AzurePhoenix

Actually, genetic and fossil evidence suggests that we did evolve directly from apes. We actually split off from the common ancestor shared with chimps after an older common ancestor broke off from gorillas, long after the orangutans first broke away. this wikki addresses the matter, and comes with some links to other references. Here's the suggested cladogram/taxonomic timeline The only way to claim that we were never apes is to say that orangutans and gorillas aren't apes either, and that true apes only evolved as chimps after our split, or one could claim that chimps themselves aren't apes, and that either orangutans or gorillas are apes, one or the other, but not both. Of course, that would be taxonomically dishonest. Some might claim that we still are apes, though that's a different matter.

I explained it in simple terms yes, but you fail to comprehend that though as a limb, yes the bones are vestigial, it doesn't mean that they must be useless. And yes you dip, everything evolves into a role, otherwise it wouldn't evolve in the first place. But no, as far as we can tell, things do not actively evolve towards a set purpose. There Are no goals. Eventually, random shifts and changes accidently fall into place in such a way as to create an advantage. Such advantages will be kept, and slowly this is built upon by equally random factors leading to a moderately to fairly complex state. Even this sounds simple. And it doesn't happen over night, It takes thousands upon thosands of years just to make little changes such a stance, size, the mass of one particular organ, or teh loss of hair. We are responding with answers that were born from looking for the "answers" and actually represent real "answers," whereas your ideas don't even attempt to use actual answers, but instead wild speculations based on one thing alone, that being that you don't comprehend how an eye could evolve. And you don't even really have that. And try to keep your nose out of the dirt, this has nothing to do with God. Remember, it's ID we're talking about, a "non-deity specific scientific theory". And whether or not God exists isn't the discussion, especially considering that not every one of us is stereotypical atheist. This is just about evolution and ID, not God, not Allah, not even the FSM. Don't try to turn it into a would-be Holy War in a petty attempt to cause a distraction, which is obvious that rather than quoting a legible portion, you chose a snippet that cannot stand alone, and rather than arguing that snippit, you decided to take the "i don't have to answer you" route and presumptuously called me a god-hater Try to address the actual points as they come, rather than whine that the questions "aren't fair". These are the questions that have to be addresed. If you aren't prepared to address them, you simply shouldn't be here. I challenge you to rationally answer just one of the questions posed in my previous post, directly answering the actual question without sidestepping, and without relying on one of your precious, oh-so-effective links. Remember, if you can't provide support, or in this case, the least bit of clean, logical rationale, then you haven't even tried to answer it

IMO = "in my opinion" He's talking about the roswell incident

God Dammit, I can't believe I friggin' wrote that. Descendents! Descendents!!!! DESCENDENTS!!! KILL ME NOW!!!!!!!! I always swap those two words for some freakish reason. Meh, Sky knew what I meant

Would something that went extinct before it could produce any ancestors count? Like a dodo? Or a Tyrannosaurus rex?

Congrats. You just moved up from gouging your eyes out to blowing your whole damn head off with a shotgun. I commend you for your ability to remain so delusional without going off on a schizophrenic tangent.

The flaws you discuss are often based upon false assumptions. For instance in your first post, you brought up Lucy and Neanderthals, making ridiculously false claims. From your behavior, I can only assume you actually believed that drivvle. Right there, you see, we have blatant eye gouging. And yet, you still maintain a smug arrogance mingled with utter ignorance of the subject you're attempting to argue.

What we don't have is the knowledge need to make all the parts fit together, to properly control every hormonal reaction needed throughout a lifetime. All of that is insanely complex and delicate, and has to be discerned beforehand, with lots, and lots of simulations, mostly because people wouldn't be happy with all of the many horribly disfigured semi-human clones that would result from the early stages of testing I mean, look at how many clone-embryos we have to go through to get the successful birth of just one dog (Who is known today as Snuppy). We're still way off "Dude"

Sex might've killed Ghengis Kahn, or so I've heard. Probably a rumor, but imagine if a little roll in the sack was able to pull off something armies couldn't.

Sure it'd be great. Can't do it though. We have nowhere near the knowledge need to even fully understand those things, much less manipulate them on such a large, delicate scale.

It's probably pointless to try and pinpoint it and then be positive, unless recored confirmation can be found, so it's best to do as so many of us suggested, find a few real old, totally razed places and say "Hmmm, any of these could work!!" Hooray for the word "volcanized."

If we're so special, so advanced, shouldn't we take the high ground and work for the benefit of the entirety of our world?

We are evolving to exist in a technoligically-artificial environment. If some cataclysm comes that puts an end to that, somewhere far down teh line there's a definate chance that we won't be equipped to surivive in a natural world, even a relatively safe one.

So what if the planet is dead, and so are we? How is this impressive? Destoying even more stuff simply to sate our innate bloodlust? Isn't the goal supposed to be peace and all that crap?

But all we do is end up messing up the balances. We go much further than we need to, resulting in wanton destruction. Not every natural event is good. And it'd be fine if we JUST repsonded to environ. pressure, but we don't, we are fueled by the need to utterly dominate. I support diverting incoming asteroids (were it feasible) which is perfectly natural. Just because it's natural doesn't mean we should just get over it. Same applies to humans.

We don't have mastery, we have forced dominion, which is nothing compared to subtle, empathic influence. And we might be safe for now, but think about the long term effects. Most notably, the accumulation of bad genes, some deadly. And sure, we'll still evolve, but to what ends? What happens when some cataclysm sweeps away everyhting humanity built up, and suddenly we're only evolved for cubicles and nutrition-paste?

Do we have the capability to learn to maintain or enhance our genes? Quite possibly. Can we do it yet? Will we anytime soon? Will we even try to on the global scale? Not a chance in Hell. And until we learn how, we need to be at the mercy of n. selection, but we ruined that with all are wonderful "mastery". And waht good is mastery without harmony? And think of all the orphans who could use a good home! Think of how many orphans are being left in the ruler-bearing clutches of Nuns!

Thank you!!! People call me nuts when I say compassion for others is leading to the slow but inevitable corruption of our genetic integrity!! Everyone, no matter how diseased, gets to have babies! To hell with natural selection!! Yippee!!! (that's sarcasm) And even when someone isn't able to reproduce, what do we do!?!?! Rather than toss them a pity-orphan or two, we try to find ways to force pregnancy on them!!

*Oh, sorry, you meant IMM, sorry, ignore me, but I'll leave my post anyway. Again, sincere apologies* Plants deserve respect too. No pointless distruction of plants, we should not chop without good reason, and endangered species should be zealously guarded.

Trust me, I'm a die-hard carnivore. But let's say you wanted to eat a California Condor or a cuddly wittle baby panda; both are endangered species that have been put in their precarious situations by humanity, and there are far fewer of them than there are people (which are clearly NOT endangered). Anyone who willingly threatens them should burn. Anyone who accidently threatens them shouldn't die or have freedoms taken away, but they most certainly should be heavily fined. This includes endangered shrubs, slugs and slime-molds in addition to more conventional species. For these species, every individualis needed for the surivival of the species, and livelyhood of an entire species is worth far more than that of an individual of a safe or over-populated species. IMM, you have my full backing Like IMM, I liken the killing of clearly intelligent animals to be as bad as murdering a person, more so if it's endangered. Included would be parrots, any primate, elephants, dolphins, ravens and crows, pigs, possibly even octopus. *and it sickens me, but yes, I eat bacon and ham, so I admit that I am an abominable hypocrite, but I should also point out that I would have no qualms with resorting to cannibalism if necessary* Also, killing an animal for any solely non-essential reason is equally profane. As long as you ate it, and needed to eat it, sure, go ahead and make boots or a coat form it's hide. But if all you wanted was the hide, then it's dispicable. There are exceptions, such as necessary regulated hunting, actual self-defense, and the house-by-house battle against unsanitary or threatening infestation. *Getting Back on Track* I feel whoever invented circus-peanuts, black licorice, candy-corn, and cottage cheese should die horribe deaths, if they weren't already dead.

Are you extremist if you hold the value of endangered species above that of individual human life? (By "you" I obviously mean "I")

Bunnies! Bunniesbunniesbunnies!!!!

I'm a zoology major who really loves paleontology and evolutionary biology, so anthro is right up my alley. Finding fossils, deducing what we can about their ancient behaviors and cultures, how and why we evolved, why Homo sapiens sapiens is the only remaining hominid, etc, etc, etc. I hate people, so studying the the reasons why people in general are so stupid doesn't really appeal to me