Does God Exist?

[redwhine]

If you don't use it you loose it, so they say. It seems true here. Perhaps I used the wrong word but species are dying out and it isn't entirely due to man.

 

I have forgotten what the thrust was now. Bed calls.

(My bold.)

I'm pretty sure you meant 'lose' instead of 'loose', too, Grahame.

 

Incidentally, I'm so used to your posts containing 'do-do' that I didn't realise that you were aiming for dodo!

[sccsux]

also if Darwins theory was so correct, why cant we see partial evolution in some of the present monkey species

 

Because they are apes (with whom we share a distant ancestor).

 

Look within yourself.

 

See that little bit called the appendix?

 

It used to have a purpose, but we have evolved to live without it to the point where it is now (sometimes) dangerous. Eventually (in possibly a few thousand years) it will have either disappeared, or become totally benign.

 

Evolution is a slow, gradual process.

 

Take a look at a virus.

 

That is continually evolving/mutating.

[USUK]

(My bold.)

I'm pretty sure you meant 'lose' instead of 'loose', too, Grahame.

 

Incidentally, I'm so used to your posts containing 'do-do' that I didn't realise that you were aiming for dodo!

 

You'll have to excuse him he's a Crookes lad

[kingkhan]

does god exist : like yehhhh

 

proof : look around you

[Mercenary]

does god exist : like yehhhh

 

proof : look around you

 

**looks around**

 

Nope, sorry- no sign of a god anywhere.

[sccsux]

no sign of a god anywhere.

 

Thoug there are quite a few "No Entry" and "One Way" signs:D.

[[Matt]]

In the beginning they could fly so they were created perfect, but now they are evolving backward, i.e. evolution is regressive.

Evolution is never regressive. Evolution is not ladder whereby an organism continually improves itself with the ultimate aim of reaching the top of the ladder. You misunderstand evolution if you think of it that way. Instead evolution only changes an organism to suit the environment that the organism lives within even if that means the organism loses traits that it previously had when no longer needed. When a bird has no ground based predators why should it use vast amounts of precious energy to fly when instead it can simply walk instead? Doing so would result in less energy overall needed and as such less food would be needed to supply such a high energy demand and those who choose to walk instead would increase their chances of surviving long enough to pass on their dire for non flight genes.

 

The best way to understand evolution is to think of it merely as species diversification. That is that a species will simply adapt to the environment that it finds itself in. If you imagine a scenario where a northern hemisphere mammalian species becomes successful to the point where its spreads across a large continental landmass that features several differing environments. Those individuals who find themselves within the colder environments towards the north will have a tendency for increased survival if they have longer thicker hair than others of their own species within the same environment. Likewise those within the species who's population explosion finds themselves to the extreme south of their range will adapt in the opposite manner with a tendency for shorter and thinner hair to become more dominant. Eventually those species will diversify to the point where 2 new species will be born.

 

Now tell me this; which of those two species is 'superior' to the other? Which one is 'higher up the ladder'? Or is it simply the case that neither species is superior to the other and they're simply best adapted to their environment?

 

The option you should be choosing is the latter from the above. You may think yourself superior to all others within your superfamily of Homininae but you're not. If we take for example chimpanzees, we may have superior cognitive abilities in certain area's but in others chimpanzees completely blow us away. For example, chimps have vastly superior short term memory recall skills that make us look like idiots in comparison. Check this video for reference.

 

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zJAH4ZJBiN8

 

You may believe that we are overall a superior species to any within our order of primates but that is simply not the case. We're simply better adapted to the environment we evolved to live within of grassland savannah. Our lower body strength is superior to that of chimpanzees as we evolved to run long distances in chase of prey. With chimps the opposite is true and they have vastly superior upper body strength to us as they adapted to live within the thick undergrowth of a tropical jungle where running is pretty much impossible and the climbing of trees is the required trait for increased survival. Chimpanzees need that upper body strength need to builds nests to sleep away from night-time predators and chase their prey down atop of the tallest trees.

 

 

From everything you've ever said about evolution its my firm belief that you completely misunderstand biology and need to go back to school to actually learn more of the subject. Even my 11 year old niece has a better grasp of the life sciences than you seem to have...

Edited July 10, 2010 by [Matt]

[[Matt]]

Because they are apes (with whom we share a distant ancestor).

 

Look within yourself.

 

See that little bit called the appendix?

 

It used to have a purpose, but we have evolved to live without it to the point where it is now (sometimes) dangerous. Eventually (in possibly a few thousand years) it will have either disappeared, or become totally benign.

 

Evolution is a slow, gradual process.

 

Take a look at a virus.

 

That is continually evolving/mutating.

Whilst i'm not disagreeing with your point, I would like to point out that referring to the appendix as being redundant is actually behind the curve of our modern understanding of the evolution of the gut. There's growing evidence that a healthy gut fauna of bacteria that aid digestion such as escherichia coli actually depend on the appendix as a haven for such bacteria when the individual has diarrhoea.

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vermiform_appendix#Functionality_in_Humans

[Grahame]

;6453867']Evolution is never regressive. Evolution is not ladder whereby an organism continually improves itself with the ultimate aim of reaching the top of the ladder. You misunderstand evolution if you think of it that way. Instead evolution only changes an organism to suit the environment that the organism lives within even if that means the organism loses traits that it previously had when no longer needed. When a bird has no ground based predators why should it use vast amounts of precious energy to fly when instead it can simply walk instead? Doing so would result in less energy overall needed and as such less food would be needed to supply such a high energy demand and those who choose to walk instead would increase their chances of surviving long enough to pass on their dire for non flight genes.

 

The best way to understand evolution is to think of it merely as species diversification. That is that a species will simply adapt to the environment that it finds itself in. If you imagine a scenario where a northern hemisphere mammalian species becomes successful to the point where its spreads across a large continental landmass that features several differing environments. Those individuals who find themselves within the colder environments towards the north will have a tendency for increased survival if they have longer thicker hair than others of their own species within the same environment. Likewise those within the species who's population explosion finds themselves to the extreme south of their range will adapt in the opposite manner with a tendency for shorter and thinner hair to become more dominant. Eventually those species will diversify to the point where 2 new species will be born.

 

Now tell me this; which of those two species is 'superior' to the other? Which one is 'higher up the ladder'? Or is it simply the case that neither species is superior to the other and they're simply best adapted to their environment?

 

The option you should be choosing is the latter from the above. You may think yourself superior to all others within your superfamily of Homininae but you're not. If we take for example chimpanzees, we may have superior cognitive abilities in certain area's but in others chimpanzees completely blow us away. For example, chimps have vastly superior short term memory recall skills that make us look like idiots in comparison. Check this video for reference.

 

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zJAH4ZJBiN8

 

You may believe that we are overall a superior species to any within our order of primates but that is simply not the case. We're simply better adapted to the environment we evolved to live within of grassland savannah. Our lower body strength is superior to that of chimpanzees as we evolved to run long distances in chase of prey. With chimps the opposite is true and they have vastly superior upper body strength to us as they adapted to live within the thick undergrowth of a tropical jungle where running is pretty much impossible and the climbing of trees is the required trait for increased survival. Chimpanzees need that upper body strength need to builds nests to sleep away from night-time predators and chase their prey down atop of the tallest trees.

 

 

From everything you've ever said about evolution its my firm belief that you completely misunderstand biology and need to go back to school to actually learn more of the subject. Even my 11 year old niece has a better grasp of the life sciences than you seem to have...

 

Great stuff. So why are so many species dying, and it isn't entirely due to man.

[[Matt]]

Great stuff. So why are so many species dying, and it isn't entirely due to man.

Because that's the natural order of things. Environments change naturally though both natural disasters and climate change with or without our unintentional intervention. This includes us also as our species will either evolve into something else or go extinct. No designer needed