RunUO Community
This is a sample guest message. Register a free account today to become a member! Once signed in, you'll be able to participate on this site by adding your own topics and posts, as well as connect with other members through your own private inbox!
Old movies Mangler
- Thread starter Draegen
- Start date
Im fairly sure I said this here before..but that theory is due for a bit of reform. Not because its not true, but because the definition of what is 'strong' is changing. To be able to provide for a family no longer consists of being able-bodied enough to hunt a deer and trade the pelt for local goods. Now to be able to provide is a matter of money with little muscle involved (unless your chosen profession requires it ie a well paid construction worker). So Darwin's theory should really only be placed into the scheme where there is a void where we humans have filled in society and economy.
Though you might also want to factor in that some women nowadays idiotically choose men based solely on looks with no consideration for the fact there wont be any brains contributed at all. Thats not to say Draegen's mother was one such, I wouldnt presume to slander an innocent woman who cant even defend herself. Just food for thought.
[/$0.02]
Though you might also want to factor in that some women nowadays idiotically choose men based solely on looks with no consideration for the fact there wont be any brains contributed at all. Thats not to say Draegen's mother was one such, I wouldnt presume to slander an innocent woman who cant even defend herself. Just food for thought.
[/$0.02]
Well "strong" is indeed a word that can be taken many ways. You can be mentally strong, physically strong, neither, or both.
But, I think what he meant was the one best suited to the society or species. "Strong" in one species might be "weak" in another. In human society, if you take the word strong for its face value, then the theory is flawed. However, I think he meant something much deeper though.
But, I think what he meant was the one best suited to the society or species. "Strong" in one species might be "weak" in another. In human society, if you take the word strong for its face value, then the theory is flawed. However, I think he meant something much deeper though.
Not a single person has ever proved Darwin's theory with anything more than ideas, suggestions, and possibilities.
There is no hard evidence to prove his theory. Do you know what kind of evidence we should be finding? Species that have died out because they randomly mutated into a more "evolved" form of their species but died because their new features weren't the fittest. We should find fossils in the ground of multiple species that look similar but at the same time have slight differentiations due to random genetic mutation, yet after all of our archaeological finds in the past few decades, we have found none.
You know what else no one can explain? Where all this shit came from. In order to begin this process of random mutation (even though I think it's false), Darwin explained that it is required that we have very basic evolutionary slime or sludge. What he doesn't explain is where this "sludge" comes from, or how, by random mutation, the eye is formed. Not even a computer can simulate an organ such as the eye, the most complex of human organs, being formed by random genetic mutation. It is too perfect to have been created by randomness.
You can argue with me saying "his theory is right" and "some theories become accepted" but until I see some actual evidence and not just "it probably happened this way" bullshit, I will completely disagree.
There is no hard evidence to prove his theory. Do you know what kind of evidence we should be finding? Species that have died out because they randomly mutated into a more "evolved" form of their species but died because their new features weren't the fittest. We should find fossils in the ground of multiple species that look similar but at the same time have slight differentiations due to random genetic mutation, yet after all of our archaeological finds in the past few decades, we have found none.
You know what else no one can explain? Where all this shit came from. In order to begin this process of random mutation (even though I think it's false), Darwin explained that it is required that we have very basic evolutionary slime or sludge. What he doesn't explain is where this "sludge" comes from, or how, by random mutation, the eye is formed. Not even a computer can simulate an organ such as the eye, the most complex of human organs, being formed by random genetic mutation. It is too perfect to have been created by randomness.
You can argue with me saying "his theory is right" and "some theories become accepted" but until I see some actual evidence and not just "it probably happened this way" bullshit, I will completely disagree.
shrundowr
Lord
#1: They belive in mutation and adaptation of human beings. Obviously, they still belive we were created, but one cannot deny that we have changed over the years.
#2: I am a liberal, and belive in it to some extent and do not wish it to be taught at all.
#3: The fact that we are still living despite things that would have killed off primitive humans based on foresnic studies of what is left of them (I admit a corpse hundreds of years old is a far shot, though)
#2: I am a liberal, and belive in it to some extent and do not wish it to be taught at all.
#3: The fact that we are still living despite things that would have killed off primitive humans based on foresnic studies of what is left of them (I admit a corpse hundreds of years old is a far shot, though)
Anti-Basic said:
No. They allow for the possibility that it evolved or mutated from previous forms if the person so chooses to believe that. They are concerned about the person's soul, which does not evolve.
Cool. We need more of you.
Wow. Forensic studies of remains that might not even be human! (Lucy, anyone?)
FYI Microevolution != Macroevolution.
For instance, how did one man (probably olive-skinned) have so many diversely-colored descendants (yellow, black, white, brown, olive...)? The answer is simple: microevolution. Africans would have naturally adapted to the sun and heat, giving them darker skin. Europeans would have done the same for their climate. Still, in spite of skin color, shape, size, weight, build, or ANY of that stuff, ALL human beings' DNA is 99% completely identical.
MACROEVOLUTION, on the other hand, is a crock of shit IMHO.
If you do believe in Christianity or any of the other "Big 3", you'd also have to believe in microevolution.www.dictionary.com said:
For instance, how did one man (probably olive-skinned) have so many diversely-colored descendants (yellow, black, white, brown, olive...)? The answer is simple: microevolution. Africans would have naturally adapted to the sun and heat, giving them darker skin. Europeans would have done the same for their climate. Still, in spite of skin color, shape, size, weight, build, or ANY of that stuff, ALL human beings' DNA is 99% completely identical.
MACROEVOLUTION, on the other hand, is a crock of shit IMHO.
Not a single person has ever proved the theory of God (in all senses of the word), either...and by your logic, it means that all religion is 100% wrong.WarAngel said:
I believe in Faith. I believe in Evolution. We have evolved. Our lifespans are a lot longer now than they were 200 years ago. We are a taller people now as well. "That's because of new technologies and what not" you say? You can't differentiate the 'changes' we've made from an 'evolution'. We've adapted to better server ourselves; it's evolution.
The eye didn't 'evolve from sludge', it was an adaptation from a previous organism. The 'sludge' was started by having the right conditions on the Earth after the volcanoes spewed the right kind of gasses, being the right distance from the Sun and so many other variables. Just because you can't comprehend the tiny possibility that the settings were just right, doesn't mean that they weren't. Also, the eye didn't just 'form in its current state'. It started as a tiny hole that allowed some comprehension of the outside world to be depicted, visualy, into the brain. Computers have done this, as well as so many other 'human' characteristics.
If you want a debate, start debating. If you want to be stupid, keep with the 'I'm 100% correct because' attitude.