Cyprus-Forum.com

Get Real! wrote:

Lordo wrote:

Get Real! wrote:Who are the strong Darwinists among us?

Come forward… it’s my turn to ask questions now and do bring all your friends and lifelines… you’re gonna need them!

Once you have studied it we can discuss it.

I *have* studied it and now I have questions. Would you like to try and answer them and if not why not?

fire away

Lordo wrote:

Get Real! wrote:

Lordo wrote:even if there was anything in it it would be lost in just 10 generations which is when it was written about 10 generations later.

You don't know that for a fact.

Lordo wrote: there is only one theory worth looking at and that is darwin's theory of evolution. your creationist ideas are full of rubbish, with no proof what so ever.

Why is Darwin worth looking into?

Entertain me Lordo...

oh but i do. when I was at college back in the 70s we did an experiment, where by a text of about 700 words was read out to a person which in turn was told to pass on the content to the next person verbally. after 6 people the text was totally lost and reduced to about 30 words.

that is a proven fact. try it sometimes. you might learn something.


tell me what is wrong with the darwins theory of evolution.

Are you willing to try and answer questions?

Q1: Why have so many apes/monkeys gotten left behind and are still hanging in trees?

Get Real! wrote:Q1: Why have so many apes/monkeys gotten left behind and are still hanging in trees?

you clearly have not read darwins theory of evolution. read it again. what drives evolution? the environment is the answer as well as the odd mutation which may improve the survival chances of a species. Apes have been living in the forest regions and have had plenty of food to survive, why change when there is no need.

the fact that we are related to the apes was recognised by darwin long before dna was found and has since proven darwins theory.

here is an example of the reverse proving darwins theory. the salamanders living in some croatian caves have lost their eyes because they live in total darkness and hence no need for them. nature is very efficient.

Lordo wrote:Apes have been living in the forest regions and have had plenty of food to survive, why change when there is no need.

So is your answer that only "some" apes needed to evolve so as to find food?

Let me expand that… are you saying that some apes where in a good area so they had no need for change but other apes were in a bad area for food and/or water so they needed evolutionary change or risk dying?

Get Real! wrote:Q1: Why have so many apes/monkeys gotten left behind and are still hanging in trees?

you cant be real, man....

unless you are 5 yo or something like that...

mistermax wrote:

Get Real! wrote:Q1: Why have so many apes/monkeys gotten left behind and are still hanging in trees?

you cant be real, man....

unless you are 5 yo or something like that...

I can go along with that… now can you answer a 5 year old’s question?

Get Real! wrote:

Lordo wrote:Apes have been living in the forest regions and have had plenty of food to survive, why change when there is no need.

So is your answer that only "some" apes needed to evolve so as to find food?

nope, environment determines who survives and who does not. those best suited to the environment survive and those who do not eventually go extinct. For instance the great apes are in danger of going extinct because their environment is being destroyed by man. In the mean time man has moved from the forest into the savannah and beyond and colonised the whole world. Unfortunately evolution is very slow and a lot of species do not survive the change in the environment.

so, man did not need to evolve to find food, looking for food evolved man. get it?

some birds on islands without predators loose the ability to fly.

there is proof of darwins theory. the environment drives evolution.