- Status
At this point, Judah, the evidence is on the table, and we have provided all of it as requested by the o.p. All you're doing is denying it and calling it false. You have no proof against evolution and neither do any of your creationist friends. If you knew better, you would do better
Jaded Righteousness;4645950 said:
nigga please. i seen all that copy and paste google shit years ago on here and periodically when this comes up. u have no proof for evolution. there are fossils but interpretations are not proof. btw...im not a creationist. i already said a 6000 year old world is stupid too so why u ignore that? i know better than that shit yall talking. silly nigga let the cracka trick you outta your relationship to the Source but u and ur buddies act like that foolish shit makes you smart. yall niggas want hard facts when the discussion about God but when the shoe is on the other foot im supposed to take a muthafuckas word for it who was 1)racist 2)not a scientist (science was a hobby to darwin) 3) wasnt around millions of years ago. GTFOH
Gold_Certificate
New member
Biological evolution is a biological change over time. So the fact that people differ genotypically and phenotypically from their parents is enough to conclude that humans evolve biologically.
As for the specific means of biological evolution that led to the speciation of the "Homo sapien", there is a combination of genotypical and phenotypical analysis that is used to conclude that Homo sapiens biologically evolved from older species of apes; which evolved from some form of simpler eukaryotic ancestor. Unlike the case with people's immediate relatives, these ancestors to Homo sapiens no longer appear to be alive; therefore, since there is no primary source documenting their existence, fossils are likely the best means for deriving the aforementioned genotypical and phenotypical analysis. Unfortunately, the formation of these "body fossils" requires a very specific set of circumstances; either the organism must be immersed in sediment after dying, or it must be frozen, dried, or left in a deoxidized environment. For this reason, the discovery of fossils is a rare occurrence, and even rarer is the discovery of an in tact fossil. Furthermore, the mineralization that fossilizes these organisms destroys DNA that would be used for genotypical analysis; making older fossils less likely to have extractable DNA.
So, this leaves us with phenotypical analysis of the extremely-limited portion of fossilized organisms available to us. There are two main points of this phenotypical analysis that are useful with respect to the substantiation of biological evolution. The first, is the discerning of physical differences between fossilized organisms. This point is fairly simple to support, since physical differences between these organisms are readily-observable. An example of this is the smaller cranium, disproportionately longer limbs, and shorter stature of Homo habilis when compared to other humans--such as Homo sapiens. The second is the relative dating of these fossilized organisms. This can be done fairly accurately through radiometric dating; however, the depth of a fossil can also be used to estimate the its age, since older fossils tend to be deeper down than newer ones (because newer sediment settles on top of older sediment). An example of this is the fact that no fossils of humans (organisms within the "Homo" genus) have been found below the K-T line, while fossils of other organisms have been found below it.
The correlation between these two points is where evolutionary theory is formed. A good example of this correlation is the fact that fossils of organisms with simpler hearts (determined by separation of chambers, number of pumps, etc) tend to be older than fossils of organisms with more complex hearts. This shows a biological change in organisms' hearts over time; which in itself is biological evolution. Through comparisons like the examples I've listed, it has been observed that as time progresses, more complex/specialized/diverse organisms tend to arise. By using the facts that more complex/specialized/diverse organisms tend to appear over time, and that organisms are able to undergo biological evolution; it is concluded--backed by the physical fossil evidence mentioned in the above paragraph--that these newer, more complex/specialized/diverse organisms are to have biologically-evolved from older, simpler organisms.
As for the specific means of biological evolution that led to the speciation of the "Homo sapien", there is a combination of genotypical and phenotypical analysis that is used to conclude that Homo sapiens biologically evolved from older species of apes; which evolved from some form of simpler eukaryotic ancestor. Unlike the case with people's immediate relatives, these ancestors to Homo sapiens no longer appear to be alive; therefore, since there is no primary source documenting their existence, fossils are likely the best means for deriving the aforementioned genotypical and phenotypical analysis. Unfortunately, the formation of these "body fossils" requires a very specific set of circumstances; either the organism must be immersed in sediment after dying, or it must be frozen, dried, or left in a deoxidized environment. For this reason, the discovery of fossils is a rare occurrence, and even rarer is the discovery of an in tact fossil. Furthermore, the mineralization that fossilizes these organisms destroys DNA that would be used for genotypical analysis; making older fossils less likely to have extractable DNA.
So, this leaves us with phenotypical analysis of the extremely-limited portion of fossilized organisms available to us. There are two main points of this phenotypical analysis that are useful with respect to the substantiation of biological evolution. The first, is the discerning of physical differences between fossilized organisms. This point is fairly simple to support, since physical differences between these organisms are readily-observable. An example of this is the smaller cranium, disproportionately longer limbs, and shorter stature of Homo habilis when compared to other humans--such as Homo sapiens. The second is the relative dating of these fossilized organisms. This can be done fairly accurately through radiometric dating; however, the depth of a fossil can also be used to estimate the its age, since older fossils tend to be deeper down than newer ones (because newer sediment settles on top of older sediment). An example of this is the fact that no fossils of humans (organisms within the "Homo" genus) have been found below the K-T line, while fossils of other organisms have been found below it.
The correlation between these two points is where evolutionary theory is formed. A good example of this correlation is the fact that fossils of organisms with simpler hearts (determined by separation of chambers, number of pumps, etc) tend to be older than fossils of organisms with more complex hearts. This shows a biological change in organisms' hearts over time; which in itself is biological evolution. Through comparisons like the examples I've listed, it has been observed that as time progresses, more complex/specialized/diverse organisms tend to arise. By using the facts that more complex/specialized/diverse organisms tend to appear over time, and that organisms are able to undergo biological evolution; it is concluded--backed by the physical fossil evidence mentioned in the above paragraph--that these newer, more complex/specialized/diverse organisms are to have biologically-evolved from older, simpler organisms.
Last edited:
The True Flesh
New member
All I see is a bunch of linkswhich use deceptive language like "this strongly suggests" and "many experts agree that this points to" .......but nobody has proven JACK SH*T
In addition to these speculative strategies where is the unity in the scientific community??? there only a bunch of educated egomaniacs that can't even get on the same damn page with each other. If these fossils found in remote parts of the world prove darwin right why are they kept under wraps the way they are?
why don't they at least send a cast/mold to every museum curator in the world for examination. Of all the fossils that claim to be primitive man, do you know how few scientists actually get to examine them? Well, you can count them on one hand.......literally. Most antropologists will admit that they have never ever in their entire career handled a mold/cast of the most famous archaeological dicoveries that are supposed to confirm darwinian evolution.
That was my point about the schools, every school in this country should at least have a mold of a mold of lucy or whatever for the students to pass around since this Darwin crap is being passed off as fact.......sh*t, even the universities dont even have anything to go on except for photos of the earth-shattering fossil evidemnce for human evolution.
They should have more transperancy if they have nothing to hide.......that's all
PEACE
judahxulu;4645884 said:
In addition to these speculative strategies where is the unity in the scientific community??? there only a bunch of educated egomaniacs that can't even get on the same damn page with each other. If these fossils found in remote parts of the world prove darwin right why are they kept under wraps the way they are?
why don't they at least send a cast/mold to every museum curator in the world for examination. Of all the fossils that claim to be primitive man, do you know how few scientists actually get to examine them? Well, you can count them on one hand.......literally. Most antropologists will admit that they have never ever in their entire career handled a mold/cast of the most famous archaeological dicoveries that are supposed to confirm darwinian evolution.
That was my point about the schools, every school in this country should at least have a mold of a mold of lucy or whatever for the students to pass around since this Darwin crap is being passed off as fact.......sh*t, even the universities dont even have anything to go on except for photos of the earth-shattering fossil evidemnce for human evolution.
They should have more transperancy if they have nothing to hide.......that's all
PEACE
"In his theory of evolution, Charles Darwin never sought to unravel the mystery of where biological information comes from. For him, the origins of life remained shrouded in impenetrable obscurity. While the digital code in DNA first came to light in the 1950s, it wasn’t until later that scientists began to sense the implications behind the exquisitely complex technical system for processing and storing information in the cell. The cell does what any advanced computer operating system can do but with almost inconceivably greater suppleness and efficiency."
A serious question for Bambu and Judah: You brothers seem to be wary in cosigning evolution because you believe it is tied to racist ideas and white supremacy. However, you both insist on and have no problem with calling your black brothers niggas in the same derogatory fashion as the oppressors of our ancestors. Why is that?
True Flesh, go to the board of education and complain. The evidence for evolution is already out there for you. Whether you choose to accept it or not is your business but if you have problems with the scientific community or public school system, please protest in the correct places.
You asked for evidence of animals in transitional stages between classes and not only did I show you the tiktaalik fossil but being an overachiever, I mentioned the mudskipper which is between fish and amphibians, and the platypus which has features of different classes. I showed you the evolutionary line of humans and a few other animals like elephants and horses, which we have fossil evidence for; you can also research the rhinoceros and hippo if you would like to do so. You said earlier that you would like to stop talking about the school curriculum so please stop bringing it up you nitwit.
- Status
