Spaceman

The most important thing is not to get bogged down.Read as many books about evolution as possible,some are excellent but never confuse evolutionary theory with evolution.The latter is fact the former speculation.Also dont see evolution as improvement ,they are loads here who think that,but evolution only does the best it can with whatever material it has at hand,it doesnt make something superior. as for how life came to be....guess i wont disagree

I totally agree with your first line,thats why my posts disagreed with yours(post 53 etc) thankyou for your example link,which by the way was as much use as a chocolate fireguard(please dont take offence) but what has post 61 got to do with your original post on the subject.Alligators in the florida swamps have been the same for millenia im sure you will agree that they are living in a marginal,isolated environment.Have they shrunk or atrophied(is that how you spell it)please no need for a reply but what has your post got to do with your earlier assumptions of our midget friends the eight dwarves

I dont have to!!! read your own posts buddy,i think anyone can interpret them. You seem to me without being personal,you have no real perception of evolution,you obviously havent read any literature on the subject,if your asking such a dumb question .I would love to respond but the page is not big enough.And i could not post 3,587058 google links to put you right.perhaps i should ask you ,name a book on evolution that doesnt put forward a descendancy from apes.

yes i did mean defamatory i added an L sorry,i must have been suffering concussion or is that conclusion you were trying to say. Please just scroll up your own posts and without predudice give an honest opinion,play the game friend.Im quiet happy to consider anything you want to put forward.And yes this forum is open to public debate but not to people who want to ridicule someones post when they have answered your questions and in the same respect you have not offered any input of fact to warrant your interuption. cheeky monkey!!!!!

Dont undermine your own ideas,i think you put yourself across quiet well

I think i just answered option 2.If you dont like the answers tough.And dont go into he said i said rubbish the posts are plainly readable.You chose to respond to a post i made to Aardvark,not you and then you post deflamitory remarks.I hope you are happy in your kinship with chimps,the way your acting i may throw you a banana. Maybe your motive is only to troll

You answered my question on evolution thankyou.You need not anticipate further questions as i did not ask if you believed in evolutionary theory only evolution. Providing two responses do not negate the fact you were personal and insulting.But i dont wish to get into a flaming war,if your above giving apologies so be it. My statement wasnt flawed it was meant in general,yes some creationists interpret the bible literaly not all!Some are academics who research the meaning of the actual text,not just the revised english version And not all evolutionists are athiest and indifferent to the bible,I do not really see a conflict between evolution and the bible. You thought my original post was what you expected to see from a creationist nutter Why? because i disagree with the link when the data is inconclusive.Why would that give you concussion,you should stop jumping so high and banging your head. eh nostalgia,i asked you to show me proof of direct evidence of a link an ape/man(missing link).Your not silly you know quite well piltdown man is the closest piece of evidence yet and that was faked.The missing link will never be found,because it doesnt exist. As for your offer of links to material available this isnt ultimate proof,only supposition and interpretation of data. I will not deny we share similarities,such as using hands as prehensile tools,or eyes facing forwards facilitating spacial vision,thus indicating a relationship with apes.but this is far from agreeing to the evolution stand point saying we decended from monkeys.Have you ever seen a white monkey,or a dark ape with curly negroid hair. Seeing how you dont offer any real facts.Lets clarify my earlier post with some facts i offer to dispute our lineage with other primates our uniqueness so to speak. Anatomy and physiology. Evolution natural selection yes,says we started out at x point in time from a single product with our cousins the apes developing on 1 branch,we millenia of mutations later on the other branch.Sounds great simple yes were related,Unfortunately not there is no observed evolution between primates and man. Primates dont have feet,they dont have a circulatory system that would support an erect animal,Man has knees that lock,our head balanced on our shoulders,our spine curved in four places for a wide variety of positions,our arms are short legs long,primates have the opposite. man shares 396 anatomical characteristics with chimps,'wow' close.But 312 strictly to himself mm not so close. Man is totally unique in his thermogenic sweat glands,his hypthalamus can respond to 0.1% rise in blood temperature,primates are very poor thermoregulators. Now to the controversial genetic 98.5% with chimps(and bonobos which by the way is a small chimplike primate) poppycock and misleading interpretation of data. If we share 98.5% that leaves just 1.6% yes?Were so close genetically yes? not so ! chimps actually have 10% more DNA than humans,they have more alpha-hemoglobin genes and more Rh bloodgroup genes, and fewer Alu repeats, in their genome than humans? their chromosomes contain DNA not present at the tips of human chromosomes.Theres alot more to genomics than just nucleotide substitution.But the percentage comparison renders that fact invisible,and obscures more interesting genetic questions.We differ from chimps in a vital way the surface of every cell, except brain cells, carry glycoproteins that contain one particular member of a family of sugar molecues called sialic acid. In humans this sugar is not present in any cell in the body. If you search for more up to date studies (not old library books)you will find that their is only 86.7% genetic similarity when segments of human and chimpanzee DNA (totaling 1,870,955 base pairs) are laid side by side. Consider this our DNA is 75% identical to Nematodes(small soil-dwelling worm.)your not suggesting the nematode is 75% human. here HUMANS 100%. CHIMPS 86.7% NEMATODES 75% that places chimps less than half way between humans and a worm,now you see the problems faced by maintaining the argument.

I hate mackrel,it was just an example that large brain size doesnt neccersarily require a huge quantity of food.I disagreed with your statement that you attributed floriensis size to malnutrition when this has no basis in fact.Also that a large brain needs huge amounts of food,when motabolism and body size is much more relevent.

i also thought you couldnt grow nerve cells,your link only refers to repairing existing cells not growin them,is there a more up to date link sayanora please

yes i accept this,the clock is affected by velocity at a miniscule level.what im trying to ask is i send the twin at a velocity in the upper atmosphere say for 10years thus GR says at his velocity he would age half the amount of time i would .He is at a height that i can observe him.when my observation of him reached 10years he would not be still circling me for another 10 years.He might land and his clock says 5 years have past but he would still land 10 years from now. From my framepoint if the universe is infinite and 14.5 billion years old thats how old it is period,something traveling at .866c from the beginning of the bigbang hits me now but if the math was correct in the twin paradox sense from the objects framepoint on its way to me has only taken what a very small fraction of the time.Thus to IT the universe wouldnt be 14.5myr which doesnt make sense.You cannot exist out of time,or be at a point in space which is measured to be 14.5myo and to the object the universe is younger. I may be wrong but perhaps i suggest its how we measure time that creates the conflict,its only a perception an illusion we have,maybe if we actually experimented with actual people wereby they would come back 20 years from now and we all were aged by the same amount but the clock still said he had been gone only 5 we would realise our mistake in theories. Dont flame me id appreciate someone helping me out to understand if im wrong. Basically i feel that if my rocket does 30mpg travelling at 100mph,simply putting my foot down to increase velocity to 600mph.I still wont get more than 30mpg out of my tank of fuel.so make the velocity 70,000 mph and apart from waiting for friction to slow it down the fuel wouldnt feel like it lasted longer it would be used up in an instant,so we have a conflict surely its velocity would from its frame point make it last longer than the opposite of what we observe.(i know that my example of the velocity isnt possible with a few gallon of petrol,but its hypothetical)

so light doesnt take 8 minutes to get from the sun,from its frame point its instant.This doesnt make sense to me sorry i cannot see how from your frame point your instant when it takes me 8 minutes to observe you.help

Forgive my lack of science but ive always found the scenario of the twin paradox impossible.We have mass and we know it would take an infinite amount of energy to propel us to LS so even theoretically we cannot ever go LS.I cannot see how you can do the correct mathematic formula that would take into account a mass bearing body,moving at LS and then forcasting its constraints on space-time.Surely it would contradict GR so you cannot calculate an outcome to an event with an invalid formula. Help me if im totally wrong but if light photons take 8 minutes from sun to earth havent we only aged 8 minutes.Or another way if the we can see light from a star say at 10 billion years away,thats how long we have aged. If the universe is 14.5 billion years old i cannot travel for a hundred years at light speed then come back and from my framepoint the universe is say when i arrive at earth an extra billion years old.Im sure it must be correct to say the universe is 14.5 billion years old and a photon from some sun regardless of how long it travels at the speed of light and then back to were it started from the universe is still only 14.5 billion years old.Or imaginary particles and such would make a mockery of our perceptions. help me if im totally not getting this

I have already posted a personal apology sayanora and i hope i am now tango-ing

Subjunk i took your advice and read your link but failed to see how this varifies your above statement,I agree alot of people in USA eat too much macdonalds but as a species , in relation to bodysize Humans do not need to consume vast amounts of food.Take a veggie eating 3 salads a day with a total food weight of 1 pound.Nutrition has no real relevence to how much mass you consume(i get by on a bag of peanuts and a nice mackrel a day)

Sorry YT,I do not see disagreement as trolling.If thats your perception of me i can only apologise but its not me. To prove my point your most damning evidence yet http://cit.cancersource.com/LearnAbout/monograph.cfm?CITTopicID=3&ContentID=25755 well not very damning at all if you notice it was graded (D)one from the bottom only speculitive data.The top (A) being strong evidence,and the bottom being strong evidence against.Hope that you see it as me just disagreeing and not just provoking ill feeling.I did take your PM seriously and apologised to you for it.I respect your position as moderater and would like a little curteousy please. Best wishes SPACEMAN

Ophiolite i am deeply offended by your posting,I posted only a general statement to show that i disagreed with a previous poster.Your reply was an uncalled for response that was both personal and insulting. I never offered any factsbut could do so. If you wish to substantiate with fact your stance, on your kinship to chimps.Not just quote 98.5% but show why?,how?and what your facts represent as direct proof.(piltdown man was a hoax you realise it wasnt a real apeman) I did notice your little snide comment associating me with a creationist nutter I can quite happily debate with a creationist and evolutionist without prejudice.Generally creationists see science debating flaws in EV/theory as evidence of voiding the whole of evolution theory. Evolutionists interpret whole bible extracts literally(which isnt scientific),so ridiculing for instance "god took a rib from adam and made a women" When any scholar of ancient text know that the bible does not say this at all.Its a simplified translation by ancient persons with no concept of science or how to express it.I could tell you the exact translation of the text if your interested?.But will that make me a creationist in your eyes?. Lets share some facts that back up our stance friend,but can i ask you a question.Do you believe evolution is a fact?

no no No,dont try to make something simple into an argument. Bloody hell man a dinosaur had brainsize like of a walnut,what are you saying it wasnt ****ing hungry

Im surprised nobody hasnt mentioned the real significance of the find.The surviving DNA,Its been reported that the samples are so fresh and abundant they are going to try cloning this creature.I do have grave concerns over doing this.Were so up ourselves that we dont realise they may have become extinct for a friggin good reason

I can tickle myself quite easily,the armpits is the quickest way to get a reaction from the lightest caress of ones hairs