Evolution

[M@RS]

if we are completely evolved then why don't have tails? hmm I could really use and don't say we don't need imagine how nice it would be, you're carrying groceries and can just turn around and open the door with your tail, or drive and text without taking one hand off the steering wheel?

[Tyrion]

Originally Posted by M@RS

if we are completely evolved then why don't have tails? hmm I could really use and don't say we don't need imagine how nice it would be, you're carrying groceries and can just turn around and open the door with your tail, or drive and text without taking one hand off the steering wheel?

You can never be "completely evolved." More to the point, evolution is biased towards emphasizing mutations that serve to increase the organism's fitness. A tail would not increase the inherent fitness of a human in daily life, and would in fact act against their survival when others cry witch. As well, evolution is an incredibly long and subtle process. Proliferating a mutation through the gene pool enough to have it well developed in the majority of the population would take many hundreds or thousands of years.

[M@RS]

do you believe in evolution Tyrion or well read of it?

[Achilles]

Originally Posted by M@RS

if we are completely evolved then why don't have tails?

We do, they're simply vestigial. Occasionally a child is born with the genes activated, as seen here:

Luckily there are procedures that can safely remove it at birth. For the rest of us, we just have to settle for having a boring old coccyx
More on human tails

Originally Posted by M@RS

hmm I could really use and don't say we don't need imagine how nice it would be, you're carrying groceries and can just turn around and open the door with your tail, or drive and text without taking one hand off the steering wheel?

Right except that tails are typically for balance rather than tensile usage.

[M@RS]

that is not a tail there is fat in the spine and occasionaly the fat is pushed out and it looks like a tail but it's not

[Tyrion]

Originally Posted by M@RS

do you believe in evolution Tyrion or well read of it?

I believe in evolution much like I believe the Earth revolves around the sun.

[Achilles]

Originally Posted by M@RS

that is not a tail there is fat in the spine and occasionaly the fat is pushed out and it looks like a tail but it's not

Kent Hovind tell you that?

[Rev7]

Originally Posted by Tyrion

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.

This is true. However, I think that we are the superior species. The rhino might be big and tough, but we can still kill it. I guess that you might have the advantage in this area, because of the theory. It is our intelligence that makes us superior to all other species.

Originally Posted by Achilles

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.

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.

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 ).

Perhaps, but how do we know for sure that this happened? Are you saying that if I had a son, potentially he could sprout a tail, and grow massive amounts of hair all over his body? How do you know the difference between mutation and defects?

[Achilles]

Originally Posted by Rev7

Perhaps, but how do we know for sure that this happened?

Because that's what all the evidence and research tells us. The discovery of DNA simply confirmed what Darwin predicted.

Originally Posted by Rev7

Are you saying that if I had a son, potentially he could sprout a tail, and grow massive amounts of hair all over his body?

Yep. If the right (or should I say "wrong") genes are activated then that could absolutely happen (I provided a picture of a human born with a tail above).

Originally Posted by Rev7

How do you know the difference between mutation and defects?

They are the same thing. "Mutation" is what it is. "Defect" is the label that we assign to it. Every human born has undergone "mutations" (as they are not an exact DNA replica of either parent but a unique combination of both parents' DNA). Most are common or otherwise unnoticeable.

[M@RS]

Originally Posted by Achilles

Kent Hovind tell you that?

partly but if you look at the picture closely you'll notice that the "tail" is of centered and that happens when the fat from the spines is pushed out

also on wikipedia the "More on human tails" article talks about the "tail" when we are embrios is the fat that is pushed into the spine

And also what is the missing link? what all of the other "links" half of them where found with human bones the scientists just never say that

[Achilles]

Originally Posted by M@RS

partly but if you look at the picture closely you'll notice that the "tail" is of centered and that happens when the fat from the spines is pushed out

Where else would the tail be? It's at the same place on every animal that has one

Originally Posted by M@RS

also on wikipedia the "More on human tails" article talks about the "tail" when we are embrios is the fat that is pushed into the spine

Infrequently, a child is born with a "soft tail", which contains no vertebrae, but only blood vessels, muscles, and nerves, although there have been a very few documented cases of tails containing cartilage or up to five vertebrae.

No mention of "fat" here.

Originally Posted by M@RS

And also what is the missing link? what all of the other "links" half of them where found with human bones the scientists just never say that

"Missing link" for what?

[Rev7]

Originally Posted by Achilles

Yep. If the right (or should I say "wrong") genes are activated then that could absolutely happen (I provided a picture of a human born with a tail above).

Okay. That 'tail' certainly does look like just fat. Don't tails have muscle to them? <EDIT> sorry, you posted before me. <EDIT 2>"It doesn't protrude externally, but retains an anatomical purpose: providing an attachment for muscles like the gluteus maximus." ????

They are the same thing. "Mutation" is what it is. "Defect" is the label that we assign to it. Every human born has undergone "mutations" (as they are not an exact DNA replica of either parent but a unique combination of both parents' DNA). Most are common or otherwise unnoticeable.

I thought that is what you would say.

[M@RS]

Originally Posted by Achilles

Where else would the tail be? It's at the same place on every animal that has one

No mention of "fat" here.

"Missing link" for what?

oops I ment not centered I'm tired and am going to turn in have fun prooving evolution Achilles, I hope you eventually know the truth...

[Achilles]

Originally Posted by Rev7

Okay. That 'tail' certainly does look like just fat. Don't tails have muscle to them?

See my response to M@RS.

Originally Posted by Rev7

I thought that is what you would say.

I say it because it's true

[M@RS]

if you know that baby in the picture ask it to move it's tail, if it can than it is a tail if not it's fat like I said or watch him and see if he moves his tail

[Rev7]

Originally Posted by Achilles

See my response to M@RS.

See my edit.

I say it because it's true

In your opinion of course. How do you you know what truth is?

[Achilles]

I don't know the baby in the picture, so I can't carry out your experiment for you. I am glad that I was able to answer your question regarding human tails.

Originally Posted by Rev7

See my edit.

Okay

Originally Posted by Rev7

"It doesn't protrude externally, but retains an anatomical purpose: providing an attachment for muscles like the gluteus maximus." ????

Right. Muscles attach to bone and contracting them is what allows us to move. When you move your arm up and down it's because the muscles connecting to your upper arm and lower arm (called your bicep and tricep) is contracting. The muscle that allows your upper leg to move back and forth (like when you walk or climb stairs) is (primarily) your gluteus maximus and it connects to your thigh bone and a bunch of other bones in your lower back, including your coccyx (aka your tailbone).

Originally Posted by Rev7

In your opinion of course. How do you you know what truth is?

In this case it's easy because we're talking about a word:

Main Entry: mu·ta·tion
Pronunciation: <snip>
Function: noun
Date: 14th century

1: a significant and basic alteration : change
2: umlaut
3 a: a relatively permanent change in hereditary material involving either a physical change in chromosome relations or a biochemical change in the codons that make up genes; also : the process of producing a mutation b: an individual, strain, or trait resulting from mutation

Emphasis added.

By way of comparison:

Main Entry: birth defect
Function: noun
Date: 1971

: a physical or biochemical defect that is present at birth and may be inherited or environmentally induced

All they are talking about here is a mutation, however by labeling it as "a defect" they are placing a value on it (i.e. "bad" mutation as opposed to "normal" mutation or even a "good" mutation).

[M@RS]

YES! humans lie all of the time how do you know you weren't lied to Achilles?

[Achilles]

Originally Posted by M@RS

YES! humans lie all of the time how do you know you weren't lied to Achilles?

These cases are well documented. See I have objective evidence on my side.

How do you know that Kent Hovind and all your creationist influences weren't lying to you? You don't have objective evidence to show otherwise.

[Rev7]

^
Regardless, you still haven't fully answered my question. How do you know what truth really is.

I am really sorry that I am going off topic...

[Achilles]

Originally Posted by Rev7

Regardless, you still haven't fully answered my question. How do you know what truth really is.

Apologies. I didn't realize that you meant that in a context that had nothing to do with the part of my post that you were quoting

We can "know" things as much as the evidence allows us to "know" them. We know that the Theory of Evolution is "real" because of the predictions that have been independently confirmed, the evidence that has been gathered, etc, etc.

We can say thing like, "If ToE is an accurate model, then we should be able to find a fossil that has characteristics of this species as well as characteristics of that species. Because we found this there and that there, we know that we should look in this area. And because we know that this species lived during this time period and that species lived during that time period, we have to dig down about that far".

Everytime we do that and find what we are looking for, we gain that much more confidence that the ToE is accurate. And that's just paleontology. That says nothing about genetics, animal husbandry, etc, etc, etc. Each of these branches have their own predictions and there own mountain of evidence supporting the ToE as it relates to them.

[ET Warrior]

Originally Posted by Rev7

you still haven't fully answered my question. How do you know what truth really is.

Playing semantic games won't gain you much ground here... Mutations and Defects are the same because the English language has been defined in such a way that they are literally talking about the same thing. If you want to redefine words to fit your preconceived notions then you'll have a hard time communicating with a lot of people.

M@RS: You have been repeatedly warned, so pay attention. If you want to discuss something that is not evolution, there are a lot of threads in the Senate that you can bring up, or you can start a thread about it. Do not derail the topic of this thread.

As for the topic itself: Evolution is a fact. Mountains of evidence that grows everyday and a fossil record that is frequently being filled in make it nigh indisputable.

[Acrylic]

Originally Posted by ET Warrior

As for the topic itself: Evolution is a fact. Mountains of evidence that grows everyday and a fossil record that is frequently being filled in make it nigh indisputable.

I believe that evolution is indeed something that is true, but I would like a source for that, please?

[M@RS]

Achilles can you answer me this, what about Carbon Dating or any other type of dating? It's about evolution and I'll show you how.

[ET Warrior]

Originally Posted by Acrylic

I believe that evolution is indeed something that is true, but I would like a source for that, please?

Fossils
Mountain of Evidence

Originally Posted by M@RS

Achilles can you answer me this, what about Carbon Dating or any other type of dating? It's about evolution and I'll show you how.

As opposed to baiting out answers from the people opposing you, perhaps you could just make an entire post explaining why you obviously think carbon dating, and I assume other radiometric dating is incorrect? I'll supply you with a couple of links explaining why they are
Radiometric Dating
Carbon Dating
I realize that most of my links are to talkorigins, but that is because it is written in a way that is easy for the layman to understand, and provides plenty of sources for all of their claims.

[M@RS]

The reason why no dating is correct is because the atmosphere was different in the past scientists have found pieces of amber with 32% oxygen instead of 25%, also the pressure was different in the past, causing the amount of carbon or anything else to be wrong because the scientists today judge the date on how everything is today not back then...

[M@RS]

Ding Ding Ding
End of round one! We should all calm down a bit especially me (sorry)

[ET Warrior]

Originally Posted by M@RS

The reason why no dating is correct is because the atmosphere was different in the past scientists have found pieces of amber with 32% oxygen instead of 25%, also the pressure was different in the past, causing the amount of carbon or anything else to be wrong because the scientists today judge the date on how everything is today not back then...

First of all, what are you defining as 'the past'? It is well known that the composition of our atmosphere has undergone quite a large number of changes over the course of our planets existence. However, atmospheric pressure has little to no effect on radiometric dating
(from http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/dalr...ic_dating.html)

A great many experiments have been done in attempts to change radioactive decay rates, but these experiments have invariably failed to produce any significant changes. It has been found, for example, that decay constants are the same at a temperature of 2000°C or at a temperature of -186°C and are the same in a vacuum or under a pressure of several thousand atmospheres. Measurements of decay rates under differing gravitational and magnetic fields also have yielded negative results. Although changes in alpha and beta decay rates are theoretically possible, theory also predicts that such changes would be very small (42) and thus would not affect dating methods. Under certain environmental conditions, the decay characteristics of 14C, 60Co, and 137Ce, all of which decay by beta emission, do deviate slightly from the ideal random distribution predicted by current theory (5, 6), but changes in the decay constants have not been detected.

Also, take the time to read a long series of step by step debunking of Hovind's arguments

[M@RS]

Remember Evolution is a theory it wouldn't be the first time a scientists lied to match their theory with "real" science

and Dr. Hovind doesn't rely on that one statement his other statement comes from the Bible "By the mouth of two or three witnesses let all truth be established and every man a liar" (or something like that)

[Achilles]

Originally Posted by M@RS

Remember Evolution is a theory it wouldn't be the first time a scientists lied to match their theory with "real" science

What evidence do you have to support that all that evidence has been falsified? Yes, individuals have been known to falsify "evidence" in order to further their own celebrity, but they have always been revealed as frauds by other scientists who are actually interested in furthering knowledge and understanding.

To get to the place that you're suggesting would require a vast global conspiracy that spans generations. So we're back to operationally defining "fairy tale" again.

In other words you're grasping at straws and they aren't even very good ones.

[M@RS]

I didn't say all evidence quit twisting my words I said some and yes scientists have been caught lying but look at this: They still teach this in the textbooks even though it has been falsified.

http://pigeonchess.wordpress.com/200...awings-flawed/

this spans the generations so they aren't straws they're strong walls

[Achilles]

Then I'm not understanding what your contention is.

Hekel's drawings are still used? Please provide evidence (not hearsay) to support your assertion.

As far as their usage, yes, they were supported for as long as they were believed to be accurate. As soon as other scientists were able to falsify Hekel's drawings they were pulled.

[M@RS]

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedi...l_drawings.jpg

http://www.discovery.org/a/3935

Look at both of these...

[ET Warrior]

Originally Posted by M@RS

Dr. Hovind doesn't rely on that one statement his other statement comes from the Bible

Indeed, perhaps you should actually take the time to read the link I provided, they show why over 30 of Hovind's points against evolution are misinformed at best.

[M@RS]

But not all of them, I'm going to be gone for awhile so don't do anything while I'm gone
try not to strangle any other creationists either

[Achilles]

Creationists that open evolution threads with lines like "I like to argue" (without actually knowing anything about evolution) generally get what they ask for. So pretty please spare us the "poor me/strangling" rhetoric.

[M@RS]

I'm not giving the "poor me/strangling" rhetoric, I was saying calm down with the other guys that was all, (it's called sarcasm) I do know about evolution I talk to Scientists who come to the local Science Center about evolution and they can never answer me. Now to the subject, If the Big Bang really happened, (wasn't it spinning) then why are planets, moons, and even galaxies spinning backwards?

http://www.space.com/scienceastronom...backwards.html

http://209.85.173.104/search?q=cache...ient=firefox-a

http://media.www.nicsentinel.com/med...-3278943.shtml

http://johnshoreland.com/2008/03/03/...ins-backwards/

http://www.digisys.net/users/ddalton..._evolution.htm

Look at this article

http://brickballoon.com/faith/millions-of-years.html

[ET Warrior]

Astronomy and Astrophysics have nothing to do with Evolution.

[M@RS]

Yes they do, Evolution starts with astronomy (in space) read the articles and you'll see how they do something to do with Evolution (it's science right, then you have to turn to other parts of science to answer the question of evolution)

[Achilles]

That's not something that you get to decide, friend.

Here's how it works in the real world:
Pre-big bang - Quantum physics
big bang - astronomy
formations of stars and planets - astronomy
orgins of life - chemistry
changes in lifeforms over time - biology (Theory of evolution)

These are completely separate fields of study, not inter-related in anyway.