Comments by "Shade" (@ShadeAKAhayate) on "Theory of Evolution: How did Darwin come up with it? - BBC News" video.

  1. How can a science lover not know about ring species that are a living example of evolution?
    5
  2. ​ @nobodyjustme7481  The qustion you seemed to ignore was extremely simple: if there is no such thing as "great apes", where do chimpanzees, gorillas, orangutans and humans fit in taxonomy, exactly? Or are you feeling so high and mighty that taxonomy is not for you? Is biology like this as well? Physics? Chemistry? Astronomy? If that's the case, I'm speaking to a modern wildman and I'd surely like to know that beforehand (before I write all that follows). For example, you'd be surprised to know that no educated man asks about "missing link" for more than half a century since they are educated and know all the main links from purgatorius to modern humans. It truly was a challenge in Darwin's days, although was never a problem per se: you don't have to directly observe evolution on large timescales (say, in remains of ancient bones) to make educated conclusions on it. But these days are amlost 1.5 centuries old and science has advanced in all directions enormously, paleonthology included. This doesn't stop some of the followers of ancient religions, oblivious to scientific advances, to repeat the same "questions" for these 1.5 centuries though, as if these were something important. This only proves their ignorance. So tell me, what "missing link" do you miss, exactly? From proconsul to orrorin? From ardipithecus ramidus to homo habilis? Hrom HS idaltu to HS sapiens? I'm not sure about you finding something "hillarious", but you can literally search the web for detailed description of multiple scientific methods to dating different things. Too bad illiterate people described above lack the means to understand these descriptions and tend to belive the lies their "opinion leaders" spread about these methods without any proof. Talk about being fooled, right. The great ape experiments I mentioned proved, among other things, that these apes actually have all the means to using complex language humans have, just lesser overall mental capacity -- like babies having lesser mental capacity to kids or kids to adults. It's quantity that sets us aside from them, not quality, and you imply exactly difference in quality (hence, you are incorrect). And if you looked these up, you'd see it for yourself -- there are multiple video recordings left. "Dark becoming nondark" process is called depigmentation. You can see multiple butterfly examples on its "impossibility" to see you are wrong again. Ignorance is the reason to that as well. So you moved "flat earth" idea to 500 years back instead of several thousands and think it becomes science because of that? It does not, science doesn't work like that. Promoting just "an idea" (which flat earth is) isn't scientific of any kind. Once again, open any gnoseology 101 book and see what science consists of and what the transition process from "an idea" to "a theory" looks like. It's really that easy. Also, 500 years ago educated people knew the earth could be crudely represented by a globe as well, so your flat earth example falls flat once again. And how exactly did it differ from that globe was measured 300 years ago. Once again, if you knew how science works, you'd know you don't need space satelites to discover such things -- and you can learn that as well with only minimal effort. Also, you'd know that "biblical theory" is not a theory but an occult teaching that has nothing to do with science. Almost everything we have discovered about our world does not corellate to the Bible -- at all. I've seen multiple attempts at stretching that poor owl with that globe, but it rips every time. It's too incorrect for any interpretation attempts to be any close to the real world. Also, I'd like to note that darwinism is the basis of modern synthetic theory of evolution. It has made enormous advances since Darwin's times and we know many mechanisms and paths species can change along. Mind you, that is a rocket science compared to Darwin's theory -- to dabble in that not only you'd have to be educated, but finish high school and continue learning afterwars for some years.
    4
  3. ​ @nobodyjustme7481  You keep asking about "the missing link". I asked you a clarifying question: which link exactly do you miss? You don't need to repeat the question, you need to clarify -- from whom to whom? Since you aren't educated and clearly don't know how to google it yourself, I'll indulge you and look it up for you. But I won't retrace the whole chain from purgatorius to HS sapiens, it's long. You asked for a link -- tell me which one. Simple, no? I.e. "Lucy" you mentioned represents australopithecus afarencis. Next step in a line towards us (from them) is Homo rudolfensis. Look it up and see if you can discern between the two easily enough. As for the number of bony remains to identify a species, what exactly makes you an expert to judge what's enough for it and what's not? Because real experts find it enough -- and they have a real education in that field to make such judgements. So let's keep to our fileds of expertise without making wild accusations of cosmic proportions (and corresponding absurdity). Also, you claimed taxonomy as a science. It is not. It is a method to science -- a logical separation between species and grouping of these, since we have to organize them somehow. Biology, on the other hand, is a science that uses this method, as well as paleonthology, and these are based on facts, observations, scientific proofs and so on and so forth, see that gnoseology 101 book. And I still don't get a straight answer: do you choose to just ignore these sciences and their methods simply on the grounds of your ignorance of their workings? Also, you don't seem to understand how animal remains are preserved and fossilized. Do I need to spell it out for you as well or will you open the book and read about it yourself? You'll lose that "gazillions of fossilized forms" attitude in a glance. And when you research a bit about how are they uncovered, you'll see that we always could use more -- but at the moment we have more than enough. Mind you, Darwin's theory works as it is without any fossilized forms at all. Like I said before, absence of "the missing link" never introduced any critical problems in it and educated people even in Darwin's times understood that. As for your great ape complex language incapacity claims, I told you in a previous post which experiments yielded the data that directly contradicts them. Also, yes, some people extremely sceptical to that idea have attempted and succeeded at exactly that, teaching language to great apes -- and their results are added to the rest. Once again, this is not some mystery known only to the select few. Basic googling skills that can be learned by a small child present you with more than enough information about these attempts. As for your SCLERA fallacy, if I'm following our discussion correctly (which I am), you speak about nonexistence of depigmentation process (JFYI sclera is dark because it's pigmented -- has lots of special proteins, called pigments -- not for some magical or obscure reasons). Which, contrary to your claims, exists and can be (and was) easily observed in not-so-wild nature. The butterflies are just the simplest and most evident example you can find -- but you can find all kinds of others if you like. Also, you still didn't explain what will we do with gorillas' white scleras. How do these fit into your system of beliefs? As for those scientists you mentioned that have proclaimed our planet was flat, it would be curious to know at least some. Even in medieval times, calling someone flat-earth beliver was a form of an insult, which speaks for itself. If you've read something on Wikipedia doesn't mean its editors understood what they're citing correctly, so good luck with these claims of cosmic proportions about me. As for Bible and science -- I meant any science that can be found relevant, except history of world religions.
    3
  4.  @nobodyjustme7481  Sorry to break it to you, but you, sir, are an ape -- a great ape to be exact. Look at human taxonomy to confirm. Of course, you can throw off all the science and technology -- but you already know it works. It's just you don't like one particular field of it. But biology isn't a 100-dollar bill to be liked by everybody.
    3
  5.  @anti-loganpaul7827  You don't have to believe in evolution, it isn't a tale by some random guy. You're either an educated man that knows that evolution works -- and how exactly does it do so, or you aren't (in which case tales from random guys don't change anything in your life anyway).
    3
  6.  @anti-loganpaul7827  That one is either educated enough to know evolution works -- or uneducated to have "belief" questions. "Enough" is a basic school course of biology BTW.
    3
  7.  @nobodyjustme7481  ​ @Nobody Justme If there is no such thing as "great apes", where do chimpanzees, gorillas, orangutans and humans fit in taxonomy, exactly? :) And yes, apes, great or not, are animals, just like humans. Can you even discern between "each of the herring is a fish" and "not all fish is herrings"? Same here: humans are animals, but not all animals are humans. I thought it obvious... Somehow my comment is getting deleted. I will try to send it piece by piece. Who knows, maybe at least we'll find out the cause.
    3
  8.  @nobodyjustme7481  ​ Your example with flat earth falls, well, flat. 2000 years ago ancient naturphilosophers (there was no science as we know it today) not only knew the rough form of the Earth (and Moon), but also its diameter with quite a precision. And that's not some secret, everyone with a tiny bit of education in history (school-level at most) knows that...
    3
  9.  @helionator  Please read my line of comments. Theory in science vastly differs from "theoretical" in layman's terms.
    2
  10.  @krayziejerry  Evolution is a well-established fact. In science it's described by the highest form of scientific knowledge -- a theory (of evolution, in our case). A theory in science and a theory in a common people's language are two very different terms. Also, it's observable even directly, as I mentioned above. So calling for "no proof" is unfounded.
    2
  11. ​ @ДмитрийНауменко-ф9е  You assume the complex organ starts forming out of nowhere. It can happen, too, as a series of neutral mutations (so it's not eliminated quickly by selection) -- but far more often it's a gradual change to the preceding systems. And "organ" does not equal "function", especially external one (like flying). First winged species used wings for maneuvering on the ground, only later adapting them for gliding and in the end for full-functioning flight. As for the "how" questions -- modern science does not deal in obscurantism, so you can find out what's known on the matter. Understanding what you find may require specific knowledge, but that knowledge isn't hidden as well -- there are university-grade textbooks available to everyone willing. Point is, someone not understanding how it works does not disprove the monumental knowledge of Synthetic Theory of Evolution.
    2
  12.  Geek X  pithecus. You do check it out. Better yet, find a bone series to see both his ancestors and successors to see how the species changed.
    2
  13.  Geek X  Yep, I've seen photos of the monkey-man's skeleton, he's called australopithecus and he's inside human ancestor -> human lineage. But never a pig-man, a dog-man or a cat-horse. Because life has evolved on it's own, without someone creating every life form as is (in which case there would be chimeras).
    2
  14. That He definitely isn't.
    2
  15. ​ Joseph Henderson  So, you accept genetics is inherited. That's good. Now, unlike what you are lied to by your pastors, total most of mutations are neutral and unnoticed by anyone; you can check it yourself by checking which mutations you have compared to your parents (by having your and their genome transcribed, decyphered and analyzed, that's not an astronomical cost as of now) -- you'll be surprised to have arount 70 new mutations that are just sitting there. If your genome was 140 letters long that would probably have killed you outright -- but lucky you, your gene code is 6 billion letters long. Chance of it harming you by causing a disorder like the one you described is extremely low (accept my sympathies for your sisters which didn't get a lucky draw in this genetic lottery by faulty genes getting healed -- chances of it are even less). In most cases these mutations alone are not sufficient to harm you or do you any good, unless these stack on other mutations or hit some control spot. Usually if it manifests, it can change how you function -- just a bit, like a bit longer finger, slightly changed nail or hair growth speed, somewhat less/more cancer risk, immunity to malaria/HIV, capacity to digest milk in adult age -- and such. From outside trait point of view, your kin is like a finely shaped multidimentional blot that tends to crawl in around 70 directions a once per generation. Like I mentioned, this creep can get into territory that we consider good as well as bad, or bad that's actually good at times (or vice versa). In which case people with these traits are either getting a boost or getting trimmed away by outside circumstances. And like I said, you don't have to believe in my words or those works that are published by scientists -- since you have enough trust in modern technology, you can actually check it out yourself! Thus, since any mutations that are part of the genome and don't harm their carriers too much to have kids that can reproduce carry over to new generation, these can pile up, gradually changing the traits. Like galloping reduction in the brain volume which we face in the late 10-15000 years. Or like fattening of chickens in the course of late 2000 years (ancient roman chicken were quite unlike the modern ones). Also, do check the skull line and tell which are the human ones.
    2
  16. Everyone evolves. It's just not everyone is lucky enough in that his evolution corresponds to change in conditions around them.
    2
  17. ​ @nobodyjustme7481  So, to sum it all up, as I understand it, you claim that neither australopithecus, nor any other now extinct ancient apes and great apes ever existed -- based on the video on YT and unpublished work of two other guys (cool story BTW), while completely ignoring opinion of the real experts on the topic? Very well, moving on. You also seem to claim that science doesn't work because it's not "the fact", whatever you even mean by that, but obviously something like completely subjective "personal experience", contradicting the gradually created (through proving theories) scientific picture of the world. OK, let's continue. When I refer you to the talking apes experiments, you just ignore that, simply re-declaring time and time again your nonsense about "0 IQ" (I presume you don't even know what IQ actually means, how it's determined and which quirks and limitations this metric has). Understood. About the sclera, you seem to think that it's magically "black or white" through, again, magical means. White gorilla sclerae are ignored. Process of pigmentation or depigmentation is also ignored. Noted. "The proof" you demand, considering the first two paragraphs, is a personal experience -- obviously, non other than meeting that "missing link" (once again, whatever species you mean by that) in person. So, considering all of the above, I was talking to a modern caveman all this time. If you are a kid, you have a future full of surprises ahead of you, probably learning why all these cool stories and demagogy you translated here is just a load of unscientific crap that ignorant sectants tell to one another in their little nooks just to keep themselves in a warm bath. But if you are an adult, I have bad news for you. An object of your faith is fake and you can't even see it since your judgement is clouded by a buzz of these "cool stories" and ideas -- so much that you just ignore the evidence when it's in your plain sight. You can't even grasp the idea of how science works, since you just believe the fairytales of your fellow sectants they teach each other about how they think it works -- instead of taking a course in it and seeing how it works for yourself. A perverted delight of blind men circlejerking. All your claims and ignoring the knowledge that contradicts the contents of your warm bath roots in an unwillingness to get out of that circle. Nothing -- and I mean actually nothing -- I can write here can change that, you'll just repeat the same stuff again ignoring anything I wrote. Only one man can change that -- and it's you. If you'd like to try, try thinking about one single thing that can prove your position wrong -- like pre-cambrean rabbits could do so to modern taxonomy. That would be the first step to actually opening your eyes. But I doubt you'll take it. And I'm OK with that) Just note that science actually works. You're reading my message thanks to it. And if you think quantum electrodynamics or biochemistry is different or totally separate from biology, think again: it's just another part of the same object, built through the same methods by people of similar qualification trained and working in a similar way.
    2
  18.  @anti-loganpaul7827  That says everything about your education. You should have done it better. BTW did you even question who've set that "extent" you mention -- and by what means?
    2
  19.  @mabuzlouisofficial  Imagining it would be true, with what exactly was it destroyed?
    2
  20.  @nobodyjustme7481  ​ Speaking of illiterates, "science" is not "a theory". It is a system of methods aimed at producing viable and valid knowledge. Theories are a tool for it, true. But they are only a tiny part of its massive instrumentarium. Gnoseology 101...
    2
  21. ​ @nobodyjustme7481  ​ It looks like linking books for your requests and questions (better to be directed at your teachers if you still have some: it's their job to educate you internet illiterates, not mine) fails with blocked comment. On the all-time favourite topic of "missing link" there's information just everywhere. Not everyone is stuck in late 18th century and we have complete taxonomy of the ancient times, allowing for tracing of all the traits required not only through millions of years, but through hundreds of thousands as well. For "0 IQ" myth about non-human primates, they helped to undo it themselves when provided with enough communication means. Look up great ape language experiments. "Dark sclera on apes" turns out to be dark with chimps, but not bonobos or gorillas (which have human-like white sclera). In any case, it's a matter of simple pigmentation change, not some ultra-complex process.
    2
  22.  @autisticandashamed2486  then we would be extinct or enslaved in less than a year. Yay.
    1
  23. Let's be honest, some people use everything as an argument against human rights. But they can do so with religion to a far greater success, which they have proven in slavery years of US, for example.
    1
  24. @Anto Erickson You, too. But we can prove ours while you never were able to prove yours. That's the key difference.
    1
  25. ​@Anto Erickson Our claims were proven time and time again -- forwards, backwards and even sideways (imagine that!). We're not asking to believe -- a good theory never asks for that; on the contrary, it's open to be re-tested by anyone who's educated enough to do so. One strand of animals have evolved into humans (who are just another strand of animals) -- why in a world would countless others do so? Each of these has it's own path -- and when these paths cross, someone has to back down or die out (because one of contenders will always be better at what they do than the other). That's why all the paths we still see are different. Now that I've deflected your blow, it's my turn. How is it that excavated bones that represent many species fall into clear lineages linking together many consequtive forms -- from cat ancestors to cats, horse ancestors to horses, human ancestors to humans -- but never a cross between these, like horsecats or doghumans. IF a higher being was seeding the planet with life, it would be logical to anticipate an even blend of creatures. But we get clear lineages instead. How comes? As for not providing any proof to unbelievers, Bible clearly describes God providing more than enough evidence of Himself and His will to His subjects. But of course, who is He compared to You? :) Besides, believers are believers because they don't need proof, by definition. That can mean only one thing :)
    1
  26. ​@Anto Erickson Because a common god is not bound with biochemistry, for once, and not bound with specific biochemistry, for the other example? There's totally no reason the genetic code has to use same triplets or "letters" everywhere, let alone using DNA and RNA in such a monotone way. Yet, on the basic level we use the same mechanisms that use same principles in the same way. On a higher level, you will see lineage, not mosaic. That is, human and some ancient apes fit into one lineage while human and modern apes clearly fit into one family -- but humans and, say, giraffes, clearly fit into different families with no evidence of any mosaic "chimeral" forms. Again, real geneology is bound by inheritance while free creator is not. That's why common ancestor is practical while common god is not. As for one strand evolving and others not -- once again, why would it be otherwise? Each of these strands has come a separate, equally long way. How does it even come to you that they should have followed the same path? Especially when that path was occupied already? Human evolution was a very narrow path with few extinction possibilities -- and only our ancestor's luck (and a few great extinctions) has both saved us and given us our traits as smart apes -- our ancestors have always taken the path of a smart ape. Our cousins have not -- and look at them now. As for your excessive questioning and the concept of "you haven't seen it by yourself then it didn't happen", care to apply it to your own beliefs? Because mine can be reproduced with enough effort and yours can not. Especially the reliance on a "written" part when your whole religion is contained in a form of writing. Thing is, I can re-check any part of the knowledge I rely on if I will have any doubt in it's workings -- and there's a whole mechanism of science built specifically so that I don't have to re-check and redo any experiment myself. Of course, there is an institute of trust which is reputation-related -- but the key difference with institute of faith is that trust is checked and tested constantly, with dire consequences and personal responsibility should it fail. The system is rock-solid stable on any scale that's of any notice. The faith, on the other hand, is just hanging in the air and can be manipulated at will. As an example, do you remember what your faith prescribes you to do with your slaves?
    1
  27.  @trs1562  A pile of random rocks is a proof there's a random rock pile architect then, I presume? :D
    1
  28.  @trs1562  It'd be nice of you to stop trying to peddlie some nonsense over people and actually think over what I just wrote.
    1
  29. Ring species are a living example of just that. You could have googled your question before posting it here...
    1
  30. You imply that these two are related? Then how comes that church mass paedophilia is unrelated with religion in your head at the same time?
    1
  31.  @asmaben1114  I didn't write OP. You did.
    1
  32.  @asmaben1114  Everything you wrote points to it. If you did imply something else, just write it. It's that simple.
    1
  33.  @asmaben1114  I'm one that reads your comments. That's more than enough: if you wrote it cryptically, that's your fault, not mine. And where exactly darwinism come into play in this blame scheme of yours?
    1
  34.  @asmaben1114  How do we see what you have to say if you don't say anything? How do we hear you if you're cryptic? Etc. You claim BBC "promotes" darwinism in one line with some peadophile story. Why did you write that, what did you have to say? That darwinism equals paedophilia? That's utter BS and you know it. At this point it's not about what would I tell about BBC (which I honestly could care less about) -- it's about your point which, if different from BS explained above, is still unwritten, while all of my telepaths are on vacacion right now.
    1
  35.  xwinniez  The thing about science is you don't have to believe in it -- with enough effort and a bit of math you can check any theory yourself. Usually that's what educated people do with some of more basic theories in physics classes in school or university. And if you did everything right, it works every time!
    1
  36. ​ xwinniez  Yep, christianity has been thoroughly tested with extensive practicing with a bit over 2 000 years. The results of that testing confirm it just doesn't work neither morally nor in the actual world. I.e. no matter how true your faith is, you cannot move mountains, and by being a believer you don't even become a better person. So by the last century Yahovah has become the God of Gaps, hiding in some gaps in scientific knowledge those chose to reject the common sense find most prominent (to their knowledge ofc which is sometimes hillarious). Take soviet communism of USSR as a counter-example where religious practicers had to pay taxes for their businesses on par with any other semi-capitalist enterprises. In a couple of short decades of actually practicing communism (1924-1953) and leading people to corresponding ideals they've charged up the people with good intentions for 50 more years, let alone creating most humane living conditions its inhabitants have ever had and will ever have. Compare that to 2000 years of practicing christianity that lead only to misery and depravity. That's the comparison for you.
    1
  37. You shouldn't measure statistics you don't know how to build correctly.
    1
  38. Naive question. The answer is simple: the ones that didn't never made it to this day. Also, there's a long way between the primordial soup (if you can call it that) and the first living cell.
    1
  39. Even if you somehow proved that there can be no evolution (that's just a bit harder than proving there's no gravity and heavy stuff never falls on heavy stuff), that still wouldn't prove your idea of a cosmic magician. Think of that for a moment.
    1
  40.  @ansham9129  ...and that common ancestor was an ape. And his ancestor, a monkey. And so on up to worms (our body's levelled neural structure dissipating from nerve centers in spinal column being their legacy) and archea.
    1
  41.  @n.c.herping6435  Well, in fact humans lose brain volume at an astounding rate during the last ten thousand years. That's evolution as well...
    1
  42. ​ @n.c.herping6435  It doesn't look like it doesn't affect intelligence. On the contrary, it can be connected to specialisation and overall betterment of living conditions which demands less intelligence and cognitive abilities from a person than a full-fledged life in the wild.
    1
  43.  @n.c.herping6435  Well, the brain is a network that literally relies on number of connections to provide for result diversity. Abnormally bigger doesn't mean better -- but in population this starts to take effect. Our ancestors were almost always gaining in brain mass -- but pretty slowly. Now we are losing that mass at a galloping pace, and unless there's an evidence on brain actually becoming more efficient over such a tiny period (aka thousands of years), which it has no reason to, the most logical connection remains specialisation.
    1
  44.  @juanmacarboni1460  Common progeny with neanderthals wasn't common. And other surviving great apes are much farther relatives to us, leading to no offspring. What's your point, exactly?
    1
  45.  Joseph Henderson  Then his theory, his creation continued to live and evolve into even more useful tool for which every biologist thanks him for. Even if he doesn't exist anymore, his work lives and prospers. That's way more than most of those who lived could even dream about.
    1
  46. Well, the part about highest minerals protruding into a living plants is wrong. Palms and vines protruding to an animal kingdom is wrong again. He had some nice ideas, but without proof and testing these ideas couldn't do anyone any good.
    1
  47. ​ Joseph Henderson  They never have and never will based on what, exactly? Because genetics leads to traits and is transfered down the generations, thus selection by traits leads to selection by genetics perpetuated in the offspring. Your demagogy relies on "species" being a sort of a holy cow, while in reality it's just a logical construct for ease of classification. There are white groups of humans, yellow groups of humans, black groups of humans -- and each has it's subgroups up to a single specimen. Provide enough selection to any group in any direction -- and in some 200-250 thousand years you won't recognize these humans, if you'd still like to call them that. Just as you can hardly call our ancestors real humans looking how different (yet similar) were they.
    1
  48. ​ Joseph Henderson  Genetics is inherited. Thus, it can and will pile up any trait. Redheads and blondes don't pile up traits, they lose them (capacity to produce one or two of proteins that give color to hair). By the way, you surely have seen the human ancestor skull line -- where does it start being a "human species"? As for beavers turning into an elephant... you forget that some animal actually did evolve into an elephant. There's no reason beavers can't walk the same path, should corresponding conditions would arise. Did they arise? Not yet. Will they never arise? How can you know, exactly? And "species", like I told you, is an arbitrary term assigned logically and not really dependent on the actual laws of this world.
    1
  49.  Joseph Henderson  Did you just claim genetics is not inherited and all these DNA tests for paternity don't produce any useful results? Also, what's with the skull line? Even if you don't believe these are related, somewhere down there you'll see human skulls. Which specimen's name is it?
    1
  50.  @juanmacarboni1460  Neanderthal is not a race, it is a "sister species" to humans. If you meant something else, use Google translate: neanderthals are everything but happy with their extinction.
    1
  51. C&H have said it all about God's plan: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=McqoFdTFWj4
    1
  52.  xwinniez  nty
    1
  53.  @juanmacarboni1460  I have never claimed what you just wrote. I claimed different "races" are not separate species of human, which is true since no race gathers enough difference to qualify for a separate species.
    1
  54. - I will either force you to live with me by my command or I will murder you gruesomely! - How about you just leave us alone, you maniacal monster? - Not a chance! == Shade, 1:2:3
    1
  55. Somehow humans in Vietnam and even China (!) are smart enough while the rest aren't. Perhaps they care a bit more about having a living populace not riddled with invalidity than their income due to their communistic ideals?
    1
  56.  @juanmacarboni1460  Are you? Because your post doesn't make any sense. 10 000 years is the neolith, humans almost didn't evolve from the time. 1bn years is effectively the whole macroscopic life evolution timeline. What exactly did you mean?
    1
  57.  @juanmacarboni1460  Everything is about the degree, especially in classification. If you look for remains of other kinds of ancient humans (which are represented quite amply today), you'll see we, despite all of our slight differences, are exactly one species with all the white, red, black and yellow kinds of humans.
    1
  58. ​ @knight8675  In regards to your second question, what happens to expression solving on your calculator when you turn it off? In essence, our cousciousness is the same, being a multidimentional mathematic expression set, and once you cut the power, it goes in the same direction AKA ceases to exist. After that, if the power is restored before the neural network elements exhaust their food supply (since they are living cells), the process is restarted with a bit of data loss and interpolation artifacts. If not, these elements start dying of malnutrition and restoring the power somewhat later leads to either restoration of consciousness with lesser function, or no consciousness from malfunctioning or destroyed net. If power is not restored at all, bodily functions like immune system start shutting down and surrounding organism start decomposing the tissues they get access to. If there are no other living organisms present or in some other conditions, tissues either start losing water to surrounding air and summarily mummify, or start reacting with water around them to form adipocere that remains as is for prolonged amounts of time.
    1
  59.  @knight8675  For well-educated people, this question is concluded. It still remains only for uneducated ones. And one can either solve it by educating oneself, or continue to ask it in his ignorance.
    1
  60. If you check how often in the populace some of human toe tendons are coalesced, you'll see that it happens a lot. It displays that evolution has not stopped by even a single generation and continues to move forward. And do your biology 101 -- you can't have two groups occupy the same ecological niche, one will soon overshadow the other.
    1
  61. ​ @krayziejerry  Once again, theory in science and "theoretically speaking" in layman's is two different "theor"-stuff. In science there's no higher knowledge structure than theory. You don't have to believe me -- just look up the difference and see for yourself. Minor adaptations are carried through changing the genetic code. So where's the hard line between allowing one minor adaptation and disallowing a million such adaptations leading to many new systems? "One species" does not turn into "another species" because these have evolved in parallel from their respected ancestors (or a common one). They have diffrent internal structures and mechanisms, forged and inherited through that species' unique history. And there's no "evolving back and then re-evolving as another species", since an evolved organism is too complex and interconnected to just start removing its systems (as can be observed on a pile of rocks example: you can easily build it progressively, but taking random rocks from it will cause it to crumble). Yes, given the evolutionary pressure, one species could become something similar to the other -- but that will still be different species that works differently to the same goal (like bats and flying squirrels, for example -- both can glide, yet are very different). To that end, look up convergent evolution.
    1
  62. ​ @krayziejerry  What's not proof? Please, explain more clearly. And what's with the hard line between "few DNA changes are OK" and "too many consecutive small DNA changes over many generations are forbidden"? What exactly forbids those and based on what? Our common ape ancestor has evolved into us. Other branches have died out, like almost every other species on this planet during its evolution -- why be surprised about that? And evolution is based on very solid grounds. Even in Darwinian times, Darwin's Theory of Evolution based on evidence of the time has exterminated creationism almost immediately, and won the battle with lamarkism and other competing theories and ideas. From that time, that theory has evolved into Synthetic Theory of Evolution/Modern Synthesis that has included the darwinian theory, genetics, different "non-natural" selection models and more. It yields very good results with predicting both past and future, and with explaining the state of things that fits other science fields. "Not believing" in it won't change anything in this monumental structure -- someone's feelings about firm scientific knowledge don't cancel it out.
    1
  63.  @krayziejerry  Mutations in DNA, leading to new traits -- positive, negative or neutral -- are an observable fact. Yes, they are not only strictly negative -- e.g. lactose-intolerant people lack a specific mutation most of us has acquired. But no matter what you call it -- where's the limit that, in your opinion, somehow stops them from happening further than some arbitrary limit we logically (!) impose to run our classification? And evolution speed depends on the ability to change and time to produce a new generation. An elephant will evolve exponentially slower than a virus, yet the latter we can observe directly (e.g. flu forms several stable lines in a single patient during its course), and the former has a fossil record to track its features changing over time, as well as genetics we can analyze to see how grandparents, parents and children differ.
    1
  64. ​ xwinniez  Well you literally following a dead man's religion (Moses is dead for some thousands of years) in a dead man's sect (Jesus is dead a couple thousand years) in a dead man's sect (both Leo of Ohrid and Leo IX are dead). It is racist -- remember how slavery in US was justified with religion. And when you look at christian God described in Bible, you can clearly see horns and spiky tail -- his evil deeds speak for themselves, no matter how these are sugarcoated. Also, the fact is there are no miracles. Stopping believing in fairy tales would do everyone around good.
    1
  65. ​ @ДмитрийНауменко-ф9е  An airplane example is a philosophy. Philosophy is not scientific. Current example's fault is airplane construction does not adhere to evolutionary principle (although aircraft design does in some ways, and you can see it evolve as non-biological object throughout pre-aircraft and aircraft history). Effectively, if something -- even an idea! -- has inheritance, inherent variation and selection, it will start evolving; just remember mechanisms for this evolution may and will differ from those found in material living organisms. Someone's personal doubts about some species like using fore legs to maneuver instead of propelling the creature do not contribute (since these are just doubts) and, again, drag philosophy into a scientific question that boils down to biomechanics. Even today there are many species that don't use their fore legs mainly for locomotion -- and at some point in their parameter space (mass/size/overall structure/etc) it can be beneficiary to use these to improve maneuverability by swinging, dragging or pushing air around. Note how they would do so not with some "wing stubs" they grew out of nowhere, but with fore limbs which they already have. So the same could happen in the past, even more readily so -- and there are many proposals of evolution of avian flight that refer to pre-flight evolution. Jenkin's Nightmere is based on an incorrect outlook on heredity as a continuous process, the argument's author not being aware of Mendel's research which provides evidence of it being discrete. This... is notable part of history of Modern Synthesis theory's development. You've taught the thing, so you should be aware of it and how and when has it been overcome... Considering giraffe question, even not having any transitory fossils is not an argument. If you've taught the thing, you know how fossils are created and why the fossil record is fragmentary. But giraffe is actually a good example -- its recurrent laryngeal nerve is a classic example of limitations of evolution and a strong argument against any sentient creator ideas. Evolution from fish eggs to reptilian eggs and then to mammals' placenta is well described. Why ask a question that's known to be answered? Too bad links are forbidden in comments. And if you've taught the thing, you know any non-extinct species is transitory. E.g. lactose-intolerant humans of 10th century were transitory to lactose-tolerant humans of 21st.
    1
  66.  Joseph Henderson  Apes, not monkeys. You clearly display you can't tell the difference, yet you have the audacity to speak up against the most proven theory in biology. Figures.
    1
  67. ​ Joseph Henderson  ...but were they smart? :) Also, your analogy between grey and black is wrong as well. We're talking two shades of gray that are 5% different. Also again, google and research different talking apes projects to see apes can do exact things as humans do, just with less magnitude. You see, you're wrong all around. And no one cares enough to educate you. That's this world's main trait.
    1
  68.  @juanmacarboni1460  Diffrent Homo species can interbreed a bit because they are all Homo and genetically close enough for that. So... what, exactly? What are you trying to prove or disprove?
    1