General discussion


If we all came from Monkeys, then???

By jdclyde ·
For the sake of this discussion, we will ASSUME that evolution is more than the "Theory of".

If we are to accept that Man came from Apes (barring the question of why are there still apes then) why are there so many "races" that are so different from one another?

I understand the idea of life addapting to their environment, but how long does that take, and can it explain the vast differences between the differnt races?

Why would Japanese be so much smaller, while black and white races average so much taller? Different diet maybe?

I understand the eskimo body to concerve heat, but most others I just don't follow.

And how does this relate to certain races having less of a resistance to certain disease or lower/higher tolerance to booze?

And with more people moving to different climates, how long does it take to re-adapt to a new climate, even if breeding among other races did not happen?

And of course if we are all the human race, how can there be so many differenses in our DNA, from race to race?

If we all started from the same mold, how can we have become so different?

This conversation is currently closed to new comments.

Thread display: Collapse - | Expand +

All Comments

Collapse -

Trite and an appeal to ignorance.

by neilb@uk In reply to Absence of evidence

You can do better than that, Tony.

When Rumsfeld said it about WMDs I thought it meaningless...


Collapse -

Simply that

by TonytheTiger In reply to Trite and an appeal to ig ...

lots of things were at one time unexplained. That doesn't mean that they didn't exist before they were explained. It means that all that the people of the time knew was not all there was to know. The same thing is true today. A truly open mind would realize that... that until something is disproven absolutely, its existence is a possibility.

Thank God for all of these puzzles he created for us :)

Collapse -

Ah, but in this case, Tony

by neilb@uk In reply to Simply that

it's an "either/or".

The majority of Christians read Genesis as a metaphor - the last Pope said that it's not to be taken literally and that "evolution is OK".

For the (mostly American) Christian fundamentalist conservatives, however, the Bible is to be taken literally therefore Darwin cannot be allowed as it is contrary to the "Word of God". By the way, they're in the company of Muslim fundamentalists who are the other body that won't have anything to do with Darwin.

Intelligent Design, although not outwardly "Christian" is an attempt to take the non-existent "middle ground" to weaken Darwinism as a prelude to moving over to "pure" Biblical Creationism. I can produce the evidence that convinces me of the perfidy of the ID proponents but I'll save it until requested.

So, you see, we (people like me or the fundys) can't have both so "absence of proof..." doesn't hold. So long as Darwinism is an accepted scientific theory then Biblical creation cannot be a viable explanation.

Collapse -

I've seen the reference

by TonytheTiger In reply to Simply that

to "fundies", but only in the accusatory. I've never actually met one, nor do I know anybody who has.

Collapse -


by neilb@uk In reply to Simply that

It's a matter of perspective and, given that I'm pretty damn secular even in a secular country, a "fundy" to me is someone who takes their Holy Book too much as the literal Word of God. there's lots of other things that they can do as well, but that definition is the most germane for this discussion.

Trust me, from my perspective, you've got LOADS!

Collapse -

LOL Fundies!

by Oz_Media In reply to Simply that

Fundies are underwear with four leg holes so two people can share them.

Collapse -

But if there is no evidence to be found after 60 years of the seeking...

by X-MarCap In reply to Absence of evidence

Was the Mom an Idiot, or was Dad. Was it only one positive mutation?

I just want the same level of proof that is demanded from ID people to be leveled at the evolutionists.

They are working from speculation to speculation. They demand proof of the unprovable, and not from their own sources.

Archaeology and antrhopology are creative fictions. I haven't seen significant differences in their attitude andf the nuttier religious types. The attitude is the same.

We don't have the evidence per se. But we have some records that indicate the existance of ______
you fill in the blank.

Since Hebrew is not a dead language, the Dead Sea Scrolls and the Jewish histories are becoming recognized as more accurate as time goes on... For years Pontius Pilate's existance was discounted. Now, it has been proven that he lived and was the military governor of the right area...

Evolution is a theory, not a natural law. I have a theory that has never been proven or disproven. OZ is either insane, or just revealing his genetic inheritance. OZ is decended from Equus Asinus.

Thanks JD for the point in the right direction.

Sorry I can't help but Zing OZ. My favorite target.

Collapse -

I refuse

by neilb@uk In reply to But if there is no eviden ...

to be drawn down in this discussion to the level of total bollocks.

Evolution is a scientific theory. You know what one of those is - or at least a person or your claimed medical and scientific training damn well should know - and you know what is involved in the acceptance of such a theory: A self-consistent, internally logical model for describing the behavior of a related set of phenomena, originating and supported by experimental evidence.

The scientific theory that describes the mechanism of evolution is both systematic and formalised and was proposed by Darwins on the basis of his original observations and modified by all subsequent observations. It is both logical and testable. Above all, and so different from that contrived nonsense of ID, it is predictive.


Collapse -

From Mathematics you should be aware of step functions.

by X-MarCap In reply to I refuse

For certain values no cooresponding real values exist. Only for example only imaginary ones. square root of -1, etc.

Perhaps that is the link between the Pre-**** sapiens and the current race of man... Imaginary, or, perhaps it is measurable and quantitative... So if it isn't speculation but measurable, where is it describable in mathematical terms or by hard evidence? I know Physics and Chemistry, not philosophy, so, I take every assertion with a bag of salt.

Collapse -

Were you talking about....

by onbliss In reply to Lack of hope


Heee heee.. could'nt help myself from sneaking that in here. So out-off topic. Sorry for the digression.

Related Discussions

Related Forums