LucasForums

LucasForums (http://www.lucasforums.com/index.php)
-   Senate Chambers (http://www.lucasforums.com/forumdisplay.php?f=445)
-   -   Evolution (http://www.lucasforums.com/showthread.php?t=189290)

M@RS 06-02-2008 06:39 PM

Evolution
 
I love to argue, so I'm putting this thread here, so that anybody who wants to argue about evolution come here, I'd love to chat with you...

Achilles 06-02-2008 06:45 PM

Okie dokie. Where did you want to start? :D

M@RS 06-02-2008 06:46 PM

hmm. do you believe in evolution?

Achilles 06-02-2008 06:48 PM

In the spirit of keeping the answer simple, I'll reply with "yes".

M@RS 06-02-2008 06:50 PM

why do you believe in evolution? scared there might be a god?

Achilles 06-02-2008 06:57 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by M@RS (Post 2471912)
why do you believe in evolution?

Because of the overwhelming evidence that supports it.

Quote:

Originally Posted by M@RS (Post 2471912)
scared there might be a god?

If I was scared that there might be a god, wouldn't that tend to make me a theist?

Also, please help me understand how the process of changes in life over time have any impact on the existence (or non-existence) of god. There are many self-proclaimed theists that have absolutely no problem accepting evolution. How do you know that evolution isn't god's way of allowing her creations to adapt to their changing environments without having to interfere directly?

M@RS 06-02-2008 06:59 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Achilles (Post 2471916)
Because of the overwhelming evidence that supports it.

If I was scared that there might be a god, wouldn't that tend to make me a theist?

Also, please help me understand how the process of changes in life over time have any impact on the existence (or non-existence) of god. There are many self-proclaimed theists that have absolutely no problem accepting evolution. How do you know that evolution isn't god's way of allowing HER creations to adapt to their changing environments without having to interfere directly?

There is no evidence for evolution, name one for me

Pho3nix 06-02-2008 07:01 PM

Oh, here we go again...

I'm with Achilles.

Achilles 06-02-2008 07:01 PM

Just one? Okay.

Please answer my other questions in your next response. Thanks in advance.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Pho3nix (Post 2471921)
Oh, here we go again...

Ya know, oddly, this never gets old for me :D

Quote:

Originally Posted by Pho3nix (Post 2471921)
I'm with Achilles.

Thanks man.

M@RS 06-02-2008 07:06 PM

okay the answer to your question sorta it depends, if your scared of one it depends on how you fear it, A theist is a person who believes in a god, and I read the article (fast reader) at least part of it and can easily answer that. The bone seperated from the whale is not part of an evolving leg. Answer me this, why were the bones of Lucy at least 2 miles apart?

Achilles 06-02-2008 07:12 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by M@RS (Post 2471925)
okay the answer to your question sorta it depends, if your scared of one it depends on how you fear it

What does that mean? Someone is scared of god so they choose not to believe? I'm not sure how that makes sense.

Quote:

Originally Posted by M@RS (Post 2471925)
A theist is a person who believes in a god

Indeed that is true, but what does that have to do with evolution? Again, how do you explain theists that also except evolution (Francis Collins and Ken Miller spring to mind)? How do you prove that god didn't "invent" evolution?

Quote:

Originally Posted by M@RS (Post 2471925)
...and I read the article (fast reader) at least part of it and can easily answer that. The bone seperated from the whale is not part of an evolving leg.

What is it then? How do you intend to disprove or discount the evidence that it is a vestigal leg?

Quote:

Originally Posted by M@RS (Post 2471925)
Answer me this, why were the bones of Lucy at least 2 miles apart?

The argument for evolution does not hinge on Lucy. :)

M@RS 06-02-2008 07:16 PM

One, people scared of god deside to deny it and tend to believe in something else, that way they can still screw around and not have to worry about it, two, the "vestigal leg" is not a growing leg it's just a frivolous bone that the whale could live without, three, the argument for evolution does hinge on Lucy because she still tricks people into believing in evolution. You still didn't answer my question...

Achilles 06-02-2008 07:22 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by M@RS (Post 2471933)
One, people scared of god deside to deny it and tend to believe in something else, that way they can still screw around and not have to worry about it

First, this still doesn't make any sense whatsoever.

Second, it's completely unrelated to the topic of evolution, so please either find a way to make it relevant or drop it.

Quote:

Originally Posted by M@RS (Post 2471933)
two, the "vestigal leg" is not a growing leg it's just a frivolous bone that the whale could live without

Okay, but what it is specifically? How did it get there? If living things are the result of design, and that designer is god, and god is perfect, then why do all cetaceans just happen to have this "frivolous bone" (dolphins have them too :))?

Quote:

Originally Posted by M@RS (Post 2471933)
, three, the argument for evolution does hinge on Lucy because she still tricks people into believing in evolution.

Wrong. Try again.

Quote:

Originally Posted by M@RS (Post 2471933)
You still didn't answer my question...

Funny, you haven't answered mine either :D

EDIT: The correct argument is "all cetaceans" not "all sea mammals". I've made the necessary correction above.

Acrylic 06-02-2008 07:37 PM

It looks like you just started this thread in hopes of arguing with people. I find there is different types of arguments: The constructive kind, and the destructive kind. I feel you are doing the latter.

Why not state your point of views in the first place, instead of bombarding Achilles with question after question?

Achilles 06-02-2008 07:43 PM

*shrugs*

Since we know that he doesn't know the subject now, we can only hope that by removing his objections, he'll have to learn about it at some point. Otherwise, he'll simply repeat his fallacies from a position of ignorance until he gets tired and gives up.

So really, he has everything to gain and nothing to lose.

M@RS 06-02-2008 07:47 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Achilles (Post 2471934)
Okay, but what it is specifically? How did it get there? If living things are the result of design, and that designer is god, and god is perfect, then why do all cetaceans just happen to have this "frivolous bone" (dolphins have them too :))?

Mankind sinned and not everything is perfect anymore and besides humans have things in them that they could live without, like kidney's and besides that bone may do something the whale knows about and we don't. Scientists have discovered that Sperm Whales use Sonar because they can't see in front of themselves so they use Sonar to map and "see" where it's going. We still don't know everything about our own world. And if you think I'm not worth this argument then look up Eric Hovand, he is worth it and he is where I learned all of why evolution is a joke...:)

Pho3nix 06-02-2008 07:54 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by M@RS (Post 2471952)
We still don't know everything about our own world.

Indeed. But why not accept it? instead of going with the assumption that there has to be a higher deity or god behind everything.

M@RS 06-02-2008 07:57 PM

Because there is, a little off topic, but I've seen people get out of wheelchairs who with the doctor's help had no chance of walking again, you telling me they were lying and sat in a wheelchair for 20 years?

Pho3nix 06-02-2008 08:05 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by M@RS (Post 2471961)
Because there is

Proof?
Quote:

Originally Posted by M@RS (Post 2471961)
...but I've seen people get out of wheelchairs who with the doctor's help had no chance of walking again, you telling me they were lying and sat in a wheelchair for 20 years?

Ah, this one I've heard before. I'm going with the presumption that you've witnessed this yourself? and not just telling me something you've read on the internet. Miracles is a tough subject, but I tend not to believe occurrences where someone has reportedly sat in a wheelchair for 20 years and then suddenly gotten cured. I would probably believe it if I saw it with my own eyes and if I knew that the person was really disabled, in this case I still wouldn't explain it with "god did it."

Anyway, let's get back on topic.

M@RS 06-02-2008 08:07 PM

What about the Bible there is no way men who were 40 generations apart could write down the exact words of someone who lived 1000 years before, there had to be God behind everything, read about the scientists who are trying to recreate evolution, they say that life was created by a lightning strike, try shocking a cell with electricity and you'll notice that the cell is going to fry, also evolution says that everything living creature came from the rocks because after all they say that it rained on the rocky crust for millions of years and the water mixed with the minerals in the rocks and became a soup...the soup was shocked with lightning and life was created into a cell that happened to evolve and split in two forming a male and female...notice the phrase "millions of years" do you know what that means? that means a fairytale is coming afterwards look at Star Wars "long, long time ago" (millions of years) see what I mean...

M@RS 06-02-2008 08:09 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Pho3nix (Post 2471965)
Proof?

Ah, this one I've heard before. I'm going with the presumption that you've witnessed this yourself? and not just telling me something you've read on the internet. Miracles is a tough subject, but I tend not to believe occurrences where someone has reportedly sat in a wheelchair for 20 years and then suddenly gotten cured. I would probably believe it if I saw it with my own eyes and if I knew that the person was really disabled, in this case I still wouldn't explain it with "god did it."

Anyway, let's get back on topic.

I did not read it from the internet or witness it... I've had hundreds of people tell basically the same story, and I've read an account of someone who was crippled and is walking normally now...(not on the internet; in an email)

M@RS 06-02-2008 08:16 PM

check this out and tell me what you think I found this on Wikipedia...

Hovind's $250,000 offer

According to Hovind's website, he has offered $10,000 since 1990 to those who can "prove the theory of evolution."[45] He has since raised the prize to $250,000.[46]

I have a standing offer of $250,000 to anyone who can give any empirical evidence (scientific proof) for evolution.* My $250,000 offer demonstrates that the hypothesis of evolution is nothing more than a religious belief.[45]

Critics view this offer to be spurious because of the conditions which Hovind imposes. At the time, Hovind commonly insisted that evolution and atheism were synonymous,[9] even though belief in a deity or deities is unrelated to evolution in any way and the two are clearly not mutually exclusive. The asterisk denotes the terms that he claims show significant gaps in the gradual progression predicted by the theory of evolution. In fact he challenged the world to prove a non-mainstream "theory of evolution" which he defined himself. The new theory, as outlined below, has very little in common with the theory accepted by the scientific world:

*NOTE: When I use the word evolution, I am not referring to the minor variations found in all of the various life forms (microevolution). I am referring to the general theory of evolution which believes these five major events took place without God:

1. Time, space, and matter came into existence by themselves.
2. Planets and stars formed from space dust.
3. Matter created life by itself.
4. Early life-forms learned to reproduce themselves.
5. Major changes occurred between these diverse life forms (i.e., fish changed to amphibians, amphibians changed to reptiles, and reptiles changed to birds or mammals).

if you want more check this out:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kent_Hovind

Acrylic 06-02-2008 08:45 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by M@RS (Post 2471966)
What about the Bible there is no way men who were 40 generations apart could write down the exact words of someone who lived 1000 years before

Oh yeah they could. Look at now. People writing the Qur'an are writing the same words of 1,400 years prior. It's really not all too different.

Ever hear of a thing called "cutting and pasting"?

I believe in God, but I don't believe in the Bible. I mean where in the Bible does it say "There is no such thing as evolution"? In your thoughts, don't you think it's possible that God had his creation evolve over time?

How do you think we as people came to be? Like Blacks, whites, asians, arabs, etc. We all "evolved" over time to adapt with our surroundings. Blacks were originally from Africa, where their skin pigmentation was higher because of a lot of sun exposure. Whites were originally from Europe, and limited sun exposure. So we as humans evolved as well.

Achilles 06-02-2008 09:38 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by M@RS (Post 2471952)
Mankind sinned and not everything is perfect anymore

So whales and dolphins have to "suffer" (using the term loosely here) because of man's sin? I realize that creationists love to use "the fall" as an explanation for all kinds of stuff, but it doesn't take too much critical thinking to realize that the argument doesn't make much sense.

Quote:

Originally Posted by M@RS (Post 2471952)
...and besides humans have things in them that they could live without, like kidney's and besides that bone may do something the whale knows about and we don't.

Okay, that's fine too, but you still haven't discounted that it's a vestigal leg. You've only offered an alternative hypothesis that, so far, has no support whatsoever.

Quote:

Originally Posted by M@RS (Post 2471952)
Scientists have discovered that Sperm Whales use Sonar because they can't see in front of themselves so they use Sonar to map and "see" where it's going. We still don't know everything about our own world.

Indeed that's very true. Not sure what bearing this has on the discussion re: evolution, but you are correct on this point nonetheless.

Quote:

Originally Posted by M@RS (Post 2471952)
And if you think I'm not worth this argument then look up Eric Hovand, he is worth it and he is where I learned all of why evolution is a joke...:)

I'm sure you meant Kent Hovind and if you're getting your information from him, then this conversation will probably be shorter than I thought.

Quote:

Originally Posted by M@RS (Post 2471961)
Because there is, a little off topic, but I've seen people get out of wheelchairs who with the doctor's help had no chance of walking again, you telling me they were lying and sat in a wheelchair for 20 years?

Can you prove that they weren't well all along and faking it (i.e. "part of the show")?

These people all learned from P.T. Barnum my friend.

Quote:

Originally Posted by M@RS (Post 2471966)
What about the Bible there is no way men who were 40 generations apart could write down the exact words of someone who lived 1000 years before, there had to be God behind everything,

There's an alternative that makes a lot of sense: The men wrote the book and there is no god.

The problem that you're having is that you're doing it all backwards. You're starting with a conclusion and then trying to shoe-horn the logic and the evidence to fit in from there.

Quote:

Originally Posted by M@RS (Post 2471966)
...read about the scientists who are trying to recreate evolution, they say that life was created by a lightning strike, try shocking a cell with electricity and you'll notice that the cell is going to fry,

You're confusing fact and drawing conclusions that have nothing to do with the evidence. But that doesn't really matter because the biggest problem that you have hear is that you're trying to misrepresent life origins in such a way as to discount evolution when they are two entirely different things.

Quote:

Originally Posted by M@RS (Post 2471966)
...also evolution says that everything living creature came from the rocks because after all they say that it rained on the rocky crust for millions of years and the water mixed with the minerals in the rocks and became a soup...the soup was shocked with lightning and life was created into a cell that happened to evolve and split in two forming a male and female

Nope. wrong again. This is life origins, not evolution.

Quote:

Originally Posted by M@RS (Post 2471966)
...notice the phrase "millions of years" do you know what that means? that means a fairytale is coming afterwards look at Star Wars "long, long time ago" (millions of years) see what I mean...

vs god doing it via magic in 6 days. Yes, clearly a long and laborious process with many stops and starts is the fairy tale here. :lol:

Quote:

Originally Posted by M@RS (Post 2471970)
check this out and tell me what you think I found this on Wikipedia...

Hovind's $250,000 offer

Total bunk and I'll help you understand why below.

But first, from your own source:
Quote:

Originally Posted by M@RS (Post 2471970)
In fact he challenged the world to prove a non-mainstream "theory of evolution" which he defined himself. The new theory, as outlined below, has very little in common with the theory accepted by the scientific world:

*NOTE: When I use the word evolution, I am not referring to the minor variations found in all of the various life forms (microevolution). I am referring to the general theory of evolution which believes these five major events took place without God:

Did you read that part before you posted? Bet not.

Quote:

Originally Posted by M@RS (Post 2471970)
1. Time, space, and matter came into existence by themselves.

Cosmology, not biology (evolution)
Quote:

Originally Posted by M@RS (Post 2471970)
2. Planets and stars formed from space dust.

Cosmology, not biology (evolution)
Quote:

Originally Posted by M@RS (Post 2471970)
3. Matter created life by itself.

Chemistry, not biology (evolution).
Quote:

Originally Posted by M@RS (Post 2471970)
4. Early life-forms learned to reproduce themselves.

Depending on how he defines "early life form" this would be biology and is already explained via the Theory of Evolution, however since he stipulates all 5 must be met, this isn't enough.
Quote:

Originally Posted by M@RS (Post 2471970)
5. Major changes occurred between these diverse life forms (i.e., fish changed to amphibians, amphibians changed to reptiles, and reptiles changed to birds or mammals).

This one has already been knocked out of the ball park, but again because all 5 must be met, "Doctor" Hovind gets to hang on to his prize money.

So let's have a discussion about why his challenge hasn't been met. :dozey:

Quote:

Originally Posted by M@RS (Post 2471970)
if you want more check this out:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kent_Hovind

And if you want more, check this out:
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/hovind.html

M@RS 06-02-2008 10:46 PM

This guy sounds like Scrooge, besides the numbered part of Hovind's article were the definitions of evolution, there is only one kind of evolution that is observed today, micro-evolution, and, if evolution is true then how do we judge right from wrong?:dozey:

Achilles 06-02-2008 10:51 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by M@RS (Post 2472012)
besides the numbered part of Hovind's article were the definitions of evolution,

Nope, not even close. Hovind does not get to arbitrarily decide what evolution is.

Quote:

Originally Posted by M@RS (Post 2472012)
there is only one kind of evolution that is observed today, micro-evolution

"Micro-evolution" is a term created by creationists. There is evolution. Some of it can be observed directly and some of it cannot because of human life expectancies, etc. It's all the same process.

Quote:

Originally Posted by M@RS (Post 2472012)
and, if evolution is true then how do we judge right from wrong?:dozey:

This isn't a question for evolution, it's a question for moral philosophy.

M@RS 06-02-2008 10:53 PM

nope you're wrong this time... his definitions were from a dictionary, look it up, and yes my last question is relevant so answer it because you seem hesitant :dozey:

what are you a professor or something?!

Achilles 06-02-2008 10:59 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by M@RS (Post 2472018)
nope you're wrong this time... his definitions were from a dictionary, look it up,

He found "Theory of Evolution" in a dictionary? I doubt it.

Quote:

Originally Posted by M@RS (Post 2472018)
and yes my last question is relevant so answer it because you seem hesitant :dozey:

It is not relevant for reasons I have already provided.

The Theory of Evolution explains biological processes. Not cosmology, not chemistry, not philosophy. Biology.

M@RS 06-02-2008 11:01 PM

I was talking about the definition of "evolution"

and you're still not answering my question makes me wonder if you can't, and if you can then answer it regardless of if it's relevant or not just answer it...

Stop baiting people into going into off-topic discussion. As Achilles said, if you want to discuss morals, go to the appropriate thread. Do not derail it from the original topic.

~9

Achilles 06-02-2008 11:07 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by M@RS (Post 2472024)
I was talking about the definition of "evolution"

But he's trying to discount the Theory of Evolution right? If he's concerned about the dictionary's use of the word "evolution" (ambiguous), then he needs a requirement for geo-political economics too doesn't he (: a process of gradual and relatively peaceful social, political, and economic advance)?

Can't have it both ways.

Quote:

Originally Posted by M@RS (Post 2472024)
and you're still not answering my question makes me wonder if you can't, and if you can then answer it regardless of if it's relevant or not just answer it...

No sir, I am quite prepared to discuss moral philosophy in the thread of your choosing, however it has no place and no relevance here.

M@RS 06-02-2008 11:11 PM

you won't answer it because you can't and you know it just humor me and watch these videos (all of them) it may take a few days, it is Kent Hovind and you need to watch these to understand where I'm coming from... He does talk against taxes and that's wrong because in the bible it says give to caesar what belongs to him and give to God what belongs to God, so eat the meat and spit out the bones, watch them though and it will all make sense...

http://www.blueletterbible.org/audio..._template.html

Achilles 06-02-2008 11:19 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by M@RS (Post 2472029)
you won't answer it because you can't and you know it

There are multiple ethics threads here the Senate Chambers. Feel free to resurrect any of them that you wish.

Quote:

Originally Posted by M@RS (Post 2472029)
just humor me and watch these videos (all of them) it may take a few days

I've watch Kent Hovind's videos. I know what he says and his arguments have already been discounted (repeatedly). He really doesn't have any idea what he's talking about.

If you like see some of specific critiques, try this.

M@RS 06-02-2008 11:22 PM

it was blocked :lol: I have an internet blocker and yes Hovind does know what he's talking about, he's spent over 30 years studying science he was even a science teacher for 15 years yes he does know what he's talking about...:|

Achilles 06-02-2008 11:26 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by M@RS (Post 2472039)
it was blocked :lol: I have an internet blocker and yes Hovind does know what he's talking about, he's spent over 30 years studying science he was even a science teacher for 15 years yes he does know what he's talking about...:|

What Hovind taught was not "science" :lol:
He taught "creation science" at baptist school that did not require teaching credentials.

Now either you have some arguments to discuss here or you don't. Which is it?

Rev7 06-02-2008 11:46 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Achilles
What Hovind taught was not "science" :lol:
He taught "creation science" at baptist school that did not require teaching credentials.

Well, it still technically has 'science' in it. :xp:

I don't really want to get in to a heated discussion, and I don't feel like getting on anyones bad side. :)

My question is:

Why are we humans so special?

We are the smartest species on this planet, so why aren't all other creatures on this Earth as smart as us? (I guess that you could say that this is a really 'loose' question...I guess....)

I know that evolution is a change over a long period of time. I don't deny that this has happened. The human race has changed over time. I just don't think that, well we happened by chance. :)

M@RS-- You should probably stick to the subject. ;) You probably shouldn't go overboard either...;)

M@RS 06-02-2008 11:52 PM

thanks man and we are special because God made us in his image and didn't want any other
species to be smarter, but from what I've observed evolution tries to make us simply animals and that we can act like them too, no wonder the murder has spike up and sex out of marriage too, mankind is going to be judged, Billy Graham says that if God doesn't judge us soon then he'll have to apologize to Sodom an Gomorrah :( yes we've adapted to certain things and have gained more knowledge (electronics) but evolution is a step backwards

Achilles 06-02-2008 11:53 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Rev7 (Post 2472053)
My question is:

Why are we humans so special?

I guess I'd have to know what you mean by "special" :)

Quote:

Originally Posted by Rev7 (Post 2472053)
We are the smartest species on this planet, so why aren't all other creatures on this Earth as smart as us? (I guess that you could say that this is a really 'loose' question...I guess....)

Err, well, you kinda answered your own question in the asking didn't you (if the other species were as smart, then we couldn't be "the smartest" now could we :xp:)?

Apes can do math.
Dolphins use language and have "names".
Chimps use spears and tools to hunt.

There are lots of other intelligent species on the planet. We just happen to be the smartest of them.

Tyrion 06-02-2008 11:56 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by M@RS (Post 2472048)
how do you tell right from wrong?

Depends. You can base your moral foundation on religious authority, often consisting of "divine" laws that serve to both establish the authority of the religious sect and to place into scripture the wisdom accumulated through the ages - see the taboo of mixing meat and milk in Judaism. Or, you can attempt to establish an ethical code based on reason, wherein you attempt to judge the outcomes of a given act or event and determine its overall value.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Rev7
We are the smartest species on this planet, so why aren't all other creatures on this Earth as smart as us?

We are not, however, the biggest species. We are not the strongest species. We are not the sturdiest species. We are not the species best fit for survival.

Intelligence is only one facet of survival, and survival is all that matters for evolution.

Rev7 06-02-2008 11:58 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Achilles (Post 2472058)
I guess I'd have to know what you mean by "special" :)

Err, well, you kinda answered your own question in the asking didn't you (if the other species were as smart, then we couldn't be "the smartest" now could we :xp:)?

Apes can do math.
Dolphins use language and have "names".
Chimps use spears and tools to hunt.

There are lots of other intelligent species on the planet. We just happen to be the smartest of them.

I think that you are being too technical. :xp:

I really just wanted this discussion to get moving, and I guess that I was trying to ask why we are the only 'smart', so to say, species out there. I certainly know that monkeys, dolphins, and apes are pretty smart, but they don't have the intelligence that we humans have. I guess a run off of my question would be, why are we all not the same? Mutations?

Achilles 06-03-2008 12:07 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Rev7 (Post 2472066)
I think that you are being too technical. :xp:

Not at all. I think I know what you mean by "special" but I rather not assume, especially because if you mean what I think you do then I disagree that we are.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Rev7 (Post 2472066)
I really just wanted this discussion to get moving, and I guess that I was trying to ask why we are the only 'smart', so to say, species out there. I certainly know that monkeys, dolphins, and apes are pretty smart, but they don't have the intelligence that we humans have.

Now I guess I'd have to know what you mean by "intelligence that we humans have". Are you referring to being self-aware (which many animals are) or do you mean "able to do advanced math", etc? I've already pointed out the argument for former, but as for the latter, that's just how the cookie crumbled.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Rev7 (Post 2472066)
I guess a run off of my question would be, why are we all not the same? Mutations?

Precisely. Random mutation and natural selection. At some point in our evolutionary history an ape-like ancestor was born with a mutation. That mutation offered some benefit in the environment and was thus passed on to the next generation. Thousands of generations from there to hear and we go from basic self-awareness to tabloids and professional wrestling (definitely evolved, but I don't know if I'd call it progress ;)).


All times are GMT -4. The time now is 06:31 PM.

Powered by vBulletin®
Copyright ©2000 - 2014, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
LFNetwork, LLC ©2002-2011 - All rights reserved.