Dog lovers are annoying

Yes, this is correct and another example of skewed, biased statistics. Very similar to the disturbing paper I linked to about bias US statistics about race and violent crime. It is very disturbing how easily the truth of reality can be hidden behind a false statistics. And it is EVERYWHERE in this country. Especially in our political system.

If you were to present that crazy, scientific paper about the violence stats in the USA to the head of the NAACP and say, "Please Explain", I think they would simultaneously combust and be speechless.

Very similar to the 1,000 threads on this site about lightening, plane crashing and shark attacks statistics. They are ALL so very, very wrong.

 

there are social and economical aspects that have to be considered as well. not everybody has the same food choices.

 

Hahahahaha good one!

 

I wasn't so much talking about you, but you should look at my last post. Everyone didn't come from Africa. There is supposedly a starting point in Asia as well. There could be more.
I don't think any research paper would say there was an original human. The oldest version of what is considered modern man (Homo sapiens) was dated to be only 200k years old. There were also Homo neanderthalensis and Homo floresiensis, among others, living during the same period as early man. We have evidence that sapien and neanderthalensis interbred on top of all that. The early homo species were located all over the world, and thus homo sapiens appear all over the world in fossil evidence.
Here is a nice table linking the fossils to locations: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Template:Homo

I do like that you are thinking deeply about this and putting up some real questions straight from your own thoughts. I hate seeing the same old questions in regards to evolution, and what you posted made me have to go back through some articles.

 

True not everyone has the same food choices.

An epidimiolical study known ad The China Study covers this and shows a significant difference in disease rates and diet.
Also there are study's that show people in less developed countries like Kenya where people diets are mainly high carb plant based diet. Diseases such as cancer and heArt disease are significantly lower than westernized countries.

 

What's their quality of life like?

 

http://www.sciencebasedmedicine.org/385/
http://rawfoodsos.com/2010/07/07/the-china-study-fact-or-fallac/
Again, it is best to do some fact checking. Many have found issues with the China Study, even those who usually push vegetarianism.

 

Yeah, I am guessing they are way more active than your typical American.

 

the sport of surfing has its own genealogical tree. the sup branch is weighing us down; the fish limb needs
constant pruning and the hpsb branch keeps hybridizing...

 

Ya know, just looking at the original post here...what a fu*kwit. Whoever said wolves don't kill coyotes? Well known fact that coyote populations decrease when wolves are back. That being said, the coyotes that remain benefit from the carcasses left by wolves.

 

A few months ago, I was very interested in this "Africa" theory, so I spent quite a bit of free time reading about it and looking into it, and out of dozens of publications and articles about it, I found ZERO that legitimately disputed the Africa Claim.... One of the things that they ALL shared in common, was that Asia was one of the first destinations and settlements when the "Homos" left africa. This triggered me trying to match up the estimated time of Pangaea to verify that at this point in human history, the continents were seperated by water.

And yes, that is what I was getting at regarding the "cross-breeding". ALl of the articles I read, stated that the neanderthals etc ALL originated from the same place, but further down the line of time, they had been re-introduced and many of the species that had moved to the Asian regions and elsewhere around the eastern world, they had begun a natural evolutionary process, changing their skin, hair, blood, spinal makeup etc.... Many years later, these new species were re-introduced to the original bloodlines, which were located back in what we now call Africa. It was at thing point in time, when species were overlapping that true evolution sped up indefinitely. Then these newer, corss bred species become a third, different style human, and they began to migrate again, and when the thrid "breed" started breeding with the second, asian breed etc... and so on and so on...

I am just saying, in all the research I did, I found NO ONE that really had a strong argument against every SINGLE human from every corner of the earth, all coming from what we now call Africa. And while Asia was one of the first destinations, everything points back to one, ORIGINAL human species. The one that started it all. And as conditions became more harsh and resources were limited, they moved on, migrated and RAPIDLY started developing new characteristics... Then they mixed and match for thousands and thousands of years, eventually becoming what we call a modern human today....

The missing link to me, is in between the apes, and the mostly hairless, "homo sapiens/Neanderthal". Everything else makes sense. You find very similar forms, with slightly different characteristics, overlapping in the times they shared earth, but eventually dying off as breeds became so much different, the natural instinct was to consider these older species "animals", which is just survival of the fittest, which every species goes through....

But again, creationism and evolution should not eliminate each other... No one every said that "god" was a human. No one ever said that. And what modern man construed from a story from "jesus" (whether you believe it or not) in the story of Adam and Eve was told as a parable, to explain creation to humans at the time. It was not meant to be literal. And you can believe in both religion and evolution, simply because "Jesus" was basically a god in human form. If you believe in God, you can believe that 150,000 years ago, god sent another form to earth that was in the form of a neanderthal, to help lay the basic ground rules of surviving and maintaining the earth....

I don't think anyone needs to be so "core" on either end, to completely remove one or the other. This day in age, I couldn't tell you what I believe anymore... But to just shoot down anyone who believes in religion or culture like that isn't right either. I don't believe in MOST of what religion is all about, but I also can't sit here saying that because there were Neanderthals, there was no being of higher order than us that made this big ball of life go round.

The big bang COULD have been the result of a metaphorical "snap of the fingers" by something that is much greater than us, and has been around longer than we can even imagine.

So again,

 

9 out of 10 people attacked by lions in Kenya eat more grain then i do.

 

We have several fossil examples of hominids before man and ape, just as I posted previously. And as I said before, don't just get hung up on fossil evidence. It is amazingly difficult to find whole fossils to help with evolutionary studies. We also have genetic evidence http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Human_evolutionary_genetics
There is a lot of evidence there:
http://www.hsc.csu.edu.au/biology/options/human_story/2938/Bio982_18Mar04.html
http://www.astro.umd.edu/~miller/teaching/astr380f09/slides08.pdf

Science and evolution doesn't rule out all creation. It just uses data and facts to explain our origins. If you want to believe that a god started the big bang, I have no data to go against you there. However, if you use something like the bible as facts, that is when people who study scientific theories take issue. Religion belongs in the world of philosophy, and should be completely separated from science unless data is used to prove what the theologists say.

 

You guys can go back and forth on this all day, and we all have our personal ideas. But one thing that really gets me is that Creationism is still being taught in American public schools(Missouri, not sure about othe states). Some districts require that parents be warned when Evolution is to be taught. That's f**king scary.

 

why? if a parent is ultra religious, they should have the option to opt out.

 

Hmmm...I would disagree with you on that one my man...c.f., Myth of Religious Neutrality. Great read...the fact of the matter is most of the sciences originated due to a theological belief. Just because science uses a empirical epistemology doesn't necessarily separate it from the realm of philosophy/theology. Sounds like you are putting the cart before the horse IMHO...

Further, we believe what we think to be true based upon a host of factors, sociological, geographical, theological, educational, etc. These factors cause us to be biased or head down a particular trajectory...wehter dealing with evolution, creationism, etc. The fact of the matter is...scientific fact is interpreted and is not as dogmatic as you are making it out to be...just because something is "found" within the scientific community does not reduce it down to an absolute.

 

But to make Creationism part of a public school curriculum? To me that's insane. Look, I'm no Dawkinsonian, and I do personally believe that there's intelligence behind the emergence of life on Earth, but dude..to TEACH kids the story of creation according to the Bible? That's why we still have mental midgets running around saying we lived with the dinosaurs, and that the planet is only 5k years old.

It's been made quite clear that species change and evolve over time. If parents want to teach their kids from the Bible that's fine, but if we're teaching the Bible in public school that's the same thing as Sharia in the Middle East.

 

Agree on the teaching part. Though you had a beef with the parent notification stuff for evolution.

 

Nah man, I'm all for as much communication b/t parents and schools as possible, also for parents to teach their kids whatever they want. But I do believe in separation of church and state.

 

No effing theocracy for me!