I guess ill start it off, so where do you think...??

[sport_122]

monkeys have learned to floss too, that was in the news recently. Monkeys to have one important thing in common to us. War. They have been observed staging large deadly battles in the jungle against other tribes.


But our land superiority can be thanked to great evolution + meat. Not anything divine.

I spent two years as a bio major before deciding that I didn't want to go into medicine. The origin of blue eyes and the changes in skin color do not take into account the drastic jumps that evolution has no answer for. Based on evolutionary theories you would almost expect for a mutant baby to have just been born. Lets also keep in mind the traits that you mentioned are not necessarily passed along. Which means that there is no advantage.

Adaptation on the other hand is seen in every day life. A tanned white person versus a tanned black person. A tan does not mean that you have had some sort of genetic change...it just means that your body has absorbed light and has some damaged cells.

The assumption that you have made is that because a person conceives a baby when they have a tan, then that baby will be darker upon its birth. This is simply not the case. for kicks look at Michael Jackson should still have black babies...which leads me to believe the two we have seen him with are not his...even though he is as white as all get out.

This is more common evidence to show the error of nature selection theorists...

People with down syndrome can have normal healthy babies with no defects, people with autism, dwarfism, or giants can have children who do not display these traits. This is proof that the arguments have enormous holes in them.

Because even in disabilities we do not see a genetic trend to their frequency. This shows that these traits or mutations are simply a product of chance and (possibly side effects of other factors. If a person is born with one arm their kids are going to be born normal.

Aside from the "similarities" there is absolutely no concrete evidence, only suggestion, or untestable hypothesis. Now there are numerous scientists who will state that what many evolutionists are looking at is the proof that there were MORE ape or manlike species that went extinct for some reason or another. But the evidence for a thing like evolution would be pouring out of our ears with the shear age of our earth and the data that has been collected through our fossil record, but its not...there is a piece here, then a piece there, but no strong link to hold ground.


On a lighter note....
there is more evidence (and question) to support the existence of extra terrestrials on this earth through time than there is to support evolution and a pre-modern man species.

But my point again in all of this is to simply state that when discussion the origins of man, evolution does not have a solid foundation to stand on. Scientifically a creator of life on this planet is going to have much more support than evolution. Now whether you believe that creator is divine or not is a different question.

[zimabog]

The origin of blue eyes and the changes in skin color do not take into account the drastic jumps that evolution has no answer for.

it doesnt have to take into account anything, genetic changes are changes no matter what period in history it is.

Adaptation on the other hand is seen in every day life. A tanned white person versus a tanned black person. A tan does not mean that you have had some sort of genetic change...it just means that your body has absorbed light and has some damaged cells.

I think you are totally misunderstanding what I plainly said. I never said that a sun tan was genetic or anything like that. On your account I would have to say you have no idea what you are talking about. A person can get a tan from the sun, however a person just doesnt come back after a week in northern europe with blue eyes. You on the other hand seem to think it works this way? No!
People in africa are not black because of a sun tan, its because of genetics brought on by the conditions. I never said that a tan was genetic, ever. Read my posts over again and you will see that i never said such things.

The assumption that you have made is that because a person conceives a baby when they have a tan, then that baby will be darker upon its birth.

you sir are a freaking idiot. I never said such things. GO AND READ MY POSTS!!!!!!!!!!

Please read my posts because you responding to things that i have never mentioned. I honestly think you are pulling stuff out your ass and responding to a different person. If you want to debate, at know what the other guy said. Its as if you said "I think the 911 system is important." And I responded "But of course cats are cuter than dogs!"
It simply makes no sense. That is what you did. Go and read.