Creation Vs. Evolution

Whoop whoop whoop!!!







out.

Jonus said:

It came from an article in the vegetarian journal, by Stanley Garn, Professor of Nutrition and Anthropology, and William Leonard, Assistant Professor of Human Biology:

"These people of Upper Pleistocene, and later those of the mesolithic, were our immediate ancestors, no longer hunters exclusively and with whole-grain products and a variable amount of roots, fruits, leafy vegetables and nuts in their diet. We must grant them a mixed diet, with animal fat providing a smaller proportion of their food energy than was probably true for the Neanderthals."

Also Flores is famous for two things, gigantism and dwarfism. On Flores you had the giant rat, the giant lizard, the dwarf elephant and the afore mentioned dwarf homo Floresiensis.

The suggestion is that the combination of the lack of available protein coupled with the heavy wear and tare on the molars of the specimens found, is consistent with the small development in stature or several species on the Island, and along with the fact that the Floresiensis had fire to cook with, discards the premise tha the wear and tare came from eating raw foods and poorly prepared foods, but rather points to an eventual diet of roots and fauna.

This is consistant with the gradual change in molar wear and tare on humans who were introduced into new isolated by the sea, environments such as the Maori from New Zealand who also cooked with fire on hearths and in ground ovens, who also went through a period of hunting easy accessible meat, instead of the Stegodon, theirs was the Moa or Dinomis robustus and ground dwelling birds. After a recession in the availability of those sources of protein due to extinction of those species, you see the same wear on the molars from a change in diet to eating roots and other harsh foods.

Click to expand...

Ok, great, but that hardly makes them flower eaters, nor does it support your previous assertion that this hominid was named H. florensiensis (the specie designation is not capitalized, btw) because its primary diet was flowers. And we cannot discount the presence of butchered bones, which completely belies that assertion even more. You haven't explained where you got that from. Flowers are soft, grains and grasses are hard. They're two different things. You do realize, don't you, that Garn and Leonard just reaffirmed my own assertion that we evolved as omnivores, yes?

In my post I said that, 'H.Floresiensis evolved after homo sapiens sapiens', which they did. Homo Sapien Sapiens lived from about 250,000 years ago till today, the Homo Floresiensis live from about 100,000 years ago till 12,000 years ago.

Click to expand...

You can't say that with any certainty. We don't have the fossil evidence and we don't have the DNA showing this. Also, if such is the case, how and why would their fossils be showing aspects that are quite Australopithecine? That's pre-H. sapiens, not post. I'm not sure why you're using the designation H. sapiens sapiens, this is what is used by some for Archaie H. sapiens, argued by some to be a sub-species, H. heidelbergensis. Again, I ask, did you read your own sources?

I think god made us perfect for wherever we started out, but then as humans traveled they had to adapt to the changes in enviroment. I figure evolution is just long-term adaptation. but on a side note, you know how humans normally only use 10% of their brain capacity. what if god is just some dude from a LONG-ass time ago that, for whatever reason, could use his entire brain. think about that after a couple bong hits and tell me it ain't trippy.

I don't know how humans use only 10% of their brain capacity. Evolutionarily-speaking, that is an incredible waste of calories and effort and makes no sense. I'm pretty sure we use most of it, just not all of us.

Mr. Maryjane said:

I think god made us perfect for wherever we started out, but then as humans traveled they had to adapt to the changes in enviroment. I figure evolution is just long-term adaptation. but on a side note, you know how humans normally only use 10% of their brain capacity. what if god is just some dude from a LONG-ass time ago that, for whatever reason, could use his entire brain. think about that after a couple bong hits and tell me it ain't trippy.

Click to expand...

So we started out perfect and it's been down hill ever since?!

One would only need to teleport (bwing - they make that sound) back a hundred years or so (that's all) to see we are moving UP, UP, UP.

Blimey, just go to any old graveyard and look around, something besides a ghost will jump out at you, if you truly are paying attention.



Hi Sea - baby, I'm trying to use as much as I can of my grey matter, but I'm running out of gerbils.

out.

pamaris said:

Theistic evolution. ie... evolution happened just like science says but God determines it. Don't know whether He just started things off or whether He's involved in every step. Doesn't matter. Best book to read on the subject is 'The Language of God' by Frances O'Connor. Dude mapped the human genome but is actually a believer.

My parents are typical young-earth-creationists. Obviously that's what I grew up believing. It took until I was 28 to find out that evolution is not based on a foundation of Jello.

Basically, the Bible is not a science book. So we shouldn't look for scientific validation in figurative language.

Another thing- when God spoke the world into existence, it prolly caused a big bang.

Click to expand...

Have you ever noticed how people always seem to have parents that have slightly stronger religious beleifs then themselves, you hardly ever see a religious person with non religious parents. You just get slightly religious people with religious parents or very religious people with very religious parents or atheists with religious parents. That's because how religious you are depends on how indoctrinated with it you have been and not on any evidence.

Armadillo Slim said:

Have you ever noticed how people always seem to have parents that have slightly stronger religious beleifs then themselves, you hardly ever see a religious person with non religious parents. You just get slightly religious people with religious parents or very religious people with very religious parents or atheists with religious parents. That's because how religious you are depends on how indoctrinated with it you have been and not on any evidence.

Click to expand...

The church spends a great deal of time convincing parents to get the children involved (most cults do)...


If you raised your kids on good moral stories (brothers grimm, dr. suess, classic literature) and then at the age of consent introduced them to the Bible, Quran, Torah, etc., they would look at it just like they do harry potter, and no more.......



out.

Mr. Maryjane said:

you know how humans normally only use 10% of their brain capacity.

Click to expand...

Where do people come up with shit like that? 10%, 15%, whatever? These are just made up numbers typically reported by the quackery folks when trying to explain away psychic phenomena or some other shit like that. Although there is a lot we still don't know about our brain and it's function, we can safely say, via lot's a real science evidence, that normal functioning people utilize most all parts/areas of their brains. Certainly not all at once (that would be akin to seizure activity), but there is no magic, secret areas of our brains that we haven't or can't access or whatever.

Have you ever had a decent dose of LSD? And I mean there is much better... but a few hours on a trip will quickly convince you, we use our brains in idle mode normally.

ANC said:

Have you ever had a decent dose of LSD? And I mean there is much better... but a few hours on a trip will quickly convince you, we use our brains in idle mode normally.

Click to expand...

LSD is to brain synapses as overclocking is to CPU's ..

I can smell colors....




out.

Mr. Maryjane said:

I think god made us perfect for wherever we started out, but then as humans traveled they had to adapt to the changes in enviroment. I figure evolution is just long-term adaptation. but on a side note, you know how humans normally only use 10% of their brain capacity. what if god is just some dude from a LONG-ass time ago that, for whatever reason, could use his entire brain. think about that after a couple bong hits and tell me it ain't trippy.

Click to expand...

You think that's trippy? What if god was one of us? Just a slob like one of us, or a stranger on the bus, just trying to make his way home?

Hand Banana said:

You think that's trippy? What if god was one of us? Just a slob like one of us, or a stranger on the bus, just trying to make his way home?

Click to expand...

What if G*D was a bus and not like one of us, but he still gave us a ride home.



out.

CrackerJax said:

LSD is to brain synapses as overclocking is to CPU's ..

I can smell colors....




out.

Click to expand...

Have you ever seen an fMRI on LSD? http://www.lsdbritain.com/page36.htm
Some interesting shit

I'm all for it where do i sign up?



out.

mindphuk said:

Where do people come up with shit like that? 10%, 15%, whatever? These are just made up numbers typically reported by the quackery folks when trying to explain away psychic phenomena or some other shit like that. Although there is a lot we still don't know about our brain and it's function, we can safely say, via lot's a real science evidence, that normal functioning people utilize most all parts/areas of their brains. Certainly not all at once (that would be akin to seizure activity), but there is no magic, secret areas of our brains that we haven't or can't access or whatever.

Click to expand...

http://www.neilslade.com/Papers/how.html
read it and weep, motherfucker

brain capacity doesn't refer to what areas of the brain we use.

Mr. Maryjane said:

http://www.neilslade.com/Papers/how.html
read it and weep, motherfucker

brain capacity doesn't refer to what areas of the brain we use.

Click to expand...

That whole article is basically arguing semantics. First off, I never said we use 100% of our brain capacity, and I acknowledged, just like your reference, that we are never using large amounts of our capacity at one time. There is something called reserve capacity.

I love how this guy critiques a leading neuroscientist but lacks any objective data in the whole article, which is just a bunch of conjecture and assumptions.

What I was rallying against are these arbitrary numbers thrown out there without anything to back it up. Dale Carnegie started a lot of this and then you have the ESP proponents trying to get us to believe we have locked up potential and that is where our psi ability comes from. More bunk.

We now know that destruction of even small areas of the human brain can have devastating effects on behavior. That is one reason why neurosurgeons must carefully map the brain before removing brain tissue during operations for epilepsy or brain tumors: they want to make sure that essential areas of the brain are not damaged. So now we have very detailed maps of the brain and what parts are used for what types of things. We also have surgeries where large amounts of brain are removed and new neuronal connections are made to make up for the loss, at least partially. Does that prove we don't use close to all of our brain capacity? No, it just means it has a remarkable ability to adapt, just like if I lose a large chunk of my liver, the rest of it works to overcome the loss of hepatic cells. Just because someone can apparently function well after losing a large amount of brain tissue doesn't mean there isn't significant decreased capacity, it's just not necessarily had been measured precisely both before and after.

If the brain evolved in response to need, why would it then turn off and idle? Surely the world of today is more demanding of the brain than past eras, so if anything all parts of the brain should be engaged, and they are.

Using advanced imaging like fMRI, we can see at any given time, sometimes as much as 60% of our brain is active and functioning. That alone debunks any of this 10% stuff.

If we only use 10% then we should be able to safely remove or disable 90% without any effect. What about strokes? Damage to a relatively small area of the brain, such as that caused by a CVA, may cause devastating disabilities. Certain neurological disorders, such as Parkinson's Disease, also affect only specific areas of the brain. The damage caused by these conditions is far less than damage to 90% of the brain.

Your link proved nothing. Show me some science behind the statement or STFU.

okay, so say 60% of my brain is active, that doesn't mean it's working as hard as it could. that's what I'm saying dude. just cause physically 60% of my brain is active doesn't mean I'm useing 60%of my brain capacity. that also explains why people long ago used more of their brain capacity, their brains had to work harder

MindPhuk, you wasted at least ten minutes on that last post. Could have had some waffles instead ..




out.

I think I'm un-evolving. I hurt my back and can not walk erect.........

Are you noticing a difference in your brain capacity?

Sorry to hear that really, back aches are horrible.




out.