Newgrounds.com — Everything, By Everyone.

At 5/20/09 01:04 PM, subpar wrote: Okay, I take it back, you're not completely ignorant.

That's even better than my atomic theory analogy.

I'm glad we agree and didn't jump to conclusions and calling each other "ignorant".

Oh wait

At 5/20/09 01:07 PM, junkietomato wrote: I'm glad we agree and didn't jump to conclusions and calling each other "ignorant".

Well, it's the internet. That's how it goes.

At 5/20/09 07:40 AM, ScorpionReturn5 wrote:

At 5/20/09 07:38 AM, HandsomePete wrote: You have no idea how dumb the arguments of anti-evolutions are on this one... They all boil down to "nut-uh." Some people won't believe something they always thought was different no matter how much evidence you give them.

Evolution is what they believe. I know God made us all.

Yeah. And don't forget that Earth is flat and centre of the universe and space is filled with water.

At 5/20/09 01:08 PM, subpar wrote:

At 5/20/09 01:07 PM, junkietomato wrote: I'm glad we agree and didn't jump to conclusions and calling each other "ignorant".

Well, it's the internet. That's how it goes.

You should've seen the sports forums, things turns ugly over there.

At 5/20/09 12:42 PM, IIlIllIII wrote: Black, people are more resistant to UV rays and solar burns, because their skin adapted to the sun.

At 5/20/09 12:46 PM, Infinite-one wrote: And the whites did evolve to suit their frigid environment as well.

Sheesh, evolution isn't that hard to understand. Two assets have evidence to support them, mutation and natural selection. Not adaption, not genetic drift, not gene flow - mutation and natural selection. Seriously, if you are going to represent creationism, at least get your shit straight. I thought they even taught this in schools in the US?

It's not quantum physics, it's simple and straightforward. Species do not adapt, species do not deliberately alter their genes. Evolution is caused by species with traits originated from mutated DNA being more fit for survival, claiming anything else without evidence to back it up is just as reasonable as saying the world was created 6000 years ago.

At 5/20/09 10:19 AM, HandsomePete wrote: Exactly. There is evidence that evolution is real, none that God is, and yet, Christians will "know" that God did it until they die or their religion is phased out of society.

The question is: does it matter at all?

At 5/20/09 07:03 AM, flashwarrior wrote: If apes evolve into humans, that means in about a million years, our apes today will start becoming humans.

riddle me this: if all of the apes back then turned into humans, then how the hell would we still have apes and monkeys in our zoo's and forests? HMM?

At 5/20/09 01:22 PM, Spartan500 wrote:

At 5/20/09 07:03 AM, flashwarrior wrote: If apes evolve into humans, that means in about a million years, our apes today will start becoming humans.

riddle me this: if all of the apes back then turned into humans, then how the hell would we still have apes and monkeys in our zoo's and forests? HMM?

Then answer is easy. They didn't.

At 5/20/09 01:24 PM, desert116 wrote:

At 5/20/09 01:22 PM, Spartan500 wrote:

At 5/20/09 07:03 AM, flashwarrior wrote: If apes evolve into humans, that means in about a million years, our apes today will start becoming humans.

riddle me this: if all of the apes back then turned into humans, then how the hell would we still have apes and monkeys in our zoo's and forests? HMM?

Then answer is easy. They didn't.

Gaah! What the hell is wrong with my writing today? What I meant to say was that not all apes evolved.

At 5/20/09 01:24 PM, desert116 wrote:

At 5/20/09 01:22 PM, Spartan500 wrote:

At 5/20/09 07:03 AM, flashwarrior wrote: If apes evolve into humans, that means in about a million years, our apes today will start becoming humans.

riddle me this: if all of the apes back then turned into humans, then how the hell would we still have apes and monkeys in our zoo's and forests? HMM?

The answer is easy. They didn't.

if they had the same DNA, and every thing of the same type had the same DNA, why did they not change? and what makes you think they would change in a few million years? they did not then, and they won't at all. evolution is a mith, it's going to take a god to convince me.

At 5/20/09 01:24 PM, desert116 wrote:

At 5/20/09 01:22 PM, Spartan500 wrote:

riddle me this: if all of the apes back then turned into humans, then how the hell would we still have apes and monkeys in our zoo's and forests? HMM?

Then answer is easy. They didn't.

Ignorance loves company.

At 5/20/09 01:27 PM, Spartan500 wrote: if they had the same DNA, and every thing of the same type had the same DNA, why did they not change?

Wut?

and what makes you think they would change in a few million years?

Logic

they did not then, and they won't at all.

They did, and they will.

evolution is a mith,

What the hell is a mith?

it's going to take a god to convince me.

Too bad there isn't one.

At 5/20/09 01:16 PM, turboNEGROID wrote: ...Species do not adapt, species do not deliberately alter their genes...

Uh oh... is "adapt" the wrong word to use? I mentioned adaptation in one of my earlier posts, but I wasn't talking about the deliberate alteration of DNA. I was just referring to mutations and natural selection. I supposethe word "adaptation" does imply that the changes were intentional. Someone's probably going to criticize me for that mistake later, when I'm not here to defend myself, so I might as well correct myself now.

At 5/20/09 01:22 PM, Spartan500 wrote:

At 5/20/09 07:03 AM, flashwarrior wrote: If apes evolve into humans, that means in about a million years, our apes today will start becoming humans.

riddle me this: if all of the apes back then turned into humans, then how the hell would we still have apes and monkeys in our zoo's and forests? HMM?

Probably due to different environments, therefore they change over time time to suit their environment, take the different species of finch as your example.

What I'm saying is incredible vague but it's a basic picture.

At 5/20/09 01:29 PM, Infinite-one wrote:

Ignorance loves company.

Oh whoops, didn't see that last post you made. Sorry.

At 5/20/09 07:03 AM, flashwarrior wrote: If apes evolve into humans, that means in about a million years, our apes today will start becoming humans.

No they wont. It's a possibility they'll evolve into intellectual beings. But they wont be humans. Two species can't evolve into the exact same species. They can evolve into something similar but they'd still be taxonomically classified as something else.

At 5/20/09 01:22 PM, Spartan500 wrote: riddle me this: if all of the apes back then turned into humans, then how the hell would we still have apes and monkeys in our zoo's and forests? HMM?

Someone can correct me if I'm wrong, but I don't think Darwin ever said that modern humans evolved from modern apes. That wouldn't make a whole lot of sense, since apes evolved too. I'm not an evolutionary biologist, but the "apes" that we evolved from, hundreds of thousands of years ago, were most likely not the same as what we call "apes" today.

If that's not a good enough explanation for you, there's also the idea that humans have extra-terrestrial DNA which accounts for our high intelligence. It's a nice theory, as long as you don't wonder how those aliens came to exist or why they came to Earth to breed with our ancestors. On that note, did anyone else think the final episode of Battlestar Galactica was somewhat absurd?

At 5/20/09 01:31 PM, subpar wrote: Uh oh... is "adapt" the wrong word to use? I mentioned adaptation in one of my earlier posts, but I wasn't talking about the deliberate alteration of DNA. I was just referring to mutations and natural selection. I supposethe word "adaptation" does imply that the changes were intentional. Someone's probably going to criticize me for that mistake later, when I'm not here to defend myself, so I might as well correct myself now.

Everyone gets the linguistics wrong once in a while, but that's peanuts as long as you grasp the actual theory. Outright saying that species alter their DNA to survive is another thing. I don't get the theory of relativity, let alone advanced quantum physics - it's okay not to know everything. The thing is, if I don't fully understand an idea then I don't support or criticize it, like way too many people do in this thread.

Holy crap I did not know there were so many stupid people on newgrounds gosh. Evolution is basically how the creatures of today got here. They evolved here because they had(over millions of years) to in order to survive. And do not even say what happen to what didn't evolve those who didn't were chosen by natural selection to die. What more you keep saying you want proof but yet when we give it you say some crap about why it doesn't look like a human because it shouldn't. This missing link is what links early mammals to to early monkeys. Whats more actually read about evolution before you come here saying you want proof because there is.

There is also more to that, evolution also happens not just because of the environment but also because of genetic mutations that happen when a species is conceived. And when the parents genes mix creating they create new combinations of genes that are different then what its parents were. Now natural selection also selects what traits are more likely to appear and what traits are least likely to appear.

Wow I am done with my rant but gosh you people need to read more.

but there is one thing i dont get
if they say we evolved from ape yet there are still plenty of apes around today then why is there no longer any living 'missing links'?

At 5/20/09 02:10 PM, Jackho wrote: but there is one thing i dont get
if they say we evolved from ape yet there are still plenty of apes around today then why is there no longer any living 'missing links'?

That creature lived about 47 million years ago and it went extict at some point. DUH.

Missing link

oh yeh!

At 5/20/09 02:10 PM, Jackho wrote: but there is one thing i dont get
if they say we evolved from ape yet there are still plenty of apes around today then why is there no longer any living 'missing links'?

This one needs a bit of an explanation:
Let's call the missing link species A. Over time, species A's environment will change, leading to either the evolution of a new species, or the migration of the species into a different environment. In this case, let's say both happens, and species A gives rise to species B in its original environment, and species C in the environment it migrates to as a response to the change.
New species are generally better than their predecessors at surviving in the environment they evolved to live in, which usually (but not always) leads to the out-competing of the ancestral species by the new ones. In this case, species A would be out-competed by species B in its old environment, and by species C in the environment it migrated to.

In such scenarios, species A has no environment which it won't be pushed out of, and therefore it will go extinct due to being out-competed by its evolutionary offspring in all the environments it is found in.

This can explain why there appear to be holes in the living record of history. If the predecessor species could no longer deal with the competition, they would've died off.

At 5/20/09 02:10 PM, Jackho wrote: but there is one thing i dont get
if they say we evolved from ape yet there are still plenty of apes around today then why is there no longer any living 'missing links'?

Apes today are of the same descendants we evolved from.

This terminology "missing link" is essentially useless. We obviously don't have all the transitional forms of every species. Asking for every single transition is like asking for a picture of every second you lived and then order them together using a vast verity of methods.

At 5/20/09 02:29 PM, Brick-top wrote: This terminology "missing link" is essentially useless.

Nah, I don't think so. This fossil has clearly traits we never saw before. There was no knowledge before of a species that linked humans and apes to other mammals.

At 5/20/09 01:05 PM, junkietomato wrote:

At 5/20/09 01:01 PM, subpar wrote: The only person who responds to me ends up saying something completely ignorant. Hooray.

Funny, the same happens to me. Hooray!

Creationists are fucking douchebags and won't shut the fuck up no matter how much evidence you throw at them, because after all that's what being a douchebag is all about.

evidence what is evidence you find a bone in the ground how do they find it what time. it started with one guy who made up a time and followed it to today. TELL ME HOW HE BASED THE FACT OF TIME. that is all i ask for.

I guarantee you that half of the people commenting in this thread saying "YES, the missing link" don't even have a remote clue of why it is considered a missing link or what the hell was missing in the first place.

And furthermore, stop saying "OLOLOL THIS WILL SHUT CHRISTIANS UP". All major denominations of Christianity (The ultra-fundamentalist only-in-America groups aren't included here) believe in Evolution.

Hopefully it will convince people that evolution is real, but knowing how ignorant most religious people are, it wont change very many people's beliefs.

At 5/20/09 03:54 PM, Deadly-Shadow wrote: Hopefully it will convince people that evolution is real, but knowing how ignorant most religious people are, it wont change very many people's beliefs.

Why should it? Is it not possible that an all knowing, ominoptent being was smart enough to understand the improtance of evolution and wrote it into his design?

I find it odd that people never stop to consider the idea that maybe science is little more then the study of Gods work... and no amount of science, will ever be able to do anything other then explain how Gods creation functions.

Anti-Religious people are just as close minded as the religious ones...

This is less convincing than the fact that people were shorter in colonial times.