We did not evolve from monkeys

Guardian of MvC
Rep: 83



Joined: 06 Jan 2006
Posts: 44,426
OFFLINE

Then evolution is just the result of adaptation, right?

UBER 1337 Poster
Rep: 31



Joined: 23 Nov 2006
Posts: 4,355
OFFLINE

I’m sorry hun, I think you’ve confused me.

I’m just a lay person, but my basic understanding of evolution is that the entire process is based on adaption to your environment (but more complicated and with more variables) taken place over a very long time.

But regardless of what I think evolution is...

Are you saying that you believe we have/will change physically based upon adaptions to the environment...but you don’t believe in “evolution”?

I’m not being condescending...I’m just honestly confused about what you’re saying.

Regular
Rep: 0



Joined: 09 Oct 2005
Posts: 897
OFFLINE

lol, fair enough.

I’m just trying to understand what you think.

So do you think that humans have always looked like this?

Guardian of MvC
Rep: 83



Joined: 06 Jan 2006
Posts: 44,426
OFFLINE

I don’t believe that evolution is real. I don’t believe that you can change from one species into another.

I don’t believe that Mankind was ever a primate.

Better?

I believe in adaption, even extreme adaptation. But I don’t think it can be so extreme as to change one thing into another.

Guardian of MvC
Rep: 83



Joined: 06 Jan 2006
Posts: 44,426
OFFLINE

I believe that we looked different, but always possessed our intellect.

As I said, I believe in adaption. I think that if the world was plunged into an ice age, that man would grow body hair and his limbs would adjust to better move around the environment. But I believe that if the planet warmed back up. We’d become what we are now.

Regular
Rep: 0



Joined: 09 Oct 2005
Posts: 897
OFFLINE

yes, and adaption happens because of genetic mutation.

Regular
Rep: 0



Joined: 09 Oct 2005
Posts: 897
OFFLINE

the problem with that theory is that ancient brain cavities were much smaller and fossil records indicate that that our ancestors had less folds in their brains. It’s brain size and brain folds that determine intellect.

Guardian of MvC
Rep: 83



Joined: 06 Jan 2006
Posts: 44,426
OFFLINE

Is it not true that we only use a small percentage of our brains though?

If our brain was smaller and had less folds, but we used more of it. Would we not still be about the same as far as our intelligence is concerned?

Regular
Rep: 0



Joined: 09 Oct 2005
Posts: 897
OFFLINE

yes but if you assume that we have always used the same percentage than size and folds would matter

UBER 1337 Poster
Rep: 31



Joined: 23 Nov 2006
Posts: 4,355
OFFLINE

It sounds to me Cid, that although you have a good understanding of what evolution is, your conception of it is fairly basic. You seem to be stuck on a certain image of evolution that seems unrealistic.

Unfortunately, I don’t have the expertise to clear that up.

Oh well. But maybe you’re idea of what our “ancestors” were is too closely related to modern primates that you are familiar with and you have difficulty distinguishing between that and the scientific basis behind the process. Also, conceptualizing time in thousands of years is very difficult let alone hundreds of thousands or millions.

UBER 1337 Poster
Rep: 31



Joined: 23 Nov 2006
Posts: 4,355
OFFLINE

Oh, and sorry for being so slow

Guardian of MvC
Rep: 83



Joined: 06 Jan 2006
Posts: 44,426
OFFLINE

Well, I don’t assume that we have always used the same amount.

With a smaller brain it’s likely to be less complicated and thus easier to use a larger amount of it.

Maybe our ancestor’s brains were “primitive” in the sense that they had no need for what we have today. They didn’t have complex mathematical equations to explain something simple. They didn’t have a language to memorize where a single word can mean 5 different things.

They weren’t as advanced, but that doesn’t mean they were dumber.

They simply didn’t have use for it. Maybe our brains are larger because we’re learning so much more now than they did in the past.

Guardian of MvC
Rep: 83



Joined: 06 Jan 2006
Posts: 44,426
OFFLINE

I just don’t believe that mankind was ever stupid enough to grouped in with apes of any kind. I believe that we are our own unique species and we have always been that way.

UBER 1337 Poster
Rep: 31



Joined: 23 Nov 2006
Posts: 4,355
OFFLINE

Oh, that’s weird.

But fair enough. (again...know nothing about the sciency part of this)


I personally don’t have a superiority complex about the human race. I do realize that we are very different from other species on this planet, But I don’t think that we’re so special as to be subjected to the same processes as the rest of life here.
On an even more subjective note..,I think the human superiority complex is what has gotten us into so much trouble and will eventually lead us to our doom (and it also allows us to treat other species like crap)

Regular
Rep: 0



Joined: 09 Oct 2005
Posts: 897
OFFLINE

how do you explain how there is no fossil records of humans before about 200,000 years ago

Guardian of MvC
Rep: 83



Joined: 06 Jan 2006
Posts: 44,426
OFFLINE

I don’t have to explain how. I’m stubborn.

But I suppose I could say something like.. Natural Disasters such as floods, tsunamis, earthquakes, and other things of the sort got rid of human remains before that time. But then you probably wouldn’t have any fossils from a period before that.

I think the best thing to use is that our dating techniques have no way to be proven correct over large expanses of time. Sure, you can date several things from the same sedimentary layer but.. Nobody was there to observe it firsthand and there’s nothing to visually support it.

After all, as DITN said,

“Anything you’re not observing, ceases to exist."

Guardian of MvC
Rep: 83



Joined: 06 Jan 2006
Posts: 44,426
OFFLINE

I don’t get the sciency parts either. I’ve got a very high IQ and I make very good grades, but I never claimed to be smart.

Regular
Rep: 0



Joined: 09 Oct 2005
Posts: 897
OFFLINE

Scientists use Radiometric dating to determine how old something is.

Guardian of MvC
Rep: 83



Joined: 06 Jan 2006
Posts: 44,426
OFFLINE

Yes, but is there any way to prove that it’s reliable over anything more than a few decades or centuries?

Regular
Rep: 0



Joined: 09 Oct 2005
Posts: 897
OFFLINE

BTW Radiometric dating is very accurate