<p>
</p>
<p>Note that I stated above that I also consider population growth a poor measure of the earth’s age.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Specifically, we know of exactly one well-documented species which is believed to be a stage between Lucy and you.</p>
<p>One.</p>
<p>Ok?</p>
<p>If you meant to say “we have found fossils of about a half-dozen varieties of humans, from which we infer the existence of a progression between apes and humans, although only one species thought to be part of this progression has been found” then that would be true.</p>
<p>Note that all of this is based off of my own research on wikipedia and the web. If there are more intermediates that have been found please let me know.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Well, strictly speaking, the Earth could have begun mere seconds ago, with all of my memories and knowledge having been artificially created. But within the reasonable limits of doubt, reliable human records go back at least 6,000 years. Beyond that we can only infer, and our inferences may be based on false assumptions.</p>
<p>I’m pretty religious.</p>
<p>My brother is a “thiest” I actually just think he’s an athiest.</p>
<p>We were both raised in the same home…with basically the same experiences.</p>
<p>I think that environmental factors have a lot to do with it.</p>
<p>I feel that he has some sort of justification for his beliefs. And as per my religious views, I respect his.</p>
<p>Let them be what they want, you can’t force your views on anyone, so why sit around thinking about it?</p>
<p>^ Because, if I’m right, then it is a life-or-death matter whether people think about it.</p>
<p>^ Nobody ever changes their mind though. Neither side has any benefit to attacking anybody’s beliefs</p>
<p>^ Well, even if I don’t change any minds, it still helps me test my own beliefs to hear all the objections to them.</p>
<p>Believing that the earth is around the age given in th bible(around 6000 years, no?) is akin to believing that the earth is flat. There simply is /that/ much evidence(radioisotope dating, dendrochronology, ice-core dating…) for the age of the earth being much older than that.</p>
<p>The same is true for evolution;bacteria have adapted in laboratories, studies have been done on guppy fish that show their evolution over relatively short periods of time, fossils, computer simulations, the commonality of DNA as genetic material(with the exception of a few RNA viruses), the homology among animals that have recent common ancestors… the list goes on and on and on and on.</p>
<p>The theory of evolution and the age of the earth being around 4 and a half billion years are facts.
Get over believing in religions over science when most major religious leaders have accepted the theory of evolution and the age of the earth.</p>
<p>[Pope:</a> Creation vs. evolution an ?absurdity? - World news - Europe - The Vatican - msnbc.com](<a href=“http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/19956961/]Pope:”>http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/19956961/)
[Jewish</a> views on evolution - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia](<a href=“http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jewish_views_on_evolution]Jewish”>Jewish views on evolution - Wikipedia)</p>
<p>Source for info on evolution:
Own knowledge and interest in biology and “The Greatest Show on Earth” by Richard Dawkins.</p>
<p>^^ Smh… smh.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>It’s ok if you don’t respond at all. I’m not sure if I’m supposed to laugh at what you write or weep about how embarrassing and moronic it is.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Genetics has gone far past Mendel. It says nothing about genomic duplication or mutation.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Because you need to crap all over evolution in order to protect your delusions.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Your knowledge of science - biology in particular - is so unbelievably incorrect and weak-minded it would be really difficult for you to get anywhere.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>They’re “all the same?” That’s a completely stupid statement. </p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Read the 2.7 million articles below. Then tell me that evolution is “a bunch of nonsense” (as you said on the other thread) or that there isn’t any evidence. </p>
<p>[evolution</a> - Google Scholar](<a href=“Google Scholar”>Google Scholar)</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Yeah, you said evolution isn’t collecting evidence.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Your dogmatic agenda is bleeding through this one. You’re trying to insinuate that as time goes on evolution will be rejected. Unfortunately for you and your fellow ignorant comrades, evolution only gets more and more evidenced to the point of it being the most well supported theory in all of science. By the time you’re 80 and have read 10% of the 2.7 million scientific (peer-reviewed) papers (which, btw, use evidence not made-up stories), there’ll be another 10 million waiting for you.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>This is just more of your stupid argument trying to suggest that evolution could meet the same fate as the flat-Earth or whatever. Its ridiculous to put geocentrism up there. It never had scientific evidence. The only “evidence” for it was your bible and the arrogant belief that humans are the greatest race in the center of the universe. Newtonian mechanics work very well for large objects and its what you’ll use in basic physics. Same goes for Euclidian geometry.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Are you really this ridiculous? This is extremely false. There are dozens of documented species between apes and modern Homo sapiens. Some are branch-outs and not our lineal ancestors but they are document. Read the link below. There are **28<a href=“based%20on%20first%20count”>/b</a>. Count them off. Many were discovered last decade. More will almost certainly follow. And you claim there’s one!!! Boy, oh boy… you are something else…</p>
<p>[Human</a> evolution - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia](<a href=“Human evolution - Wikipedia”>Human evolution - Wikipedia)</p>
<p>They can date all of these through multiple procedures to see where they fall into the picture age-wise. Radiometric dating and cytochrome c are two methods (radiometric dating is multiple methods under one title). The results from these procedures have matched age-wise and through multiple samples. The evolutionary progression follows the age scheme. And you are still deluded enough to discard this in favor of your multi-thousand yr. old religious bull??</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Getting destroyed in an argument (as you did on every point in the last thread) doesn’t help your cause. Not to mention you are so scientifically refuted and incompetent at arguing…</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Writing in haste, as I have to leave for the weekend in a few minutes.</p>
<p>There is one (1) claimed lineal link between Apes (like lucy), and modern man, of which we have found multiple remains across different sites. All of the others on that list are either apes, humans, claimed side-branches who are not thought to be ancestors of humans, or a name that has been given to one skull cap or isolated find. If you believe in evolution, then you infer from these side branches that the central line existed, which may be a valid inference, but so far that central line has not been found.</p>
<p>Can’t go into any more detail today, sorry.</p>
<p>trollpost?</p>
<p>why does anyone believe in anything?</p>
<p>Omg… high school life is worse than ever. There exist people here who actually don’t believe that the earth is ~4.6 billion years old?!! This is even a debate!!!</p>
<p>Save us!!!11one!!1</p>
<p>It doesn’t make sense to me, personally. But if you want it to be your perspective, if it makes your life seem fulfilling, then fine.</p>
<p>Ok, in further detail:</p>
<p>During the debate with mifune I researched the current theories on human origins. I did not know until then how big the lack of progession was. It is true that when you look on Wikipedia’s “list of human ancestors”, there are a lot of names. But when I researched them individually, I found that the “extremely well-documented transition” was not nearly as convincing as I was told.</p>
<p>Contrary to a slow, smooth progression, there is essentially Apes (like Lucy), humans (like us), and one “species” which is claimed to be a link between the two. This species is either habilis, erectus, or ergaster. Scientists disagree on which of these was the human ancestor, and some believe that they were actually just regional groups of the same species.</p>
<p>After these we jump directly to Heidelberg Man. I consider Heidelberg Man to be a race of humans. Their average brain size was well within the modern norm. The evidence we have of their lifestyle gives us nothing to indicate that they were any different from modern Aboriginal tribes. if such creatures existed today, I think it would be an outrage to suggest that they were a different species than us, or that they were “less evolved”.</p>
<p>Note that all of the above does not invalidate evolution. It is certainly possible from this information that humans really did develop from ergaster/habilis/erectus, or that heidelberg really was subhuman. And these finds could be considered to support that viewpoint. However, they are far from the kind of proof you seem to think exists.</p>
<p>BTW, evolution is the most well supported theory in all of science? So, it’s better supported than theories like gravity? Or did I read that wrong?</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>It really shouldn’t be. The age of the Earth question has been settled through hundreds of independent measurements but the religious nuts keep on pressing the 6,000 yrs. bull. Think about this - if me and the person reading this each live to 100 years, then the sum of our ages would be over 3% of the total age of the Earth! You have to be a huge idiot to believe that. Evolution is no longer a debate either. But fundamentalist religious freaks like pretending that it is. The question of a god’s existence is a decent debate, but its still mostly pointless. People need to clarify what they means by “god” or “gods” in the first place since most people have a different definition or else just believe in different ones. If its defined in a contradictory way, then it doesn’t exist. The common monotheistic definition is contradictory in multiple ways. (Archived on page ~120 of the other thread.)</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>So we have hundreds of fossil samples and close to 30 defined species (at the moment) and the progression isn’t good enough? It really depends on how much of a “progression” you’re asking for. For scientists, its more than adequate and more than convincing. For creationists and other evolution-slashing people, its a common argument to parrot that the fossil record isn’t good enough. For you people, if a fossil fills a gap, then the argument is “well now there’s two gaps! Lets see you people dig up two more fossils!” when those gaps are filled, then there’s four gaps. When those are found, theres eight gaps…and on and on and on. But as someone said before, we don’t need the fossil record in order to support evolution. It’s good for the public, but there’s so much evidence aside from the fossil record that its just another convenience.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Are you aware of these fossils: [List</a> of human evolution fossils - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia](<a href=“List of human evolution fossils - Wikipedia”>List of human evolution fossils - Wikipedia)</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>We don’t “directly jump” to it. (Nice implicit bash though.) Some fossils of heidelbergensis are considered intermediates between erectus and itself and some are considered intermediates between itself and H. sapiens. Heidelbergensis is likely a direct descendant of ergaster and a direct pre-human species.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Well, you’d be wrong. There wouldn’t be a single (reputable) evolutionary biologist who would agree with you either. They are NOT another race of humans. They are different — structurally and intellectually to deserve a separate species classification. Saying they’re just like Aborigines is amateurish nonsense. Its also a racist comment. </p>
<p>Where do you get these crappy ideas? Also - do you mind supporting what you say with a valid source once in a while?</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Says Mr. Evolution-Basher. (Nevermind the fact that no evolutionary biologist agrees with you.) We have two-and-a-half dozen intermediate species between chimpanzees and humans with fossil and molecular data showing progression that falls into a solid hierarchy and you claim that they aren’t more solid evidence for evolution. </p>
<p>The fact of the matter is that you’ve invested so much energy into bashing science on this website that you aren’t about to back down. NOTHING will make you change your mind because you’ve put too much into this to do so.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>We know more about evolution than we do about gravity. You’re so tied to biblical nonsense that if your book had qualms about gravity you’d be on here bashing that too.</p>
<p>People don’t believe in God because they choose not to.</p>
<p>Just like we choose not to believe in unicorns, eh?</p>
<p>Because 90% of his pathetic followers make it easy to. God is good all the time!!</p>