Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
3 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,817 Year: 3,074/9,624 Month: 919/1,588 Week: 102/223 Day: 13/17 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   why is the lack of "fur" positive Progression for humans?
Vacate
Member (Idle past 4600 days)
Posts: 565
Joined: 10-01-2006


Message 44 of 202 (455836)
02-14-2008 12:22 AM
Reply to: Message 43 by TheTruth
02-13-2008 10:04 PM


besides the fact if we evolved then we start reevolving in the womb am i right
Sorry, you are incorrect. An individual does not evolve, populations evolve.
but funny thing we have little to no hair and if we evolved next generations would have less and less hair but that isn't true
Correct. Its not true that we must have less and less hair. Evolution is not in a specific direction, nor is it specifically taking place in each generation.
long hair then we cut it hippies long hair the we cut it new age long hair
This is not an indicator of evolution in one direction or another, what point does it serve?
historical finds show any evidence of excess body hair in previous years
Look further back. You appear to think that Shakespeare should have looked like a monkey.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 43 by TheTruth, posted 02-13-2008 10:04 PM TheTruth has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 45 by TheTruth, posted 02-14-2008 12:10 PM Vacate has replied

  
Vacate
Member (Idle past 4600 days)
Posts: 565
Joined: 10-01-2006


Message 49 of 202 (456015)
02-15-2008 12:10 AM
Reply to: Message 45 by TheTruth
02-14-2008 12:10 PM


ok the last one was a typo it was supposed to say no historical evidence
Is this also a typo? There is ample fossil evidence that you should take into account.
so im saying never was a man a monkey man was man and monkey was monkey
That is also what evolutionary theory says also. It also says that the ancestor of man is also the ancestor of monkeys. In other words: monkey man has never been a species.
i was saying hypotheticaly in the womb a person starts in the "fish stage" and progresses to a human by the third trimester but i don't think that i think it is a human from conception
Incorrect. There is no fish stage. At all times throughout a humans life, from conception to death (and beyond), the DNA is never that of a fish.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 45 by TheTruth, posted 02-14-2008 12:10 PM TheTruth has not replied

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024