Human Evolution

[Pulchritudinous]

Do you beleive that we started off as apes?
If so, then the bible must be aload of **** because there is nothing in the bible about God being an ape...
(Like the first person on this pic)


http://www.tiscali.co.uk/reference/encyclopaedia/hutchinson/images/0008n035.jpg

Do you think one day we will have evoluted so much to look like this...:)

Edited by MissAlice - PLEASE DO NOT SHOW PICTURES OF A SEXUAL NATURE

[Jase]

ENLRGED BUTTOCKS :eusa_danc :eusa_danc
jk i do not we could have

[Fingerboots]

;o Ahh, that means we must of been all hairy once.. FUZZ BALLS!

[GommeInc]

Yes it is true we would of looked like that but evolution had to happen.
They found about 6 months ago the remains of a 'cave man' like creature, frozen in ice.
Which helped by far the proof we were all apes.

Plus, humans are good at communicating with apes when you think about it, apes can be trained very well than something like a orang-utang and other monkeys like chimps etc which take a while to train but apes are quicker because we can communicate easier.

Also, it is very unlikely 2 people started off the human race a few millions years ago, they were perfect humans! Which is obviously impossible because that means we walked with dinosaurs! Adam and Eve (Adam and Steve, Madam and Eve whatever you most like to call them) basically never existed!

[Mentor]

Do you beleive that we started off as apes?
If so, then the bible must be aload of **** because there is nothing in the bible about God being an ape...
(Like the first person on this pic)


http://www.tiscali.co.uk/reference/encyclopaedia/hutchinson/images/0008n035.jpg

Do you think one day we will have evoluted so much to look like this...:)

Edited by MissAlice - PLEASE DO NOT SHOW PICTURES OF A SEXUAL NATURE


NOPE.

i odnt belive we stated of as apes, i belibe we started of as single celled orgaismes like evrything else, an ape is at a very high point of evoltion, we weree once apes, well primates, we wernt actal apes, but a speacils of them, ostrilipithcus we evo;lved from wich was a fom after an ape, the ice ages killed off teh meanderfiles, and we lived on and continude to eveole, and wala here we are today.


the bible si just an attemped to understnd the univers by humans with littel to go one, as well as being a method of control and power. i have no blief in it, i can accpet someone belives in its key messges and moralls, but if you belibe it word for word you deffintly need to see a doctor, it thinsk the sky is water, stars a whoels leading from heven, sun orbist earth, eveolition never took place etc etc, grossly incret.

apes were a point in are evolition but a long way from the start of it

[Ciaran]

I disagree, in our world in some places animals give birth to a species so deformed it doesnt even look like them now these things can servive and i belive that happened with humans but we became too powerfull and took controll as the dominant species..

Well thats my view

[Pulchritudinous]

Oh you took off my picture of my 'how we will later live', can I put it back if I block out the rude parts?

Pretty please!

[GommeInc]

Well of course we all started off as single cell organisms, but humans startewd off slowly as apes in the beginning but there must be a section of evolution, ok maybe 100 or more than 1,000,000 before we get to the first one in that pic.

[-JT-]

no scientist has actually said we 'started' as apes, we merely evolved from them or they evolved from us :O:O:O

[Genifer]

I don't know about the creation theory.

I really have thought hard about this, and I think their both THEORYS. It's not certain how humans came to be.

I'm not sure about evoloution.. their's not enough EVIDENCE.

[Corey777]

There is a simple answer to this thread that will fit MOST cases.

Are you more religous or Scientific?

I, being more religous believe that we did NOT evolve from apes.

[Mentor]

I don't know about the creation theory.

I really have thought hard about this, and I think their both THEORYS. It's not certain how humans came to be.

I'm not sure about evoloution.. their's not enough EVIDENCE.
There probly a few hunderd ensclopedas full of proof, its not acatly a thery, its proven scinace?

[Corey777]

There probly a few hunderd ensclopedas full of proof, its not acatly a thery, its proven scinace?

I don't think so.

Notice the saying, "Darwin's Theory"

After watching a video, it explains how many parts of the cell there are now that Darwin could not even imagine at the time of his theory.

It also shows how complex the cell is and that the chances of evolution is VERY slim.

[Mentor]

dawins thery was quite a whiel ago, sintist afetr him dindt suddenly ignore the subject, dawins thery did have some gaps, wich are now filled by the sciance of gentitcs wich explaisn inhertce, the only thing he got grossy inccorect.

[Corey777]

This is not much on my last posts, but I feel that high school science should not ONLY teach evolution, but give different opinions so that everyone's opinion is heard and not just the Scientific one they are cramming in our ears.

[Mentor]

But the sintific one is correct, and proven. thats would be like teching 2 plus 2 . but then saying teh amswer coudl also be, 3 and 5. even thogh the only corect one is 4

[Corey777]

But the sintific one is correct, and proven. thats would be like teching 2 plus 2 . but then saying teh amswer coudl also be, 3 and 5. even thogh the only corect one is 4

Not quite.

There are no other "theorys" to what 2+2 could be.

There is for the creation of mankind.

Some say evolution.

Soem say a God or any other religous leader.

I am just saying that schools should touch on the subject that there is more than one opinion.

[Mentor]

there may be someoen of teh opion 2 + 2 = 3 . but peopel know its incorrect, so they dont teach it.

[Corey777]

there may be someoen of teh opion 2 + 2 = 3 . but peopel know its incorrect, so they dont teach it.

Yes, but they would need proof to back it up.
There is ABSOLUTELY no way that 2+2 could = 3.

There is a way that evolution could be false though.

[Mentor]

Yes, but they would need proof to back it up.
There is ABSOLUTELY no way that 2+2 could = 3.

There is a way that evolution could be false though.
evoltion is a proven and genraly accepted, way in wich life eveolves, its can be proven countless ways, and explaisn innumrable things. Many poople would say thers abosulty no way evelition could be wrong

[Corey777]

evoltion is a proven and genraly accepted, way in wich life eveolves, its can be proven countless ways, and explaisn innumrable things. Many poople would say thers abosulty no way evelition could be wrong

That is true, but you could have quite the opposite. I meen, how many people will say 2+2 does not equal 4?

Not too many.

How many people will question the theory of evolution?

Millions.

[Mentor]

That is true, but you could have quite the opposite. I meen, how many people will say 2+2 does not equal 4?

Not too many.

How many people will question the theory of evolution?

Millions.
your the first person ive ever met whos questioned it, most peopel who do question it tend to be the uneducated, who have no eveidnce to go on. wit hevince itd proven.

and with teh 2 + 2 = 3 argumnt, what does giev a number its value, think about it, why is teh word 2 assoited with tha value, could 2 not mean what you would call 1.5 ?

[Corey777]

your the first person ive ever met whos questioned it, most peopel who do question it tend to be the uneducated, who have no eveidnce to go on. wit hevince itd proven.

and with teh 2 + 2 = 3 argumnt, what does giev a number its value, think about it, why is teh word 2 assoited with tha value, could 2 not mean what you would call 1.5 ?

Must be a lot bigger in the UK or something. In Canada, there are so many people that do not believe it. And I get the feeling that you are implying I am dumb.

It could be called 1.5, but it still would represent 2, would it not? So therefor, saying 1+1 = 1.5, would be correct if the person specified 1.5 was 2 in their vocabulary :)

[Mentor]

Im not actaly imply anyones dumb, and te impliction wasnt at you, so dw.
Uneducted, you could be a genius, but without infpomation, you could only belive and make assumptison on what you know. wich was what i ment buy that parts as a reson for belife.
Uk as a whole is a far less religos contry than america, so many who may have folloed a religos belife, insted follow the athists, as they are the majority. i personly prefer to make my own opions on subjects, rather than just follow, but the the exstent of my knolage, eviltion is the only conclusion thats makes sence to me.


1.5 and 2 are simpley sqigles . they in them selves have no meaning, it is our landgawige wich asignes them meaings a values. otehr landgages have diffent simbles for the, like i think is is corect, teh number 7 (posibly teh wrong number) actaly means death in japonise... so the value signed to the squige, is therefore complty differnt to the value we asign.
you could easy swich teh values, to mean a differnt thing, and blive there interption is right over other people and stedfastly blive 2 + 2 = 3 .

[Corey777]

Im not actaly imply anyones dumb, and te impliction wasnt at you, so dw.
Uneducted, you could be a genius, but without infpomation, you could only belive and make assumptison on what you know. wich was what i ment buy that parts as a reson for belife.
Uk as a whole is a far less religos contry than america, so many who may have folloed a religos belife, insted follow the athists, as they are the majority. i personly prefer to make my own opions on subjects, rather than just follow, but the the exstent of my knolage, eviltion is the only conclusion thats makes sence to me.


1.5 and 2 are simpley sqigles . they in them selves have no meaning, it is our landgawige wich asignes them meaings a values. otehr landgages have diffent simbles for the, like i think is is corect, teh number 7 (posibly teh wrong number) actaly means death in japonise... so the value signed to the squige, is therefore complty differnt to the value we asign.
you could easy swich teh values, to mean a differnt thing, and blive there interption is right over other people and stedfastly blive 2 + 2 = 3 .

I am actually Canadian :p Still, I think the percentage of athiests are higher in the UK, even though the religions started there Lol.

And yes, they are only squiggles, but we have meenings for them and therefore teacvh them that way. But for people with different views on evolution, for there sakem, should hvae the oppurtunity for the teacher to explain evolution from a different point of view.

[Mentor]

the thing is, only one can truly be right. Every s**** of evince in exisnace says eviltion is correct, and for the bibel story, vertaly everything else in it has been proven wrong to teh point its imposible to fathm relsim, unless you still belive the earth is flat and the sky is a big dome of water?, even thogh we know the wor,d is far far older thant he bibel says, and mioilons of otehr spices before us were not mentioned, and astrouts ahve never incounded a big dome of water?

Also religoon started in bratain? teh church oif england staretd here, but thats jsut a branch of crisnity, wich started in whats now israil, wich was then both isral and juda. :/ and otehr reilosgn had difent starts? i dont know of any actal full religon thats started in braitin, exspet jedi nearly did, as so many people put it as a religon in teh cenus it nearly got deacled a real one.

[Corey777]

Actually I have never heard of the sky being a water dome and the Earth being flat (other than in science). Could you possibly give me the place in the bible where it says that?

Also, if it does, which somehow I doubt, this could be considered correct. Are clouds nothing but water?

[Mentor]

it ment the sky as its pigment is blue.
Its the christan creation story, genisis. we had to learn it for an rss exasm?

[Corey777]

Ohh I understand, Id better get crackin' on my bible :p

[Sketti]

I don't beleive in the religous start of the world. I beleive in the big bang theory where a load of gases were floating about and the exploded creating a load of rocks and life began. So to your question: Yes I beleive we started off as apes. :)

[Mentor]

LOL. its quite funny to see people complaty not notcicing.
No one has ever siad that i know off we started as apes. Apes were a stange in are evolution, but not the beging?

Also, big bang threay isnt realy the lastit thery, it jsut what people rember, plsu it has some stange inpritions. big bang part is right with the gas, the 2 most bacsiu elmits wich then fomed otehr elimest in starts by fusion reactions.
But where did the gas come from? i blive in M theray, more commonly known as string thery as it explains some basic phiclie incostsinacuys.

[Pulchritudinous]

Lol, do you think we have evolved at all in the past 200 years or so?
I wish they let me keep this picture of how'd we'd later look, it was so funny.

[G-flow]

I dunno the creation Of whatever .We were probably invented By some superior race who were extint cuz they were actually dodo's. lol

[Pulchritudinous]

Er...you've confused me, I hope I wasn't a dodo *cries hysterically*.

[G-flow]

No silly! thats how we were created , by the king dodo lol. lol i dunno. argh! argh! argh! i think i'm going a bit crazy

[Pulchritudinous]

Okay I'm happy now, you are crazy.

[G-flow]

w00t! crazy. *then trys to do that thing that that crazy old cat woman does* fails miserably

[-JT-]

without disrespecting religiouse people i do not beilive that some dude clicked his fingers and we appeared, we DID evolve, we are still evolving, and learining so evolution automaticaly holds immunity in this debate.

[Mentor]

Im pretty shore eveoltion isnt a theary, as far as i know ist a proven fact. or at least it should be.

[Pulchritudinous]

Yeah, I'm pretty sure its been, whatever the word is...scientifically proven?

[Mined]

Nope i do not

[Mined]

I think that we evolved from Metoroas and DNA

[Pulchritudinous]

Yes of course...but then there was apes, it's believed that apes tails shortened, they gradually learned to stand upright, lost hair somewhere in the making, learnt hold to hold things, walk on two feet, and wallah, humans.
But surely if they learnt to do this, the humans born afterwards would have to learn to do this aswell, rather than just being born that way.
Plus if we evolved from apes, why is the ape still a living specie.
They are probably the closest thing to a human, Darwin had this theory way back in the 19th century, and I do not know if there has been any tests since.
So I'm wondering now, whether to beleive it or not.

[wootzy]

the only reaosn they learnt to stand upwards is for *** (sorry for avoiding filter)
and we have been evolving, but only our minds as we get to create m0ore things

Edited By MissAlice - PLEASE DON'T TRY AND AVOID THE FILTER.

[Pulchritudinous]

Yeah, I'm sure one day we will have the technology to do all sorts, and we will be laughed at for ever thinking we evolved from an animal.
And that we really evolved from a special type of water which came from a rare tree which when mixed with several other things created humans.

[Mentor]

lol. ill stick with the nromal ideas of eveoltion, yeas ist been put to the test and the incositnys in dawisn theays are all explained by genetics, i scince they did not have in his time. plus no angry mobs dont tretn to burn people who do thinsg thats proves god doesnt exist etc, wich is why dawin was so contveal adn did alot of work in secret in his time.

ps. we eveloved to stand up, to free up our hands, so we had mroe manul dextrity, and were able to use far more complex tools, than back then, wich has continued to evolev to what we are now, thumbs and all.

Animals can do that perfectly well without the need to stand up. :D

[GommeInc]

Is it true that Parrots have been used in tests to test there brain power capabilities aka Talking, and doing stuff that they learn through time/

[Pulchritudinous]

Probabaly, they train all sorts of animals to do amazing things.

[GommeInc]

There is all kinds of proof that we evolved from Apes as Apes strangely communicate better with us than any other animals outside the monkey regions of monkeyton.

We have huge similarities although picking ourselves and cleaning parts of bodies didnt luckily evolve with us.

[Mentor]

We dident eveolve from, apes didnt majicly appear, apes eveolved form the same orignen as us as did nevery every other lifeform, apes themslevs have never been part of a human, eg

creture one, evolves in to both creture a, b and c. paes are maybe c, we are b.

creture 1 thogh alos eveloevd form somthing else and so on.

(hugly simplifed, )

Apes werent the start, just a stage.

[GommeInc]

Its like a family tree really, think of it like that if you cant think of how to sum it up.