| Author |
Topic:
Evolution questions (part 2) [Locked] |
|
|
Date Posted:
1/1/00 12:01am
Subject:
Evolution questions (part 2) |
in our recorded history, we have 1, maybe 2 truly ancient human skeletons and you wonder why there arent more and varying ancient skelletons laying around in the streets?
do you understand the process of decomposition?
you know, where one group of chemicals consumes another and returns things to base compounds/dust to dust...
-----signature-----
Jesus? No, but there is indeed a god shaped hole in the heart of man, why is yours so empty? -- snarf igraine
the original monotheism: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Phallus |
eodoll  Posts: 1,028
Registered: 2002-2-14 12:35:42
|
Date Posted:
1/1/00 12:01am
Subject:
Evolution questions (part 2) |
Corky_Aloof posted:
I pose a valid and critical question in the theory of evolution especially where humans are concerned. Instead of anyone offering answers all I hear are jokes and white noise.
Evolution suggests subtle changes over a long period of time. Starting off as organism A, gradually changing fundamentally over a long period of time into organism B, correct? Then much like stop motion photography where each picture cell changes slightly over a long distance of time, we should have seen evidence as such from such drastic transformations. Where are the early fossils of humans in ANY FORM OTHER THAN THE SEMBLANCE OF OUR CURRENT ANATOMY? I am not talking subtle changes such as skull structure or body mass. Where are these drastically different body forms we have supposedly evolved from?
Any honest answers? Or more white noise.
uhh.. they are millions of years old, they are not easy to come by. And what do you mean by drastically different body forms?
|
Thugoneous Title: Watching Caliente, BRB.
Posts: 1,128
Registered: 2002-11-2 18:00:54
|
Date Posted:
1/1/00 12:01am
Subject:
Evolution questions (part 2) |
God is either fake or lazy. Either way I don't want to be associated with him.
-----signature-----
Lady, people aren't chocolates. D'you know what they are mostly? Bastards. Bastard-coated bastards with bastard filling.
|
eodoll Posts: 1,028
Registered: 2002-2-14 12:35:42
|
Date Posted:
1/1/00 12:01am
Subject:
Evolution questions (part 2) |
|
When you take into consideration the concept of infinity and the fact that there are stars that make our own star look microscopic - we are tiny -- and then at a fundamental level under an electron microscopic the smallest particles seem to be full of lots of empty space... my point, we are so tiny and small that we might as well not even really exist. If there are some beings that are scaled at the size propotionate to the giant stars then we are so small that we are probably not even noticable to it.
In the big picture, we are smaller than a dust cloud.
|
ZigmundZag Title: Grammar Nazi
Posts: 1,211
Registered: 2002-3-25 23:03:00
|
Date Posted:
1/1/00 12:01am
Subject:
Evolution questions (part 2) |
Corky_Aloof posted:
I pose a valid and critical question in the theory of evolution especially where humans are concerned. Instead of anyone offering answers all I hear are jokes and white noise.
Evolution suggests subtle changes over a long period of time. Starting off as organism A, gradually changing fundamentally over a long period of time into organism B, correct? Then much like stop motion photography where each picture cell changes slightly over a long distance of time, we should have seen evidence as such from such drastic transformations. Where are the early fossils of humans in ANY FORM OTHER THAN THE SEMBLANCE OF OUR CURRENT ANATOMY? I am not talking subtle changes such as skull structure or body mass. Where are these drastically different body forms we have supposedly evolved from?
Any honest answers? Or more white noise.
Your original statement showed such a striking lack of critical thinking that it's pretty clear that real answers are not what you seek. You've already seen the evidence and dismissed it. Therefore all you are worthy of is ridicule.
To put it another way, even dumbass Intelligent Designers won't try the tack you're on because they know the evidence is against them. You're position is so dumb even fundie Christian scientists couldn't support it.
-----signature-----
"Take the cheese to sickbay!"
|
RHWarrior  Posts: 770
Registered: 2009-9-30 18:42:12
|
Date Posted:
1/1/00 12:01am
Subject:
Evolution questions (part 2) |
Corky_Aloof posted:
I pose a valid and critical question in the theory of evolution especially where humans are concerned. Instead of anyone offering answers all I hear are jokes and white noise.
Evolution suggests subtle changes over a long period of time. Starting off as organism A, gradually changing fundamentally over a long period of time into organism B, correct? Then much like stop motion photography where each picture cell changes slightly over a long distance of time, we should have seen evidence as such from such drastic transformations. Where are the early fossils of humans in ANY FORM OTHER THAN THE SEMBLANCE OF OUR CURRENT ANATOMY? I am not talking subtle changes such as skull structure or body mass. Where are these drastically different body forms we have supposedly evolved from?
Any honest answers? Or more white noise.
Here's a recent picture of your ancestor, happy now.
-----signature-----
"Drink coffee - do stupids things faster with more energy! ...and I'm all out of beans..." -me
"  ou guys need to stop dick riding wow and compare everything to it. It never invented a godamn thing, just made it popular. " -tinkly
|
|
|
Date Posted:
1/1/00 12:01am
Subject:
Evolution questions (part 2) |
reesescups posted:
Corky_Aloof posted:
Where are these drastically different body forms we have supposedly evolved from?
Prolly more white noise because that's either an incredibly stupid thing to say or a brilliant troll...
Can you elaborate a bit more in regards to what kind of fossils you are expecting to see? Do you mean fossils of primates before we branched off or are you talking some other types of fossils?
There have never been fossils found that draws any direct lineage between humans and apes. They are proven distinctly human or distinctly ape in every case, only a hypothesis has been formed by science suggesting they are linked. They are drawing assumptions with the facts they know wich is no better than a creationists leap of faith.
-----signature-----
 > 
|
reesescups Title: //Captain America
Posts: 2,537
Registered: 2003-5-26 14:45:53
|
Date Posted:
1/1/00 12:01am
Subject:
Evolution questions (part 2) |
RHWarrior posted:
Corky_Aloof posted:
I pose a valid and critical question in the theory of evolution especially where humans are concerned. Instead of anyone offering answers all I hear are jokes and white noise.
Evolution suggests subtle changes over a long period of time. Starting off as organism A, gradually changing fundamentally over a long period of time into organism B, correct? Then much like stop motion photography where each picture cell changes slightly over a long distance of time, we should have seen evidence as such from such drastic transformations. Where are the early fossils of humans in ANY FORM OTHER THAN THE SEMBLANCE OF OUR CURRENT ANATOMY? I am not talking subtle changes such as skull structure or body mass. Where are these drastically different body forms we have supposedly evolved from?
Any honest answers? Or more white noise.
Here's a recent picture of your ancestor, happy now.
You will notice it has two ears, two eyes, two nostrils, a mouth, an orifice for pooping and another for pissing and procreation... it has 4 limbs and a back bone and ....
-----signature-----
"man up, you wimp." - Groucho48
"I'm not racist at all." - dae_trist
|
reesescups Title: //Captain America
Posts: 2,537
Registered: 2003-5-26 14:45:53
|
Date Posted:
1/1/00 12:01am
Subject:
Evolution questions (part 2) |
Corky_Aloof posted:
reesescups posted:
Corky_Aloof posted:
Where are these drastically different body forms we have supposedly evolved from?
Prolly more white noise because that's either an incredibly stupid thing to say or a brilliant troll...
Can you elaborate a bit more in regards to what kind of fossils you are expecting to see? Do you mean fossils of primates before we branched off or are you talking some other types of fossils?
There have never been fossils found that draws any direct lineage between humans and apes. They are proven distinctly human or distinctly ape in every case, only a hypothesis has been formed by science suggesting they are linked. They are drawing assumptions with the facts they know wich is no better than a creationists leap of faith.
Well yeah assumptions and um DNA but yeah - lets go with assumptions and ah faith...
-----signature-----
"man up, you wimp." - Groucho48
"I'm not racist at all." - dae_trist
|
Scarne Title: Capo di Scientifico
Posts: 1,087
Registered: 2001-7-23 15:24:34
|
Date Posted:
1/1/00 12:01am
Subject:
Evolution questions (part 2) |
Corky_Aloof posted:
Evolution suggests subtle changes over a long period of time. Starting off as organism A, gradually changing fundamentally over a long period of time into organism B, correct? Then much like stop motion photography where each picture cell changes slightly over a long distance of time, we should have seen evidence as such from such drastic transformations. Where are the early fossils of humans in ANY FORM OTHER THAN THE SEMBLANCE OF OUR CURRENT ANATOMY? I am not talking subtle changes such as skull structure or body mass. Where are these drastically different body forms we have supposedly evolved from?
Transition fossils for all (or just about all) the primate family tree have been found. So you can go back roughly 55 million years of primate fossils. So other than the more unique human features for walking upright and such, the basic form and anatomy has been set for a long time. So you can map out those changes as they went from tiny tree climbers to humans, but none of the changes will be really drastic. 
-----signature-----
E Pluribus Unum
|
|
