So how have humans evolved since the beginning of recorded history? We still breed defective babies and healthy ones just like we've always done. In the 20th century, the world was subject to 2 of the most evil men (Hitler and Stalin) who have ever lived and who were responsible for more deaths because of their evil than anyone esle in history, there have been more cases of genocide in the 20th century than in any other century in history, our "technology" renders us closer to annihilation than ever before, there are more std's and wars all over the globe, and most of the advances in technology have been the accumulation of information gathered from the previous people in history.In addition, no human being has ever produced an offspring so different from himself that he was given the name of a new species. We humans are the same as we've ever been except that we don't live as long as those in biblical times. So again, how have we evolved?This message has been edited by Carico, 12-09-2005 09:05 AMThis message has been edited by Carico, 12-09-2005 09:06 AM

Carico. You continue to make outrageus claims with no support. What does Hitler and Stalin have to do with any of this?You are a very confused individual. You should spend more time reading, and understanding, the explanations many people have already given you.It seems to me that you are more interested in ranting. Do you really want answers, or do you just want a soap box?

There have only been three major selection factors in recorded human history. War, disease, natural disaster. Of those, only the latter have been massively significant and constant. The latter is unpredictable and random so is not a strong enough selection factor make much difference. Disease however, is a strong selection factor for humans. Massively selecting war has been evolved away by social evolution rather than biological.We are constantly evolving to battle diseases. As predicted by evolution, mutations can cause defects in birth. If these defects are very bad, the offspring may well not have reproductive success. Those that have good mutations are more likely to have reproductive success.I was hoping you'd actually read my last post to you. Quite right, and both of those evils were selected out. Hitler didn't pass on his genes. Social evolution, fascinating, but not entirely relevant. Nor would he, and if they did that offspring would be effectively sterile, so it would be a short lived species! Speciation occurs to populations, not to individuals. Well, we live longer now than in everything but Hebrew folklore. Fortunately evolution isn't needed. Our population size is ever growing, so the selective effect is not as strong as it has been for other species; 7,000 years is only a small length of time, and we know that even strong selection can result in no speciation in that time period.

Right. I've been studying corn flakes for thirty years, I know what I'm talking about. But I'll shut up now. Nuff said.Except that I'll bet you come from a box of Frosties.

Carico, I confess that I am loosing track of which threads you are posting in and which threads are generating the best responses to you. They are all beginning to run together and that is NOT the way this board is suppose to work.I'm going to "strongly suggest" that you pick either From chimp to man: it's as easy as 1, 2, 3! or Smoking-Gun Evidence of Man-Monkey Kindred: Episode I - endogenous retrovirus. Posting the same types of pseudo-questions and responses all over the forum will not be allowed.Pick one and stay there with your discussion.We here at EvC try to keep a handle on our thread topics. Posting off topic to the main theme of the thread is hightly frowned upon and at times has gotten members suspended.Please do not respond to me here other than a "yes, I understand." Any discussion of this suggestion can be taken to the appropriate thread listed in my signature box

---

AdminAsgara Queen of the Universe

http://asgarasworld.bravepages.com http://perditionsgate.bravepages.com

Sorry, but it depends on what people read. If they read the theories of scientists which cannot be supported by reality, they will only be more deceived.And as for Hitler and Stalin, as I posted, they have shown that men aren't evolving at all! And if it's true that man has been around for millions of years, then we humans should be a lot more evolved than we are! That's for sure. So that alone proves the fallacy of evolution because now either evolutionists will have to say that the ape evolved into the complex human being over millions of years, but it suddenly stopped, or increase the time that it took apes to evolve into a man. So when exactly, did the human being as we have known it since the beginning of recorded history finally acquire the ability to form analyses, speak languages, etc?What evolutionists also don't realize is that the first man on earth did not have the benefit of thousands of years of previous information to suddenly build bridges and skyscrapers, (although those in the ancient world had a lot more understanding of how to do that than we realize)as we do today. They just call the first men stupid and ape-like, and primitive, because those men couldn't rely on past minds. So when people are born today, they are simply taught information that was gathered over hundreds of centuries. They do not have to rethink all of the calulations that historical figures already did in order to use them in our every day lives. So no. Man is not more intelligent or advanced as many people would like to think of themselves. That is called arrogance and it is also a deception.This message has been edited by Carico, 12-09-2005 11:13 AMThis message has been edited by Carico, 12-09-2005 11:14 AM

How? Because they did bad things? Evolution doesn't have a morality, and often the cruelest and deadliest are rewarded the most.

What does that have to do with "Why is evolutions primary mechanism mutation ?"Don't let the troll pull you down that path.

Further, Curico has the erroneus idea that evolution means "getting better". It doesn't. It means "change". That's all, just change.

Also, no human baby born in any generation was born with knowledge. He has to learn it now just as he had to learn the knowledge that was given to him thousands of years ago. So no human baby is any more intelligent today than he used to be. He simply learns whatever is taught him just like he always had. So again, none of us is any better than those who lived in the past. That again is arrogance and the sin of pride which is what initaited the theory of evolution in the first place. It is playing God which is actually a delusion of grandeur. And people who play God will always be humbled because it is a delusion. So anyone who has the audacity to think he knows better than God how we were created will also be humbled.This message has been edited by Carico, 12-09-2005 11:24 AM

You seem to be totally incapable of following guidelines, responding to the topic, understanding anything about the Theory of Evolution or even listening to the direction given by the Admistrators here.Please try to respond to the topic. Quite making unsupported assertions. Continued posts such as the above will lead to a suspension of your privileges.

---

Sorry, but if you can't prove my post wrong, then your attack on me is completely unwarranted. So I'd suggest you stick to the topic instead of personal attacks. If your arguments are true and hold no contradictions, then they will stand on their own merit and there will be no need for personal attacks. But it is simply a fact that those who play God are delusional because none of us is omniscient or omnipotent which is also a fact. Therefore, my remarks about evolutionists can be proven.Again, any man-made invention will eventually crumble and perish because it is as terminal and perishable as man is. Therefore, any theory that contradicts God's word will always crumble and perish because man is fallible. Therefore, the theory of evolution is a fallacy.

Then why do evolutionists have a theory called; "survival of the fittest?" What does fittest imply to you? Unfit?That also has been proven false because there are still defective babies born in every species. And there are millions of babies in every species who die young. So again, you have a lot of explaining to do so that your theory has no contradictions, my friend.

What's there to prove wrong? Your post is a rambling stream of nonsensse and baseless assertions. Look, I can play too:"There are flying invisible pink unicorns in the crab nebula!"Prove that wrong if you can. Bet you can't! I'm not attacking you. I, and others, have spent a great deal of time attempting to explain the ToE to you. Apparently you don't listen or understand us.I have news for you:

YOU DON'T KNOW WHAT THE *$&# YOUR TALKING ABOUT!

What does any of this have to do with "playing god"? What does the ToE have to do with god at all?Your off your rocker with this stuff. I suggest you shutup and listen to what others are telling you. This is why several of us are loosing our patience with you. You don't pay attention, or stay on topic. More baseless assertions which are irrelevant to the topic at hand.This message has been edited by Yaro, 12-09-2005 11:48 AM

'Fit' is within the context of the given environment. For example, it wouldn't be very 'fit' to have a heavy fur coat, and a dense layer of blubber, if your a creature that lives in the desert. However, if you lived in the arctic such adaptations would easely be 'fit'.'Fit' does not necesseraly mean smarter, stronger, biger, etc. It could just as easely mean dumber, weaker, smaller, deppending on the circumstances.Consider the most sucsessfull creatures on earth, Bacteria. Nothing too impressive about them. But they are pretty 'fit' to all the environments they thrive in.