• Please read the Announcement concerning missing posts from 10/8/25-10/15/25.
  • This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!
  • Welcome to our archives. No new posts are allowed here.

Evolution


I think part of the problem here is that you are unable to understand anything that isn't binary. the first human was only barely human when compared to humans today, and it's parents were almost (like really really close to human, maybe just one neck hair difference).

Everything isn't black or white, there are zillions of graduated variations between black and white.

I've met more than one person who I thought to be "not quite human", maybe those people didn't quite get all the modern day human genes, or maybe some ancient pre-human genes still exist in their DNA.
 
seax said:
...As I mentioned, apes have 99% of our DNA...maybe not because they are ancestors ...
Click to expand...

Apes aren't our ancestors. Apes and humans came from a common ancestor, which was neither quite ape or quite human, but for some reason evolved into both (probably due to some sort of climate change or geographic separation like a continental drift).
 
seax said:
I don't believe everything that was bipedal was an ancient human because the mechanics of it was similar to us. ...
Click to expand...

Good, because scientist don't believe that either. But at least one bipedal ancestor did evolve into humans (others became extinct or became apes), even though it wasn't quite human.
 
seax said:
I have no trouble with basic biology, did great in biology in school. I just have a problem accepting something proclaimed the gospel when it has more hole in it than a fishing net.

seax
Click to expand...

I suspect the reason ou have that problem, is because you aren't willing to let go of your belief in myths and fairy tales, or alternatively (and less offensively), you are not willing to reconcile your belief in the Bible with science by admitting that the stories may not be literal.
 

I'm not the one dressed like a clown....you let me determine fairtales I don't need the advice of a clown.

seax
 
Which one....lay it out and lets put this to rest.

seax
 
I may have been wrong on that, they may have been ancestors for some.

seax
 
seax said:
I may have been wrong on that, they may have been ancestors for some.

seax
Click to expand...

That 'some" never evolved, I have no doubt.
 
Threegoofs said:
Learn to quote.

And you still need to clearly describe ‘a hole’ in evolutionary theory.
Click to expand...

You can't answer my question, I guess it's because wikipedia don't have the answer for you. If you can't determine what holes I've mentioned this evening it's wasted time. You can't answer the question...there is no answer only theory...if you can prove ...beyond a shadow of a doubt that evolution be it of man or animal is a fact by supplying all the fossil evidence from the first prototype of man up to now....you will be a rich man and I will be the first to apologize. If it makes you feel any better...no one can answer the question...right now..anyway. But to explain the terminology hole in the context I am speaking...its missing data, and missing proof....gaps.

best regards,
seax
 

You don't know what the holes are. Understood.
 
zyzygy said:
You don't know what the holes are. Understood.
Click to expand...
lol...whatever....seems you can't fill them in. If you don't know what a hole is...I guess it would be difficult filling one in. Don't feel bad....those with more letters behind their name can't either.

best regards,
seax
 

I can’t type any slower for you.

Describe.A.’Hole’.
 
Not saying that God doesn't exist I am asking why you would reject evolution that not only has evidence for but is actually been observed to happen for creationism that has no evidence at all?



Again evolution has been observed and the fossil record is evidence

You are talking about sudden change from large jaw to smaller etc, but it doesn't happen like that. My son is taller than me if his children are taller and other people children are generally taller (some can be shorter) then eventually the population will get taller. There will be no one point where we can say aha! this is when humans gained 2 inches. It is gradual moves back and forth but tends that way. Same brows or jaws.
 
seax said:
Does it matter if we are talking about humans or whales?
Click to expand...
Not in the slightest

Would evolution not be the same principle for both? Ok...let's leave humans out of it...I don't believe as mentioned a whale evolved from a wolf as was tried to be taught to me.
Click to expand...
Then you were taught poorly as whales didn't evolve from wolves
Actually there is fossil evidence of the evolution of whales but you are ignoring my main question why accept creationism that has 0 evidence but reject evolution that not only has evidence but has been observed?


Science accepts that it can be wrong and will adjust as new evidence comes to light. That seems like the rational approach to me.
 
Anyone can be wrong and make a correction...but this don't make evolution anymore than a therory...that is loaded up with bias. When one considers him/her self god as some of these folks do, they don't don't like to say maybe I was wrong. When something has been treated as the 'absolute truth' for over 100 years by an academia loaded against any kind of organized religion it's hard to eat that crow. There is fossil evidence of whales....but whales... not wolves that morphed into whales. I don't think you are going to show me one species of whales with a tidy morph from a wolf to a whale...lol.. I don't see any or have not been given a sufficient explanation of what it is in the DNA that changes an arm to a flipper or leg to a flipper....or vise versa...neither have you. For that to occur would be by outside influence tampering with DNA.

I have full respect for science, really love it...but science is like any other field. There is politics involved and that includes 'internal' politics. This article is a good example of how a mainstream scientist made a good find....did exactly as she should have to test the data and give the results no one time but over 17 I believe. Members of her own community said they would not accept the output...the same holds true with the hoax global warming.

https://www.smithsonianmag.com/science-nature/dinosaur-shocker-115306469/

Anyone that don't think science is not biased needs to wake up and smell the coffee...expecially in the climate we live in now. Ms. Swartzer's find didn't follow the status quo, so they ignore the evidence they so proudly say they have a monopoly on.

best regards,

seax
 

Nice fantasy.

But the discovery of DNA, the unraveling of the actual mechanism of evolution, and the confirmation between fossil evidence and DNA differences makes evolution a virtual certainty in the scientific world.

So much so, that it’s almost impossible to imagine a scenario where it would NOT be true.
 

Well, no one ever made a claim that wolves morphed into whales., so why shoudl there be any evidence for it??? Beside, first comes the evidence then the concept based on the evidence. Now, actually, when it comes to whales, the animal that shares the common ancestor with the whale that lives on land is actually the hippo.
 

Maybe in the scientific world (areas of the scientific world) to keep grant money pouring in and as I mentioned....crow don't taste so good. Many are good people...I'm not bashing everyone, without science we would be in the stone age, but like the justice system there is no room for politics and agendas. The article I posted is a good example of that...if you don't like the outcome .....just lie and deny, I take my hat off to Ms Swartzer.

seax
 

Well, the grant money is pouring in because, not surprisingly, the mechanism for evolution has a huge amount of practical applications, from pharmaceuticals, to GMOs, to population biology.
 

Is that supposed to mean something? You appear to be groping towards making a point. What is it?
 
The general picture of evolution via random convergence has already been proven, but now epigenetics is throwing a new dynamic into the picture. The fact that people's genes can be altered within a single lifetime due to environmental factors and then passed onto offspring shows that it's not just a matter of static traits having the good luck of making it into reproduction.

A study in 2017 on the descendants of holocaust survivors showed that trauma can possibly be transmitted to offspring, along with other epigenetic changes.

If our environment and behaviors activate or deactivate genes, then that's only one step away from our intentions setting the stage for our genes to change. If being lazy and eating like crap your whole life causes gene change then that means your free-will choice to do so is shaping your own evolution. You weren't born with a static set of genes turned off and on. They are flexible throughout life.

So in short I think the evolution picture is much more complicated than has already been stated. Anyone who is still debating its basic premise is living in the stone ages because not only has it already been proven but we are moving on to much more new and exciting territory now.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Menu
Log in
Register
Cookies are required to use this site. You must accept them to continue using the site. Learn more…