Evolution? How?

I'm the other one wrote:

I would like to know where people think a homo-erectus originated from?

I mean...their pre-life forms. Was it the cave-man? Ape? Dinasours that just fizzled out?

I'd just like to know how you people think and maybe I could understand you a little bit better. As well as evolution.

Thank you.

Here ya go

I'm the other one wrote:

Eorl wrote:

other one, the answer is not as simple as you'd like but let's start with pre-human earth.

I am 99.9% sure that we (humans) evolved from pre-human beings like homo-erectus.

Like the big headed beings? With fur?

homo-erectus?

Sounds kind of kinky for some reason.

Actually, pre-human species in our ancestry had small brain cases than we do. The size of the woman's birth canal could have been a limiting factor. Babies are born with skulls which have "sutures" that later fuse together so that the head will be "pliable" as the infant comes through the birth canal.

Larger brain cases are no longer necessary. We have removed our memories and our ability to acquire and assimilate information from our heads to libararies, universities and research institutions. Sadly for the Christians, far too many of them dispense with those very useful adapations.

Actually, pre-human species in our ancestry had small brain cases than we do.

Larger brain cases are no longer necessary.

Have i exceeded the "too much fun" limit yet?

Chumly wrote:

I am not satisfied at all knowing that we will feed the worms after death, it pisses me off big time!

Well atleast you are one atheist I've met who doesn't care for the idea, lol.

No "Giant Human Skeleton" ever has been confirmed. Many have been claimed, none ever has been confirmed. No evidence for any such critter's existence exists.

Wow, alot of information. Thanks.

I keep seeing charts everywhere suggesting that we all have a common ancestor. D you feel this way?

How do you propose your "giants" could "spontaneously" appear?

Quote:

Actually, pre-human species in our ancestry had small brain cases than we do.

Quote:

Larger brain cases are no longer necessary.

In the same post.

See? Christians aren't the only ones who talk in circles!

I keep seeing charts everywhere suggesting that we all have a common ancestor. D you feel this way?

Quote:

If this bone was not essential to the animal's functioning, then again evolutionary principle has been violated because it should not have evolved.

I could surgically remove your cecum, and you would survive -- at least, you'd survive without the cecum; you might not survive my surgical technique.

I could remove a horse's cecum and it'd be dead before you could say "hi-ho silver."

It's not a question of whether something is essential, but rather a question of an inherited tool kit and relative advantage. Perhaps the bone (pure speculation here, just for sake of example) was important to the proto-fishes for prehension, combat, digging, receiving radio signals from extraterrestrials, or whatever. The family was successful, the family diversified, the family retained certain familial traits that may or may not have been of any importance any more. (Just as the color of one's skin might have meant the difference between life and death at some point in the past, whereas now it may -- in some utopian land -- have no bearing on survival whatsoever.) However, unless there is a selective pressure against the retention of this structure, it's unlikely to vanish too rapidly. Sort of like our little (outside, fifth) toes: they serve virtually no appreciable function, but we've still got them. The fish's genes (in my hypothetical world; I know diddly squat about this species in particular and little more about genetics in general, though probably quite a bit more than the average bear) still program for that bone to form. Whatever genes influence the development of this bone change (or not) as chance allows until, my happy circumstance, it ends up somewhere else where it performs a useful function -- in this case, vibrating sympathetically with outside noise. Now, perhaps, it confers an advantage to the individuals with the particular suite of alleles that favors it's development.

As to the eye thing -- I resorted to looking at answersingenesis for their review of Dawkins' book "Climbing Mt. Improbable" to purview the dogmatic objections vis-a-vis evolution of the eye.

http://www.answersingenesis.org/tj/v12/i1/improbable.asp

I find nothing about the eye having evolved mutliple different times (perhaps a different book?). I do find an irreducible complexity argument. Much of the critique is centered around the necessity of complex decision-making machinery being necessary to interpret optical information -- that is, there's no point in detecting light if you don't have a brain. There are many single-celled Eukaryotes and Prokaryotes today that have systems for the detection of light and that put this information to very good advantage. There are bacteria that respond to light by moving toward it or away from it, and the only machinery necessary for this to occur is an "eyespot," a flagellum or three, and a simple chemical cascade that results in greater or lesser flagellar activity in response to increasing or decreasing intensity of light.

There's also the usual "biochemistry itself is too complicated to have evolved," but that issue is hardly unique to the topic at hand.

It now appears that the shattering enormity of geological time is a steam hammer to crack a peanut. A recent study by a pair of Swedish scientists, Dan Nilson and Susanne Pelger, suggests that a ludicrously small fraction of that time would have been plenty. When one says "the" eye, by the way, one implicitly means the vertebrate eye, but serviceable image-forming eyes have evolved between 40 and 60 times, independently from scratch, in many different invertebrate groups.

Chumly wrote:

How do you propose your "giants" could "spontaneously" appear?

Even "if" God did not create the human body/heavens and earth in a finite time frame of 6 days it still is rather evident that species have all undergone radical changes and not one single species has left a clue as to how such metamorphosis from one kind of animal to another has happened.

Considering that these changes have happened for each species at a "different time" it cannot be completely assumed that there is a missing "period" of time but each species individually has at one point changed into a "different animal". What is really weird is that the probability of every fossil record being totally lost of each species change while they happened "at different times" all over the globe leaves the mind in a sort of perpetual perplexity...

The distinction between kind and species has never been broken...

Ge 1:11
And God said, Let the earth bring forth grass, the herb yielding seed, and the fruit tree yielding fruit after his kind, whose seed is in itself, upon the earth: and it was so.

Kind/Species...

Evolution within species?

Is the Bible saying there a time "before" when creatures were not "after their own kind"?

Hi I'm the other one,

May I ask a question? Do you question your religious beliefs in the same manner you question evolution? If so how? If not why not?