I true, then why we not see half-lizard, half-bird creature walking around? Shouldn't we still be witnessing the process of evolution, even if it is in "incrementally tiny steps". Wouldn't we be seeing fish with legs?

Also, can you explain the Cambrian explosion?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cambrian_explosion

Maybe the "incrementally tiny steps" just went into warp speed, eh?:rolleyes:

The Cambrian explosion, sure...the answer is "What are 'small shelly fauna fossils,' Alex?" Prior to the Cambrian era the sea bug-things did not have shells that completely covered their bodies. The adaptations that brought these together created the fossil bug-things we see in the Burgress Shale, for instance.

And hey...that lizard-bird you're lookin' for--look no further than the hoatzin of Brazil, daddy-o! It's got exactly what you're lookin' for: claws on its wings and teeth in its beak! And it smells really, really bad. Of existing birds, it's probably closest related to the chicken, although this is a very distant relationship.

Fish with legs...try the Sea Robin. There's another freaky, bug-eyed fish that walks on pseudo-legs, too...I can't remember what it's called. Neither of these fish comes on land, though. For that, you'll want the pseudo-legged lungfish, and most impressive of all, the tree-climbing mudskipper!

So why don't they evolve really good legs, like we might want to see in our missing links? It's because of the simple fact that they can't go any farther than they are now. Why? Simple: because there are too many fuckin' things already on land that a) will eat them if they step out of their particular niche, or b) beat them to the available food resources if they tried an exclusively land-based lifestyle.

Nice point about deductive reasoning versus inductive reasoning. How can you refore the cracked egg?

You're going to see this as a cop-out, but its PRECISELY how broken-down organic matter is restored into the biosphere. (and believe it or not, this is exactly how scientists argue things--I'm in academia)

What you need to restore the egg is an input of energy. Barring hypothetical nanomachines, the best place for the egg to get that energy is from another living thing.

Simple: you feed the broken egg to another chicken. At least some of the protein, lipids, calcium, etc. will get shunted off to create a new egg.

Can someone explain to me how human emotion evolved out of nothing? How can a species go from being an intensely instinctual animal into a being which feels intense emotional connections to others and has the ability to kill itself out of sadness?

Since evolution can technically create anything given enough time, I guess the real question would be, how did these emotional characteristics survive in a being living amongst a group without them. They would not allow this individual any advantage as they would certainly be a weakness.

Tarsiers have been known to commit suicide.

Some of our emotions may turn out to be evolutionary dead ends. Like the white altruism to non-whites.

I'm afriad you're right about that.

The good thing about lemmings is: they'll remain lemmings even under a WN government. It'll take Pierce's "revolutionary vanguard" in charge to convince them altruism to nonwhites is a bad idea. With appropriate propaganda, we could bring back the old "nigger lover" as a shameful idea...kind of like racism among whites is now.

Tarsiers have been known to commit suicide.

"I read on a couple of websites that a captive tarsier committed "suicide" by banging its head on the bars of its cage but this was more likely an animal dying from disease. Besides, a tarsier cage would require fine-mesh screen or wire to keep it enclosed. Tarsiers are probably more susceptible to the stress of captivity compared to their larger cousins, the monkeys, and tarsiers aren't very long-lived."

From:

http://www.geocities.com/Yosemite/3712/tarsier.html

.

The tiny changes you are talking about are called mutations. Darwin had little understanding of mutations. Today, we know that mutation of an organism is virtually never a bonus. In every observable case, the mutation serves to limit longevity, reproductive capacity or survival of the organism itself. But if we look at only the possible, rare mutation that actually improves an organism, we find that in order for the mutation to propagate, the genetic code must be altered to match. Unbeknownst to Darwin, DNA exists and the DNA sequence is locked and unaffected by the surrounding organism. Hence, if you chop your arm off, then breed, your offspring will still be born with both arms very much intact.

(This goes to the abortion argument and the "when does life begin" question. It doesn't. The argument is based on a false premise. Life "began" long ago. It does not begin in the womb or anywhere else, but began in time immemorial. Life is a continuum.)

Let's suppose that our unlikely subject's DNA was mutated by gamma rays and yielded a new or enhanced property, say, super-strength. In order for this change to benefit our specie, this one-in-a-million must now seek out and mate with another subject having the exact same mutation at the exact same time in history and at the exact same locale. Then, supposing this super-strength bearing DNA has suffered no other modification, such as sterility (common to irradiated organisms) it must successfully mate and produce offspring capable of surviving to maturity so as to mate with mom or dad. Alternatively, our youngster can get extra lucky and happen to stumble across another like itself. They'd be a 2-in-a-million pair and just lucky enough to be opposing sexes.

If you think that sounds impossible, you're right. It is the theory of evolution via micro mutation. A statistical impossibility.

The theory of evolution was proposed before we knew anything about DNA and is incompatible with modern science. The fact is, evolution is made impossible by DNA.

The premise for your entire post -- your first sentence -- is incorrect.

Mutations happen to and cause changes in individuals, not necessarily species. The tiny changes I talk about are tiny changes to the entire species, or the majority within the species. BUT mutations are NOT necessary to create the tiny changes in the species. The process is as follows. There is a natural variance of characteristics in a species. Under certain conditions, some of those characteristics favor the survival of those individuals. Under other conditions, some other characteristics, ALREADY IN EXISTENCE in the population, favor survival of those individuals. This variance may not involve specific mutations at all, but simply variation due to breeding patterns in the population over time. For example, say some people have 110 IQ's, but most have 80 IQ's. The ones with 80 IQ's also have other characteristics, however, like more strength or beauty -- which favors their selection either from the standpoint of sexual selection or survival of the fittest under current conditions. But suddenly the Ice Age descends. The 80 IQ'ers are at a disadvantage, despite their strength and beauty -- because this is where raw intelligence comes in handy. Anyway, the less adapted die off in much larger numbers. The smarter ones survive. The SPECIES gets smarter and smarter each winter by this process -- until one day, 10,000 years later, the average IQ of this species is 100, where it used to be, say, 85.

Mutations MAY have played a role for some of the super high IQ'ers; but in general not -- just normal variation within a population, but the less intelligent getting gradually killed off, leaving only the more intelligent.

Ok, then you are not talking about evolution. Humans, for example, did not evolve from lower forms. Your position does not support the theory of evolution, and we agree.

The tiny changes you are talking about are called mutations. Darwin had little understanding of mutations. Today, we know that mutation of an organism is virtually never a bonus. In every observable case, the mutation serves to limit longevity, reproductive capacity or survival of the organism itself. But if we look at only the possible, rare mutation that actually improves an organism, we find that in order for the mutation to propagate, the genetic code must be altered to match. Unbeknownst to Darwin, DNA exists and the DNA sequence is locked and unaffected by the surrounding organism. Hence, if you chop your arm off, then breed, your offspring will still be born with both arms very much intact.

(This goes to the abortion argument and the "when does life begin" question. It doesn't. The argument is based on a false premise. Life "began" long ago. It does not begin in the womb or anywhere else, but began in time immemorial. Life is a continuum.)

Let's suppose that our unlikely subject's DNA was mutated by gamma rays and yielded a new or enhanced property, say, super-strength. In order for this change to benefit our specie, this one-in-a-million must now seek out and mate with another subject having the exact same mutation at the exact same time in history and at the exact same locale. Then, supposing this super-strength bearing DNA has suffered no other modification, such as sterility (common to irradiated organisms) it must successfully mate and produce offspring capable of surviving to maturity so as to mate with mom or dad. Alternatively, our youngster can get extra lucky and happen to stumble across another like itself. They'd be a 2-in-a-million pair and just lucky enough to be opposing sexes.

If you think that sounds impossible, you're right. It is the theory of evolution via micro mutation. A statistical impossibility.

The theory of evolution was proposed before we knew anything about DNA and is incompatible with modern science. The fact is, evolution is made impossible by DNA.

The premise for your entire post -- your first sentence -- is incorrect.

Mutations happen to and cause changes in individuals, not necessarily species. The tiny changes I talk about are tiny changes to the entire species, or the majority within the species. BUT mutations are NOT necessary to create the tiny changes in the species. The process is as follows. There is a natural variance of characteristics in a species. Under certain conditions, some of those characteristics favor the survival of those individuals. Under other conditions, some other characteristics, ALREADY IN EXISTENCE in the population, favor survival of those individuals. This variance may not involve specific mutations at all, but simply variation due to breeding patterns in the population over time. For example, say some people have 110 IQ's, but most have 80 IQ's. The ones with 80 IQ's also have other characteristics, however, like more strength or beauty -- which favors their selection either from the standpoint of sexual selection or survival of the fittest under current conditions. But suddenly the Ice Age descends. The 80 IQ'ers are at a disadvantage, despite their strength and beauty -- because this is where raw intelligence comes in handy. Anyway, the less adapted die off in much larger numbers. The smarter ones survive. The SPECIES gets smarter and smarter each winter by this process -- until one day, 10,000 years later, the average IQ of this species is 100, where it used to be, say, 85.

Mutations MAY have played a role for some of the super high IQ'ers; but in general not -- just normal variation within a population, but the less intelligent getting gradually killed off, leaving only the more intelligent.

If we were having a discussion 5,000 years ago, the argument for the existence for God would include thunder and the trees. 200 years ago (when we understood more about thunder and trees), God was in the sky. Now that man has ventured into the skies, God went far out into space, and now in another dimension altogether.

Yes even a few hundred years ago those like the founding fathers who didn't really believe in christianity were still deists. Believing something created the trees and animals and the ecosystem around them.

Devere, I respect your posts as they are always well thought out, but kindly give this one moment of consideration:

If we all came from Africa and evolved from apes to niggers to human then aren't we related to niggers and other muds ?

And why didn't those muds and niggers evolve ?

.

Devere, I respect your posts as they are always well thought out, but kindly give this one moment of thought:

If we all came from Africa and evolved from apes to niggers to human then aren't we related to niggers and other muds ?

And why didn't those muds and niggers evolve ?

.

...........

Dever:

You're right.

They've got the cart before the horse. Life doesn't evolve because of who lives, it's because of who dies. Think *harder*

Dever:

You're right.

They've got the cart before the horse. Life doesn't evolve because of who lives, it's because of who dies. Think *harder*

That was sooo inspirational.

The biggest problem with BOTH the evolutionary theory and the creationist theory, is that people try to make one or the other paramount and exclusive.

In fact, BOTH systems are complimentary. God created the Universe and let it evolve. What's so difficult about understanding this?

Devere, I respect your posts as they are always well thought out, but kindly give this one moment of consideration:

If we all came from Africa and evolved from apes to niggers to human then aren't we related to niggers and other muds ?

The "Africa seedland" theory is actually unproven. Depends on what human evolutionary stage you are referring to. Earliest human forms may have evolved first in Africa, but, for instance, homo erectus -- a pre-modern, sub-human form -- apparently emigrated out of Africa hundreds of thousands of years ago and spread into the Middle East and the Caucasus and Middle and even Eastern Asia -- and even Australia (the aborigines are essentially mostly homo erectus, although they probably are a somewhat mixed version [mixed with modern man to varying degrees] -- somewhat superior to pure homo erectus). There is evidence that indicates that Modern Man -- homo sapien sapiens -- evolved first NOT in Africa, but in the Caucasus region (Southern Russia) about 200,000 years ago perhaps from homo erectus -- due to a bottleneck event that took place in that region (as I explained on the "Defeat" thread). This would make much more sense than that modern man evolved in Africa, with its warm climate and abundant food available for simple and early hunter-gatherer strategies -- which probably did not sufficiently challenge the genetics of homo erectus enough to foster evolution into a higher, more intelligent human form. The Caucasus Mountain region is a totally different story -- particularly given the huge catastrophic volcanic eruption which DID take place there about 200,000 years ago, when probably not coincidentally, the first indications of homo sapien sapiens began to appear in that region.

In short, it's likely that modern European man did NOT first evolve in Africa, but in Southern Russia -- and he spread out from there, mixing his superior genetics as he went, when encountering the inferior dark skinned sub-humans -- in India AND in Africa. This early man very likely also had white skin and was already essentially the White race. He also, most importantly, emigrated out of the Caucuses into Europe, becoming us. About half of this seeding group of modern man also spread into NE Asia becoming the mongoloids, who are therefore also modern man -- and our cousins (although we are quite different from each other now -- but not genetically very different at all).

Here's an article on Rushton's The Intelligence of Nations: http://www.vdare.com/misc/rushton_iq.htm

And why didn't those muds and niggers evolve ?

Because no environmental condition challenged their genetics with death if they didn't evolve. Africa has a mild climate all year around, plenty of easily available food. No challenge. Their intelligence only increased with a probable influx into Africa of modern man (caucasians) who unfortunately interbred with them at some point.