Science/Environment Explaining evolution and natural selection.

[Procrastinator35]

 

[Total Power]

You are an idiot, do you even know what you are quoting? we didnt descend from apes. Both apes and humans have a common ancestor. Just like you aren't descended from your sibling, you both have a common ancestor (unless you're from the milkman, but then we're just hoping for the best).our modern human species, Homo sapiens, is descended from hominoids, as are the various types of modern day apes, but this is trivial. While humans are descended from earlier hominoids, we've never at any point simply stopped being them. Saying we're descended from hominoids is a bit like saying we're descended from Earthlings. Stop copy pasting from dumb arses websites and try to understand evolution first.

 

[Total Power]

this sums you up p35

 

[Total Power]

 

[Total Power]

You also might want to read this, humans werent the only one diverged. There were others too. They are extinct now, but it doesn't mean they werent there. These species lived till recently (17.000 years ago). I am sure there are others too, we are only just finding out, but just for your sake lets jsut call them "monkeys" hey?

http://sitn.hms.harvard.edu/flash/2...ia-prove-existence-hobbitlike-ancient-humans/

 

[Long Live HFC]

how do you expect a proper discussion when morons like you don't even realise we didn't evolve from monkeys.

 

[Benny78]

a lot of discussion on various threads re the theory of evolution. thought it would be worth it's own thread.

i will start with 2 clips that have been shown to my grand children ages 5 to 11.

i welcome views and evidence that dispute the theory of evolution via natural selection.





these 2 on human evolution. not for young children.

Does this explain how water turns into wine? If water is a bacteria that evolves into wine over generations in a space of a second. Then I suppose evolution might be plausible.

 

[Watchyourwaite]

I remember watching a video, where this guy was explaining that creation was fact, because of a banana.
All I could think was, what about coconuts?

 

[The Unforgiven]

I know that you are trolling, because, whilst you say some out there shit regarding spirituality, you aren't seriously this stupid.

 

[Procrastinator35]

 

[Total Power]

I am glad to see you have so much fun with an invention made by Richard Dawkins

Imagine no memes? you wont be able to post all these pseudo science

 

[The Unforgiven]

I am glad to see you have so much fun with an invention made by Richard Dawkins

Imagine no memes? you wont be able to post all these pseudo science

Here's a meme which would make Richard proud:

 

[Total Power]

Here's a meme which would make Richard proud:

View attachment 311586

The point is he continues to make himself look stoopid in this thread, posting meme after meme without knowing what he is posting. The point is 100% of the people i met doubting evolution had no clue about what the theory is about. Yep 100% , he is no different.

 

[Chief]

You'll need to discuss the topic or leave the thread.

Thanks.

 

[chelseacarlton]

They are in the fossil record,go to the Smithsonian,its all there!
The outlying two are the end result of the intermediate,natural selection and survival of the fittest!
Yes,it's been a slow day!

 

[Total Power]

Here is a question to the anti-evolutionists, where did the intermediate species go? why "create" 95% of the intermediate species if they dont serve a purpose? neanderthals or homo habilis etc? only evolution can explain this.

 

[Fryman]

So do you guys think evolution was involved in creating different races of people or that race is a social construct?

 

[RupieDupie]

So do you guys think evolution was involved in creating different races of people or that race is a social construct?

Good question, say if a person stated that all people with X DNA sequence belong to a "race" of people they would find that on closer inspection that only some (emphasis) of the same group of people have a Y DNA sequence which they share with some people outside of "their group". Also in looking at all the people with the X DNA sequence they may not be able to tell who has the X DNA sequence through the use of a Munsell colour chart alone.

Then there are also some groups of people that are (on average) more closely related in comparison to other groups of people, but if you walked from one population into the other you may not be able to tell when one population ended and the second begun.

The TLDR here is that there is no biological basis to racial classification but can be used to determine ancestry.

But with regards to the social construct people still find race/ethnic distinctions "useful" depending on their perception of these things, for example, some people might watch a Labor TV ad, the Olympic Equestrian or the Oscars and note the absence of non-white participants, some people might see a recently arrived immigrant to the country and measure the "value" of the person inversely related to the melanin pigment in their skin, a newsreporter might describe a wanted person of "Asian" descent etc etc

 

[Fryman]

The TLDR here is that there is no biological basis to racial classification but can be used to determine ancestry

So Africans, East Asians and Caucasians all evolved the same, despite geographic separation and being subjected to different natural selection pressures for thousands of years?

 

[chelseacarlton]

So do you guys think evolution was involved in creating different races of people or that race is a social construct?

It's geographical,simple!

 

[Father Jack]

So Africans, East Asians and Caucasians all evolved the same, despite geographic separation and being subjected to different natural selection pressures for thousands of years?

'Thousands of years' isn't as long as I think you think it is

 

[Fryman]

'Thousands of years' isn't as long as I think you think it is

So 60,000 years isn't long enough for evolution to shape populations?

 

[RupieDupie]

So Africans, East Asians and Caucasians all evolved the same, despite geographic separation and being subjected to different natural selection pressures for thousands of years?

Nope, because if you grabbed the genome of a person with an East Asian ancestry and the genome of a person with an African ancestry you would find that they have different ancestries (how ironic). But if you then started to try to sort all of the people into groups based on their DNA sequences you would find that there is overlap / not a significant difference to warrant classification.

There have been selective pressures in human history including malaria, lactose, and alcohol (to name a few), and this can illustrate my point, if you look at the frequency of the allele for sickle-called anaemia it has a distribution in Africa and South Asia, and then when you add this to blood type frequencies some African populations have a similar blood type frequency to Europeans. So are Africans and Europeans part of the same race or Africans and South Asians?

 

[Father Jack]

So 60,000 years isn't long enough for evolution to shape populations?

Shape populations or create new species? And by 'thousands of years' did you mean 'tens of thousands or years'?

 

[Fryman]

Shape populations or create new species? And by 'thousands of years' did you mean 'tens of thousands or years'?

Where did I say new species?

They have traced natural selection pressures as recently as 1700's. So thousands or tens of thousands is still the same point.