My theory about evolution

[Ta Khent]

No, recent genetic studies show that if the first humans were african its near on impossible for them to evolve into the other races in the short amount of time humans have been on the planet.

Genetic studies show that humans cannot be classified into separate distinct races. There would be considerable overlap. Neanderthal would be considered a separate race. When the first humans left Africa to populate the rest of the world, the changes to their skin, eye, hair, ect was not evolution. All humans have same genetic make-up. Hence, they cannot be biologically separated in to different races. You are confusing evolution with adaptation. They are two different concepts, but there is some relation between them.

[squealpiggy]

No, recent genetic studies show that if the first humans were african its near on impossible for them to evolve into the other races in the short amount of time humans have been on the planet.

Really? Which studies? Who did those studies? What universities are they related to? Where are the links to the studies? Which journals are they in?

African origin is the consensus right now, unless you have some evidence to suggest that this has changed.

You are confusing evolution with adaptation. They are two different concepts, but there is some relation between them.

Adaptation and evolution are the same thing. But human populations have had insufficient genetic isolation from one another and over insufficient times for them to be able to be classified into different species, and even the notion of races is one of dubious application from an evolutionary perspective.

[Marchegiano]

Really? Which studies? Who did those studies? What universities are they related to? Where are the links to the studies? Which journals are they in?

African origin is the consensus right now, unless you have some evidence to suggest that this has changed.



Adaptation and evolution are the same thing. But human populations have had insufficient genetic isolation from one another and over insufficient times for them to be able to be classified into different species, and even the notion of races is one of dubious application from an evolutionary perspective

Race is word who's meaning changes. Defining what is race is something of debate. Species has been defined for years and years. Evolution has been defined by species not by race. **** Sapien has races, **** Erectus had races, and **** Ergaster had races. These species of man have over lapping time lines as well, but since they are of different species they are unable to produce child baring children. Evolution happens to species regardless of race. The idea that a form of **** sapien could evolve beyond another is flawed. Or that adaptation is a fundamental change in the being. The being had the ability to be the whole time. If your going by "out of africa" then black people existed first. His adaption shows the range of beings he can be. It does not show improvement. **** Erctus could not turn his palms over. He could not produce a child who could. **** Sapien can no more produce a child with whose palms can turn a full 360 degrees than **** Erctus could one whose palms turn 180. We do not possess the fundamental dna to create that being.

[squealpiggy]

Race is word who's meaning changes. Defining what is race is something of debate. Species has been defined for years and years. Evolution has been defined by species not by race. **** Sapien has races, **** Erectus had races, and **** Ergaster had races. These species of man have over lapping time lines as well, but since they are of different species they are unable to produce child baring children. Evolution happens to species regardless of race. The idea that a form of **** sapien could evolve beyond another is flawed. Or that adaptation is a fundamental change in the being. The being had the ability to be the whole time. If your going by "out of africa" then black people existed first. His adaption shows the range of beings he can be. It does not show improvement. **** Erctus could not turn his palms over. He could not produce a child who could. **** Sapien can no more produce a child with whose palms can turn a full 360 degrees than **** Erctus could one whose palms turn 180. We do not possess the fundamental dna to create that being.

Hur hur hur "****"....

[HumptyHump]

Missing link after missing link, complete lack of transitional species, absolutely no evidence of evolution from one species to another, and yet people believe this theory with more faith than traditional religion. Evolution is a theory, not a fact. And it makes many claims in which there is no evidence for. Evolution is a religion, just like any other, I wish you atheists would admit this

[HumptyHump]

Missing link after missing link, complete lack of transitional species, absolutely no evidence of evolution from one species to another, and yet people believe this theory with more faith than traditional religion. Evolution is a theory, not a fact. And it makes many claims in which there is no evidence for. Evolution is a religion, just like any other, I wish you atheists would admit this

[squealpiggy]

Missing link after missing link,

"Missing link" is a misnomer caused by a gross misunderstanding of evolution. It assumes that evolution is a logical development from low (sic) animals to higher (sic) animals with people at the top of the ladder. In truth evolution has no direction, and is simply a reactive consequence of descent with modification against a backdrop of limited resources.

complete lack of transitional species,

Aside from the fact that evolution predicts that all species are in fact transitional in some way, there are hundreds of known examples of "transitional" fossils. That is to say fossils which quite clearly show characteristics of more than one taxa, one of which is more primitive (in a technical sense) than the other.

Here's an incomplete list.

absolutely no evidence of evolution from one species to another,

Speciation has been observed under laboratory conditions in organisms with a short generational turnover. It has also been observed in ring species in which a series of populations with increasing divergence geographically from the founder species also exhibit increasing genetic divergence to the degree that while each population is able to produce viable offspring with their neighbour species, the "first" and "last species in the chain are unable to procreate.

and yet people believe this theory with more faith than traditional religion.

It doesn't take any faith at all to believe something when presented with copious mountains of evidence for it.

Evolution is a theory, not a fact.

Gravity is a theory, not a fact. Let me break this down:

If you throw a small body up from the surface of a large body the small body will return to rest at the lowest accessible part of the large body. This is a fact.

In liquid or gaseous states denser matter will sink towards the centre of the body upon which it is situated. This is also a fact.

Objects in motion will continue in motion in straight lines unless acted upon by other forces. This is a fact.

Orbits of celestial bodies take the shape of an ellipse. Hey, another fact!

All bodies are acted upon and act upon all others due to forces of attraction related to their mass. Is that another fact?

Hey that's quite a few facts there. What useful things can we do with those facts? How about wrap it in a big FUCKING bow and call it a theory!?

Yeah that's right. Theories are constructed out of facts. A theory is a predictive and explanatory model that accounts for empirical observations.

Saying Evolution is a theory, not a fact is like saying a house is a house, not a brick.

And it makes many claims in which there is no evidence for.

Here's a challenge. Pick one. Out of the "many" claims it makes for which there is no evidence, pick just one. I'll demonstrate why you are wrong.

Evolution is a religion, just like any other, I wish you atheists would admit this

re·li·gion   [ri-lij-uhn]
–noun
1.
a set of beliefs concerning the cause, nature, and purpose of the universe, especially when considered as the creation of a superhuman agency or agencies, usually involving devotional and ritual observances, and often containing a moral code governing the conduct of human affairs.
2.
a specific fundamental set of beliefs and practices generally agreed upon by a number of persons or sects: the Christian religion; the Buddhist religion.
3.
the body of persons adhering to a particular set of beliefs and practices: a world council of religions.

The only one of the above definitions that could possibly be ascribed to evolution and science in general is the first one and then only on one minor part:

1.
a set of beliefs concerning the cause, nature, and purpose of the universe, especially when considered as the creation of a superhuman agency or agencies, usually involving devotional and ritual observances, and often containing a moral code governing the conduct of human affairs.

A set of beliefs concerning the nature of the universe.

But even that does not adequately describe evolution. Because evolution also has predictive power, is falsifiable with the presentation of new data, and requires a series of supporting empirical observations to back it up.

I don't know if you're new to the subject but honestly all of the softballs you've thrown me in your post have been dealt with ad nauseum. I suggest that if you're serious about the subject you do some actual research instead of spewing up the same cretinist talking points that have already been annihilated with baby-eating-atheist precision.

[Marchegiano]

.....Haven't the common decency to give a response with the slightest bit of substance? You sir, are a massive leaky ****. However, your sig picture is kick ass.

[squealpiggy]

.....Haven't the common decency to give a response with the slightest bit of substance? You sir, are a massive leaky ****. However, your sig picture is kick ass.

I notice that HumptyHump had little to add.

[FastForward]

hmmm interesting theory, could explain why white people were able to enslave blacks so easliy.