More Evolution Evidence

Beagle · Post by **Beagle** » Fri Apr 21, 2006 11:39 am

Thanks for the reply, Arch. Also babies are born with a strong grasping instinct capable of lifting their whole weight, a startle instinct, and the instinct to cry to have it's needs met. The grasping instinct is probably vestigial, left from having to cling to it's mothers back. There are others, but I don't want to think that hard right now.

Guest · Post by **Guest** » Sat Apr 22, 2006 2:11 pm

It doesn't require any thought on the part of evolution, which is a process, not an entity which needs to think.

that is the whole point, it would never know what was needed even for the animal to reproduce. evolution could not even initiate the process because it has no thought and no concept of which direction to go, no ability to know if the evolved organs were right or wrong, no ability to stop when it found the right combination.

because without thinking, without some supreme being programing it, it would be impossible for evolution to even exist. if it is a process, then what/who programmed it toact in that matter? if there was no one programming it, how would it have the ability to do anything? if it is non-thinking, how could it conceive the manner in which it supposedly operated? if it is non-thinking, how could it 'create' such variety? what would be the need for such variety?

you can't say, well it just started; for that doesn't even make sense nor answers even the basic of questions.

let's face it, you want to believe in evolution but you do not want to explain the details nor answer the questions that come when people are inquiring about it. you just want people to accept your word on it AND that is just not good enough.

sorry but your so called 'proof' isn't good enough either as it does not show the process in action but is left to conclusions substantiated by conjecture not fact.

Post by **Minimalist** » Sat Apr 22, 2006 5:14 pm

AND that is just not good enough.

And your silly-ass bible is?

Leona Conner · Post by **Leona Conner** » Sat Apr 22, 2006 7:02 pm

Evolution does not happen because of instincts. It happens because an individual happens to be born with a trait that turns out to be better than any existing at that time. It gives them an edge in the survival game. If, for example, a woman is born with an abiblity to find the nuts, berries, tubers, etc., that her people need to survive between hunts, she will pass that knowledge on to her offspring, who in turn will pass it on. Because of this ability she will probably mate with the best hunter, their combined skills will result in better nutrition for the whole tribe, and future offsping. Small change by small change over a period of time and eventually you have a new species. Yes we do have basic instincts, mainly for survival, but they alone do not cause evolution.

Guest · Post by **Guest** » Sat Apr 22, 2006 11:28 pm

Evolution does not happen because of instincts

read the post again for you missed the mark with this answer.

If, for example, a woman is born with an abiblity to find the nuts, berries, tubers, etc

how would she get it? how could she live long enough for to grow old enough to impart that ability to the others? how are they living long enough? was she born fully grown? how was it that she was born? how would evolution know to 'create' sexual organs? why would 'the process' deem it neccesary for such organs to exist? if species evolved why would they need reproductive organs to assist them? wouldn't they give birth to their own kind?

some animal mothers do not bond with their offspring, how would the 'freaks of nature' survive long enough to produce more of their kind if their mother rejected them? where did these freaks find mates to produce more of their kind?

you have no answers so why push the theory?

Post by **Minimalist** » Sun Apr 23, 2006 4:43 pm

a woman is born with an abiblity to find the nuts

how would she get it?

Leona found you. There is obviously a way!

After reading your apparent inability to understand even the most basic concept of evolution I have reached the conclusion that YOU should stick to superstition and other bible bullshit. It is clearly all you are capable of handling.

Leave the heavy-duty thinking to those who can handle it.

Leona Conner · Post by **Leona Conner** » Sun Apr 23, 2006 5:58 pm

What I was really trying to say, but unfortunately it was late and I did't explain it as well as I probably should have. it all boils down to SURVIVAL OF THE FITEST. The best hunters and the best gatherers get the most food, are therefore healthier and have healthier offspring who will inherit their parents knowledge and will be better hunters and gatherers, and so on. Plus, if we are intelligent, we pay attention to what our elders do and learn from them. And a truely intelligent person will pay attention and learn from their peers.

Post by **Minimalist** » Sun Apr 23, 2006 6:28 pm

And a truely intelligent person will pay attention and learn from their peers.

Subtle, Leona. Subtle.

Guest · Post by **Guest** » Mon Apr 24, 2006 2:51 am

it all boils down to SURVIVAL OF THE FITEST

so you are saying that the world should all be following the mantra---everyman for himself? why are we doing charitable works then if it is survival of the fitest? that philosophy is nothing but a human invention which goes contrary to what most of the world does.

if we all followed that then no one would be doing anything for their 'karma'. it would be a kill or be killed mentality and rules would have no meaning, policeman would be out of a job, and anarchy would reign supreme not the so-called civilized society you live in at the moment.

And a truely intelligent person will pay attention and learn from their peers.

i think you and minamalist should take that to heart...
intelligence is more than taking some scientist's word for it especially when they do not even know what they declare is true. in fact if you read their papers, their books not one of them can say for certain that what they say is valid. they can't prove it and only a fool would jump on that type of bandwagon.

Post by **Minimalist** » Mon Apr 24, 2006 9:32 am

intelligence is more than taking some scientist's word for it

Far better to listen to some Holy Joe with his hand in your pocket, huh? Your devotion to ancient mythology is chilling in a modern world. Why don't you worship Osiris? That cult has the advantage of being a couple of thousand years older than that of your Hebrew goat herders. That should be worth something on the Believe the Unbelievable scale!

Leona Conner · Post by **Leona Conner** » Mon Apr 24, 2006 1:22 pm

"so you are saying that the world should all be following the mantra---everyman for himself? why are we doing charitable works then if it is survival of the fitest? that philosophy is nothing but a human invention which goes contrary to what most of the world does.

if we all followed that then no one would be doing anything for their 'karma'. it would be a kill or be killed mentality and rules would have no meaning, policeman would be out of a job, and anarchy would reign supreme not the so-called civilized society you live in at the moment. "

Arch, even for you this is a pretty dumb statement. How about surviving whild animals? Recognizing changes in the elements and beinging able to take cover? Knowing how to track your next meal? Being able to survive does not necessarily mean you go out and kill whoever you meet. Even Neandertals took care of their elderly and invalids. Archaeologists have found bones that showed fractures and such and the person lived for several years. Someone had to have taken care of them. If the Neandertals did it so did the Cro-Magnons and possibly even previous species. Granted men fought for leadership and the winner naturally would have been the fittest, BUT he would have had to have intelligence to hold the job.

You keep saying that scientists have no proof of what they are saying. It is all conjecture. So where's the proof of what you say is the truth?

Guest · Post by **Guest** » Mon Apr 24, 2006 2:06 pm

Arch, even for you this is a pretty dumb statement. How about surviving whild animals?

i am trying to point out that you can't have it both ways. if evolution has no morality inthe animal kingdom it will have no morality in the human world. it is a non-thinking process, it cann ot come up with boundaries or a different set of principles at its whims. it has no concept of morality thus it cannot be 'invented' just because you want it to be.

if evolution is responsible for the world and it has no concept of good or evil then its 'offspring' would have no concept of it either and no way of inventing it.

in your theory, we should all be standing by watching the survivors of katrin and the tsunami perish (or give them a helping hand to die) for that means all the more for the rest of the world. survival of the fittest

you cannot be hypocritical and cherry pick what you want, when you want it. there are no moral teachings in the theory of evolution thus you can't just put it in there because you do not want to believe the Bible, or that it makes you feel good.

the very fact that there is a morality, a right and wrong, provides more evidence that the Bible is true than any archaeological discovery could do. every nation has a code of laws which set out what is right or wrong and if you trace those laws, you find that they all have roots inthe Bible. murder for example, is against the law and where was it established as wrong long before hammurabi? in genesis--cain and able. God did not wait for the giving of the ten commandments to let it be known that killing was off limits.

so go and believe your theory, but you can never escape the fact that you can never find a foundation for what you believe in that theory.

Post by **Minimalist** » Mon Apr 24, 2006 2:39 pm

the very fact that there is a morality, a right and wrong, provides more evidence that the Bible is true than any archaeological discovery

Deuteronomy 7:1-2: "... the seven nations greater and mightier than thou; And when the LORD thy God shall deliver them before thee; thou shalt smite them, and utterly destroy them; thou shalt make no covenant with them, nor shew mercy unto them."

Joshua 6:21: "And they utterly destroyed all that was in the city, both man and woman, young and old, and ox, and sheep, and ass, with the edge of the sword.

Joshua 10:40-41: "So Joshua smote all the country of the hills, and of the south, and of the vale, and of the springs, and all their kings: he left none remaining, but utterly destroyed all that breathed, as the LORD God of Israel commanded. And Joshua smote them from Kadesh-barnea even unto Gaza, and all the country of Goshen, even unto Gibeon."

As recorded in Joshua 11:19-23, God had "hardened the hearts" of the Canaanites, so that all but one city attempted to fight the Hebrews in battle. The sole exception were the Hivites, the inhabitants of Gibeon. "As the LORD commanded Moses", all of the rest were defeated in battle; their cities and populations were destroyed. This included people of all ages: men, women children, infants and newborns.

2 Kings 2:23-24: "And he [Elisha] went up from thence unto Bethel: and as he was going up by the way, there came forth little children out of the city, and mocked him, and said unto him, Go up, thou bald head; go up, thou bald head. And he turned back, and looked on them, and cursed them in the name of the LORD. And there came forth two she bears out of the wood, and tare forty and two children of them."

Joshua 7:20-25: "...Achan answered Joshua, and said, Indeed I have sinned against the LORD God of Israel... And Joshua, and all Israel with him, took Achan the son of Zerah, and the silver, and the garment, and the wedge of gold, and his sons, and his daughters, and his oxen, and his asses, and his sheep, and his tent, and all that he had: and they brought them unto the valley of Achor. And Joshua said, Why hast thou troubled us? the LORD shall trouble thee this day. And all Israel stoned him with stones, and burned them with fire, after they had stoned them with stones."

This is an example of your bible "morality" arch.

You can stick it.

Leona Conner · Post by **Leona Conner** » Mon Apr 24, 2006 5:36 pm

Again Arch has mixed apples and oranges and come up with fruit salad.

Post by **Minimalist** » Mon Apr 24, 2006 5:49 pm

Leona Conner wrote:Again Arch has mixed apples and oranges and come up with fruit salad.

Amen, Leona.