the guy who rides on a garbage can lid, right?stevendiep_100

I don't think it was garbage can lid. It was some fancy Batman like gadget.

Yea it was the black kid with electric powers. He had white friend named Richie..

[QUOTE="hobbez"]Oh well then, I don't mean to rag on your high grades there :roll:, but you haven't really said anything of quality. Your comments are sophomoric, you can't seem to understand what a "Theory" is, and you're stuck in that "I-don't-see-people-evolving-into-super-humans" mentality. It's hard to take you seriously when you've decided to dismiss out of hand one of the foundations of modern science, which is widely accepted, without even knowing what it is. Revinh

Well, you haven't said anything of quality either, nothing that I don't know. And saying somewhat insulting comments just means you can't argue at higher levels. Where are you even getting the mentality you speak of? I never saidevolution is fast process.

An apple tree does not produce an orange fruit. - meaning the tree always produces its fruit.

I hope that's not too hard for you to get.

The bottom line is: Is the theory of "ape-to-man" a fact? NO. You seem to state otherwise.

Evolution does not and has never stated that human beings descended/evolved from apes and chimpanzees. It states that human beings, chimps, and apes all evolved from a common ancestor.

I'm not even sure why you're bringing up this apple and orange argument.

[QUOTE="hobbez"]Seriously, I recommend taking basic bio first. At this level, I'm finding it hard to even get motivated to respond to you. I feel like I'm teaching a brick wall with dyslexia to read.Revinh

Seriously, I recommend you take first grade science first. Your immaturity shows by posting retarded comments like that^ You don't even get the few sentences I write. And FYI I got one of the highest grades in bio years ago, not to be bragging. Evolution is a theory like the Big Bang and you swallow it as truth/fact.

Oh well then, I don't mean to rag on your high grades there :roll:, but you haven't really said anything of quality. Your comments are sophomoric, you can't seem to understand what a "Theory" is, and you're stuck in that "I-don't-see-people-evolving-into-super-humans" mentality. It's hard to take you seriously when you've decided to dismiss out of hand one of the foundations of modern science, which is widely accepted, without even knowing what it is.

[QUOTE="hobbez"]There, evolution in a nutshell. Which part don't you agree with? That we have genes? That genes are inherited? That some genes give traits that are more convenient or 'fit' than other genes? Revinh

That those do not produce new species.

Seriously, I recommend taking basic bio first. At this level, I'm finding it hard to even get motivated to respond to you. I feel like I'm teaching a brick wall with dyslexia to read. Evolution is a slow and gradual process, and for the fourth time, it is not limited to morphology.

Ok let me explain this to you first, the idea of evolution as a slow process has been in question for quite some time. But, that's more an arguement against the tempo of evolution - not whether or not evolution occurs.

Natural selection, which is all the basis your argument has, is an intrinsic part of how evolution works. There are random mutations, then the external environment causes those with beneficial mutations to have greater success than those without, and those with mutations that aren't helpful in the given environment.

Natural selection is just a way to say that those individuals with the genetics that enable them to have the greatest number of grown, fertile offspring, will have greater influence over the way the *species develops* than those individuals without those mutations.

Natural selection is part of evolution. It is the name given for the way gene prominence is determined.

And furthermore, Evolution is, by any standard a theory. A scientific theory, which is unlike a 'theory' in everyday terms. In everyday terms, a theory is what you call an idea off the top of your head, which is in science called a hypothesis.

Something that is a theory in science however, has passed a lot of muster, been shown to be consistent with observations and available data. It's details may be clarified, altered or elaborated on, as new information is discovered, but it would take something unimaginably huge to disprove it entirely. Some guy posted a wikipedia article on this. Read that too.

The theory of evolution is no less than the Theory of Gravity, the Atomic theory or the Theory of Relativity.

.. So.. What don't you get?

[QUOTE="hobbez"][QUOTE="GodLovesDead"]

If you took any highschool biology classes you'd learn that evolution isn't going to occur now. Evolution requires natural selection, and since Humans are top of the chain and we have the government to protect everyone, there is no natural selection.

Want to evolve? Grab yourself and 50 marines, move to a deserted topical island, survive for dozens of generations with no contact to the outer world. Bam, you'll be super humans.

GodLovesDead

You missed a few biology classes though it seems. If you're going to attack something at least find out what it is first. And I'm not gonna call you a retard but I am going to call into question your knowledge of the subject.

Like I said earlier, not all evolution involve morphological change. There is still evolution, though it's no longer directed by the environment as such, and it's no longer going in the direction of 'fittest' ...other than the basic fitness in the direction of people who have genes that enable them to have the most childrean, and healthy enough to do it.

The last part of my post was a joke and I didn't exactly give a balanced reason, just a specific one. Regardless, I still remain at the idea that evolution is at halt. We simply don't fit the bill or the requirements of evolution anymore. It's not going to happen because we aren't going in any given direction.

How do you propose we'd evolve if we were to? Would it be apparent by the time we die out?

Again, evolution is not limited to morphology. Consider insects, their immune system is constantly evolving to protect them, just as the parasites, viruses and diseases are evolving in ways to overcome the immune system. Not visible in the fossil record, but it is still occuring.

If you still don't buy that consider this also: roosteroaches have constanly had mutations crop up, perhaps even mutation that changed their morphology. However, for unknown reasons those mutations have been selected out of populations. If there is mutation and selection - even if it is for stasis - I would argue that evolution is still occuring.

Theory =/= TruthRevinh

'Truth' can be a matter of opinion because 'Truth' depends on our individual point of view. However, evolution is not dependant on our individual point of view. Lifeforms either evolve over time or they don't. It is not dependant on your point of view.

Evolution has also been observed. We know there are genes, we know they are inherited, we know individuals have different chances of survival and a different chance of passing on their genes, based on how fit the genes make them in their environment, so over time, genes that fit the given environment best will prevail.

There, evolution in a nutshell. Which part don't you agree with? That we have genes? That genes are inherited? That some genes give traits that are more convenient or 'fit' than other genes?