Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Politics : PRESIDENT GEORGE W. BUSH -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: J_F_Shepard who wrote (325807)	12/4/2002 5:48:25 PM
From: Johannes Pilch	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 769670

Not quite that simple.....evolution, in fact, shows that all animal life forms evolved from single celled animals. That shouldn't be too difficult to comprehend because in just 9 short months you developed from the fusion of two single cells. The anology is quite spurious, and it is just this sort of "thinking" that shows us the utter carnage public school systems do the minds of people who eventually grow up to become so-called "scientists." I developed from the fusion of two single cells because of an elaborate set of instructions that commanded the growth and development of each of the cells as well as of myself. What evolutionists maintain is something altogether different. They claim the elaborate instructions themselves developed as a result of evolutionary pressure, descent with modifcation, over a long period of time, to eventually form a single-celled organism. So the idea of human growth and development is completely without any explanatory power at all where evolution is concerned. The completion of the mapping of the human genome shows how closely the human body is to all other animal life forms. We , I seem to recall, are just a few hundred or so, genes different than a mouse....ie more than 90% of the human genome is identical to the mouse. So then we are all descended from mice. Homological or molecular similarity are no proofs of biological ancestry and we ought not get carried away with this sort of obviously illogical crap. Clearly a mouse is a danged mouse and a man is a danged man, regardless of how similar their homologies and/or DNA appear. My Steinway and Yamaha pianos look wondrously similar, and are even made essentially of the same materials. But they do not share a common origin. Their creators worked at different times, from certain plans- a piano archetype - and for that reason the two pianos share similar aspects. That archetype explains why my pianos look similar, though having different origins, why celestas look wondrously similar to my pianos, why harps look similar to celestas, why Marimbas and Glockenspiels look similar to harps, why tubular bells look similar to Glocks, why a tympanist's configuration looks vaguely similar to the bells, why a drummer's configuration looks similar to the tympanist's configuration, why flutes, clarinets, trumpets, tubas, and even trombones and french horns share vague similarities to all these prior mentioned instruments. They are all controlled by a master plan, a Musical Law etched in the cosmos. And should they not conform to this plan, they do not work. It is no reason to claim the various instruments actually evolved from one another. Indeed, many of them developed in completely separate cultures. Even the didgeridoo shares attributes with a remarkable number of other intruments that have no real relationship to it at all. Look at an early stage embryo of a human and another animal, for example a chicken, and you won't be able to tell the difference under a microscope. Did you know some babies are still born with tail remnants? That dogs have remnants of gill slits? A dog will often develop a cyst in that area.... Well, humans and sharks have almost identical looking embryos also. Your statement betrays a most profound ignorance of cellular biology and just plain clear thinking. The fact is, while some of these animals may look similar at certain early stages, they arrive at those early stages by different means. So clearly we cannot yet use their similarities to argue for ancestry. It is just unsuitable as evidence, but it will suffice for the faithful. There a number of extinct species of man and anthropological evidence is discovered regularly.... Humanoid species have been on the planet, correct me if I'm wrong here, about 40,000 years notwithstanding some Christian claims that the Earth was created 6,000 years ago. The problem with these "humanoid species" is that many of these finds may not be humanoid at all, but are likely just varieties of extinct ape. Scientists have voted on the matter and berated into submission several reputable scientists who doubt if many of your "humanoids" were really human at all. Big friggin' deal, Shep. Enjoy your dang evolutionary church. I gotta go eat. (ding)

To: J_F_Shepard who wrote (325807)	12/5/2002 9:48:49 AM
From: TigerPaw	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 769670

Humanoid species have been on the planet, correct me if I'm wrong here, about 40,000 years Slight Correction: Homo habilis is the earliest known species of the genus Homo; that is, the first human species. It existed from approximately 2.2 to 1.6 million years ago in east Africa wsu.edu:8001/vwsu/gened/learn-modules/top_longfor/timeline/habilis/habilis-a.html Many of the arguments counter to evolution, especially those used by creationists, use timelines that were first argued in Darwin's day, before our Civil War. At that time the Earth was thought to be about 100 million years old based on an assumption that the Earth began as a molten ball of material the residual heat in volcanoes could be explained solely by the cooling since then. Radioactive materials and their ability to keep the center of the Earth hot for billions of years had not yet been discovered. Some important misconceptions were accepted in those days to explain a much more rapid pace of evolution than what really happened (and some more to explain similarities in fossils that we now know as evidence of contenental drift and former unified landmasses). Much more is now known about when people evolved and where they traveled. TP