Re: Evolution - Let's End This

[Ben]

test

Edit: WTF?! There's some weird bug that's making whatever I post become the first post in the thread!!!

[Race]

Are you or are you not the retard baby of five monkeys having buttsex with a mutant fish-squirrel?

[Shane W]

No, but you have just offended my great-grandfather

[Race]

No, but you have just offended my great-grandfatherWas he a monkey, or a mutant fish-squirrel?

[Jim T.]

Or am I the result of one of the sickest cases of incest ever? Adam, Eve, Cain & Abel Making Babies - it's like a cheesy 70's porn movie.

[Race]

Or am I the result of one of the sickest cases of incest ever? Adam, Eve, Cain & Abel Making Babies - it's like a cheesy 70's porn movie.Not an option! :-x

[DAVE]

So who voted against evolution?

[Gregory]

Pft. Four Horsemen, dude.

[Thomas Mauer]

Not an option! :-x
Then this poll is biased! :mad:

[Bill?]

now my daughter thinks that she's a retarded fish-frog! :mad:

[Matt Jay]

Finally, we can end this once and for all.

[Bill?]

I think this just about says it all-
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2z-OLG0KyR4

[james michael]

I think this just about says it all-
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2z-OLG0KyR4
any excuse to post that is a good excuse...

[TheKraken]

Finally, we can end this once and for all.

:lol:

[artimoff]

I think this just about says it all-
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2z-OLG0KyR4

It's not just any bananna, but a "well made" bananna.

[WillieLee]

I think this just about says it all-
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2z-OLG0KyR4

That video is so awesome. Just imagine the amount of drugs you have to ingest for any of that to make sense.

[Race]

Finally, we can end this once and for all.Now, let me see those beautiful breasts!

[Bill?]

It's not just any bananna, but a "well made" bananna.

it's the evolutionists worst nightmare!

[Jef UK]

This poll isn't very cogent.

[cmoney]

Yes there is no debate in the middle east as well as the infidels are executed.
EDIT: Nevermind.

[Frozen Sooner]

test

Edit: WTF?! There's some weird bug that's making whatever I post become the first post in the thread!!!

Help me prime-post the board back into continuity!

Pick a random thread on the first page and post in it. That'll move all the stuff that's getting real responses to the first page.

[Race]

it's the evolutionists worst nightmare!The Banana of DOOM! :scared:

[Race]

This poll isn't very cogent.Unlike all the other polls based on an episode of South Park?

[Khrutch]

Are you or are you not the retard baby of five monkeys having buttsex with a mutant fish-squirrel?

I vote this the best Race thread. Five stars for that post right there. ^^^ :lol:

By the way, science disproves Darwin's theory of Evolution. Darwin himself said:

"To suppose that the eye with all its inimitable contrivances for adjusting the focus to different distances, for admitting different amounts of light, and for the correction of spherical and chromatic aberration, could have been formed by natural selection, seems, I freely confess, absurd in the highest degree." [6]

6. Charles Darwin, "On the Origin of Species by Means of Natural Selection, or the Preservation of Favoured Races in the Struggle for Life," 1859, p. 155.

Some linkage:

http://www.allaboutscience.org/
http://www.darwins-theory-of-evolution.com/
http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2004/11/22/opinion/polls/main657083.shtml

I especially like this link. Chirality & Evolution:

http://www.icr.org/index.php?module=articles&action=view&ID=105

[Bill?]

I vote this the best Race thread. Five stars for that post right there. ^^^ :lol:

By the way, science disproves Darwin's theory of Evolution. Darwin himself said:

"To suppose that the eye with all its inimitable contrivances for adjusting the focus to different distances, for admitting different amounts of light, and for the correction of spherical and chromatic aberration, could have been formed by natural selection, seems, I freely confess, absurd in the highest degree." [6]

6. Charles Darwin, "On the Origin of Species by Means of Natural Selection, or the Preservation of Favoured Races in the Struggle for Life," 1859, p. 155.

Some linkage:

http://www.allaboutscience.org/
http://www.darwins-theory-of-evolution.com/
http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2004/11/22/opinion/polls/main657083.shtml

I especially like this link. Chirality & Evolution:

http://www.icr.org/index.php?module=articles&action=view&ID=105


luckily for creationists, science has progressed (evolved?) in no way (http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2004/10/041030215105.htm) since 1859.

[Flonk]

I think this just about says it all-
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2z-OLG0KyR4

Well, I'm convinced.

[WillieLee]

I vote this the best Race thread. Five stars for that post right there. ^^^ :lol:

By the way, science disproves Darwin's theory of Evolution. Darwin himself said:



No.

[DAVE]

I vote this the best Race thread. Five stars for that post right there. ^^^ :lol:

By the way, science disproves Darwin's theory of Evolution. Darwin himself said:

"To suppose that the eye with all its inimitable contrivances for adjusting the focus to different distances, for admitting different amounts of light, and for the correction of spherical and chromatic aberration, could have been formed by natural selection, seems, I freely confess, absurd in the highest degree." [6]

6. Charles Darwin, "On the Origin of Species by Means of Natural Selection, or the Preservation of Favoured Races in the Struggle for Life," 1859, p. 155.

Some linkage:

http://www.allaboutscience.org/
http://www.darwins-theory-of-evolution.com/
http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2004/11/22/opinion/polls/main657083.shtml

I especially like this link. Chirality & Evolution:

http://www.icr.org/index.php?module=articles&action=view&ID=105
Wow, no offense dude, but that's pretty dumb. Darwin's theory of evolution isn't even close to being the be all and end all of that theory. He merely set it in motion, but alot of his conclusions have been disproved. By who? By fellow evolutionists. Because that's how science works. It's evolution, if you will.

[Bill?]

Wow, no offense dude, but that's pretty dumb. Darwin's theory of evolution isn't the even close the be all and end all of that theory. He merely set it in motion, but alot of his conclusions have been disproved. By who? By fellow evolutionists. Because that's how science works. It's evolution, if you will.

just as a point of fact, Darwin never admitted that the eye was impossible to explain by evolution. just difficult. he even came up with a pretty workable theory (given the state of medical science in his time) as to how the human eye evolved. basically he says it seems absurd, but really isn't.

[Ben Weldon]

Oh come on boffins,let's get this sorted!
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VGyma1F49fQ

[Flonk]

luckily for creationists, science has progressed (evolved?) in no way (http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2004/10/041030215105.htm) since 1859.

BILL RYOWNED!

[Jef UK]

By the way, science disproves Darwin's theory of Evolution. Darwin himself said:

"To suppose that the eye with all its inimitable contrivances for adjusting the focus to different distances, for admitting different amounts of light, and for the correction of spherical and chromatic aberration, could have been formed by natural selection, seems, I freely confess, absurd in the highest degree." [6]

6. Charles Darwin, "On the Origin of Species by Means of Natural Selection, or the Preservation of Favoured Races in the Struggle for Life," 1859, p. 155.


That's a pretty disingenous use of a quote. Why don't you post what follows that statement. You know, where he attempts to show just how the eye evolved from simpler mechanisms? Key word: "seems."

And science has in no way disproven natural selection as the mechanism for evolution.

[DAVE]

That's a pretty disingenous use of a quote. Why don't you post what follows that statement. You know, where he attempts to show just how the eye evolved from simpler mechanisms? Key word: "seems."

And science has in no way disproven natural selection as the mechanism for evolution.
You're smart when you say stuff.

[Frozen Sooner]

I vote this the best Race thread. Five stars for that post right there. ^^^ :lol:

By the way, science disproves Darwin's theory of Evolution. Darwin himself said:

"To suppose that the eye with all its inimitable contrivances for adjusting the focus to different distances, for admitting different amounts of light, and for the correction of spherical and chromatic aberration, could have been formed by natural selection, seems, I freely confess, absurd in the highest degree." [6]

6. Charles Darwin, "On the Origin of Species by Means of Natural Selection, or the Preservation of Favoured Races in the Struggle for Life," 1859, p. 155.

Some linkage:

http://www.allaboutscience.org/
http://www.darwins-theory-of-evolution.com/
http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2004/11/22/opinion/polls/main657083.shtml

I especially like this link. Chirality & Evolution:

http://www.icr.org/index.php?module=articles&action=view&ID=105

:lol:

This is right before he talks about incrementalism and how there's not one single organ that can be shown to disprove it? Including the eye?

Way to go on taking something completely out of context and spinning it to fit your own agenda.

[Race]

"Let's exit here, hon - there appears to be an irreducibly complex organism pile-up just ahead . . ."

[SCOURGE]

Or am I the result of one of the sickest cases of incest ever? Adam, Eve, Cain & Abel Making Babies - it's like a cheesy 70's porn movie.


I have a theory about this...The Bible says that Adam and Eve were the first people, correct? But who remembers #2? God could have (and probably did) created more people then just Adam and Eve...so, there is a good chance that you are NOT the result of the one of the sickest cases of incest ever...YEAH for you!!

[mario]

I have a theory about this...The Bible says that Adam and Eve were the first people, correct? But who remembers #2? God could have (and probably did) created more people then just Adam and Eve...so, there is a good chance that you are NOT the result of the one of the sickest cases of incest ever...YEAH for you!!

Eve wasn't the first woman, Lilith was and she spawned thousands of demons each day after she got thrown out of Eden because she like to ride on top.

[mario]

"To suppose that the eye with all its inimitable contrivances for adjusting the focus to different distances, for admitting different amounts of light, and for the correction of spherical and chromatic aberration, could have been formed by natural selection, seems, I freely confess, absurd in the highest degree." [6]


but not impossible.
Most leaps in progress have occurred from absurd occurences

[Ben]

Are you or are you not the retard baby of five monkeys having buttsex with a mutant fish-squirrel?It's pretty much fact. The only question is HOW I became the retard baby of five monkeys having buttsex with a mutant fish-squirrel.

[Ben]

I vote this the best Race thread. Five stars for that post right there. ^^^ :lol:

By the way, science disproves Darwin's theory of Evolution. Darwin himself said:

"To suppose that the eye with all its inimitable contrivances for adjusting the focus to different distances, for admitting different amounts of light, and for the correction of spherical and chromatic aberration, could have been formed by natural selection, seems, I freely confess, absurd in the highest degree." [6]

6. Charles Darwin, "On the Origin of Species by Means of Natural Selection, or the Preservation of Favoured Races in the Struggle for Life," 1859, p. 155.

Some linkage:

http://www.allaboutscience.org/
http://www.darwins-theory-of-evolution.com/
http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2004/11/22/opinion/polls/main657083.shtml

I especially like this link. Chirality & Evolution:

http://www.icr.org/index.php?module=articles&action=view&ID=105Your argument might work if we hadn't actually... oh, I don't know... been doing research for the last 150 years!

We already know how the eye evolved. It's pretty clear, really. Crack open a textbook.

[Ben]

just as a point of fact, Darwin never admitted that the eye was impossible to explain by evolution. just difficult. he even came up with a pretty workable theory (given the state of medical science in his time) as to how the human eye evolved. basically he says it seems absurd, but really isn't.DARWIN IS THE ULTIMATE AND FINAL AUTHORITY ON ALL EVOLUTION SCIENCE! When scientists find a result that contradict anything Darwin said, we throw it out and ignore it!

[Race]

Eve wasn't the first woman, Lilith was and she spawned thousands of demons each day after she got thrown out of Eden because she like to ride on top.I believe Gaiman stated in an interview he got that particular story from (in his words) "Jewish mythology."

[Khrutch]

I see no one actually read any of the links I provided. They provide current science. The last link is dated 2004. :)

[Brad N.]

I see no one actually read any of the links I provided. They provide current science. The last link is dated 2004. :)

Sorry, creationism is not science.

Also, thanks for that CBS news poll proving my theory that 2/3 of Americans are incredibly stupid.

[Khrutch]

Here you go.

Evolution Hopes You Don't Know Chemistry: The Problem with Chirality (#371)
by Charles McCombs, Ph.D.
Download Evolution Hopes You Don't Know Chemistry: The Problem with Chirality PDF
Abstract
Evolutionists know that amino acids do not live, but they call this proof anyway because they claim that amino acids are the building blocks of life.
When the newspaper headline, "Life in a Test-tube," appeared in 1953, the evolutionary community became very excited because they viewed the work of Stanley Miller and Harold Urey as scientific proof that life could have been formed from chemicals by random chance natural processes. In that classic experiment, Miller and Urey combined a mixture of methane, ammonia, hydrogen, and water vapor and passed the mixture through an electric discharge to simulate lightning. At the end of the experiment, the products were found to contain a few amino acids. Since amino acids are the individual links of long chain polymers called proteins, and proteins are important in our bodies, newspapers quickly reported there was laboratory evidence that now proved life came from chemicals.

As a Ph.D. Organic Chemist, I have to admit that the formation of amino acids under these conditions is fascinating, but there is a major problem. Life was never formed in that experiment. The product was amino acids, which are normal everyday chemicals that do not "live." Even unto this day, there is no known process that has ever converted amino acids into a life form, but this fact does not stop evolutionists from claiming that this experiment is proof that life came from chemicals. Evolutionists know that amino acids do not live, but they call this proof anyway because they claim that amino acids are the building blocks of life. This claim suggests that if enough building blocks are present, life would result, but this conclusion is only an assumption and has never been demonstrated. Amino acids may be the building blocks of proteins, and proteins are necessary for life, but that does not mean that amino acids are the building blocks of life. I could go to an auto parts store and buy every single part to construct a car, but that does not provide me with a functioning motor vehicle. Just as there had to be an assembler to make a moving vehicle from those auto parts, there had to be an assembler of those amino acids to make the proteins so that life could exist in our bodies.

Ever since 1953, scientists have been asking if the formation of amino acids in those experiments proves the claim that life came from chemicals? Many have debated if this experiment validates evolution or does the evidence point to an Omnipotent Creator? For 50 years, scientists have been asking questions; for 50 years, the discussion ends in debate. Call it professional curiosity, but as a scientist, I always wondered why there are more debates on this issue than discussion of the facts. Then I realized that a discussion of the facts would inevitably lead to a discussion of the subject of chirality. Chirality is probably one of the best scientific evidences we have against random chance evolution and chirality totally destroys the claim that life came from chemicals. Obviously, this is one fact they do not even want to discuss.

Chirality is a chemical term that means handedness. Although two chemical molecules may appear to have the same elements and similar properties, they can still have different structures. When two molecules appear identical and their structures differ only by being mirror images of each other, those molecules are said to have chirality. Your left and right hands illustrate chirality. Your hands may appear to be identical, but in reality, they are only mirror images of each other, hence the term handedness. For this reason, chirality can exist as a right-handed or a left-handed molecule, and each individual molecule is called an optical isomer.

What is the problem of chirality? In our bodies, proteins and DNA possess a unique 3-dimensional shape, and it is because of this 3D shape that the biochemical processes within our bodies work as they do. It is chirality that provides the unique shape for proteins and DNA, and without chirality, the biochemical processes in our bodies would not do their job. In our body, every single amino acid of every protein is found with the same left-handed chirality. Although Miller and Urey formed amino acids in their experiments, all the amino acids that formed lacked chirality. It is a universally accepted fact of chemistry that chirality cannot be created in chemical molecules by a random process. When a random chemical reaction is used to prepare molecules having chirality, there is an equal opportunity to prepare the left-handed isomer as well as the right-handed isomer. It is a scientifically verifiable fact that a random chance process, which forms a chiral product, can only be a 50/50 mixture of the two optical isomers. There are no exceptions. Chirality is a property that only a few scientists would even recognize as a problem. The fact that chirality was missing in those amino acids is not just a problem to be debated, it points to a catastrophic failure that "life" cannot come from chemicals by natural processes.

Let's look at chirality in proteins and DNA. Proteins are polymers of amino acids and each one of the component amino acids exists as the "L" or left-handed optical isomer. Even though the "R" or right-handed optical isomers can be synthesized in the lab, this isomer does not exist in natural proteins. The DNA molecule is made up of billions of complicated chemical molecules called nucleotides, and these nucleotide molecules exist as the "R" or right-handed optical isomer. The "L" isomer of nucleotides can be prepared in the lab, but they do not exist in natural DNA. There is no way that a random chance process could have formed these proteins and DNA with their unique chirality.

If proteins and DNA were formed by chance, each and every one of the components would be a 50/50 mixture of the two optical isomers. This is not what we see in natural proteins or in natural DNA. How can a random chance natural process create proteins with thousands of "L" molecules, and then also create DNA with billions of "R" molecules? Does this sound like random chance or a product of design? Even if there were a magic process to introduce chirality, it would only create one isomer. If such a process existed, we do not know anything about it or how it would work. If it did exist, how were compounds with the other chirality ever formed? Even if there were two magical processes, one for each isomer, what determined which process was used and when it was used, if this was a random chance natural process? The idea of two processes requires a controlling mechanism, and this kind of control is not possible in a random chance natural process.

However, the problem with chirality goes even deeper. As nucleotide molecules come together to form the structure of DNA, they develop a twist that forms the double helix structure of DNA. DNA develops a twist in the chain because each component contains chirality or handedness. It is this handedness that gives DNA the spiral shaped helical structure. If one molecule in the DNA structure had the wrong chirality, DNA would not exist in the double helix form, and DNA would not function properly. The entire replication process would be derailed like a train on bad railroad tracks. In order for DNA evolution to work, billions of molecules within our body would have to be generated with the "R" configuration all at the same time, without error. If it is impossible for one nucleotide to be formed with chirality, how much less likely would it be for billions of nucleotides to come together exactly at the same time, and all of them be formed with the same chirality? If evolution cannot provide a mechanism that forms one product with chirality, how can it explain the formation of two products of opposite chirality?

Chirality is not just a major problem for evolution; it is a dilemma. According to evolution, natural processes must explain everything over long periods of time. However, the process that forms chirality cannot be explained by natural science in any amount of time. That is the dilemma, either natural processes cannot explain everything, or chirality doesn't exist.

If you're in doubt as to which is correct, you are a living example of the reality of chirality. Without chirality, proteins and enzymes could not do their job; DNA could not function at all. Without properly functioning proteins and DNA, there would be no life on this earth. The reality of chirality, more than any other evidence, did more to convince me of the reality of an all-powerful Creator. I hope it will do the same for you.

I find it interesting that when creationists start talking about God's supernatural creation, evolutionists usually counter by saying that everything must be explained by natural science and divine intervention is not science. I find this remark extremely amusing. When we show them that the laws of natural science cannot explain the existence of chirality, evolutionists say that the process happened a long time ago by some unknown method that they cannot explain. Now who's relying on a supernatural explanation? Although they would never call it divine intervention, they certainly are relying on faith and not on scientific facts. Evolution just hopes you don't know chemistry.

There is another problem with DNA and how it works in the human body. As part of the normal replication process for DNA, an enzyme travels down the DNA strand so that a copy strand of DNA can be produced. As the enzyme reads the sequence of molecules along the strand, and if an incorrect nucleotide is detected in the strand, there is a mechanism that uses other enzymes to cut out the bad nucleotide and insert the correct one, thus repairing the DNA.

Let's look at DNA and this repair mechanism, if indeed they were formed from random chance natural processes. If the repair mechanism evolved first, what use is a repair mechanism if DNA has not evolved yet? If DNA evolved first, how would the DNA even know it would be better off with a repair mechanism? Can molecules think? DNA is not a stable chemical molecule, and without a repair mechanism, it would easily deteriorate by chemical oxidation and other processes. There is no mechanism to explain how DNA could exist for millions of years while the repair mechanism evolved. DNA would just decompose back into pond scum before the alleged billions of random chance mutations could ever form the repair mechanism.

Once we realize that design does not happen by chance, then we realize that the entire universe is not the product of a random, chance process; it is the result of an omnipotent Creator who created everything by just His Word. I hope you are beginning to see the problem. Evolution can give you a theory that might on the surface seem possible, but when true science gets involved and scientists start asking questions, the problems and false logic of the theory become apparent. This is why evolution just hopes you don't know chemistry.

* Dr. Charles McCombs is a Ph.D. Organic Chemist trained in the methods of scientific investigation, and a scientist who has 20 chemical patents.

[DAVE]

I see no one actually read any of the links I provided. They provide current science. The last link is dated 2004. :)
Yeah, when someone misrepresents a quote out of context to serve their own point, people pretty much don't want to read their links man.

[mario]

I believe Gaiman stated in an interview he got that particular story from (in his words) "Jewish mythology."

http://www.straightdope.com/mailbag/mlilith.html

[Brad N.]

Wow, I can't wait to see the above debunked by those more scientifically apt than I.

[Ben]

I see no one actually read any of the links I provided. They provide current science. The last link is dated 2004. :)I wouldn't call any of that science. Post some primary, peer-reviewed sources (from journals that don't have the word "Creation" in the title), and then maybe we have a discussion.

[Khrutch]

Sorry, creationism is not science.

But chemistry is, as well as the study of DNA.

[Brad N.]

But chemistry is, as well as the study of DNA.


:no:

Keep trying though.

[Thomas Mauer]

Wow, I can't wait to see the above debunked by those more scientifically apt than I.
Paging DrMachine.

[Ben]

Here you go.

Evolution Hopes You Don't Know Chemistry: The Problem with Chirality (#371)
by Charles McCombs, Ph.D.
Download Evolution Hopes You Don't Know Chemistry: The Problem with Chirality PDF
Abstract
Evolutionists know that amino acids do not live, but they call this proof anyway because they claim that amino acids are the building blocks of life.
When the newspaper headline, "Life in a Test-tube," appeared in 1953, the evolutionary community became very excited because they viewed the work of Stanley Miller and Harold Urey as scientific proof that life could have been formed from chemicals by random chance natural processes. In that classic experiment, Miller and Urey combined a mixture of methane, ammonia, hydrogen, and water vapor and passed the mixture through an electric discharge to simulate lightning. At the end of the experiment, the products were found to contain a few amino acids. Since amino acids are the individual links of long chain polymers called proteins, and proteins are important in our bodies, newspapers quickly reported there was laboratory evidence that now proved life came from chemicals. Uh, this article has nothing to do with evolution. Contrary to what the Creationist nuts think, the origin of life and the big bang are separate branches of science. They don't really have anything to do with the fact of evolution and the theory of natural selection.

I'd say 'nice try,' but people ALWAYS cite bullshit articles from Creationist journals. It's an old, tired trick.

[Ben]

But chemistry is, as well as the study of DNA.Why couldn't that "Ph.D. Organic Chemist" get his article published in a peer-reviewed chemistry journal? Hmmmmmmmmmmmmm................

[Ben]

Paging DrMachine.We shouldn't bother him with these same old 30 year old arguments.

[Brad N.]

Paging DrMachine.

Who I also love, but I was more hollering for Ben. He has a way of putting things much more soundly than I do on these matters. I could shout all day how this guy's links are stupid but Ben has the Pwned! ability.

[Race]

Here you go.Pick your battles my friend, especially 'till you've gotten a feel for the board (not to mention how parody, satire and sarcasm get used on here).

[Thomas Mauer]

We shouldn't bother him with these same old 30 year old arguments.
True, but all those technical terms had me skip reading that article. DrMachine explains things that even my biology knowledge impaired self can understand and he uses less paragraphs. :)

[Thomas Mauer]

Who I also love, but I was more hollering for Ben. He has a way of putting things much more soundly than I do on these matters. I could shout all day how this guy's links are stupid but Ben has the Pwned! ability.
Definitely.

[Ben]

Pick your battles my friend, especially 'till you've gotten a feel for the board (not to mention how parody, satire and sarcasm get used on here).Yeah, and don't pick battle that have already been lost using obsolete weapons. GEt some new arguments. I'm waiting to hear someone bust out the "violates 2nd law of thermodynamics" or "you can't increase the amount of information in DNA" arguments.

[Khrutch]

I pretty much knew that anything I said would be scoffed at, by hey the science is there and you can choose to ignore it. Dismissal of the science doesn't discredit it.

[Ben]

True, but all those technical terms had me skip reading that article. DrMachine explains things that even my biology knowledge impaired self can understand and he uses less paragraphs. :)Yeah, DrMachine would probably be better at picking through the details of the article. But two things jumped out at me - the journal and the subject (not evolution)... (and the fact that he calls himself a "PhD Organic Chemist"... that's three).

[Brad N.]

I pretty much knew that anything I said would be scoffed at, by hey the science is there and you can choose to ignore it. Dismissal of the science doesn't discredit it.

It's not science. Again. Thanks for playing, try again next year, and there are some lovely parting gifts for you.

[Ben]

I pretty much knew that anything I said would be scoffed at, by hey the science is there and you can choose to ignore it. Dismissal of the science doesn't discredit it.YOU'RE NOT POSTING SCIENCE!!! Seriously!! Find something in a SCIENCE JOURNAL! Not some secondary source from a creation website! Not something from "Journal of Creation Science!"

If someone actually did a study that showed that natural selection may NOT be responsible for the evolution of complex traits, it would get the cover of Science AND Nature!

Search through these journals for a start and tell me what you come up with:

http://www.nature.com/index.html
http://www.sciencemag.org/

[Shane W]

YOU'RE NOT POSTING SCIENCE!!! Seriously!! Find something in a SCIENCE JOURNAL! Not some secondary source from a creation website! Not something from "Journal of Creation Science!"

If someone actually did a study that showed that natural selection may NOT be responsible for the evolution of complex traits, it would get the cover of Science AND Nature!

Search through these journals for a start and tell me what you come up with:

http://www.nature.com/index.html
http://www.sciencemag.org/

Those links are biased. :roll:

[Khrutch]

It's not science. Again. Thanks for playing, try again next year, and there are some lovely parting gifts for you.

Where are these gifts??? I want. ;)

[DAVE]

Where are these gifts??? I want. ;)
Here ya go ;) :

http://www.rainbowdolphin.com/dinosaurs/images/evolution.jpg

[Thomas Mauer]

(and the fact that he calls himself a "PhD Organic Chemist"... that's three).
Is this something different than a PhD in organic chemistry?

[Khrutch]

YOU'RE NOT POSTING SCIENCE!!! Seriously!! Find something in a SCIENCE JOURNAL! Not some secondary source from a creation website! Not something from "Journal of Creation Science!"

If someone actually did a study that showed that natural selection may NOT be responsible for the evolution of complex traits, it would get the cover of Science AND Nature!

Search through these journals for a start and tell me what you come up with:

http://www.nature.com/index.html
http://www.sciencemag.org/

Lighten up chief. I have researched this topic extensively, both sides of the arguement and based on the science there is more to disprove evolution than to prove it.

[Shane W]

Lighten up chief. I have researched this topic extensively, both sides of the arguement and based on the science there is more to disprove evolution than to prove it.

No you haven't.

[Thomas Mauer]

Those links are biased. :roll:
Sience biased! :D

[Khrutch]

No you haven't.

OOOOOkay.

[Thomas Mauer]

Lighten up chief. I have researched this topic extensively, both sides of the arguement and based on the science there is more to disprove evolution than to prove it.
So are you a biologist?

[Matt Jay]

Lighten up chief. I have researched this topic extensively, both sides of the arguement and based on the science there is more to disprove evolution than to prove it.
Could you share your conclusions with us in your own words? Specifically about this overwhelming evidence that disproves evolution.

[Frozen Sooner]

Yeah, and don't pick battle that have already been lost using obsolete weapons. GEt some new arguments. I'm waiting to hear someone bust out the "violates 2nd law of thermodynamics" or "you can't increase the amount of information in DNA" arguments.

I sit on that particular argument like Lance Berkmann sits on hanging curveballs.

I love the assumption by the creationists that for some reason all the peer-reviewed journals are, for some reason, suppressing knowledge of evidence that contradicts natural selection and have something to gain from such suppression. It's a CONSPIRACY, I tell ya! Those secular humanists are just TOO sneaky!

[Shane W]

OOOOOkay.

If you have, then you, Joe computer guy, has completey shook the foundation of science to it's knees.

The last time I checked, Evolution is still one of the main theories of biology.

[james michael]

Lighten up chief. I have researched this topic extensively, both sides of the arguement and based on the science there is more to disprove evolution than to prove it.
actually, i think all you tards need to realize that you can push your beliefs all you want, and have a self congratulatory circlejerk, when you realize that it DOESNT FUCKING MATTER!

we will never know where we came from, how we got here, or how we became what we are to any satisfactory conclusion...
NEVER...
wasting time on proving (or disproving) evolution is retarded and a waste of time, when there are scientific and medical problems that need solving right now, but NO! we need to argue whether the "im better than you" science dicks can be more right than the "im going to heaven you heathen fuck" creationist asses...

[Frozen Sooner]

I have researched the topic extensively, and there is much more evidence to support the theory that:

What If? Avengers:Disassembled spoiler inside.

Captain America was really crazy and the Scarlet Witch was just mirroring his insanity than the wild-ass theory that Wanda herself was crazy. See, I read this comic book, and the Beast (who's like this totally awesomely smart guy) came to that conclusion.

[Frozen Sooner]

wasting time on proving (or disproving) evolution is retarded and a waste of time, when there are scientific and medical problems that need solving right now,

You do realize that the theory of natural selection is extremely important in several areas of medical research, right?

[Shane W]

actually, i think all you tards need to realize that you can push your beliefs all you want, and have a self congratulatory circlejerk, when you realize that it DOESNT FUCKING MATTER!

we will never know where we came from, how we got here, or how we became what we are to any satisfactory conclusion...
NEVER...
wasting time on proving (or disproving) evolution is retarded and a waste of time, when there are scientific and medical problems that need solving right now, but NO! we need to argue whether the "im better than you" science dicks can be more right than the "im going to heaven you heathen fuck" creationist asses...

So you're the "Not taking a side" arguer? Sounds perfectly reasonable.

[james michael]

So you're the "Not taking a side" arguer? Sounds perfectly reasonable.
im reasonable as all get out! :D

[Race]

I'm waiting to hear someone bust out the "violates 2nd law of thermodynamics" or "you can't increase the amount of information in DNA" arguments.You know some?

[Thomas Mauer]

wasting time on proving (or disproving) evolution is retarded and a waste of time, when there are scientific and medical problems that need solving right now.
As far as I can tell, real scientists aren't out to prove evolution is right just to prove it. Yes, they do it to understand how life as we know it came to be, but in the process gain a better understanding of life itself which in turn can only help solve the scientific and medical problems we are facing today.

[Khrutch]

Could you share your conclusions with us in your own words? Specifically about this overwhelming evidence that disproves evolution.

My own words are not as conclusive.

By the way, the one guy who wrote one of the articles is a Ph.D. and holds 10 chemistry patents.

[Shane W]

My own words are not as conclusive.


Well, that's settled.

[Shane W]

By the way, the one guy who wrote one of the articles is a Ph.D. and holds 10 chemistry patents.

And that means zero when it comes to this.

[JABSEN]

Is it over yet?

[Frozen Sooner]

So, just for my edification, what predictions has intelligent design "theory" made about our universe that have been borne out by either experimental data or observation? This is one of the fundamental tests of a scientific theory-that it be falsifiable. I haven't heard of any predictions so-called creation science has made, and I'd love to hear some.

Natural selection has made quite a few, by the way, so you've got some ground to make up.

[james michael]

As far as I can tell, real scientists aren't out to prove evolution is right just to prove it. Yes, they do it to understand how life as we know it came to be, but in the process gain a better understanding of life itself which in turn can only help solve the scientific and medical problems we are facing today.
but it wont help...

knowing how we came to be what we are, will not do anything to help figure out where we go from here...

[Khrutch]

Here ya go ;) :

http://www.rainbowdolphin.com/dinosaurs/images/evolution.jpg

I was hoping for a few Bendis comics. ;)

[Shane W]

but it wont help...

knowing how we came to be what we are, will not do anything to help figure out where we go from here...

It might.

And it may help create new ways to treat disease if we can understand how we came to be and the process that it involves.

[A.Huerta]

but it wont help...

knowing how we came to be what we are, will not do anything to help figure out where we go from here...


It might.

[Frozen Sooner]

but it wont help...

knowing how we came to be what we are, will not do anything to help figure out where we go from here...

You're 100% incorrect. I'm sorry, but this is just false.

For one, if natural selection isn't correct, we're going to have to completely rethink how we combat disease

[Matt Jay]

My own words are not as conclusive.

But they are perfectly conclusive for explaining the rationale for your overarching conclusion (that science is against evolution). That's what I'm asking for. If you're truly secure with your logic, it makes no sense to withhold it from us.

[Khrutch]

actually, i think all you tards need to realize that you can push your beliefs all you want, and have a self congratulatory circlejerk, when you realize that it DOESNT FUCKING MATTER!

we will never know where we came from, how we got here, or how we became what we are to any satisfactory conclusion...
NEVER...
wasting time on proving (or disproving) evolution is retarded and a waste of time, when there are scientific and medical problems that need solving right now, but NO! we need to argue whether the "im better than you" science dicks can be more right than the "im going to heaven you heathen fuck" creationist asses...

I know exactly where I came from. "In the beginning God created..." :) I'm not better than anyone, I just think differently than some.

[Shane W]

I know exactly where I came from. "In the beginning God created..." :) I'm not better than anyone, I just think differently than some.

You know, after a certain age, it's time to let go of your invisible friends.

[james michael]

It might.

And it may help create new ways to treat disease if we can understand how we came to be and the process that it involves.
id always assumed figuring out the origins and evolution of disease and how it feeds/works/whatever is how we can find ways to treat disease...

i mean, if we use evolution as a template, then how will long dead monkey people show us how a disease will effect something as different as what we have become?
and no saying "well use monkeys", because we arent monkeys now! :x

but i guess it could give insight into how we had fought disease in the past, but with the changes in biology weve undergone, i dont really see how it would help...

but im not super smart with the sciences, just simple physics :Oops:

[Frozen Sooner]

Anyone else think it's hilarious that the intelligent design apologist is posting under a name phonetically identical to "crutch?"

Nice troll job. :D

[james michael]

I know exactly where I came from. "In the beginning God created..." :) I'm not better than anyone, I just think differently than some.
actually, youre not the "im better than you" dick, youre the "im going to heaven you heathen fucks" ass...

and you dont know that, you BELIEVE it...
thats what faith is, belief in the absence of proof...

[Shane W]

id always assumed figuring out the origins and evolution of disease and how it feeds/works/whatever is how we can find ways to treat disease...

i mean, if we use evolution as a template, then how will long dead monkey people show us how a disease will effect something as different as what we have become?
and no saying "well use monkeys", because we arent monkeys now! :x

but i guess it could give insight into how we had fought disease in the past, but with the changes in biology weve undergone, i dont really see how it would help...

but im not super smart with the sciences, just simple physics :Oops:

I have no idea how to parse this.

I think you're asking how will knowing how we came to help us defeat disease?

[Frozen Sooner]

id always assumed figuring out the origins and evolution of disease and how it feeds/works/whatever is how we can find ways to treat disease...

i mean, if we use evolution as a template, then how will long dead monkey people show us how a disease will effect something as different as what we have become?
and no saying "well use monkeys", because we arent monkeys now! :x

but i guess it could give insight into how we had fought disease in the past, but with the changes in biology weve undergone, i dont really see how it would help...

but im not super smart with the sciences, just simple physics :Oops:

Natural selection explains how bacteria and viruses mutate over time in response to treatment.

Natural selection explains how certain traits-such as propensity to sickle-cell anemia-can be passed along generationally even though they seem contra-survival.

Just for a couple of examples.

[Khrutch]

Is it over yet?

I'm right, everyone else is wrong. Okay, it's over.

Just kidding. Really. :razz: ;)

[james michael]

You know, after a certain age, it's time to let go of your invisible friends.
imaginary...
invisible friends are REAL...
its in the bible, and my highschool science book...

[james michael]

Natural selection explains how bacteria and viruses mutate over time in response to treatment.

Natural selection explains how certain traits-such as propensity to sickle-cell anemia-can be passed along generationally even though they seem contra-survival.

Just for a couple of examples.
and natural selection isnt evolution...
is it?
:?

[Jerome Gibbons]

Here's what I don't get about Creationism: why exactly can't it work alongside evolution? Why can't religious people believe that evolution is a process started and overseen by God? That way you can have your cake and eat it too, so to speak.

[Shane W]

and natural selection isnt evolution...
is it?
:?

Correct. to a point.

[Frozen Sooner]

and natural selection isnt evolution...
is it?
:?

Natural selection is one theory of evolution, and the most widely-accepted one. There is absolutely no debate-0%, nada-that evolution has taken place. Natural selection is the most widely-accepted theory of the mechanism by which it took place.

[J. R. Scherer]

Lighten up chief. I have researched this topic extensively, both sides of the arguement and based on the science there is more to disprove evolution than to prove it.
Evolution exists. There is no disproving it anymore than you could disprove gravity.

Natural selection is the process of evolution that is most widely accepted. THAT's the theory. Not evolution itself.

[james michael]

I have no idea how to parse this.

I think you're asking how will knowing how we came to help us defeat disease?
basically...
i just dont see how knowing what a single cell organism did to fight disease would have to do with us fighting disease today...

[J. R. Scherer]

Natural selection is one theory of evolution, and the most widely-accepted one. There is absolutely no debate-0%, nada-that evolution has taken place. Natural selection is the most widely-accepted theory of the mechanism by which it took place.
Dang. I wuz too late. :miffed:

[Race]

Yup. Car wreck - big one, too.

[J. R. Scherer]

Here's what I don't get about Creationism: why exactly can't it work alongside evolution? Why can't religious people believe that evolution is a process started and overseen by God? That way you can have your cake and eat it too, so to speak.
Because God created the universe in six days. Says so in the Bible. In two different stories with varying details. It can't be wrong.

[Frozen Sooner]

Dang. I wuz too late. :miffed:

That's because my ancestors lived in an environment where fast typing was a survival trait. :D

[Khrutch]

But they are perfectly conclusive for explaining the rationale for your overarching conclusion (that science is against evolution). That's what I'm asking for. If you're truly secure with your logic, it makes no sense to withhold it from us.

Science isn't against evolution, that's not what I'm saying. Things do evolve. But, the idea that all this just happened without any design is absurd and science does prove that.

[Frozen Sooner]

Here's what I don't get about Creationism: why exactly can't it work alongside evolution? Why can't religious people believe that evolution is a process started and overseen by God? That way you can have your cake and eat it too, so to speak.

It depends on the particular sect's view of the Bible. If the Bible is the literal word of God, then the timeframe needed for natural selection to provide the observable results just doesn't exist. If the Bible is metaphor in some places, then you can fit the timescales needed into Biblical accounts pretty easily.

[RickLM]

Science isn't against evolution, that's not what I'm saying. Things do evolve. But, the idea that all this just happened without any design is absurd and science does prove that.


Seconded.

[Shane W]

Natural selection is one theory of evolution, and the most widely-accepted one. There is absolutely no debate-0%, nada-that evolution has taken place. Natural selection is the most widely-accepted theory of the mechanism by which it took place.

Natural selection is more of the "survival of the fittest". How the traits help the strong survive and pass those traits on.

While evolution can be ANY change in an organism whether good or bad.

[Jerome Gibbons]

Yup. Car wreck - big one, too.
That's what usually happens in a Race.


;)

[james michael]

Natural selection is one theory of evolution, and the most widely-accepted one. There is absolutely no debate-0%, nada-that evolution has taken place. Natural selection is the most widely-accepted theory of the mechanism by which it took place.
ok, but again, none of it can be proven completely, it never will be...
natural selection, radiation from the sun mutating cells, retarded fish fucking monkeys, whatever...
none of it really matters, and none of it can be proven to anyones standards...
i dont argue that evolution has taken place, because we have living reminders that it has...
its called adaptation...

[Shane W]

Science isn't against evolution, that's not what I'm saying. Things do evolve. But, the idea that all this just happened without any design is absurd and science does prove that.

How is that any more absurd than "the invisible man" did it?

[Jerome Gibbons]

Because God created the universe in six days. Says so in the Bible. In two different stories with varying details. It can't be wrong.
Well, that's just no fun.

[A.Huerta]

ok, but again, none of it can be proven completely, it never will be...
natural selection, radiation from the sun mutating cells, retarded fish fucking monkeys, whatever...
none of it really matters, and none of it can be proven to anyones standards...
i dont argue that evolution has taken place, because we have living reminders that it has...
its called adaptation...

I wouldnt say "never".

[Frozen Sooner]

Natural selection is more of the "survival of the fittest". How the traits help the strong survive and pass those traits on.

While evolution can be ANY change in an organism whether good or bad.

Actually, mutation is any genotypical change in an organism, whether good or bad.

Evolution is the gradual penotypical change of a species over time. The mechanism by which evolution occurs is natural selection.

"Survival of the fittest" is a tautology, Shane.

[james michael]

How is that any more absurd than "the invisible man" did it?
an invisible man did me once...

he was geechy...

[Jerome Gibbons]

It depends on the particular sect's view of the Bible. If the Bible is the literal word of God, then the timeframe needed for natural selection to provide the observable results just doesn't exist. If the Bible is metaphor in some places, then you can fit the timescales needed into Biblical accounts pretty easily.
And there you go. Game, set, match.

[Matt Jay]

Science isn't against evolution, that's not what I'm saying. Things do evolve. But, the idea that all this just happened without any design is absurd and science does prove that.
In your own words, what has science said that proves there must have been "design"?

[Khrutch]

Anyone else think it's hilarious that the intelligent design apologist is posting under a name phonetically identical to "crutch?"

Nice troll job. :D

I'm not a troll or an apologist.

I measure up at 6'2". Troll's are usually only about 4' tall. ;)

I don't apologize for my beliefs, "Khrutch" means I lean on God. :)

[Khrutch]

Crap, now I'm three pages behind in this thread. :)

[Frozen Sooner]

I'm not a troll or an apologist.

I measure up at 6'2". Troll's are usually only about 4' tall. ;)

I don't apologize for my beliefs, "Khrutch" means I lean on God. :)

That's not what "apologist" means in this context.

[Shane W]

Actually, mutation is any genotypical change in an organism, whether good or bad.

Evolution is the gradual penotypical change of a species over time. The mechanism by which evolution occurs is natural selection.

You're selling it short. Evolution can come by either NS or mutation.



1) Evolution
a) Natural Selection
b) Mutation

[james michael]

I wouldnt say "never".
the reason i say never, is because anything that we might have come from is long gone and dust by now...

sure, eventually we may have a theory that becomes "fact" but well never have any physical evidence to prove it beyond a doubt, and thats what it will take to convince the majority of people that evolution exists, and will continue to happen, whether it be drastic or minute, happen fast, or take centuries...

also, im pasiing the fuck out, and am leaving this thread, because when i wake, i wont have the patience to read the 20 pages that will be here when i wake up...
or the thread will be delete...

FUCKING REPUBLICANS! :x

[Frozen Sooner]

You're selling it short. Evolution can come by either NS or mutation.



1) Evolution
a) Natural Selection
b) Mutation

We're not really arguing anything here, Shane.

If a mutation is beneficial, then it is generally conserved through natural selection, leading to evolution of the species.

If a mutation is harmful, it is generally discarded through natural selection.

All speciation begins as mutation. But an entire race doesn't get the exact same mutation at once. It starts with one gamete and works its way into the gene pool.

[james michael]

heres what i wanna know, if we all came from adam and eve, why are there so many races?

really going to sleep now...

[Frozen Sooner]

heres what i wanna know, if we all came from adam and eve, why are there so many races?

really going to sleep now...

'Cause God darkened the skin of the sons of Ham because Ham laughed at Noah when he was drunk and naked.

(The views expressed in this post are not the views of Frozen Sooner and should not be taken as an endorsement of them.)

[Jerome Gibbons]

heres what i wanna know, if we all came from adam and eve, why are there so many races?

really going to sleep now...
Well, I've heard that some Christian sects believe that black people descend from one Noah's children, who was cursed by God with black skin because of something or other.

EDIT: Blast you and your fast typing, Frozen Sooner! :x

[Frozen Sooner]

My superior typing genetics strike again!

[Shane W]

We're not really arguing anything here, Shane.

If a mutation is beneficial, then it is generally conserved through natural selection, leading to evolution of the species.

If a mutation is harmful, it is generally discarded through natural selection.

All speciation begins as mutation. But an entire race doesn't get the exact same mutation at once. It starts with one gamete and works its way into the gene pool.

I agree we're on the same page here. I just like hammering out semantics.

I'm saying a mutation may not be anything helpful or harmful, but if it gets passed on, the species has evolved.

I mis-spoke by not adding "and indifferent" to my definition to evolution.

[Thomas Mauer]

Here's what I don't get about Creationism: why exactly can't it work alongside evolution? Why can't religious people believe that evolution is a process started and overseen by God? That way you can have your cake and eat it too, so to speak.
Before the charter of the Royal Academy in London became a template for modern science (which specified that the Academy could not enter the theological or political discourse and had to strictly keep to natural science), natural scientists like Robert Boyle, Otto von Guericke, Copernicus, Toricelli et al actually made their experiments and came up with their theories as a way to understand God's creation better. Gallileo Gallilei with his interference with the theological discourse and scientists' participation in the political discourse in England during the Cromwell years are responsible for the separation of science and philosophy (and thus ultimately religion).

Since not every scientist is an atheist, I wonder if they DON'T have a problem fitting science into their religous beliefs (i.e. using science to get closer to understaning the unknowable). They certainly don't seem to let their faith guide their scientific workflow.

[Race]

'Cause God darkened the skin of the sons of Ham because Ham laughed at Noah when he was drunk and naked.

(The views expressed in this post are not the views of Frozen Sooner and should not be taken as an endorsement of them.)Wait a sec, I thought black skin was a sign on Cain for murdering his brother . . .

Now I'm all confused. :crazy:

[Khrutch]

In your own words, what has science said that proves there must have been "design"?

Anything that has been invented or made by human hands. Nothing that man has made just happened on it's own.

There are laws in the universe. If you want to have fire there are basic ingredients that have to exist or you don't have fire. There has to be specific conditions in the weather for a hurricane or tonado or any weather pattern to happen. If those conditions are not there the specific weather doesn't happen.

Who set up those laws?

[Shane W]

Anything that has been invented or made by human hands. Nothing that man has made just happened on it's own.

There are laws in the universe. If you want to have fire there are basic ingredients that have to exist or you don't have fire. There has to be specific conditions in the weather for a hurricane or tonado or any weather pattern to happen. If those conditions are not there the specific weather doesn't happen.

Who set up those laws?

And then who put that guy in charge?

:lol:

So your proof is pretty much "I can't explain it, therefore it was god!"

That's not science man.

[Frozen Sooner]

I agree we're on the same page here. I just like hammering out semantics.

I'm saying a mutation may not be anything helpful or harmful, but if it gets passed on, the species has evolved.

I mis-spoke by not adding "and indifferent" to my definition to evolution.

:D

We're at the level of tautology again. If the gene gets passed on, then it has been passed through natural selection-i.e. the organisms themselves passed it on through reproduction. Organisms with beneficial mutations tend to outreproduce those with harmful mutations or indifferent mutations, so gametes with beneficial mutations tend to the norm within several generations.

[Khrutch]

Okay, it's lunch time. Will maybe come back to this later.

One last thought. Science can't prove God doesn't exist.

Later, peoples. :)

[DAVE]

Okay, it's lunch time. Will maybe come back to this later.

One last thought. Science can't prove God doesn't exist.

Later, peoples. :)
So who wants to be the one to point out that you can't prove something doesn't exist?

[Frozen Sooner]

Anything that has been invented or made by human hands. Nothing that man has made just happened on it's own.

There are laws in the universe. If you want to have fire there are basic ingredients that have to exist or you don't have fire. There has to be specific conditions in the weather for a hurricane or tonado or any weather pattern to happen. If those conditions are not there the specific weather doesn't happen.

Who set up those laws?

Not the province of science. Philosophy building is over there. Moose out front shoulda told ya.

[Shane W]

:D

We're at the level of tautology again. If the gene gets passed on, then it has been passed through natural selection-i.e. the organisms themselves passed it on through reproduction. Organisms with beneficial mutations tend to outreproduce those with harmful mutations or indifferent mutations, so gametes with beneficial mutations tend to the norm within several generations.


And to that, I have to ask why men continue to have nipples?

I love the fact that I may have just won an "agreeable argument" with men's nipples.

[Jef UK]

So who wants to be the one to point out that you can't prove something doesn't exist?

:wave:

[Shane W]

So who wants to be the one to point out that you can't prove something doesn't exist?

I was typing this, and decided to check before hitting send. :lol:

[DAVE]

And to that, I have to ask why men continue to have nipples?

I love the fact that I may have just won an "agreeable argument" with men's nipples.
I actually do know the answer to this if you really wanna know.

[DAVE]

I was typing this, and decided to check before hitting send. :lol:
8-)

[DAVE]

Shane: It has to do with when we're still in the fetal stage. At that point the Y chromosome hasn't been introduced and the fetus is still asexual/sorta female.
So the fetus has proto nipples. Later, if the fetus becomes male, the Y chromosome is added, and testosterone etc comes. the fetus stil lhas nipples however, they just don't develop into breasts.

[Sam Little]

Not the province of science. Philosophy building is over there. Moose out front shoulda told ya.

John? John Candy? Is that you?

[Jef UK]

I wish this was a public poll.

Who here believes in the theory of gravity?

[Jerome Gibbons]

Shane: It has to do with when we're still in the fetal stage. At that point the Y chromosome hasn't been introduced and the fetus is still asexual/sorta female.
So the fetus has proto nipples. Later, if the fetus becomes male, the Y chromosome is added, and testosterone etc comes. the fetus stil lhas nipples however, they just don't develop into breasts.
So BASICALLY, what you are saying is that for as long as women have breasts, men will have nipples?



...damn.

[Matt Jay]

Anything that has been invented or made by human hands. Nothing that man has made just happened on it's own.

There are laws in the universe. If you want to have fire there are basic ingredients that have to exist or you don't have fire. There has to be specific conditions in the weather for a hurricane or tonado or any weather pattern to happen. If those conditions are not there the specific weather doesn't happen.

Who set up those laws?
What you seem to be saying is that since man can make things seen in nature, someone must be behind nature in the same way. That conclusion is not grounded in science as you claimed earlier. Specifically you say that "Nothing that man has made just happened on it's own". Well, if man made it, of course it didn't happen on it's own. Man made it.

Regarding the rest, random interaction of elements over a long period of time could lead to these things you refer to as "laws". If you want to place meaning on this randomness that's fine, but let's not call it "science" until your meaning has some actual, observable evidence.

[GelfXIII]

My superior typing genetics strike again!

Mutant freak. :D

[Ryan Elliott]

I love this thread.



And I like to believe what No, YOU Stay Classy said. That there is a God, and he "planted the seeds" of evolution.


If everybody would believe this, I think we'd all be a lot happier.

[A.Huerta]

I love this thread.



And I like to believe what No, YOU Stay Classy said. That there is a God, and he "planted the seeds" of evolution.


If everybody would believe this, I think we'd all be a lot happier.


Batman doesnt believe in God.

[SCOURGE]

I believe that God created the world and the first people, but he only set things in motion, letting the world evolve naturally...

[DAVE]

Batman doesnt believe in God.
:lol: I was gonna write that.

[Matt Jay]

I love this thread.



And I like to believe what No, YOU Stay Classy said. That there is a God, and he "planted the seeds" of evolution.


If everybody would believe this, I think we'd all be a lot happier.
I'd be alot happier if everyone would just admit that the scientific method is better than making shit up. And, if certain people won't admit it, they should be forced to disown all benefits the scientific method has given us and live in a way that makes the Amish look advanced.

[A.Huerta]

:lol: I was gonna write that.


TOO FAST!

[Ryan Elliott]

No, Batman DOES believe in God.



He just doesn't LIKE God and thinks God hates everybody.



It's in Batman: Broken City and Batman: Absolution.

[Frozen Sooner]

And to that, I have to ask why men continue to have nipples?

I love the fact that I may have just won an "agreeable argument" with men's nipples.

Well, already answered elsewhere, but I would answer with another question: why wouldn't they?

[Race]

I'd be alot happier if everyone would just admit that the scientific method is better than making shit up. And, if certain people won't admit it, they should be forced to disown all benefits the scientific method has given us and live in a way that makes the Amish look advanced.In some ways, they already are more advanced . . .

http://www.cnn.com/2006/US/10/04/amish.shooting/index.html?section=cnn_topstories

[SCOURGE]

Well, already answered elsewhere, but I would answer with another question: why wouldn't they?


Because men don't breast feed?

[Ryan Elliott]

Well, already answered elsewhere, but I would answer with another question: why wouldn't they?



So they don't look weird in bathing suits.

[A.Huerta]

No, Batman DOES believe in God.



He just doesn't LIKE God and thinks God hates everybody.



It's in Batman: Broken City and Batman: Absolution.


It's been retconned.

[Matt Jay]

In some ways, they already are more advanced . . .

http://www.cnn.com/2006/US/10/04/amish.shooting/index.html?section=cnn_topstories
It's a noble sentiment, but I don't believe it's truly genuine. Genuine forgiveness for a real harm takes time. Immediate forgiveness strikes me as more like superficial forgiveness. It's denying the anger instead of dealing with it.

[Ben]

Shane: It has to do with when we're still in the fetal stage. At that point the Y chromosome hasn't been introduced and the fetus is still asexual/sorta female.
So the fetus has proto nipples. Later, if the fetus becomes male, the Y chromosome is added, and testosterone etc comes. the fetus stil lhas nipples however, they just don't develop into breasts.That's the proximate answer. But since nipples are seemingly functionless in men, we could've evolved to not have nipples if you're a man. So why haven't we lost them? That's the more interesting question, in my opinion.

It could be that any mutation that effects development at that early stage is MUCH more likely to be detrimental and really fuck up the rest of the individual's development, so we haven't gotten the right mutations to remove nipples in men yet.

[Ryan Elliott]

It's been retconned.



What story?

[Frozen Sooner]

Because men don't breast feed?

OK. And? We don't use the appendix anymore either. Nor do fingernails serve any useful survival function any longer.

Natural selection doesn't state that useless features necessarily go away. It implies that they can gradually phase out, but not that they necessarily will.

Anyhow, men and women aren't separate species. Women still use nipples. Development of breasts happens to be a sex-linked trait, but growth of nipples isn't. No reason why natural selection would provide for a tendency for men to not develop nipples.

[Ben]

You're selling it short. Evolution can come by either NS or mutation.



1) Evolution
a) Natural Selection
b) MutationOr genetic drift or migration.

But natural selection is the only mechanism known to result in complex traits. The other three do not, and no other mechanism that's been proposed (like Lamarckian evolution) has been more supported by the evidence than NS.

[Frozen Sooner]

That's the proximate answer. But since nipples are seemingly functionless in men, we could've evolved to not have nipples if you're a man. So why haven't we lost them? That's the more interesting question, in my opinion.

It could be that any mutation that effects development at that early stage is MUCH more likely to be detrimental and really fuck up the rest of the individual's development, so we haven't gotten the right mutations to remove nipples in men yet.

This is a better answer than mine.

[A.Huerta]

What story?


:lol:

[Ryan Elliott]

:lol:




I'm waiting.

[Race]

It's a noble sentiment, but I don't believe it's truly genuine. Genuine forgiveness for a real harm takes time. Immediate forgiveness strikes me as more like superficial forgiveness. It's denying the anger instead of dealing with it.Healing takes time. Forgiveness doesn't have to.

[Brad N.]

Polls like this one make me happy to be here. Since we here are far more intelligent than the general population given 2/3 of Americans believe in Creationism.

[A.Huerta]

I'm waiting.


I'm messin with ya, MAN!

[Jef UK]

I'd be alot happier if everyone would just admit that the scientific method is better than making shit up. And, if certain people won't admit it, they should be forced to disown all benefits the scientific method has given us and live in a way that makes the Amish look advanced.

I'm with you, Matt Jay.

It's amazing to me that every aspect of humanity has advanced except for people's faiths. You could bring a 14th Century monk in to the present, and he'd be a complete imbicile, except he'd still have Christianity down pat.

[Race]

Polls like this one make me happy to be here. Since we here are far more intelligent than the general population given 2/3 of Americans believe in Creationism.Far more humble, too.

[Ben]

OK. And? We don't use the appendix anymore either. Nor do fingernails serve any useful survival function any longer.

Natural selection doesn't state that useless features necessarily go away. It implies that they can gradually phase out, but not that they necessarily will.

Anyhow, men and women aren't separate species. Women still use nipples. Development of breasts happens to be a sex-linked trait, but growth of nipples isn't. No reason why natural selection would provide for a tendency for men to not develop nipples.Plus, some gross guys derive a sick pleasure from having their nipples touched or licked. In men, nipples probably serve a new sexual function (like they do in men) often enough that there's very little selective pressure to remove them.

[Ryan Elliott]

I'm messin with ya, MAN!



Thought so.



Don't waste my time with dribble.

[Race]

Plus, some gross guys derive a sick pleasure from having their nipples touched or licked. In men, nipples probably serve a new sexual function (like they do in men) often enough that there's very little selective pressure to remove them.I use mine as thermometers . . .

[james michael]

'Cause God darkened the skin of the sons of Ham because Ham laughed at Noah when he was drunk and naked.

(The views expressed in this post are not the views of Frozen Sooner and should not be taken as an endorsement of them.)
was noah drunk or naked, or was ham?

cause that would explain alot...
:shifty:

[Frozen Sooner]

Polls like this one make me happy to be here. Since we here are far more intelligent than the general population given 2/3 of Americans believe in Creationism.

This kind of thinking is a trap. Someone who believes in Creationism isn't necessarily stupid, just mistaken. Crutch doesn't strike me as dumb at all-he's just wrong.

Plenty of very smart people believe in things that evidence doesn't support. Creationism. Communism. Stuff like that. We all have our fairy tales that get us through the day.

[Ben]

This is a better answer than mine.I never thought about fingernails before... I'm going to be thinking about that all day now. It's going to distract me during Borat tongiht. THANKS A LOT!

[Ben]

This kind of thinking is a trap. Someone who believes in Creationism isn't necessarily stupid, just mistaken. Crutch doesn't strike me as dumb at all-he's just wrong.

Plenty of very smart people believe in things that evidence doesn't support. Creationism. Communism. Stuff like that. We all have our fairy tales that get us through the day.Yeah, ignorance doesn't necessarily equal stupidity. Part of the problem is that schools do such a bad job teaching the scientific method and evolutionary biology.

[Ben]

I use mine as thermometers . . .I just used my vomit organ.

[Frozen Sooner]

Plus, some gross guys derive a sick pleasure from having their nipples touched or licked. In men, nipples probably serve a new sexual function (like they do in men) often enough that there's very little selective pressure to remove them.

:grope:

Heh. No reason why they wouldn't be an erogenous zone for men AND women. Conservation of genetics-it would take a grosser mutation for men and women to have different erogenous zones than it would take for them to have the same. Nerve development takes the same course in both sexes in this case.

[Race]

I never thought about fingernails before... I'm going to be thinking about that all day now. It's going to distract me during Borat tongiht. THANKS A LOT!I thought fingernails and hair were a kind of waste product of the body that may or may not have served a useful function in the distant past . . .?

[Jerome Gibbons]

I never thought about fingernails before... I'm going to be thinking about that all day now. It's going to distract me during Borat tongiht. THANKS A LOT!
Fingernails do serve a purpose. How else would people yank the snot out of their noses?

[Frozen Sooner]

I never thought about fingernails before... I'm going to be thinking about that all day now. It's going to distract me during Borat tongiht. THANKS A LOT!

Heh. I'm tellin' ya-fingernails are going the way of tails.

More tactile surface for the fingers is a survival trait now.

[Race]

Conservation of genetics-it would take a grosser mutation for men and women to have different erogenous zones than it would take for them to have the same. Nerve development takes the same course in both sexes in this case.Could that not be at work in the Design theory, as well? I think they call it Efficiency of Form or something . . . ?

[Ben]

Fingernails do serve a purpose. How else would people yank the snot out of their noses?You ever think about how other animals can't pick their noses and how frustrating that must be?

[Matt Jay]

Healing takes time. Forgiveness doesn't have to.
It's possible, I guess. But I believe anyone who is immediately able to will away their anger from a genuine harm is either truly enlightened or has some deep seated self-loathing issues. Since the Amish are so disciplined in their devotion to one piece of the puzzle, I have trouble picturing them as the kind of people to reach genuine enlightenment.

[Frozen Sooner]

I thought fingernails and hair were a kind of waste product of the body that may or may not have served a useful function in the distant past . . .?

Fingernails are an evolutionary descendant of claws. Used to be used for both combat and opening seeds and such. No longer, and in fact detract from available tactile surface.

Hair probably isn't going away since it serves a function in mating ritual.

[Race]

It's possible, I guess. But I believe anyone who is immediately able to will away their hurt from a genuine harm is either truly enlightened or has some deep seated self-loathing issues. Since the Amish are so disciplined in their devotion to one piece of the puzzle, I have trouble picturing them as the kind of people to reach genuine enlightenment.I'm sure they're still hurting, but their faith prevents them from seeking a negative outlet for it.

[Frozen Sooner]

Could that not be at work in the Design theory, as well? I think they call it Efficiency of Form or something . . . ?

Well, sure. But just because both natural selection and intelligent design agree that a tree is a tree doesn't mean that they agree how the tree got there. :D

[Jerome Gibbons]

You ever think about how other animals can't pick their noses and how frustrating that must be?
Think about how bad snakes must have it, then. They don't even have nails to begin with!

[Race]

Fingernails are an evolutionary descendant of claws. Used to be used for both combat and opening seeds and such. No longer, and in fact detract from available tactile surface.

Hair probably isn't going away since it serves a function in mating ritual.At what point did primates have claws?

[Frozen Sooner]

I know my cat was pretty miserable a couple of weeks ago when his nose was stuffed up and he couldn't blow it.

[DAVE]

That's the proximate answer. But since nipples are seemingly functionless in men, we could've evolved to not have nipples if you're a man. So why haven't we lost them? That's the more interesting question, in my opinion.

It could be that any mutation that effects development at that early stage is MUCH more likely to be detrimental and really fuck up the rest of the individual's development, so we haven't gotten the right mutations to remove nipples in men yet.
Don't confuse LaMarckian theory for evolutionary theory.

[Frozen Sooner]

At what point did primates have claws?

Before speciation to primates occured.

[Race]

Well, sure. But just because both natural selection and intelligent design agree that a tree is a tree doesn't mean that they agree how the tree got there. :DI tend to look for common ground in discussions like these. Apparently, it drives people crazy . . .

[Matt Jay]

I'm sure they're still hurting, but their faith prevents them from seeking a negative outlet for it.
I don't think withholding forgiveness is a negative outlet for anger/hurt. I think the only healthy way to deal with the hurt/anger is to give it time to sink in and allow yourself to feel those emotions as you move toward forgiveness. I believe they use their faith to deny and repress these emotions, and that's not healthy.

[Ben]

At what point did primates have claws?I'm pretty sure their ancestors had them. I think animals have had claws since... the first reptiles.

[Frozen Sooner]

I tend to look for common ground in discussions like these. Apparently, it drives people crazy . . .

THERE CAN BE NO COMMON GROUND WITH THE ENEMY!

[Ben]

I tend to look for common ground in discussions like these. Apparently, it drives people crazy . . .1+1 can be 2 AND 3!

[Race]

Before speciation to primates occured.Which occured before specialization from primates to proto-human to humans, right?

So, shouldn't the fingernails be gone by now?

This is an honest question.

[Frozen Sooner]

Which occured before specialization from primates to proto-human to humans, right?

So, shouldn't the fingernails be gone by now?

This is an honest question.

I took it as such.

Question one: Yes.

Question two: No. Fingernails were still used for combat and cracking open seeds and nuts and stuff. Also useful for stripping bark off of trees, stuff like that. Just because they're useless NOW doesn't mean that they would have gone away already-the period of time that they've been useless isn't even a blip on evolutionary timescales. We're talking only hundreds of years as opposed to the multiple millenia for a large phenotypical change like that to occur. However, I'd bet that in less than 1000 years fingernails will be smaller on average than they are now.

[Jef UK]

And I like to believe what No, YOU Stay Classy said. That there is a God, and he "planted the seeds" of evolution.


If everybody would believe this, I think we'd all be a lot happier.

That's total bullshit. Why would believing in some magical being creating everything make me happier? I'm very happy in my life and am an athiest.

[DAVE]

Which occured before specialization from primates to proto-human to humans, right?

So, shouldn't the fingernails be gone by now?

This is an honest question.
No again that is LamMarckian theory, which in fact is an aspect of evolution that HAS been disproved.
In short, LaMarckian theory is: the more you use something the bigger it becomes (pauses while class laughes, finished now? good)
Or the less you use something the smaller it becomes until it disapears.

This is not how it works.
Instead, a random mutation occurs, and if it is beneficial than the possesser of the mutation continues to mate and it is entered into the gene pool, until there isn't any other members of that species without that trait.

Since finger nails and male nipples aren't detrimental to our survival chances, they'll stay in the gene pool. Now if for some reason having male nipples became detrimental to survival, and a random mutation netted a nippleless male, than that the nippled men would die out, while the nippleless man would continue on.

[Ben]

That's total bullshit. Why would believing in some magical being creating everything make me happier? I'm very happy in my life and am an athiest.Religious people often have a hard time understanding that not everyone needs the comforts religion provides.

[J. R. Scherer]

I never thought about fingernails before... I'm going to be thinking about that all day now. It's going to distract me during Borat tongiht. THANKS A LOT!
I think fingernails are still useful. Perhaps not necessary to survival in human beings, but still certainly useful. Toenails, however, are useless. As well as the entire pinky toe.

[Thomas Mauer]

Religious people often have a hard time understanding that not everyone needs the comforts religion provides.
But they just want you to be happy!

[Race]

Early Human Culture

Paralleling the biological evolution of early humans was the development of cultural technologies that allowed them to become increasingly successful at acquiring food and surviving predators. The evidence for this evolution in culture can be seen especially in three innovations:

1. the creation and use of tools 2. new subsistence patterns 3. the occupation of new environmental zones


Tool Making

Some chimpanzee communities are known to use stone and wood as hammers to crack nuts and as crude ineffective weapons in hunting small animals, including monkeys. However, they rarely shape their tools in a systematic way to increase efficiency. The most sophisticated chimpanzee tools are small, slender tree branches from which they strip off the leaves. These twigs are then used as probes for some of their favorite foods--termites and ants. It is likely that the australopithecines were at least this sophisticated in their simple tool use.



The first unquestionable stone tools were evidently made and used by early transitional humans in East Africa about 2.5 million years ago. While the earliest sites with these tools are from the Gona River Region of Ethiopia, simple tools of this kind were first discovered by Mary and Louis Leakey associated with Homo habilis at Olduvai Gorge in Tanzania. Hence, they were named Oldowan tools after that location. These early toolmakers were selective in choosing particular rock materials for their artifacts. They usually chose hard water-worn creek cobbles made out of volcanic rock.


Source: http://anthro.palomar.edu/homo/homo_3.htm

OK, so according to this, we started using tools/weapons around 2.5 million years ago. It is also widely held, IIRC, that we are closely related to chimpanzees and share a common ancestor.

So, have any chimp/human-related fossils with claws ever been discovered from this era?

Allowing 0.5 million years to make tool use common and moving away from needing claws, it just seems like 2 million years is a long time to get rid of our fingernails.

How long does it typically take to evolve past an attribute like fingernails? How long did it take to loose our tails (seems like they'd be more complex structures and would take longer)?



EDIT: I missed David's LaMarkian explanation . . .

[Frozen Sooner]

No again that is LamMarckian theory, which in fact is an aspect of evolution that HAS been disproved.
In short, LaMarckian theory is: the more you use something the bigger it becomes (pauses while class laughes, finished now? good)
Or the less you use something the smaller it becomes until it disapears.

This is not how it works.
Instead, a random mutation occurs, and if it is beneficial than the possesser of the mutation continues to mate and it is entered into the gene pool, until there isn't any other members of that species without that trait.

Since finger nails and male nipples aren't detrimental to our survival chances, they'll stay in the gene pool. Now if for some reason having male nipples became detrimental to survival, and a random mutation netted a nippleless male, than that the nippled men would die out, while the nippleless man would continue on.

I'm not arguing that fingernails are detrimental to survival, but that loss of fingernails would be beneficial and that incremental shrinking of fingernails provides an incremental benefit.

I can see how what I was saying could be miscontrued as LaMarckian "rub it and it gets bigger" theory though. :D

[Relaunched]

Whether an appendage/organ/etc is useful is not an aspect of natural selection.

It would only disappear if a member of the species benefited by NOT having them. If someone born without fingernails was somehow able to procreate more (therby passing this trait) than the average human with fingernails, then yes the characteristic would disappear. But whether or not a person has fingernails doesn't change their mortality or ability to survive.

The simple fact that attributes are deemed worthless is not a factor in whether or not they would disappear.

[GelfXIII]

I took it as such.

Question one: Yes.

Question two: No. Fingernails were still used for combat and cracking open seeds and nuts and stuff. Also useful for stripping bark off of trees, stuff like that. Just because they're useless NOW doesn't mean that they would have gone away already-the period of time that they've been useless isn't even a blip on evolutionary timescales. We're talking only hundreds of years as opposed to the multiple millenia for a large phenotypical change like that to occur. However, I'd bet that in less than 1000 years fingernails will be smaller on average than they are now.

Opening CD wrappers is a survival trait too.

[Frozen Sooner]

OK, so according to this, we started using tools/weapons around 2.5 million years ago. It is also widely held, IIRC, that we are closely related to chimpanzees and share a common ancestor.

So, have any chimp/human-related fossils with claws ever been discovered from this era?

Allowing 0.5 million years to make tool use common and moving away from needing claws, it just seems like 2 million years is a long time to get rid of our fingernails.

How long does it typically take to evolve past an attribute like fingernails? How long did it take to loose our tails (seems like they'd be more complex structures and would take longer)?


It hasn't become more useful to not have them than have them until the last couple hundred years.

[DAVE]

I'm not arguing that fingernails are detrimental to survival, but that loss of fingernails would be beneficial and that incremental shrinking of fingernails provides an incremental benefit.

I can see how what I was saying could be miscontrued as LaMarckian "rub it and it gets bigger" theory though. :D
Yeah, I know you weren't saying that. I just thought (correctly perhaps) that other people would misconstrue that to be LaMarckian theory.

[Frozen Sooner]

Whether an appendage/organ/etc is useful is not an aspect of natural selection.

It would only disappear if a member of the species benefited by NOT having them. If someone born without fingernails was somehow able to procreate more (therby passing this trait) than the average human with fingernails, then yes the characteristic would disappear. But whether or not a person has fingernails doesn't change their mortality or ability to survive.

The simple fact that attributes are deemed worthless is not a factor in whether or not they would disappear.

That's what I'm arguing. Fingernailless fingers have more tactile area.

Don't blame me, I stole the idea from Asimov!

[DAVE]

Whether an appendage/organ/etc is useful is not an aspect of natural selection.

It would only disappear if a member of the species benefited by NOT having them. If someone born without fingernails was somehow able to procreate more (therby passing this trait) than the average human with fingernails, then yes the characteristic would disappear. But whether or not a person has fingernails doesn't change their mortality or ability to survive.

The simple fact that attributes are deemed worthless is not a factor in whether or not they would disappear.
That's what I'm saying.

[Frozen Sooner]

Yeah, I know you weren't saying that. I just thought (correctly perhaps) that other people would misconstrue that to be LaMarckian theory.

OK, cool. I was dipping my toes in the water of it, so it would've been my own fault if the sharks got me.

[Ben]

Since finger nails and male nipples aren't detrimental to our survival chances, they'll stay in the gene pool. Now if for some reason having male nipples became detrimental to survival, and a random mutation netted a nippleless male, than that the nippled men would die out, while the nippleless man would continue on.They cost energy to make and maintain. That's a detriment.

[Thomas Mauer]

OK, so according to this, we started using tools/weapons around 2.5 million years ago. It is also widely held, IIRC, that we are closely related to chimpanzees and share a common ancestor.

So, have any chimp/human-related fossils with claws ever been discovered from this era?
Evolution didn't start with the common ancestor of humans and chimpanzees. You've probably got to go farther back than mammals. Also, there are still many, many gaps in the evolutionary charts. It may never be possible to trace back to that first single cell organism first ancestor.

[Frozen Sooner]

Opening CD wrappers is a survival trait too.

That's what we have rocks and iPods for.

[Shane W]

They cost energy to make and maintain. That's a detriment.

But you can paint them up and use them in the mating ritual, so that's a plus.

[Ben]

But you can paint them up and use them in the mating ritual, so that's a plus.Exactly. Personally, I'm not big on painting my nipples, but what you do behind closed doors is your own business.

[Race]

Evolution didn't start with the common ancestor of humans and chimpanzees. You've probably got to go farther back than mammals. Also, there are still many, many gaps in the evolutionary charts. It may never be possible to trace back to that first single cell organism first ancestor.Right, but in a discussion about claws, fingernails and the use of tools, why would I have to go back to the very beginning?

[Race]

But you can paint them up and use them in the mating ritual, so that's a plus.Not with me. I prefer 'em plain and clean.

[Thomas Mauer]

That's what I'm arguing. Fingernailless fingers have more tactile area.

Don't blame me, I stole the idea from Asimov!
Can you explain that tactile area thing, please? :surrend:

[Frozen Sooner]

Exactly. Personally, I'm not big on painting my nipples, but what you do behind closed doors is your own business.

:lol:

Nicely played.

[Ben]

Right, but in a discussion about claws, fingernails and the use of tools, why would I have to go back to the very beginning?Because nails and claws didn't FIRST evolve in primates for some function. Their ancestors claws and nails were modified for some new function like cracking seeds. Primates do use nails and claws for many of the same things their ancestors did, though, like fighting and scatching teh shit out of your enemies.

[Race]

Exactly. Personally, I'm not big on painting my nipples, but what you do behind closed doors is your own business.*looks down shirt*

Looks to be . . . oh, 48 degrees out. :grope:

[Shane W]

Since finger nails and male nipples aren't detrimental to our survival chances, they'll stay in the gene pool. Now if for some reason having male nipples became detrimental to survival, and a random mutation netted a nippleless male, than that the nippled men would die out, while the nippleless man would continue on.

I would like to know that if there is a population of men and women that still find these desireable, would we get to a point of equal amounts of folks with and without nipples?

Kind of like the Star-Bellied Sneetches.

[Shane W]

Exactly. Personally, I'm not big on painting my nipples, but what you do behind closed doors is your own business.

Have you tried it?

[Frozen Sooner]

Can you explain that tactile area thing, please? :surrend:

Sure. If you don't have fingernails, the area on your fingers that's covered by them now would be available to feel things-no nerve endings in your nails. That's a benefit. Plus, you'd have better grip with the tops of your fingers and your fingers would be more nimble.

[Race]

Because nails and claws didn't FIRST evolve in primates for some function. Their ancestors claws and nails were modified for some new function like cracking seeds. Primates do use nails and claws for many of the same things their ancestors did, though, like fighting and scatching teh shit out of your enemies.But my question is wouldn't that need for claws/nails have been phased out with the rising use of tools/weapons?

[Flonk]

Who I also love, but I was more hollering for Ben. He has a way of putting things much more soundly than I do on these matters. I could shout all day how this guy's links are stupid but Ben has the Pwned! ability.
Ben has that perfect mix of brains and smart ass. :heart:

[Shane W]

Sure. If you don't have fingernails, the area on your fingers that's covered by them now would be available to feel things-no nerve endings in your nails. That's a benefit. Plus, you'd have better grip with the tops of your fingers and your fingers would be more nimble.

But how would I open my pop-top soda and or beer?

[Frozen Sooner]

But my question is wouldn't that need for claws/nails have been phased out with the rising use of tools/weapons?

The need? Sure. But it hasn't been an advantage to not have them until recently.

[Frozen Sooner]

But how would I open my pop-top soda and or beer?

Machete.

[Race]

But how would I open my pop-top soda and or beer?Buck teeth.

Hillbilly's are actually advanced humans! :shock:

[Shane W]

But my question is wouldn't that need for claws/nails have been phased out with the rising use of tools/weapons?


Even though there may be an advantage to not have them, they won't just go away until someone has a mutation and passes it on.

[Frozen Sooner]

Even though there may be an advantage to not have them, they won't just go away until someone has a mutation and passes it on.

True. And even then, it's going to take several generations.

[Ben]

But my question is wouldn't that need for claws/nails have been phased out with the rising use of tools/weapons?It looks like they have been phased out to a degree. Our nails aren't exactly very claw-like anymore. But it's certainly being sexually selected in females. And they are useful for opening things and stuff. Plus, people that are attacked, usually do scratch the attackers, so it probably helps there. It's not like fingernails are completely useless now.

[Shane W]

True. And even then, it's going to take several generations.

Yes. Yes!

Now that we agree on that, let's talk about dropping the Sox for the Cards. it's time for you to evolve into a better baseball fan. ;-):grope:

[Frozen Sooner]

:raises eyebrows:

Sox?

I kinda root for the Sox, just because I went to Fenway and had a great time. But the Padre fan in me will never allow me to root for the Cardinals.

His name is Paco. He's about 4'1". You'd like him, he's nice.