Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
I'm far from being an Evolutionary Scientist, but to me evolution is the simplest explanation.
Intermediate steps are problematic, though. If mutations are completely random, the method by which two large dots appear on the wings of certain butterflies to mimic the eyes of a predatory bird (in order to scare away smaller birds) is very questionable. Random mutations supposedly would make many "mistakes" before this solution is accidentally arrived at. If you imagine those mistakes or draw them out, you will see some ludicrous "random" attempts before you reach "survival of the fittest" worthiness level. In fact, it would take up to millions of variations that utterly fail before the correct "random" solution is arrived at.
I don't recall what program I heard this on (most likely National Geographic or one of the Discovery channels) but, it said that chimpanzee blood could actually be used in humans...that it was the only animal that had the same blood as humans.
Except that a bunch of very excited scientists are now going to maybe get research grants, I'm not sure what the story is here. First of all, when someone is that excited about a lemur skeleton watch your wallet.
What evidence do you have that this is "just a lemur skeleton"? What's wrong with grants to further science? Pure "science" in and of itself seldom has any purely marketable outcome. The most glaring exception is pharmaceuticals, which due to the heavy hand of government has a huge market and is substantially market capital funded. The rest; nuclear weapons, advanced aircraft and aeronautics, deep sea exploration are often government grant funded.
Quote:
That they claim it is a transitional species is based on the same speculation that most other opinion driven science is as well.
"Opinion driven science"? Is this a talking point from the creationists? Why the need to constantly denigrate science and intellectual curiosity?
Quote:
We were not their to know one way or another. Did monkeys evolve from lemurs? If your an evolutionist, they had to have. If your a creationist, possibly, but not necessarily.
I'm not sure anyone is saying that monkeys evolved from Lemurs, and despite the ravings of some no one with any understanding of science, not Scopes, not Darwin, said men descended from apes, only that they had a "common ancestor".
Quote:
Could we breed lemurs to get chimpanzees in a relatively short period of time?
I don't think we could cross breed any animals and get any other species in a "short period". (saying "time" is unnessesary)
Quote:
Always found Evolution to be a little light on standing for that reason.
OK, "you" found it to be "light on standing". Most scientists don't. HOw much of a science education do you have?
Quote:
Another reason is that questioning the conclusions of evolutionary scientists is not allowed. They really flip out if you question their conclusions
Since evolution is a "theory" (note, do not confuse "theory" with "idea" or "concept" as many conservatives do), evolutionary scientists don't have "conclusions" per se. Do you have any evidence of this "flipping out"? Although I'll admit most scientists, like humans in every other field are very protective of their "turf" which includes the theories that they have based their work upon.
Quote:
For my money it's just too easy to verify common ancestors of different species to need all that mutation mumbo-jumbo.
Please, "mumbo jumbo"? If you want to be taken seriously in a discussion of science do not continue to denigrate science, scientific inquiry and other forms of "book learnin".
Quote:
Maybe it's because I'm a drivability mechanic, but I alway prefer the simple explanation over the complicated one.
By "simple" do you mean "god says it, I believe it, that settles it"? Or do you mean that studying "hard science" is too much of a slog for me"?
I would like to suggest you read Bill Bryson's "A Short History Of Nearly Everything". It's a "science" book for people like me (and probably you) who are a bit smart, but not "science smart". It will also guide you to some very readable books on any subject you may choose.
And one other little thing. "Their" is possessive. So, it's "we were not "there".
But the event, which will coincide with the publishing of a peer-reviewed article about the find, is the first stop in a coordinated, branded media event, orchestrated by the scientists and the History Channel, including a film detailing the secretive two-year study of the fossil, a book release, an exclusive arrangement with ABC News and an elaborate Web site.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
