Converting Bread Recipe To Bread...
Recipes1 min ago
where did it all start???
13 Answers
so, when we "evolved" into humans...what happened then? did we evolve at the same time, but just in different countries? or did we evolve in one place, then moved around and started living else where...also, do you think it could have been possible for any other creature to have evolved like we (apparently!) did?
hehe, i realise that the evolve part is abit of a problem, concidering its based on the "THEORY" of evolution...also, i know religion plays a big part of the whole thing...but im just curious what science has to say...
hehe, i realise that the evolve part is abit of a problem, concidering its based on the "THEORY" of evolution...also, i know religion plays a big part of the whole thing...but im just curious what science has to say...
Answers
1 to 13 of 13
Best Answer
No best answer has yet been selected by dannyday5821. Once a best answer has been selected, it will be shown here.
For more on marking an answer as the "Best Answer", please visit our FAQ.
It is an undeniable fact that closely related species such as a chaffinch and a goldfinch can breed together but their progeny is mostly sterile because there is too much unmatched RNA to make up viable DNA.
Now consider the fact that an Aborigine from Australia and an Eskimo from the Artic regions have been seperated from each other for at least 50,000 years, probably more. Yet, when they have a child it will be a fully fertile person.
This explains that the different 'breeds' of humans beings are indeed one and the same species and have evolved different body forms and skin colour to live in harmony with their habitat.
There is therefore no doubt that all races of human beings are one and the same species and have spread all over the world after they evolved in Africa. It is also worth noting that Homosapiens as modern man is among the 0.001% of species that have come into being less than 1 million years ago. In maybe another 10 million years the Eskimo and the Aborigine will have adapted so much to their individual environment that the can no longer produce fertile children and thus become different species.
So you don't need theological reasoning to answer your question, the answer is indisputably plain.
Now consider the fact that an Aborigine from Australia and an Eskimo from the Artic regions have been seperated from each other for at least 50,000 years, probably more. Yet, when they have a child it will be a fully fertile person.
This explains that the different 'breeds' of humans beings are indeed one and the same species and have evolved different body forms and skin colour to live in harmony with their habitat.
There is therefore no doubt that all races of human beings are one and the same species and have spread all over the world after they evolved in Africa. It is also worth noting that Homosapiens as modern man is among the 0.001% of species that have come into being less than 1 million years ago. In maybe another 10 million years the Eskimo and the Aborigine will have adapted so much to their individual environment that the can no longer produce fertile children and thus become different species.
So you don't need theological reasoning to answer your question, the answer is indisputably plain.
dannnyday5021, why is evolution a problem?
Evolution explains perfectly satisfactorily, with no rival ideas in sight, how modern complex life - elephants, centipedes, grapevines, humans, jellyfish - developed from very primitive life, the only sort of life that could possible have come about by accident. Where is the problem?
Evolution explains perfectly satisfactorily, with no rival ideas in sight, how modern complex life - elephants, centipedes, grapevines, humans, jellyfish - developed from very primitive life, the only sort of life that could possible have come about by accident. Where is the problem?
Scientific studies have shown that man evolved in the African Plains. As most of the continents were joined humans gradually spread over the land moving in all directions. Humans who moved to colder regions mutated to obtain the fair skin color to absorb more sun rays. As the continents seperated, some of the humans who moved to countries like Australia , South and North America lost contact with the main population. Subsequent mass movements and interbreeding gave rise to all the different races and colors.
The following is the answer to
'Evolution is not a problem'. Evolution is a threat, it threatens Religion. btw these are not my views but there are so many evolution bashers around due to the propoganda of people who are well versed in religion and half- versed in Science
The following is the answer to
'Evolution is not a problem'. Evolution is a threat, it threatens Religion. btw these are not my views but there are so many evolution bashers around due to the propoganda of people who are well versed in religion and half- versed in Science
well, i mean to say, evolution is a problem because it is a theory. just like religion. for exmaple (and the only one i know by heart! lol :P) is in chritianity. god created us. a theory, but one people believe. just like the "theory" of evolution. some people believe it, some dont. my question is a problem in itself. as it implies that the evolutionary theory is deffinite. in other words, i didnt want someone who iives by a religion...er...religiously, and start going on about why the evolutionary theory is rubbish.
i suppose at the end of the day, whilst ever darwins theory, remains a theory, i will always be scepital of it. after all, even i know, the theory is flawed to some extent...and besides, someone will eventually come up with another theory and governments will teach kids in school, then it'll become common knowledge, and someone else would ask the same question i did, in relation to that theory. LOL :P one long stupid cycle huh?
i suppose at the end of the day, whilst ever darwins theory, remains a theory, i will always be scepital of it. after all, even i know, the theory is flawed to some extent...and besides, someone will eventually come up with another theory and governments will teach kids in school, then it'll become common knowledge, and someone else would ask the same question i did, in relation to that theory. LOL :P one long stupid cycle huh?
Oh for f**ks sake.
Religion is no more a scientific theory than the Cheeky Girls are a credible band.
Evolutionary theory is based on facts and ideas from decades of studies across a whole gamut of scientific areas, reviewed and developed by countless people whose names can be found in a phone book.
Religion is based on a book of questionable origins riddled with contradictions and open to a wide variety of interpretations. Barely a verifiable fact in sight. This is not a theory by any stretch of the imagination.
Please read this:
http://chem.tufts.edu/science/FrankSteiger/the ory.htm
Religion is no more a scientific theory than the Cheeky Girls are a credible band.
Evolutionary theory is based on facts and ideas from decades of studies across a whole gamut of scientific areas, reviewed and developed by countless people whose names can be found in a phone book.
Religion is based on a book of questionable origins riddled with contradictions and open to a wide variety of interpretations. Barely a verifiable fact in sight. This is not a theory by any stretch of the imagination.
Please read this:
http://chem.tufts.edu/science/FrankSteiger/the ory.htm
interesting article you found there...
but that didnt really tell me anything...
instead, it almost made it sound like the word theory in relation to evolution is a "special case". that the word theory in this context is "grossly distorted".
i dont care. theory, is theory. end of. you cant twist something just because facts point to the "apparent" obvious. yes, we cant 100% prove it. but it is still just a theory, until we can 100% prove it.
otherwise, anyone could state a theory as "near-enough-so-damn-close-pretty-much" truth. (just like schizophrenics try and do! - joke!) Thats about as absurd as people following their lives on a book called a bible, which as you said yourself is "riddled with contradictions". i could say, "i theorise that theres life on mars" - sure there could be evidence pointing towards it, but if a scientific review team happen to agree that the evidence points towards the truth, that doesnt suddenly make it the truth. dinosaurs are good example as well. just because they found fossils of them doesnt even mean they lived on earth. we can only presume that, we cant prove it. I dont care what any "peer review" panel says.
belief and truth are two entirley different concepts. any philosopher will tell you that, let alone an english teacher. the truth is, like it or not, so far, we can only "believe in the theory of evolution". just like we can only "believe in the bible stories"
but that didnt really tell me anything...
instead, it almost made it sound like the word theory in relation to evolution is a "special case". that the word theory in this context is "grossly distorted".
i dont care. theory, is theory. end of. you cant twist something just because facts point to the "apparent" obvious. yes, we cant 100% prove it. but it is still just a theory, until we can 100% prove it.
otherwise, anyone could state a theory as "near-enough-so-damn-close-pretty-much" truth. (just like schizophrenics try and do! - joke!) Thats about as absurd as people following their lives on a book called a bible, which as you said yourself is "riddled with contradictions". i could say, "i theorise that theres life on mars" - sure there could be evidence pointing towards it, but if a scientific review team happen to agree that the evidence points towards the truth, that doesnt suddenly make it the truth. dinosaurs are good example as well. just because they found fossils of them doesnt even mean they lived on earth. we can only presume that, we cant prove it. I dont care what any "peer review" panel says.
belief and truth are two entirley different concepts. any philosopher will tell you that, let alone an english teacher. the truth is, like it or not, so far, we can only "believe in the theory of evolution". just like we can only "believe in the bible stories"
dannyday 5821, every scientific principle is a theory: the best explanation that science can give until a better one comes long, if it ever does.
When a theory has stood unchallenged for a long time, supported by much evidence and with no other theory to say it nay, then it is reasonable, in a practical sense, to accept it as fact, for now.
Such is evolution. It was a brilliant theory when first mooted, logical, rational and based on many observed facts. Since then, mountains of evidence from many disciplines have poured forth to support it with not one piece to contradict it. It is the only theory in town and a superb one.
Creationists and other evolution-doubters like to call it �only a theory�, implying that it is merely an idea, a casual notion with little to support it. But that is nonsense: evolution is now a science as firmly established as any other.
To equate it with religion is foolish. Religion is merely a belief that some people choose to adopt, with nothing at all to support it.
When a theory has stood unchallenged for a long time, supported by much evidence and with no other theory to say it nay, then it is reasonable, in a practical sense, to accept it as fact, for now.
Such is evolution. It was a brilliant theory when first mooted, logical, rational and based on many observed facts. Since then, mountains of evidence from many disciplines have poured forth to support it with not one piece to contradict it. It is the only theory in town and a superb one.
Creationists and other evolution-doubters like to call it �only a theory�, implying that it is merely an idea, a casual notion with little to support it. But that is nonsense: evolution is now a science as firmly established as any other.
To equate it with religion is foolish. Religion is merely a belief that some people choose to adopt, with nothing at all to support it.
Trevilino, was it you who asked this question at least once before on another site?
First of all, man did not evolve from apes and monkeys.
Man is an ape, one of the 5 Great Apes. We had a common ancestor with the chimpanzees and bonobos about 6 million years ago before we split from them.
7 million years ago gorillas split from the common ancestor of all four and 14 million years ago orang utans split from the common ancestor of all five apes.
Before that came comon ancestries with gibbons and then Old World monkeys and New World monkeys... and so on.
Secondly, if creature B has evolved from creature A, in that random mutations have built up in B so as to make it incompatible with A, why should A disappear? There would be no reason why they should not go their separate ways quite merrily.
Read Richard Dawkins' superb book "The Ancestor's Tale" and learn all about it.
First of all, man did not evolve from apes and monkeys.
Man is an ape, one of the 5 Great Apes. We had a common ancestor with the chimpanzees and bonobos about 6 million years ago before we split from them.
7 million years ago gorillas split from the common ancestor of all four and 14 million years ago orang utans split from the common ancestor of all five apes.
Before that came comon ancestries with gibbons and then Old World monkeys and New World monkeys... and so on.
Secondly, if creature B has evolved from creature A, in that random mutations have built up in B so as to make it incompatible with A, why should A disappear? There would be no reason why they should not go their separate ways quite merrily.
Read Richard Dawkins' superb book "The Ancestor's Tale" and learn all about it.
1 to 13 of 13
Latest Posts
Jokes3 mins ago
ChatterBank4 mins ago
ChatterBank5 mins ago
News8 mins ago
Jobs & Education8 mins ago
