..the topic of human evolution... [Archive] - Nas Forum - The Illest Hip Hop Forum on the Internet

View Full Version : ..the topic of human evolution...

vexed less

11-16-2007, 06:56 PM

...in many of today's societies human evolution is an accepted theory that stems from Darwin's thoughts on natural selection.

...how do you personally feel about the topic?
...if you do believe in it, what do you think the key factors of human evolution are/were?
...why should is theory considered so acceptable in todays society?

J.A.whY?

11-16-2007, 08:19 PM

based on the fact that i have a newly found "religion"/belief..(lol)..ill need a day or so the get a more defined understandin of...(*search brain 4 the right words*)...my life stance...ill get back 2 this..

vexed less

11-18-2007, 12:51 AM

i dont really know what to think about the topic.... i guess i feel that if evolution did occur why does it cease to happen today?
...i mean if we really did evolve from apes than wat is it that suddenly made us adapt and start questioning life while they remained the same...??

my only explaination would stem from the formation of language....more precisely the writen language...
it allows us to store information physically for future reference, and it is more precise than memories...

...but if thats the case then why havent other animals developed a written launguage also... if we derived from apes, under the right conditions shouldnt they too be able to develop their own written language....??

...any thoughts or feelings??

T-rade

11-18-2007, 03:28 PM

A thermo-dynamic miracle...

Patricia

11-18-2007, 11:01 PM

Dr. ibarfly Jones

11-19-2007, 08:09 AM

This is kind of my stance.

I don't really know that much about the issue to have a strong opinion.. but i've always questioned this aspect of it.

who has said it stopped?

"Racism" by Ayn Rand (http://meshuge.com/index.php?topic=1039.0)

Mr Dax

11-19-2007, 08:14 AM

Dr. ibarfly Jones

11-19-2007, 08:25 AM

if humans came from apes how come there are still apes in this world? why havent they evolved?

EXCAVATIONS OVER THE LAST 150 YEARS HAVE UNEARTHED NOT A SINGLE INTERMEDIATE-FORM FOSSIL......single intermediate form fossil means for eg. if we came from apes how come we havent discoverd fossils of half man half ape?

http://www.harunyahya.com/books/darwinism/atlas_creation_III/atlas_creation_III_01.php
for more about darwins theory check out this book which u can read online its called atlas of creation volume 3

Just because you don't have proof of something today doesn't mean it never happened. Come on. As a man of Faith that's what you base your moral compass on. The fact that even though you have no tangible proof you believe God to exist. So to deny to possibility of something because you lack physical proof is a little hypocritical.

Mr Dax

11-19-2007, 08:33 AM

yes but why have we found fossils that came millions of years b4 so called human apes? if u have time read that book atlas of craetion and you will see evidnace that darwins theory deosnt make sence.

Mr Dax

11-19-2007, 08:34 AM

i hear what u saying about lack of proof and i understand you believe in evolution like i believe in god....and i respect that.

Dr. ibarfly Jones

11-19-2007, 08:50 AM

i hear what u saying about lack of proof and i understand you believe in evolution like i believe in god....and i respect that.

I never said I believe in evolution. I believe humans do adapt. Just as our minds learn information to guide us through intellect. Our bodies do the same biological and genetically. Whether that is evolution as you view it. Well I don't know. I believe in what i can intelligently quantify as a provable fact or recognizable theory which is factually based. Faith is cool, though. I believe in the power of faith. It is well documented what people of strong faith can accomplish. I don't discount that at all. We barely use our brain. By evidence of some of the incredible things occur with the human body and healing among other things. Faith is real. I can not deny that.

Dr. ibarfly Jones

11-19-2007, 08:59 AM

yes but why have we found fossils that came millions of years b4 so called human apes? if u have time read that book atlas of craetion and you will see evidnace that darwins theory deosnt make sence.

first thing is darwin theory is just that. A theory. It isn't called Darwin Scientific Proof Fact. lol, arguing about the probability of evolution is crazy. The fact is this. No one has the answers. But not what you heart says, but your mind. Does the prospect of all life coming from a single organism millions of years ago make a little sense, compare to the story of genesis? Each has an origin based on a single entity. However, this entity had to come from somewhere. Right.

So maybe a mystically being created all this. Or maybe organism from the out reaches of the universe created life on this planet. Does it really matter which is right? It would be nice to know but does it really matter?

Mr Dax

11-19-2007, 09:01 AM

cool i respect your opinions doc!

Mr Dax

11-19-2007, 09:03 AM

well i believe in a hereafter so it does matter to me that i believe that god created everything.

but like i said your an intellegent person and its always interesting reading your opuinions....keep it up dr.

Dr. ibarfly Jones

11-19-2007, 09:20 AM

Patricia

11-19-2007, 09:22 AM

first thing is darwin theory is just that. A theory. It isn't called Darwin Scientific Proof Fact. lol, arguing about the probability of evolution is crazy. The fact is this. No one has the answers. But not what you heart says, but your mind. Does the prospect of all life coming from a single organism millions of years ago make a little sense, compare to the story of genesis? Each has an origin based on a single entity. However, this entity had to come from somewhere. Right.

So maybe a mystically being created all this. Or maybe organism from the out reaches of the universe created life on this planet. Does it really matter which is right? It would be nice to know but does it really matter?

I don't really believe the Bible's rendition of how life began either.

When it comes to faith, I have little to none in most things religious.

I have faith in people, but not in some mystical being that floats in the sky or whatever other stuff people seem to believe. It all seems like some fairytale.

I don't discount anyone who does believe in these things. I just can't see myself believing in something like that.

But back to evolution..

I really don't have a strong belief on where we came from. I know what I don't believe. I guess that's a start.

Mr Dax

11-19-2007, 09:25 AM

patti do u believe we came from apes? or do u believe the first human was actually human?

Patricia

11-19-2007, 09:32 AM

Well, like I said..

I don't believe in evolution.

Nor do I know exactly what it is that I do believe.

I just know the theories I don't believe.

While we're on this topic, does anyone who is well-versed on the subject (not just in one way. I mean as a whole) know of any good books to read?

I've been reading way too many pop culture books lately and i'd like to get out of that funk and read something that may actually help me mold my beliefs.

Though, reading about how John Cusack is the reason nobody will ever be satisfied with love is pretty awesome.

~y~

11-19-2007, 11:14 AM

Patti ... I couldn't help you with any books. All I know I learned in class and that was a while ago. Evolution changes like the weather.

Evolution is one of the hardest part of science for me to follow. I'm still stuck on all life including plants evolving form the same simple cell organism. Too many missing links fitting together by brute force. It's kind of how I feel when trying to understand who Cain married. Right now, origins of life either part science and part philosophy because there is alot of "this could have happened" as opposed to "this really did happened".

Dr. ibarfly Jones

11-19-2007, 11:28 AM

patti do u believe we came from apes? or do u believe the first human was actually human?

Dax, you are simplifying it. It is not if we came from apes. It is if we came to being from an evolutionary stand point from a single cell organism. the issue isn't if we came from apes. that's insulting to the whole concept. it is bigger and more complicated than that.

now simple beginnings of the origin of man are as follows. It is easier for people to beleive these types of stories and be told this is the truth. What is harder is to find proof. And at the end of the day if science proves the Mayans to be right, cool. If they prove the Navajo to be right cool. I will be happen to have the truth. No matter what form it come in. Read these links below. Stories likes these helped me become aware of the common theme in religion and began to foster the notion to question things.

Creation Myth (Genesis) (http://crab.rutgers.edu/~goertzel/genesis.htm)
Creation Myth (http://www.dreamscape.com/morgana/miranda.htm#AUS)
Mayan Creation Myth (http://www.dreamscape.com/morgana/cordelia.htm)
Chinese Creation Myth (http://www.dreamscape.com/morgana/ariel.htm#CHINESE)

I can keep going. But my point is nobody knows. We are just try to understand just like the early Christians, aborigines, Chinese and Mayans tried. To me nothing can be discounted unless proven false.

Sosa

11-19-2007, 09:21 PM

I don't really believe the Bible's rendition of how life began either.

When it comes to faith, I have little to none in most things religious.

I have faith in people, but not in some mystical being that floats in the sky or whatever other stuff people seem to believe. It all seems like some fairytale.

I don't discount anyone who does believe in these things. I just can't see myself believing in something like that.

But back to evolution..

I really don't have a strong belief on where we came from. I know what I don't believe. I guess that's a start.

The story of creation in the bible is not suppose to be taken literal....no one was there to write about it or even see it first hand....It is myth...not in the sense that it's a "fairy tale"...Myth is defined by scholars "that which is most true"...so the creation story is not trying to pass it as fact, just merely an interpretation of how humans came of being....It's just like any primeval religion in Africa, Australia, Native Americans rendition of creation....

vexed less

11-19-2007, 11:58 PM

i really want to know what changed...??
i mean one moment out of the blue humans start drawin on cave walls and so on... what was it that changed...if it did happen the way science claimed.

was it a chemical reaction... a deformation??
...i mean wat pushed earlier humans to consider cave drawings as a form of communication?

Nikola Tesla

11-20-2007, 12:20 AM

Evolution is ridiculous

Anybody who thinks we came from apes needs to cop another brain

Science doesn't even support this "theory"

Things are DECAYING not EVOLVING

vexed less

11-20-2007, 12:23 AM

I don't really believe the Bible's rendition of how life began either.

When it comes to faith, I have little to none in most things religious.

I have faith in people, but not in some mystical being that floats in the sky or whatever other stuff people seem to believe. It all seems like some fairytale.

I don't discount anyone who does believe in these things. I just can't see myself believing in something like that.

But back to evolution..

I really don't have a strong belief on where we came from. I know what I don't believe. I guess that's a start.

^^patti maybe u should consider Buddhism as a religion.... it revolves around the universe having something more of an underlining essence/conciousness...rather than some big dude livin in the sky.

ive started attendin a basic teachin of buddhism at a temple recently....i plan to make a thread including a quick overview of what i learn....if ur interested make sure u check it out...

onema

11-20-2007, 09:02 AM

evolution doesn't "cease to happen today"...

it's an ongoing process and our lifetimes are analogous to 1 frame in a full picture movie

also

evolution DOES NOT say we came from apes, rather that we have a common ancestor....in actuality Humans are classifies as one of the great apes, so we are technically apes, but thats besides the point.

the apes u see at the zoo today share a CLOSER common ancestor to us than lets say a dog..that doesnt mean we came from dogs or apes....it means that we are all relates..all organisms, but apes and lemurs are just closer to us on the tree.

Dr. ibarfly Jones

11-20-2007, 10:46 AM

It is easy to understand why people chose not to accept evolution as a possibility. I mean if the reason why I behave in a certain manner was due to a relationship I created with unknown or known deity I would feel the same way too. Well maybe, but I don't feel it is crazy to discount science when discussing to creation of man.

People crack me up by shooting down evolution. When two simple facts are being discounted. One is we don't have all the answers. Which is why there are gaps. Human intelligence as we know it is only a few thousand years old. Each year we learn something that helps answers these question. Unlike faith where answers are not being looked into.

Second, the two ideas can coexist. There is no reason that it can't. Except if you chose for it not two. I was talking about the single organism theory as the genesis of all life on earth. Where did it come from. Then I switched it up and said assume God created life on earth by the story commonly told in the judeo-christian religions. Where did the God come from. The two ideas can coexist.

I can look at a flower and understand how this plant came to be. I don't have faith in understanding the process. I know this process. Instead of attack the science that has allowed diseases to be cured, illness to be treated, and ailments to be healed go through the same process of fact finding before being dismissed. Dismiss it because it is wrong and you have an answer that is proven. Don't dismiss it as it is still a theory and is being research.

PS

Shut up about the "do people come from apes and actually learn more about the genetic relationship which was proven to that we share with the animal.

Cloverfield Monster (http://meshuge.com/index.php?topic=1047.0)

Patricia

11-20-2007, 02:31 PM

I just bought this book:

Evolution VS. Creationism: An Introduction, by Eugenie C. Scott

You can read part of it on amazon here:
http://www.amazon.com/gp/reader/0520246500/ref=sib_dp_pt/002-1771632-0336837#reader-link

ChynaWhyte™

11-20-2007, 02:34 PM

Just because you don't have proof of something today doesn't mean it never happened. Come on. As a man of Faith that's what you base your moral compass on. The fact that even though you have no tangible proof you believe God to exist. So to deny to possibility of something because you lack physical proof is a little hypocritical.

VERY TRUE IBAR....MY THOUGHTS EXACTLY

PEACE

Dr. ibarfly Jones

11-20-2007, 02:40 PM

vexed less

11-20-2007, 02:48 PM

Sosa

11-20-2007, 02:58 PM

"If it could be demonstrated that any complex organ existed which could not possibly have been formed by numerous, successive, slight modifications, my theory would absolutely break down."
--Charles Darwin, Origin of Species

Sosa

11-20-2007, 03:01 PM

Scientifically speaking, if something hasn’t occurred in the past, been witnessed in the present or re-created in a lab it is impossible. Evolution depends on the mechanism of beneficial mutations that add to the genetic makeup of the organism, specimen or plant – all the while ignoring the fact that genetic additions have never been witnessed, observed or re-created!

Sosa

11-20-2007, 03:41 PM

I'll refute any claims of evolution through mathematics, physics, chemistry and biology....all these areas of study prove that evolution is not even a theory...its impossible...literaly

vexed less

11-20-2007, 03:55 PM

^^^evolution cant be impossible.... i mean take this for example...
..an early human bein is born with a deformation... lets say an extra finger...
now this human bein manages to survive to an age where it can reproduce and has children...
and although the original mutated beins children do not show any signs of the deformation they manage to grow to an age where they can reproduce, and certain numbers their offspring have the extra finger...

if this process repeats itself enough has the human not evolved to a certain degree...?

Sosa

11-20-2007, 04:15 PM

This is how biology refutes evolution:

Evolution teaches that mutations are the diversifying power of change in the spreading evolutionary tree of life - that over millions of years nature got bored with the banality of slime organisms drifting in a primordial sea, and the currents of change swept through the watery home of the slime. For the first time our primitive slimes met with the awesome power of mutation. The suns’ rays rained down upon the slimes primitive DNA and a sudden change occurred. Some specimens rapidly became more advanced. Only the fastest and best camouflaged primitive specimens survived to reproduce. There was no second best; those strains that came in less than first starved their way to an early extinction.
Evolution teaches this process came in spurts and jumps. Cataclysmic mutations and changing conditions continually split the budding branches of the tree of life, while all the while, natural selection, like a benevolent gardener, cut away the sickly branches that threatened the healthy ones. Each period of change was like spring to the evolutionary tree. Her branches split and stretched away from each other and the pruning shears of natural selection would gently clip each bud or twig that threatened the survival of the others. And so the seasons of change came and went, and the evolutionary tree grew into the large and full tree we know today. But is this merely an evolutionary fable or does the evidence support this fanciful rendition of early life on earth?
A mutation is defined as a random change in an existing DNA molecule. A mutation cannot add to the length of a genetic code, it only can change the values already present. For evolution to occur there must be new genes to enter the gene pool - new genetic material is the only way for a more advanced species to come from another species. The problem is that gene mutation is random; there is no order or calculation with mutation. Modern scientists can increase the rate of mutation, but cannot guide which genes will mutate.
There have been observed instances of genetic drift. Genetic drift is defined by Wikipedia as “a statistically stochastic [involving chance or probability] process that arises from the role of random sampling in the production of offspring. The genes of each new generation are not a simple copy of the genes of the successful members of the previous one, but rather a sampling, which includes some statistical error.” Unfortunately for the theory of evolution, genetic drift is not a vehicle for change from one species to another – which is required for the evolutionary process to be valid.
Some estimates of mutation’s pace put the rate at about once per ten million cells. This is not difficult to achieve in a cell population of, say, one billion. In fact the possibility of having a group of mutant genes is somewhat high. Unfortunately, these mutations rarely affect the reproductive cells, preventing the altered DNA from being passed on to its offspring. If this were not the case a father with cancer would pass his DNA along with his cancer on to his children. Even when genes are passed on the offspring are often sterile. These obstacles prevent most mutations from even reaching the gene pool!
For evolution to continue, mutations are a driving fact. It is common knowledge that mutations are beneficial, right? Because of this we should expose all newly conceived children to radiation, and all bathe in radioactive water, right? Surely this will be our evolutionary spring, evolution will stir itself and take leaps and bounds. Obviously this is ludicrous. This attempted evolution by way of mutation would be handed yet another setback when “natural selection,” the supposed friend of evolution, would quickly exterminate all those stupid enough to try it. Yet this is exactly the device that evolution relies on.
You could compare a mutation to taking a brief page of instructions, selecting one character and replacing it with another randomly selected character. Chances are that you will introduce a spelling or grammatical error on the very first modification. Though slight, this error has already hurt the meaning of the instructions. The more modifications we make, the higher the probability of seriously jumbling the meaning of the text. Soon the page would be totally incomprehensible, containing groups of meaningless letters and characters. Making one random character change per second, it would take years before you could even hope to find a page that would have no spelling errors on it and exponentially more years to hopefully find a page that error-free and made sense.
Those who believe in random mutation are, in effect, choosing to believe that multiple whole libraries can be written by simple chance, one character at a time, over just a few million years.

Sosa

11-20-2007, 04:18 PM

This is how evolution is disproven mathematically:

All the universes’ specimens are highly complex systems – specimens and flora, breathing or photosynthesizing – what we describe as “life” requires structures that are so complex that our best scientists cannot replicate them. Evolutionists will tell you that these organisms and their methods came about by chance; but leading mathematicians have determined that the construction of these life forms by accident or by chance is impossible.

If you were to thoroughly shuffle ten flash cards numbered one-to-ten and laid them out, the odds of them lining up in order is one in 3,628,800. The probability rapidly decreases the more variables you add – if you were to have one hundred cards numbered in order and performed the same experiment the odds would be one in 10^158!

Astronomers tell us there are no more than 10^87 particles in the universe. Assuming the universe is no more than thirty billion years old (10^18 seconds) and each particle can participate in a thousand billion (10^12) different reactions every second, the maximum number of reactions occurring would be 10^117. Using this equation we understand the probability of an event that requires more than 10^117 events is zero – or impossible.

The cells that life builds upon are infinitely more complex than a specimen with one hundred parts – thus we can logically conclude that life originating from chance is impossible. Marcel Golay estimated that the chance of replicating the simplest protein molecule is one in 10^450. Frank Salisbury put the probability of a standard DNA strand to be one in 10^600.

Like you cannot build a car from random parts, you cannot build a living organism from random particles. All living systems are bound by order and require intelligence to exist. Order is defined by patterns and rules – thus the example of numbered flash cards.

Hubert Yockey, a PhD in Physics, says the following in his essay "A Calculation of the Probability of Spontaneous Bio-genesis by Information Theory:

“One must conclude that, contrary to the established and current wisdom, a scenario describing the genesis of life on earth by chance and natural causes which can be accepted on the basis of fact and not faith has not yet been written.”

The ^ represent "to the power of" so for example 10^10 is 10 to the power or 10

BTW...scientifically, probabilities smaller than 1 over 10^50 are thought of as "zero probability"

vexed less

11-20-2007, 05:02 PM

Sosa

11-20-2007, 05:10 PM

^^^Exactly....I dont know why evolution is still being taught as a theory when it can be disproven on many different levels...I guess it's the "closest theory that the scientific community has to offer on the explanation on life...

Sosa

11-20-2007, 05:13 PM

A mutation is defined as a random change in an existing DNA molecule. A mutation cannot add to the length of a genetic code, it only can change the values already present. For evolution to occur there must be new genes to enter the gene pool - new genetic material is the only way for a more advanced species to come from another species. The problem is that gene mutation is random; there is no order or calculation with mutation. Modern scientists can increase the rate of mutation, but cannot guide which genes will mutate.

^from this quote here im guessin we have more genes in our genertic code than more primitive walks of life... cancling evolution out.
i guess that makes sense....

and i guess the example i gave earlier is merely but a form of mutation, not evolution.

Unfortunately, these mutations rarely affect the reproductive cells, preventing the altered DNA from being passed on to its offspring. If this were not the case a father with cancer would pass his DNA along with his cancer on to his children. Even when genes are passed on the offspring are often sterile. These obstacles prevent most mutations from even reaching the gene pool!

You couldn't pass a mutation to your offspring...

vexed less

11-20-2007, 05:18 PM

^^^hmmmm interestin.... that answers alot of my question....
major props kid....

so wats your view on the whole topic... seein evolution is outa the question???

MikeMartin

11-20-2007, 05:27 PM

damn sosa- good reads

Sosa

11-20-2007, 05:27 PM

To be honest....I dont think humanity will ever truly know how our existence really began

Sosa

11-20-2007, 05:29 PM

damn sosa- good reads

Thanks...I still have 2 more topics....how physics disproves evolution and how chemistry disproves evolution....

vexed less

11-20-2007, 05:32 PM

"dont let me do it to ya homie coz i over do it..."....lmao...

sosa gettin his jigga on to blow evolution out the water....

Sosa

11-20-2007, 05:57 PM

"dont let me do it to ya homie coz i over do it..."....lmao...

sosa gettin his jigga on to blow evolution out the water....

LOL...nah im just trying to put as much as I know on that subject so y'all can see the whole scope...I'm not trying to over do it though so I didn't post the other 2

Wil Munny

11-20-2007, 06:07 PM

lol, I could help laughing at Sosa using intelligent design to disprove a theory. Classic. Let me put it laymen's terms for you. We don't know. That is why we are looking.

You picking another "theory" to disprove evolution is absolutely the funniest theing I heard all day. It is like a nascar drive and a football player arguing about who is the better athlete and whether or not a race car driver is an athlete.

read below.

http://www.newyorker.com/archive/2005/05/30/050530fa_fact

vexed less

11-20-2007, 06:16 PM

^^okay then, them theories didnt disprove elovution...but they surely made it seem like a less likely theory.

...is that a better way of puttin it?

Wil Munny

11-20-2007, 06:18 PM

Sosa, you harp on the word mutation. Or at least it seems that way, however Darwin's Theory takes in account of natural selection, mutation, envirnoment, survival of the fittest. So much goes into play. I am no biology stud, but the fact it is still bedebated shows it has some scientific validity. And like I said at the end of the day we are still search for answers.

Wil Munny

11-20-2007, 06:27 PM

^^okay then, them theories didnt disprove elovution...but they surely made it seem like a less likely theory.

...is that a better way of puttin it?

nah, because ID is just a scientific cop out. I that people consider we came from single cell organisms by chance than by a single cell organism placed on this planet by some unknown higher being. Like I'm really that stupid that the whole point is for me acknowledge God just because humans have not figured out how life truly began on this planet as we know it.

Evolution isn't perfect, but neither is the green men dropping our dna onto this planet, God saying let there be light and dropping Adam and Eve, all the other creation myths. But looking at it in a scientific way is the only way to do it. No offense to the bible, but I don't remember the vaccine for polio, snake bites, cancer, the flu or common cold being found in there. Give science a chance.

vexed less

11-20-2007, 06:40 PM

Wil Munny

11-20-2007, 06:50 PM

^^im open for all suggestions.... and i think its great that we got a diverse batch of views on this board....

good looks for the link to that article.... it was a great read...

...just for the record, do u believe in some sort of spiritual essence that this world has...just curious??

Yeah, I believe in something of the spiritual nature goes on. But I truly beieve that mankind is ultimately responsible for all success and failures (and mother nature) that occur in our lives.

onema

11-20-2007, 07:09 PM

those science disproving evolution articles are BS...u can tell they weren't written by a scientist...just some charlatan.

Wil Munny

11-20-2007, 07:22 PM

every article written has an agenda.

Sosa

11-21-2007, 12:46 AM

I was not even trying to endorse ID.....I'm just disproving the theory of evolution...im not using a theory to debunk it...its just facts....scientific facts....did you skim throught the articles ibarfly??? because these are backed by scientist as well who dont believe in ID....

Sosa

11-21-2007, 12:50 AM

How the Laws of Chemistry Disprove the Theory of Evolution

http://evolutionisimpossible.com/chemistry.html

How the Laws of Physics Disprove the Theory of Evolution

http://evolutionisimpossible.com/physics.html

Sosa

11-21-2007, 12:52 AM

Dr. Robert A. Milikan, physicist and Nobel Prize winner, speech before the American Chemical Society:
"The pathetic thing about it is that many scientists are trying to prove the doctrine of evolution, which no science can do."

http://evolutionisimpossible.com/intro_essay.html