simple

all i was saying was that i was not a creationist.... but that helps a lot. I guess time is something much larger than I could comprehend

I am questioning this myself so I am not completely sure, but when a population is separated, which can happen over great periods of time, such as a population of bison growing too large, separating into two groups, and a geographic feature forming inbetween them, isolating each, or by any other way, they will have different environments and different genetic shuffling, this will keep the separate populations similar within themselves but not to eachother... such as different races of people... these were changes overa few thousand years... if we could not travel so easily as we can and we evolved separately over many more generations we would all look very different from one another... and probably become completely different species. EDIT: this has nothing to do with anything... but mokele... i am guessing malleus means something scientific... and it is a scientific pun... but i don't get those kind of jokes... could you explain?

i guess ill ask my bio teacher about that. and sorry... what is a genetic bottleneck? is that saying that there may have been a small group who had the eye fold... which i believe to be possible... but i do not understand how it became dominant, and then reproduced separately... and therefore only had the eyefold? or am I wrong about what that means.

well... i was wondering this... most chinese people have a fold of skin above the eye... i think the term is epicantal folds or something like that... anyway, I do not see how the lack of these folds would reduce reproduction... i understand that it may be beneficial... but it does not decide life or death...

if found this website... which clears it up a good amount... http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/faq-misconceptions.html and when i said "I do not believe in the genesis (which sounds like a fairy tale to me), but this makes me question some parts of evolution..." i meant those as two separate thoughts.... i should have added the genesis part at the end... i was speaking about the article... I am saying that I am questioning darwinism... not saying that i am either between darwinism or creationism... I just would like some things to be cleared up. thx

I just read http://www.catholic.net/rcc/Periodicals/Issues/Darwin.html I believe in evolution... but this has some good points... it is kind of bias... but the scientific stuff it puts in there makes sense... what do you guys think. The part that talks about eyes forming... how did they... why did an autotrophic organism decide to eat another... how were those channges gradual. how did they evolve to do that. I do not believe in the genesis (which sounds like a fairy tale to me), but this makes me question some parts of evolution... So I wish to gather more information on this topic. Any input, facts, or ideas you have would help my mind, allowing it to rest on one opinion rather than lugging between them.

man nipples?

Lol. Im not talking about the heat... but the radiation.. like in the case of a nuclear winter. Probably the chance would be slim... but you never know. and yes Chernobyl, thx.

what is spacetime?

wow... people here are very smart... Anyway, I have a questions, where would one attain Hcl (is that the thing for Hydrocloric acid?). Thx.

Hallo! I called myself simple so no one could stalk me. It would also allow you to allow me to ask stupid questions, for I am simple and when immersed in thought I drown... ...save me... and hi.

I do not believe their is any educated choices that we have on evolution... those who are fit to survive, survive, and pass on their traits, those who do not survive, die. Then there are those little mutations that do not affect much at all and then one day there is a great environmental change... Like resistance to ampicillan from bacteria... those without the resistance gene die and those with it reproduce, but hopefully it thins the number enough for our white blood cells to do their job. For another example there were mice under that nuclear power plant that had a melt down in russia, or I think it was near there (If someone remembers the name...). Anyway, some of these mice were not killed, they developed a resistance to radiation or something like that, and then they reproduced and now all of the mice in that area are immune. I think that if there was a nuclear war there is a great chance that some humans would survive the radiation by the luck of a mutation, but chances are then all the food near us wood be destroyed or the bomb would hit our house, we would find someone to die, but my point is that we adapt carelessly and luckily, becuase science works, evolution works, and thanks to mutations and genetic shuffling organisms can adapt to almost anything. Life as a whole is saved!

Lamarc(k?) stated, incorrectly, that parts not used would shrink in size and eventually dissapear. Are there any examples of non useful body parts that have grown in size... I suppose the wings of an ostrich would be one. But since there is no thought put behind these mutations, what caused those with larger or continually functioning appendixes to not pass on their traits... Since as long as they survived and reproduced I do not know where it could have gone. Or is there a possibility of another subconcious factor, even if it did take up extra resources to create a functioning appendix, would that have been enough to stop it from being passed on. Thanks for all the responses, things are clearing up.

I was speaking wtih a friend earlier about evolution and he was questioning it... I believe in evolution but I would just like a few things cleared. First off, I was wondering why did our appendix shrink over years of non use.... shouldn't it just stay there since it does not effect us positivly or negatively. Thx in advance