Milken

Common descent isn't part of evolution? heard of it, but what is it?

Overall, it's ridiculous. De-evolution exists, it's when an organism loses genetic information. Evolution is suppose to add genetic information, that's one reason I have a problem with most mutations causing evolution.

Well stated.

Everyone, stop picking on me, I'm only one underdecided Milken. = ) Common descent isn't part the theory. That's a great opening statement Cap since I already said that' date=' brilliant!I would say ____ but I won't, it's irrelevant. The point is, we're not there when it happens. As your buddy Gould would invoke, pressing rewind. Such as? Catholocism is debatably not Christian. = ) His influence is very important but scientifically' date=' no. Really, who cares, can't believe I'm wasting typing on this. . Fair enough

Einstein, Sir Fred Hoyle, and A.S Eddingtion completely disagree. All non-theists. Einstein felt so negatively about it he purposely changed the math so the universe wasn't expanding. He called it the biggest blunder of his career. Youdad..., More specific?

That's courage!

Centripetal accleration? I haven't seen anything with physics in around 7 years.

Your confusing ancient culture with modern. A scientifica explaination doesn't really answer the question of 'cause'. For instance' date=' what causes orbit and rotation? Who cares about the vatican's opinon, seriouslylol. Professor Pope

A fishtail, where a lateral force comprimises the centripital force's arcing traction.

Dak answered it. Evolution only deals with the first living organism(probaly some single celled organism) to humans. Technically, it doesn't deal with the origin of life either. Honestly as for the Universe, right now, it's a one sided Creation arguement. There are no acceptable non theistic models of the Universe.

I meant you've said some coherent things that make sense. But Milken has been known to make sarcastic comments Measuring repair pathways is beyond me. Any organism' date=' a rat, bear, squirrel, guess I'll keep looking for the info, probaly have to check out some science journals. Is it more genetics/biochemistry/etc.? Accurate specualtion, it's both, especially if it's carbon water based life. Also says common design. Nothing about DNA suggests chance' date=' it's more complex and structed than anything man made. Sceintifically, I agree. Shadow Man, In answering the bones question. Just goto some evolution sites and they'll show you some ape I mean human pictures with different bones OR say we haven't been around long enough to evolve in the bones You'll also see experiments about peppered moths changing colors(they say this is the fact of evolution), bacteria adapting (they say it's the power of evolution), or you'll see a series of pictures as an explanation of evolution. Does the paragraph above mean a bacteria turned into a human? No Answers in Genesis is a popular Young Earth Creation Site (don't think I've been) Talk Design is THE evolution site. You may also SEARCH in the different posts about different subjects and hear peoples opinions.

Are the calculations wrong? Or are we to explain the answer?

My article says weight gain linked to laziness. Really alot of unhealthy lifestyle choices outside of laziness cause weight gain.

This "doctor" is not familiar with excercise and how it relates to the body. He thinks muscle contraction is synonmous with excercise. Calories burned, resistance, and range of motion are other factors not accurately accounted for. Case in point, I should be able to sit in a chair, tense every muslce in body and get "fit". He's either bored or ignorant, but definitely in the dark ages of excercise and physiology. As the English say, RUBBISH!

Big guess because I do not remember 100% how torque is expressed. The first line of given data is measured /min. Data elsewhere is measured /s, converting the first line to seconds makes it smaller, resulting in a larger figure for the answer. Hopefully I haven't come across as a complete idiot.

Hello Peon and others. I did not know he was a pastor' date=' but he was also world famous in his trade. It's undeniable that originally N-Man was thought not to be human, why, the early bones were obviously deformed, mostly children. Later we found plenty of normal N-Man bodies and skulls, unlike the deformed conehead you showed earlier. [b']Once again, you've posted a lie. The claims is not all N-man were diseased, please read before responding.[/b] In addition to the other evidence, I'll add mattbimbo's article from FuturePunit to the list. It states the red hair gene only showed up 20,000 years ago. Peon's inital post states N-man and modern man interatcted around 28,000-30,000 years ago. The red-hair gene is nearly always Caucasion and fits into his suggested birth of modern caucasions much more logically than N-Man. Why N-Man was most likely African. . . 1) N-man's Nasal cavity is the exact opposite of modern Caucasion/European. It fits an African (showed in link earlier, modern science confirms this.) 2) No modern European group has a wide nasal cavity. **Note: If the Standford guy is correct it means two opposite adaptions have the same affect. N-Man wide nasal cavity adapted for cold, modern caucasion narrow nasal cavity, adapted for cold, nonsense, it really is. 2) N-Man's Ancestors were Africans (modern science believes this) 3) Rickets/Pagets/Osteoperosis or whatever, Some N-Man clearly had a vit D or bone issue. The early finds of children were deformed. Later finds looked perfectly healthy. ("Nature"<--evolution magazine, confirms this point) Note*** The rickets diagnosis may be wrong, but it's clear they had bone problems. So much, early on they were not labeled human. 4) They were likely carnivours (not sure how widespread this is). Meat eaters are a lot less likely to get vitamin D from the diet, leaving the sun as the other option. (everyone knows eating meat doesn't give you vitamin D) 5) Africans living in a cold environment are at risk of VitaminD/bone issues if it's not specifically part of the diet. This has been documented in recent history with Africans in England. (modern medical science proves this) 5) Red hair gene showed up 20,000 years ago, if N-Man had adpated as much as purported the redhair gene should be older (FuturePundit proves this) 6) The rare recessive red hair gene always(to my knowledge) shows up in Europeans. (genetics, an obvious observation confirms this) 7) The arrival of the red hair gene(20,000) fits perfectly with the time frame (given by Peon) of modern Caucasion/Europeans being 30,000-40,000) years old. (well, duh!) Conclusion: I think N-man were Africans, or dark skinned. This is not based on any Creationist, ID, or religious beliefs, just science.

I know, I've read some of your posts. The formation of DNA is not an intuitive pattern. It's irregular and complex so it would not stand out as a pattern in a string. PLEASE HELP, what does recent research suggest. Do you know of any good info on mutation rates? I always see 1/100,000. Wow, stupid and ignorant, it seems like a good idea in cases of uncertainty. Not that a certain odd convinces everyone but it's good to know what you're up against. We do it all the time in everyday life, without detailed calculations of course. "Stupendifyingly vanishingly uncommon", whew, can't top it, you're also allowing a "stupendifyingly vanishingly uncommon" amount to happen before you say "life is almost a foregone conclusion". Francis Crick thinks the point at which you mention, life is still "stupendifyingly vanishingly uncommon". So he believes aliens may have been responsible.

So one group of people adapted physically 2-4 times faster than another. It's only odd because the assumption is that they're a cacuasion(pale skinned) group of people. The times frames are very small for this much evolution to take place. Unless I missed something the main evidence I remember for asserting Caucasion was location and it still doesn't make sense in light of the short time they were there and admittedly African.

I think it's gross when people say the Universe is uncaused. PLEASE HELP, what's current research on the probability as well as various mutation rates. The only sources I find for mutation rates is 1/ 100,000. Hmmm, I disagree because in cases where the unknows is involved, prob/stat allows to access the likelihood of something, even in typical mundane life. Whether you realise it or not we make decisions based on inate prob and stat (*wonder if you'll let me get away with that*). "Stupendifyingly vanqishingly uncommon" whew some pharase, but what you're "giving" is stupendifyingly vanqishingly alot. I think many origin-of-life scientists would categorically disagree with you. Since the field is still scratching their heads at step one. ALL ELSE: Does it seem wrong of Evolution to go from immune systems adapting(suppose to anyway), the moths adapting, and bacteria adapting into a saying this proves humans came from a single celled organism? I'm not trying to start anything but it's a leap of the given data.

I'm back! None of this really bothers me, you were the one to bring to this kind of a tone. The discussion can go up or down, doesn't matter Well Modern-day middle easterns are more likely to have a little caucasion somewhere than ancient ones. My understand is that most ethnic groups may become "hairy" but as you've surmised it's definitely associated with cold weather. In tropical groups, it's exceedingly rare to nonexistent. A "hairy" African/other tropical group is possible, empirically. Furthermore, local groups on the periphery may have no "hariy" members.

Please pick up reading English so it's not so foreign to you, or get the post displayed in your native language. We've seen the actions of a prejudice, ignorant, fool in action. Don't jump to religious conclusions so quick. This is not a religious discussion. This is not a Creationist discussion. Furthermore, I used Evolutionist sources(duh!) and one source had nothing to do with Evol or Creation. Get hooked off the crack and get hooked on phonics!

It's not creationist, I don't use creationist sources, well, it's rare. The website is from a site unrealted to evolution and I copy and pasted the important part. Quote: Originally Posted by Milken He's from Standford and his stating his opinion. I believe it's not true. Why? Inhaling cold air is a health hazard, the body naturally tries to warm it up. A wider nose/nasal cavity is not a tight fitler, it's loose. A narrow nasal cavity better acts as a filter to block cold air. There are no good loose filters. Furthermore, Neanderthal man having wide nasal cavities is an assumption that it's an adaptation. If their ancestors were from Africa as you stated it's possible they still had wide nasal cavities. He's assuming it's an adaptation to cold weather because Neanderthals lived in a cold environment, it's kinda circular. The real question is, what are the nasal cavities of living African and Caucasion populations like, since the pigment can be identified. Taken from this: http://www.apva.org/resource/jjrc/vol1/do22.html Caucasian ancestry is based on a moderately narrow interorbital width, a sharply defined inferior nasal border, a narrow nasal cavity width, a v-shaped palate and lack of alveolar prognathism. END In short Caucasians as we now do not typically exhibit N-Man, characteristics in nasal cavities. Sure People still quote Darwin, they can still quote Virchow. It was read completely the first time. No one is claiming all N-man had rickets but the deformed ones used to create the Ape-man nonsense. Also, rickets would be a common occurrence for a carnivours(as you know) group of Africans living in a low sunlight environment. It would not be as likely in a caucasion group. Even without rickets' date=' the nasal cavity alone points to a dark skinned group. Creationist? I'm aware of the large area they covered.

I was going by the definition you posted on the first page:. 1) Homology is when a specific trait is structurally similar in different organisms due to descent from a common ancestor, right which was my initial understanding. I do see your point though and it's an important and subtle distinction to make. In testing to see if structures are homologous, you're basically just seeing how similiar they are and using the molecular clock, right? What does two structures being similiar have to do with saying common descent is a fact? I hate to have to go back and "figure" it out but I believe the info I posted from Wells uses similarity, not homology. People have seemed to respond using homology as if it's the same thing as similiarity. So' date=' do you thing similar genes account for homology? That's the same definition of convergence I'd use. Not that convergent evolution is coincidence but the similarity is not due to homology that's all.