere else"

Thats a bad debating style. Leaving out the pointin discourse to attack the person. In this case,you loose cos there is nothing dishonest here. If i amto argue elsewhere,i would still bring those points. it doesnt make them less my points.

No wonder the players all had to wear a black arm band in yesterdays quaterfinal matches.

A US$2,000 Reward To The Pro-Evolutionists

Nferyn, You referred me to take up the Randy Challenge offering 1Million
I'll like you to Take up the Challenge here
http://www.geocities.com/Athens/Aegean/8830/rewards.html
and smile to the Bank
$2000 may be change to you but it sure will reduce dem bills

I was under the impression that a pathologist was a medical doctor.

We have specialist pathologists who are qualified pathologists with expertise in histopathology (tissues), cytology (cells), immunohistochemistry, immunoflowcytometry, molecular biology (which is relevant here) and post-mortem pathology.

Which evolutionist claimed that Homo Sapiens evolved from Homo Habilis over 400.000 years ago? Which evolutionist claimed that over 20.000 generations passed since Homo Sapiens evolved? Or are these once again part of your Strawman of Evolution? Could you be so kind to give the sources for these ridiculous claims? I won't comment on your other remarks because they are just as much off the mark

And, by the way, we have observed evoluton in Homo Sapiens Sapiens (evolutionist now use the term Homo Sapiens without the added Sapiens, as Homo Neanderthalensis is no longer considered to be Homo Sapiens). Lactose tolerance has evolved in some groups of herders and the Sickle cell trait has evolved in African populations after the start of agriculture. Obviously this relatively minor kind of evolution has not lead to speciation and will not lead to speciation as humans are no longer reproductively isolated for long enough periods to make that possible.

Firstly i accept the mistake of putting habilis in place of erectus (unknowingly). However it doesnt change the fact that Homo Sapiens evolved about 400,000 years ago.
Here is a quote from http://hypertextbook.com/facts/1997/TroyHolder.shtml
"Most anthropologist believe that between about 400000 & 300000 years ago, Homo erectus evolved into a new species called Homo sapiens."
Also check www.wsu.edu:8001/vwsu/gened/learn-modules/top_longfor/timeline/timeline.html and
http://www.as.ua.edu/ant/ant100/pdf/LaterHominidEvolution.pdf.

If Lactose tolerance and the Sickle cell trait is considered Evolution, then Resistance to malaria and other pathological disorders like Small Pox is Evolution as well. Biological adaptation has now been termed evolution instead of beign a factor. I have evolved several times then.

As you mentioned in you other post, Abiogenesis isn't even close to finding out how life arose on this planet, but that has nothing to do whatsoever with the Theory of Evolution.

True Abiogenesis is about the origin of life. Evolution, technically, is about what happened after life arose on Earth. Abiogenesis concerns itself wit the evolution of amino acids and proteins.
Here is a quote from http://www.csulb.edu/~jmastrop/data3.html
"The foundation of evolution is abiogenesis, life spontaneously generated from nonlife. The superstructure placed upon that foundation is monogenesis, myriad spontaneously generated structures to produce every kind of simple life form then by countless spontaneous generations every kind of complex life form. The other “definitions” of evolution are change over time, common descent and natural selection".

Seems you are outrightly dissociating evolution from abiogenesis. You may wish to check these out
www.nwcreation.net/abiogenesis.html
Just in case you don't know Abiogenesis is also known as the theory of pre-biological evolution or the theoryof spontaneous generation
http://www.ourworld-top.cs.com/mikegriffith1/abiogenesis.htm
In actual fact Evolution is baseless without a good theory of abiogenesis, which it you claim it does not have.

Pardon me my blunt way of putting this, but - to make a fair comparison - if I really want to understand how an engine works, I am going to ask the engineer who designed it, not the auto-mechanic who services it.

A real auto mechanic knows how an engine works else servicing would be by trial and error.

Faith is not really useful when trying to advance science. And to be honest, the fact that you do not find a logical explanation for a phenomenon, does not mean that none exists. This type of argument from personal incredulity is not befitting you, layi.

Awww I'm sorry But i didnt create those illogical events. Its an interpretation of my perceptions. The term logic could be a relative term. I only used illogical looking at it from your standpoint. To a theists a miracle is logical because there is a direct causal relationship between an invisble beign and the benefactor. And yes, its not a placebo effect. It is faith in action a.k.a creative faith. To the atheist, thats illogical and false.
Faith is absolutely useful in Life. The issue should be advancing life not science. Science is only 1 of the tools in advancing life. Speculations and risks are a type of faith and they have been found to be useful.

WesleyanA:
My point is: You're trying to dismiss a theory in favor of a MYTH. which has more credence??

U are obviously the one using a strawman approach here. You call it a MYTH. I call it Creationism. Why don't you start a thread on your case against the supposed myth and we battle it there. This thread is on the errors in the evolution theory. Thank You

WesleyanA:
a theory is not as unreliable as a myth. anyone just can't come up with a theory. In order to create a scientific theory, you need to confirm an explanation with a "substantial number of experiments and observations".
a myth on the other hand is just "a traditional story accepted as history"

There you go ahead with your "myth" illusion. Well, i'm the least surprised since what you know is what evrybody knows. You are oblivious of the truth about creationism. Ther are historical proofs of the so called stories u call myth.

that's a type question someone who just heard about evolution would ask.

Its the type of question any critical thinker would ask. You say natural selection is responsible for the continous evolution of the Homo Genus. Yet for about 1 millions years the apes we see have not evolved considerably. Most of the new ape species we have are could pass for hybrids

WesleyanA:
why present a case against evolution? instead create a thread that asks "what is evolution". That's what i would do if i were you. Lol.
Knowledge first, then attack.

Its english baby, Its my case against evolution. I present it. Its left for you to refute it. If u know so little about evolution, you are not in a position to tell me i know nothing about it. Your statement "Knowledge first, then attack" is absolutely irrelevant here. You should adhere to that not me.

Seun:
I want to make one point that layi may be missing:

Theories cannot be "proven" as such. They can only be supported with evidence.
1) Einstein's Theory of Relativity has not been "proven" any more than the theory of evolution. But we are using it in various aspect of modern lfife and it works for us. It has been supported with a lot of evidence.
2) Gravity itself, like evolution, is "just a theory". So can I jump off a skyscraper and expect not to break my head because gravity is "just a theory"? Come on, folks, be reasonable!

I am also reasonable enough not to treat theory explaining origin as trivial as theories explaining the present - everyday occurence (e.g gravity et all). Einstein's Theory of Relativity is beign used to supplant the Theory of gravity for more advanced work in gravitation. The ultimate cause of the gravitational force remains an open question just like the force behind evolution. this makes both qualify as theories but the difference is this: a great deal is now known about the properties of gravity to an infallible conclusion but a major tool used by evolution to arrive at their conclusion-Radiometric Dating has been faulted by geochronologists. They claim that the error range in radiometric (radio-carbon) dating increases drastically once you pass 50,000 years due to contamination and some other biological factors. Moreover radiometric ages do not agree with each other. That may not sound too problematic but if conclusions were made on those errors, i'm reasonable enough to know that a second look at the facts is needed.
See this: http://www.palaeos.com/Geochronology/radiometric_dating.htm

Seun, There is another belief system held to be as true and is probably more widespread than the belief in Darwin's theory of Evolution; that is belief in Astrology. This theory parallels belief in evolution in the respect that it is persistent, without an explainable mechanism, and tautologous in the sense that predictions of behavior of an individual can be made based solely on time of birth, but seemingly cannot be made without this information.
Darwin's theory on the other hand, explains the reasons for characteristics of organisms after knowing whether or not they are survivors. The similarities between the two theories are just so striking. You should have placed them together instead of bringin in gravity

Thank You sir
I must add at this juncture. I am happy the thread is movin this way. Hot, yet no name calling so far. We are all learning i guess. I am learning as well. Just wondering why we are having just 3-4 participants.

ooops how can i miss wes' post?

WesleyanA:
Yeah Layi, your arguements are full of logical fallacies

Where are they? Point them out.

WesleyanA:
you say evolution is just a theory?

Is it not?

WesleyanA:
now if you were told a myth and a theory which one would you think has a more reliable weight?

A theory is as unreliable as a myth. Anybody can come out with a thoery. It needs to be Proven

WesleyanA:
and yeah Nferyn is coming to get you guys!
only he makes better arguments that are actually very coherent and logical which sometimes require a very knowledgeable audience (most of you don't even know what really evolution is. only the oversimplified definition you rely on as well as Layi's biased info.. . You have to know both sides to make a sound judgement of both.)If only you guys knew what really evolution means instead of attacking made up assertions that the opponent never made in the first place.

Its obvious you know nothing about evolution as well else you wont ask us to wait for nferyn.

Work out your own salvation baby

How did you travel abroad as a baby?

What country are you talking about?

So the bukas are healthier?

w00t!!

Is it only Lagosians that have got the National ID? I have mine. It looks more like a driving license except for the all-green background.

Thou amighty art really GOD

Blessed are those that hav faith in Enyeama for they shall not be dissapointed.

@nike4luv
I piss small o. See my Mum and Dad dancy "Happy People yeeah yeah yeeah"

ENYEAMAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA!!!!!!!1

I know say one day enyeama go make us proud.

Titanic would have been but i see it as stupidity on the part of Jack.

Anyway I'll pick mine. I've know my best friend (a girl) since i was 4 (she was 3) and we've been together till today. Went thru a lot together, still standing strong.
I might get married to her, who knows and we'll write a book bout our daily experiences

We lost so many chances o

About to enter penanlty kicks. I don piss 4 bodi already.

Olorun Olodumare o!!!! Agba ki i wa loja ki ori omo tuntun wo. Lets win this match In sha Jesus Name.

Here is the Major Problem With the Theory as regards evolution of Life.

Early theories of the origin of life centered on the ability of a reducing atmosphere of the prebiotic earth to instigate formation of amino acids, and subsequently assembly of proteins. Stanley Miller demonstrated in the 1953 that mixtures of reducing gases, thought to be present in the primordial earth, when subjected to electrical discharges, produced many organic compounds, including several amino acids. Years later, a meteor which landed in Murchison, Australia, was shown to contain the same organic compound and amino acids in roughly the same proportion as those generated through the Miller experiments.

Although the Miller experiments and the Murchison meteor suggested that organic molecules could be synthesized in the absence of life, many questions and problems arose. Although simple proteins could be produced by laboratory manipulations of amino acid building blocks, no model or method of self replication of proteins could be found. In addition, the amino acids which compose all forms of life are exclusively of the "left-handed" variety (L-amino acids). Those produced in the Miller experiments and found in the Murchison meteor are both L- and R-amino acids. No model could be proposed which would explain inclusion of only one form of amino acids to the exclusion of the other, without the aid of RNA's, in the form of ribosomal RNA (rRNA), transfer RNA (tRNA), and messenger RNA (mRNA). All models would require the spontaneous evolution of both RNA's and proteins simultaneously. In addition, specific proteins are required in combination with rRNA in order for other proteins to be synthesized. This dilemma has led to statements, such as that of Leslie Orgel, "And so, at first glance, one might have to conclude that life could never, in fact, have originated by chemical means."

To try to avoid the overwhelming problems associated with the self replication of proteins, Carl Woese, Francis Crick, and Leslie Orgel proposed RNA as the original building blocks of life. They proposed that self-replicating RNA could code for proteins and eventually evolve into DNA, because of DNA's superior intrinsic stability. Experiments by several scientists have demonstrated the ability of RNA's to catalyze chemical reactions, similar to that seen by enzymes (which are proteins). But could RNA itself have been synthesized and replicated by chemical means on the prebiotic earth?

Juan Or— discovered in 1961 that the nucleic acid base adenine could be synthesized in a mixture of hydrogen cyanide and ammonia. Since then, scientists have shown that the remaining nucleic acid bases, guanine, uracil, and cytosine, could be synthesized from mixtures of hydrogen cyanide, cyanogen, and cyanoacetylene. When the nucleic acid bases are combined with the sugar ribose and phosphate, nucleotides form, which in the presence of an appropriate catalyst, form random strands of RNA. The spontaneous formation of a self-replicating RNA (which acts as a catalyst for replication of itself) ensures perpetuation of the RNA, according to the theory.

It is at this point that the theory encounters major problems. First, there is no mechanism for the synthesis of ribose in the absence of enzymes.1 All chemical reactions which synthesize ribose, produce it as a very minor product. The major products are other sugars, which combine with nucleic acids to form products which inhibit RNA synthesis and replication. In addition, any ribose formed is racemic, that is, both left- and right-handed. Only right-handed ribose can be used to form nucleotides. Left-handed ribose interfers with RNA synthesis.

The next major problem is that nucleotides do not form under prebiotic conditions. If the phosphate is left out, purine nucleosides (adenine and guanine) will form under these conditions, but no pyrimidine nucleosides (cytosine and uracil) form. Even if a method for formation of pyrimidine nucleosides could be found, the combination of nucleosides with phosphate under prebiotic conditions produces not only nucleotides, but other products which interfere with RNA polymerization and replication.

In order to get around the problems of nucleotide formation, scientists have proposed that certain minerals may serve as catalysts for specific formation of only proper nucleotides. To date, no such catalysts have been found.

Even if nucleotides could be formed by some method, both right- and left-handed versions would be formed. When both right- and left-handed nucleotides are added to RNA templates, replication is inhibited.

Beyond the problems of nucleotide formation are still more problems regarding how RNA polymers might replicate in the absence of proteins. The addition of nucleotides will produce a complementary strand of RNA. However, there is, at present, no explanation for duplication of the original RNA polymer from the complementary strand, in the absence of enzymes.

A key component of the RNA world hypothesis, adenine, has its own problems:
[list]
[li]
Adenine synthesis requires HCN concentrations of at least 0.01 M. It is completely unreasonable to expect these concentrations on the prebiotic earth. [/li]
[li]
Adenine is susceptible to hydrolysis (the half-life for deamination at 37°C, pH 7, is about 80 years). Therefore, no adenine would ever be expected to accumulate in any kind of "prebiotic soup." [/li]
[li]
The adenine-uracil interaction is weak and nonspecific, and, therefore, would never be expected to function in any specific recognition scheme under the chaotic conditions of a "prebiotic soup."[/li]
[/list]
Similar problems apply to the abiotic synthesis of cytosine:
[list]
[li]
Cytosine has never been found in any meteorites. [/li]
[li]Cytosine is not produced in electric spark discharge experiments using simulated "early earth atmosphere." [/li]
[li]Synthesis based upon cyanoacetylene requires the presence of large amounts of methane and nitrogen, however, it is unlikely that significant amounts of methane were present at the time life originated. [/li]
[li]Synthesis based upon cyanate is problematical, since it requires concentrations in excess of 1 M (molar). When concentrations of 0.1 M (still unrealistically high) are used, no cytosine is produced. [/li]
[li]Synthesis based upon cyanoacetaldehyde and urea suffers from the problem of deamination of the cytosine in the presence of high concenrations of urea (low concentrations produce no cytosine). In addition, cyanoacetaldehyde is reactive with a number of prebiotic chemicals, so would never attain reasonable concentrations for the reaction to occur. Even without the presence of other chemicals, cyanoacetaldehyde has a half-life of only 31 years in water. [/li]
[li]Cytosine deaminates with an estimated half-life of 340 years, so would not be expected to accumulate over time. [/li]
[li]Ultraviolet light on the early earth would quickly convert cytosine to its photohydrate and cyclobutane photodimers (which rapidly deaminate).[/li]
[/list]
According to Robert Shapiro, a prominent origin of life researcher, the spontaneous formation of a nucleic acid replicator is a "very improbable event." this is because the mixture of amino acids the Murchison meteorite show that there are many classes of prebiotic substances that would disrupt the necessary structural regularity of any replicator.

In addition, all current synthesis schemes require concentration of reactants by a factor of at least 100,000. Robert Shapiro, in his analysis of the "drying lagoon" scenario said:

[center]"If today's Earth may be taken as a model for the early one, then, cases of extreme lagoon concentration (to the extent needed to concentrate a solute by 105) are rare or nonexistent. This mechanism cannot be considered as a source that could stock a global ocean with a particular chemical."[/center]

It is becoming increasingly apparent from over 30 years of research in the field, that the RNA model will never adequately explain life's origin. Increasingly, investigators are looking at alternative models, including pyranosyl RNA and peptide nucleic acid polymers. These models, too, have major problems, which are probably insurmountable.

The current trend in origin of life research is to look for simpler, pre-RNA molecules to serve as genetic material. These models will suffer the same fate as all the rest, namely, the incredible increase in information content required to produce self-replication is not possible in the time frame in which it was supposed to have occurred. The simpler the first step, the more likely it is to occur, but the harder it is to get from step one to step two.

Leslie Orgel recently stated, "The full details of how the RNA world, and life, emerged may not be revealed in the near future."
But ermm We Believers in Christ  know that the Creator of life has already been revealed through the Bible. Even those who search for a creator other than God will, in fact, have the Creator of life revealed to them in the near future, for every knee shall bow and every tongue confess that Jesus Christ is Lord, to the glory of God the Father.

It's quite obvious your lecturer did not know the first thing about the Theory of Evolution. A pathologist is not, unless I understand it wrongly, a biologist

A pathologist is a biologist. Infact a "higher" biologist and he deals more with microbiology (supposed antecedents of macrobiology).

Could you explain the context in which he made that statement,, because it is a clear sign of his ignorance on the subject matter.

Thats inconsequential, its a statement with a vivid meaning that can't change for the opposite with context

On top of that, by using the words of creation and how life arose, your lecturer makes it abundantly clear that he has no understanding of the Theory of Evolution, as that theory:

does not deal with life's origins

Then what does evolution explain? Evolution explains the origin of Life through abiogenesis. I am surprised at your statement (except u've got your own version of evolution).
The explanation of the origin of life offered by evolution theory is roughly this: Once upon a time, there was no life. Purely by chance, there came to be simple organisms capable of reproducing themselves. Random mutations introduced variety into the population of these organisms, with the result that some of them were better suited for competition than others. A scarcity of the natural resources necessary for these organisms to survive introduced competition for those resources. Those least fit for competition were unable to secure the resources that they needed to survive, and died without reproducing. Those best able to compete multiplied, with random mutations again introducing further variety. As this process was repeated, the organisms developed on an upward curve: each round of mutations introduced better organisms, and each round of competition killed off the weaker organisms. We are the result of the repetition of this process over millions of years.

See these links for more info :
http://www.daviddarling.info/encyclopedia/L/lifeorigin.html
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Origin_of_life

I wonder how much experience the man has in the scientific field? If he does have a research background, it will most definitely not be in biology.

Beign a prof in the field of biology, i know he's definitely got more experience than you- a communication scientist.

There are mountains of evidence in favor of the Scientific Theory of Evolution and not a shred of evidence in favor of creationism

Evolution theory is merely an interpretation of facts. Creationism also does the same. Its just an alternative interpretation of those facts. There are evidences supporting creationism which We'll delve into that later.
In actual fact, if there are 2 sides of a coin, and 1 side is not it. U don't need evidence or proof to tell you its definitely the other side.

Layi, you are as much a free thinker as your religion allows. You dare not step outside the boundaries of your religious dogma

Evolution is also a religion ..though with no god. You are guilty as well. You can't think out of the box called "logic". I have seen several things in life that are illogical (not abnormal)

You show your lack of understanding about evolution by refering to chance as the main driver of evolution. Chance only plays a role in the random mutations that form the basis on which the evolutionary processes can work

So without "chance" the evolutionary process can't work. What are we saying then?

Neither should it. It simply does not deal with the origins of the universe.

Evolution does not deal with origin of universe and origin of life? Then what does it deal with. Origin of what? What explains your obsession for www.talkorigins.org .You've referred me there a thousand times and all they talk there is origin. Am i missing something?

1. because evolution happens over wide timespans (geological time), it does not mean evolution has not been observed. Species with very short generational timespans (such as fruit flies or bacteria) are used to study evolution in action.

Man could have a relatively longer generational span, but we have had over 20,000 generations since homo sapiens evolved acoording to evolutionist. Is that not enough to observe evolution in man? Afterall the present man evolved from Homo Erectus<corrected> *according to Evolutionists* over 400,000yrs ago. It takes roughly 300,000 - 500,000 years for species in the HOMO genus to evolve into the next and the transition phase gets considerably shorter down the *tree*. We should have observed evolution in modern man - Homo Sapiens (Homo Sapiens Sapiens).

Humans and other apes share a common ancestor they don't evolve into each other. This once again shows how badly you people understand evolution, but I think you do not have a willingness to learn anyway.
It's actually as stupid a question as you can possibly ask

Its a clever question sir. If Natural selection is responisble for the evolution of man and apes from the same ancestors, then they shouldnt be living under the same enviroment/natural habitat. The 'forest' is inconsequential afterall ther are trees and gardens in the cities. The point here is the region. Chimpazees and Man both live in tropical region. Morphological similarity does not indubitably explain a relationship.

Hominids evolved from other apes when the climate in Africa changed.

Scientists have identified the skeletal structures of Homo sapiens in different parts of the world. The main conroversy centers around the question of whether Homo sapiens evolved from a single population in Africa or simultaneously in different parts of the world. Some evidence (molecular genetics) supports the "Out of Africa"model, other evidence (morphology) supports the "Multiregional Evolution"model.

See http://hypertextbook.com/facts/1997/TroyHolder.shtml and http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Human_evolution

Once more, our success as a species is sufficient evidence for the positive evolutionary outcome of human specificity. We eat all those species that are capable of survival within a matter of days for lunch and we have developed technology to fend of fierce predators without much effort. What more do you need as evidence for our evolutionary success?

Evolution theory holds that we have evolved incrementally over time, gradually changing from one state that works to another state that works better. If evolution theory is true, therefore, then there must be a succession of states, each of which allows us to survive, through which we have evolved on an upward curve.
This, though, doesn’t seem to be the case; we seem to be irreducibly complex. To illustrate (actual examples are a bit more complex than this): think of the organs that make human beings work, our hearts, lungs, stomachs, brains, etc. A human being that lacks any of these won’t just have less survival value than one with all of them; it won’t have any survival value at all. A human being without a heart is a dead human being, as is one without either lungs, or a stomach, or a brain. We therefore can’t have incrementally acquired these things, first getting one, then another, and so on; we must have acquired them all at once. That, though, isn’t evolution. Evolution is a gradual process.

Evolution, then, cannot explain the origin of irreducibly complex biological organisms. If we are such organisms, then there must be more to how we got here than evolution.

I'm strongly aversed to evolution as the source of human life. Before i start dissecting some points raised in posts above...i'll want the pro-evolutionists to answer Icon's question first.

Icon:
Alright, just a quick one for the pro-evolutionists.
If Humans evolved from apes, why are there still apes?

Rhodalyn:
i can't n i wldnt evn if i cld
[b]afterall he's going to chase someone else whn im gone[/b]i dnt thk deres any love worth dying 4 unless in movies

That sums it all up.

We are all fine in my family.

My reply would be "and then so what do you want me to do?"

nike4luv:
Layi is definitely a babe magnet! mhm mhm mhm

Of course the gift giver already has the gift. Una get sense well well o.

nike4luv:
nah, not fighting over this, i release am!, i already had him for lunch, breakfast and dinner anyway

U be canibal ?