[Malaysia_Christian]

Re: Questions that evolutionist can’t answer

The herbivore guts work in a similar way. Ruminants and midgut fermenters (like horses and rabbits) both have bacteria and protozoa in their gut which can digest cellulose. I don't know much about termites, so I will take about it from a mammalian herbivores point of view, though the concepts should apply to each.

As for which came first, it is impossible to know. Likely, they developed at the same time.

i personally think that the bacteria in the gut could have started in a parasitic manner. After all, if you can survive in a gut, it is a stable, sheltered environment with a constant food supply. However, over time, the bacteria will survive longer and reproduce more if they keep the host alive. Therefore, the changed for them to release free fatty acids for the host to absorb will benefit both, as the bacteria still get enough energy, and the host has an advantage of increased digestive power.

Somewhere along the line, the bacteria could aquire a mutation to allow them to digest a new carbohydrate, such as cellulose in herbivores. Therefore, the host will survive better on different food, and so the bacteria also survive better.

Over time, the gut changes to assist the bacteria such that the bacteria can thrive so the animal can live off its products.

1. Answer my question. Which one evolve first? Critters? or Termites?
2. If one bacteria evolved in the gut, and thus becoming the first bacteria in the gut, who did that bacteria married to reproduce?
3. So if it need mutations to survived, why not just evolve into the final body, makes it easier, less competitive?

[True Disciple]

Re: Questions that evolutionist can’t answer

The herbivore guts work in a similar way. Ruminants and midgut fermenters (like horses and rabbits) both have bacteria and protozoa in their gut which can digest cellulose. I don't know much about termites, so I will take about it from a mammalian herbivores point of view, though the concepts should apply to each.

As for which came first, it is impossible to know. Likely, they developed at the same time.

At the same time? So those fermenters and the horses happened to evolve from entirely different creatures, exactly at the same time, and consequently happened to fit together by mere coincidence? How can you believe that?

i personally think that the bacteria in the gut could have started in a parasitic manner. After all, if you can survive in a gut, it is a stable, sheltered environment with a constant food supply. However, over time, the bacteria will survive longer and reproduce more if they keep the host alive. Therefore, the changed for them to release free fatty acids for the host to absorb will benefit both, as the bacteria still get enough energy, and the host has an advantage of increased digestive power.

Somewhere along the line, the bacteria could aquire a mutation to allow them to digest a new carbohydrate, such as cellulose in herbivores. Therefore, the host will survive better on different food, and so the bacteria also survive better.

But how would the host know that the bacteria had evolved the ability to digest cellulose? This wouldn't make the animal start eating wood all of a sudden, as the animal never ate wood before. You make no sense.

[Malaysia_Christian]

Re: Questions that evolutionist can’t answer

gm jack, if you believe we all came from rock, I have several mroe questions to ask:

1. Where does the desire for sex for the human evovle from?
2. Where does male and female evolve from? Where is the prove of a rcok can evolve into two different sex?
3. Where does the idea of right and wrong evolve from?
4. Where does music evolve from?

If you believe that everyone can decide what is right and what is wrong according to their own definition and not God's Absolute Law, then by that definition I think it's right for me to exterminate you and your family, because I decide that's right for me.

So...

5. Where does moral value evolve from?
6. Where does elements like Uranium, Oxygen, and Carbon evolve from? Remember, fusion can't past after ion, so Hydrogen stays as Hydrogen. Where all the elemetns evolve from?
7. Where does all the emotion like sadness, sorrowness, happiness, excitement and love evolve from?

[gm jack]

Re: Questions that evolutionist can’t answer

1. Answer my question. Which one evolve first? Critters? or Termites?
2. If one bacteria evolved in the gut, and thus becoming the first bacteria in the gut, who did that bacteria married to reproduce?
3. So if it need mutations to survived, why not just evolve into the final body, makes it easier, less competitive?

1)Well, bacteria are more primitive lifeforms, so probably the bacteria. However, it would have been a different bacteria to those found in a critters gut. As I said, they would develop together, each making a small change, allowing the other to make changes itself and so on.

2)Bacteria reproduce asexually in a process called mitosis. They essentially double all their organs and pull themselves in two.

3)Because, although simple to understand, one needs the other to survive in both of their current forms. The termites would not exist as they did today without these bacteria, but the bacteria would be less successful without the termite's digestive tract which is adapted to helping th ebacteria digest the wood.

At the same time? So those fermenters and the horses happened to evolve from entirely different creatures, exactly at the same time, and consequently happened to fit together by mere coincidence? How can you believe that?

But how would the host know that the bacteria had evolved the ability to digest cellulose? This wouldn't make the animal start eating wood all of a sudden, as the animal never ate wood before. You make no sense.

It's not that the arrangement happened completely by chance. It is a series of changes based off previous ones. If the bacteria couldn't digest the cellulose, then there is no way the host would be able to survive on the diet of the current organism. Without the heavily modified guts for fermentation, the bacteria would be less able to break cellulose down.

It's no so much chance as the one in a million with the right competition would have a better chance of surviving and passing on these traits.

And the host most likely would not initially know. Because they would be able to digest more out of any given plant based diet, they would be more likely to survive in any given situation and pass on the genes as they would get a little more energy from everything they eat. From then, there could be a natural selection for animals best able to digest really widely available foodstuffs such as grass as opposed to most glucose rich fruit.

gm jack, if you believe we all came from rock, I have several mroe questions to ask:

1. Where does the desire for sex for the human evovle from?
2. Where does male and female evolve from? Where is the prove of a rcok can evolve into two different sex?
3. Where does the idea of right and wrong evolve from?
4. Where does music evolve from?

If you believe that everyone can decide what is right and what is wrong according to their own definition and not God's Absolute Law, then by that definition I think it's right for me to exterminate you and your family, because I decide that's right for me.

So...

5. Where does moral value evolve from?
6. Where does elements like Uranium, Oxygen, and Carbon evolve from? Remember, fusion can't past after ion, so Hydrogen stays as Hydrogen. Where all the elemetns evolve from?
7. Where does all the emotion like sadness, sorrowness, happiness, excitement and love evolve from?

1)Probably slowly gained as making an animal want to have sex is a very good way of surviving better. I mean, people with absolutely 0 sex drive probably aren't going to reproduce and pass on those genes as much as people who want to have sex constantly.
2)The sexes, I don't really know. It probably originally came from sexual reproduction originating as a fusion of two identical gametes. Over time, possibly mediated by the formation of the sex determining chromosomes as we know them know, some specialised in making the gamete as large as possible (to give the young as much food as possible, so more likely to survive) and other starting producing lots of tiny gametes (to reproduce lots by weight of numbers). From then on, everything is just adaptations ot make each gender better at it's role.

Having a uterus provides protection to the developing young. Having a penis will allow easier fertilisation of females like that. Again, they didn't just pop up fully formed. It is a topic I don't really know much about, so if you can prove me wrong, then I'll have to accept it.

However, note that yeast is currently in an intermediate stage between asexual division and sexual reproduction, as it can do both.

3)As we started to live in groups, having inbuilt social constructs is necessary for a group to survive. For example, a society with a murder rate above the birth rate is not going to survive. However, much of it probably learned from people already in the society. For example, the difference in the roles of women in Islamic and Western societies. Just because of what they learn as they grow up, they have different expectations of what they can and cannot do.

4)Absolutely no idea how it originally got started. However, it could be due to successions of notes sounding similar to how people talk when in certain moods. Other species (notably whales and some birds) use "songs" as a means of communication, and it is likely to have started out similarly for us.

5)The only really absolute morals are those which would cause a society to break down. as I said before, murder too many people and suddenly everyone suffers for it. However, a lot of social values are highly variable depending on where you are bought up, so are unlikely to be genetic. Even things like murder are obviously not absolute, as people do still murder.

6)Not evolution. Evolution describes how species form and change, not physics. However, hydrogen, helium and a little lithium would be formed in a Big Bang (leave the kettle of fish closed for now though). Other heavier elements can be formed in supernovae, which are essentially massive stars exploding at the end of their life cycle.

7)Because it helps us to survive. Making us feel happy after eating or having sex makes us more likely to do them again. Making us feel sad when a relative dies makes us try and stop it happening again (relative will be similarly genetically, so getting them to reproduce will be helping most of your genes as well). Love allows us to bond as pairs and take care of the young. Emotions help us function in large groups far better than a straight up pleasure/pain differentiation, as it allows people to make more complex decisions on the interactions within a large group.

[Cranky Old Man]

Re: Questions that evolutionist can’t answer

It's not that the arrangement happened completely by chance. It is a series of changes based off previous ones.

It seems to me you are contradicting yourself here. If the changes were not random then someone must have guided those changes! You just proved intelligent design and the existence of God!

Because they would be able to digest more out of any given plant based diet

If the animal evolves into eating the plant, then why does the plant not evolve in something protecting itself against that?

Making us feel sad when a relative dies makes us try and stop it happening again

That seems counter productive as death is considered to be a major component of evolution.

[gm jack]

Re: Questions that evolutionist can’t answer

It seems to me you are contradicting yourself here. If the changes were not random then someone must have guided those changes! You just proved intelligent design and the existence of God!

If the animal evolves into eating the plant, then why does the plant not evolve in something protecting itself against that?

That seems counter productive as death is considered to be a major component of evolution.

What I mean is that a cow isn't going to start developing carnivores teeth. They make steps which fit with what they already have. Massive canine teeth may work great in a tiger, but are going to work against a herbivore.

And a lot of plants do have protective mechanisms. However, when a herbivore eats, they generally only eat a little bit of the plant. Therefore, even ones that get eaten are still able to reproduce. Therefore, the selection pressure to gain a defense mechanism isn't as strong as the herbivores need to find a way to eat.

It is counter productive for the species as a whole, but evolution works on a individual which shows effects. Individuals want their genes to survive, as opposed to other peoples. In the long run, the best survive, but people don't exactly just sit back and let only the strongest male have all the women, like in some species. The genes that help develop emotions themselves give such an advantage that they can outweigh other small disadvantages. The will to avoid bad situations could be more beneficial than a slight advantage in getting out of them. No point being quicker at running than a lion i you realise kicking it is a bad idea before hand.

[Cranky Old Man]

Re: Questions that evolutionist can’t answer

What I mean is that a cow isn't going to start developing carnivores teeth. They make steps which fit with what they already have. Massive canine teeth may work great in a tiger, but are going to work against a herbivore.

Then how could evolution have created such incompatible beings?

And a lot of plants do have protective mechanisms.

Why are there still plants left without it?

[gm jack]

Re: Questions that evolutionist can’t answer

Then how could evolution have created such incompatible beings?

Why are there still plants left without it?

Well, it doesn't happen. That's the point. If it did for some reason, the individual would promptly starve to death, and the genes would not be passed on.

And some plants exist without protection simply because they don't need it. It would be nice for them, but it isn't their biggest problem stopping them from reproducing.

It's the same reason cows don't have claws and an armoured hide. Sure it would be nice for them to have it, but they have much biggest issues in preventing reproduction. Food is a much bigger worry than predation, especially for an animal which is already several hundred kilograms and lives in large groups which protect each other.

[Seth Campbell]

Re: Questions that evolutionist can’t answer

What I mean is that a cow isn't going to start developing carnivores teeth. They make steps which fit with what they already have. Massive canine teeth may work great in a tiger, but are going to work against a herbivore.

Why not? Why can't a cow evolve into a tiger? Isn't that how evolution works?

And a lot of plants do have protective mechanisms. However, when a herbivore eats, they generally only eat a little bit of the plant. Therefore, even ones that get eaten are still able to reproduce. Therefore, the selection pressure to gain a defense mechanism isn't as strong as the herbivores need to find a way to eat.

Yep, that's why they use goats for weed control, because they're so nice to the plants. Have you seen what a herd of cattle can do to a field?

It is counter productive for the species as a whole, but evolution works on a individual which shows effects. Individuals want their genes to survive, as opposed to other peoples. In the long run, the best survive, but people don't exactly just sit back and let only the strongest male have all the women, like in some species.

You really think this? Boy have you ever been out of your basement? Because you don't know much about animals. Yep, all the other deer just sit around going "well Bob's the biggest, so I guess I'm out of luck this year", yeah sure that's exactly what they think

The genes that help develop emotions themselves give such an advantage that they can outweigh other small disadvantages. The will to avoid bad situations could be more beneficial than a slight advantage in getting out of them. No point being quicker at running than a lion i you realise kicking it is a bad idea before hand.

So emotions are completely genetic? How did they evolve? Why did they evolve? Being frozen with fear is definitely a survival technique isn't it.

[gm jack]

Re: Questions that evolutionist can’t answer

Why not? Why can't a cow evolve into a tiger? Isn't that how evolution works?

No. Any changes a cow makes to being carnivorous is only going to hinder it, as it isn't efficient with everything else.

If two people who speak different languages are put in a room together, you won't expect much of a conversation to happen. They both speak perfectly fine, but in different ways so together, they aren't as good as two people who speak the same language.

Yep, that's why they use goats for weed control, because they're so nice to the plants. Have you seen what a herd of cattle can do to a field?

That is in a confined environment, so rather than graing over a large area, they are restricted to a comparatively small area for a long period of time. Do you really think cattle and goats in the wild stay in a field sized area until all food in exhausted?

You really think this? Boy have you ever been out of your basement? Because you don't know much about animals. Yep, all the other deer just sit around going "well Bob's the biggest, so I guess I'm out of luck this year", yeah sure that's exactly what they think

Figure of speech. Once they are beaten, they won't try to fight again for a while, as the injuries they could get are more likely to stop them reproducing than waiting, getting bigger and trying again next year or hoping he gets ill and drops dead. Some birds with hunting territories will not even compete and starve to death if they don't win any territory, and simply wait for others to move on or die, as the risk of injury fighting what they proved was a losing battle was worse than hoping for some luck.

So emotions are completely genetic? How did they evolve? Why did they evolve? Being frozen with fear is definitely a survival technique isn't it.

I doubt they are completely genetic. However, the fact some species show them and other don't shows the capacity for emotion is at any rate partially genetic.

Possibly could have evolved as a more complex form of the basic pleasure/pain receptors. Initially, sex = good is as gets. Over time, this could become more complex as to "mutual love" (so getting sex) good, and being dumped (not getting sex, so not reproducing) bad. Very simplistic view, but by attaching no physical feelings of pleasure and pain to things helping reproduction, it encourages individuals to seek them out and survive.

Why? As I said before, emotions can help people survive. By making things that are more likely to make you reproduce "good" and things that stops your genes (which will be shared by family) spreading "bad", it encourages individuals to act to help their genes spread without something happening. If you will feel bad if your children die, it's a fairly good encouragement to stop it happening.

And freezing with fear is actually quite good. A lot of animals have far worse eye sight than us. Even humans are better at seeing moving objects than stationary ones. If you freeze in fear, it may give a deer a few seconds to look around and find where a noise is coming from instead of running and making it really obvious where they are.

[Seth Campbell]

Re: Questions that evolutionist can’t answer

No. Any changes a cow makes to being carnivorous is only going to hinder it, as it isn't efficient with everything else.

So the cow has been DESIGNED to be a herbivore? Is that what you're saying? Because if it's just random, why couldn't a cow accidental eat a mouse and decide she likes it?

If two people who speak different languages are put in a room together, you won't expect much of a conversation to happen. They both speak perfectly fine, but in different ways so together, they aren't as good as two people who speak the same language.

Leave them there for a week and they'll hash out a way to communicate. Anyway, what does this have to do with evolution? God confused the languages when people tried to build the tower of Babel.

Genesis 11:5-8
5And the LORD came down to see the city and the tower, which the children of men builded. 6And the LORD said, Behold, the people is one, and they have all one language; and this they begin to do: and now nothing will be restrained from them, which they have imagined to do. 7Go to, let us go down, and there confound their language, that they may not understand one another's speech. 8So the LORD scattered them abroad from thence upon the face of all the earth: and they left off to build the city.

That is in a confined environment, so rather than graing over a large area, they are restricted to a comparatively small area for a long period of time. Do you really think cattle and goats in the wild stay in a field sized area until all food in exhausted?

Goats are known for destroying areas, so are pigs. Wild pigs are considered a pest because they'll tear up whole yards.

Figure of speech. Once they are beaten, they won't try to fight again for a while, as the injuries they could get are more likely to stop them reproducing than waiting, getting bigger and trying again next year or hoping he gets ill and drops dead.

You're still ignorant of how deer operate. Try getting out there and learning something rather than just watching the Disney channel. Deer will sneak in on one of the females while two are fighting, they will herd off one female, there's a lot of soap opera action going on during breeding season.

Some birds with hunting territories will not even compete and starve to death if they don't win any territory, and simply wait for others to move on or die, as the risk of injury fighting what they proved was a losing battle was worse than hoping for some luck.

Where exactly are you getting this information? Because it's certainly not from watching wildlife.

I doubt they are completely genetic. However, the fact some species show them and other don't shows the capacity for emotion is at any rate partially genetic.

So their not genetic but they are? Pick a side.

Possibly could have evolved as a more complex form of the basic pleasure/pain receptors. Initially, sex = good is as gets. Over time, this could become more complex as to "mutual love" (so getting sex) good, and being dumped (not getting sex, so not reproducing) bad. Very simplistic view, but by attaching no physical feelings of pleasure and pain to things helping reproduction, it encourages individuals to seek them out and survive.

Why? As I said before, emotions can help people survive. By making things that are more likely to make you reproduce "good" and things that stops your genes (which will be shared by family) spreading "bad", it encourages individuals to act to help their genes spread without something happening. If you will feel bad if your children die, it's a fairly good encouragement to stop it happening.

And freezing with fear is actually quite good. A lot of animals have far worse eye sight than us. Even humans are better at seeing moving objects than stationary ones. If you freeze in fear, it may give a deer a few seconds to look around and find where a noise is coming from instead of running and making it really obvious where they are.

Possibly you have absolutely no idea what you're talking about. Yeah, you stand still in front of that Grizzly, they're known to have the worst eye sight of major predators in North America. Please just stand there, it will save my life.

[gm jack]

Re: Questions that evolutionist can’t answer

So the cow has been DESIGNED to be a herbivore? Is that what you're saying? Because if it's just random, why couldn't a cow accidental eat a mouse and decide she likes it?

Because they have no way to digest it.

Leave them there for a week and they'll hash out a way to communicate. Anyway, what does this have to do with evolution? God confused the languages when people tried to build the tower of Babel.

Genesis 11:5-8
5And the LORD came down to see the city and the tower, which the children of men builded. 6And the LORD said, Behold, the people is one, and they have all one language; and this they begin to do: and now nothing will be restrained from them, which they have imagined to do. 7Go to, let us go down, and there confound their language, that they may not understand one another's speech. 8So the LORD scattered them abroad from thence upon the face of all the earth: and they left off to build the city.

Yes, but things can't happen that quickly in biology, as it takes generations to make changes on the scale of adapting to a new food source. In this case, said cow would starve to death as it would be unable to chew up its food into small enough fragments to be digested.

Goats are known for destroying areas, so are pigs. Wild pigs are considered a pest because they'll tear up whole yards.

Yes, but they still aren't the biggest problem they have. If it was, grass would be dying out. However, compared to the huge numbers that survive to reproduce, a few getting eaten is nothing.

You're still ignorant of how deer operate. Try getting out there and learning something rather than just watching the Disney channel. Deer will sneak in on one of the females while two are fighting, they will herd off one female, there's a lot of soap opera action going on during breeding season.

But head to head, they will still surrender to someone who is clearly going to destroy them in a fight for their own self interest. A better example would be sea lions. Most males never get a chance to mate, as the biggest ones keep a harem by brute force.

Where exactly are you getting this information? Because it's certainly not from watching wildlife.

Red grouse. Look them up.

So their not genetic but they are? Pick a side.

Most characteristics of people are partially genetic, and partially due to environment. For example, some people have a predisposition to being overweight, but obviously, how much they eat will control it in the end. As people show differences in their emotions between different situations, especially between different cultures, there is obviously a lot of environmental impact in the development of emotions. However, there is also a lot of overlap in broader areas of emotions, so there appears to be some genetic basis for emotions.

Quite frankly, I really don't know, and am just giving possibilities. Ask a neurologist if you actually care.

Possibly you have absolutely no idea what you're talking about. Yeah, you stand still in front of that Grizzly, they're known to have the worst eye sight of major predators in North America. Please just stand there, it will save my life.

It will likely have been developed for other situations. For example, hearing wolf calling somewhere in a mile area allows you to analyse the situation and try and respond without giving yourself away. There are other reflexes to make people be able to fun faster for longer in situations like that (adrenaline triggers a lot of them), so in situations like that, other reflexes should come into play as soon as you register the situation. However, running at every little noise is not a good first reflex.

[Malaysia_Christian]

Re: Questions that evolutionist can’t answer

No. Any changes a cow makes to being carnivorous is only going to hinder it, as it isn't efficient with everything else.

If two people who speak different languages are put in a room together, you won't expect much of a conversation to happen. They both speak perfectly fine, but in different ways so together, they aren't as good as two people who speak the same language.


That is in a confined environment, so rather than graing over a large area, they are restricted to a comparatively small area for a long period of time. Do you really think cattle and goats in the wild stay in a field sized area until all food in exhausted?


Figure of speech. Once they are beaten, they won't try to fight again for a while, as the injuries they could get are more likely to stop them reproducing than waiting, getting bigger and trying again next year or hoping he gets ill and drops dead. Some birds with hunting territories will not even compete and starve to death if they don't win any territory, and simply wait for others to move on or die, as the risk of injury fighting what they proved was a losing battle was worse than hoping for some luck.




I doubt they are completely genetic. However, the fact some species show them and other don't shows the capacity for emotion is at any rate partially genetic.

Possibly could have evolved as a more complex form of the basic pleasure/pain receptors. Initially, sex = good is as gets. Over time, this could become more complex as to "mutual love" (so getting sex) good, and being dumped (not getting sex, so not reproducing) bad. Very simplistic view, but by attaching no physical feelings of pleasure and pain to things helping reproduction, it encourages individuals to seek them out and survive.

Why? As I said before, emotions can help people survive. By making things that are more likely to make you reproduce "good" and things that stops your genes (which will be shared by family) spreading "bad", it encourages individuals to act to help their genes spread without something happening. If you will feel bad if your children die, it's a fairly good encouragement to stop it happening.

And freezing with fear is actually quite good. A lot of animals have far worse eye sight than us. Even humans are better at seeing moving objects than stationary ones. If you freeze in fear, it may give a deer a few seconds to look around and find where a noise is coming from instead of running and making it really obvious where they are.

Well, the reason you say no its because you never see it.
However, thing in the past you never see it also, yet you are so determined to say that you know what it happen.

You believe what an ex-theologian, who had absolutely no credential to talk about the subject of biology, said about so called "origin of life".

We believe scientists and their research about the world being 6,000 years old. We got scientists to back us up with facts and evidence.

Sorry, I have no respect to those who have no credential on this subject yet commented so much on this subject. He thinked he knows alot. Sad enough, he know nothing.

The answers you gave in your reply to my questions are reasonings. I don't tolerate reasoning. You said you have proofs and evidence how those evolve. Show me.

If you can't produce any evidence and just rubbish talk around, I would demand you to leave.

No proofs = No talk.

[Seth Campbell]

Re: Questions that evolutionist can’t answer

Because they have no way to digest it.

Says who? If they can mutate to eat cellulose, why can't they mutate to eat mice? Who decides what a cow can and cannot eat?

Yes, but things can't happen that quickly in biology, as it takes generations to make changes on the scale of adapting to a new food source. In this case, said cow would starve to death as it would be unable to chew up its food into small enough fragments to be digested.

It was your example, not my fault if I could blow holes through it.

Yes, but they still aren't the biggest problem they have. If it was, grass would be dying out. However, compared to the huge numbers that survive to reproduce, a few getting eaten is nothing.

Again, you said that animals don't destroy areas of grass, I gave you examples.

But head to head, they will still surrender to someone who is clearly going to destroy them in a fight for their own self interest. A better example would be sea lions. Most males never get a chance to mate, as the biggest ones keep a harem by brute force.

Quit watching Disney and actually go out and watch the animals themselves.

Red grouse. Look them up.

I did, they're the British version of the Ptarmigan. I found nothing that said they will starve to death because someone is mean to them. Grouse just don't work that way. Not unless they're all crammed in a little box with one feeder. Except that wouldn't really work because Grouse don't do well in domestication.

Most characteristics of people are partially genetic, and partially due to environment. For example, some people have a predisposition to being overweight, but obviously, how much they eat will control it in the end. As people show differences in their emotions between different situations, especially between different cultures, there is obviously a lot of environmental impact in the development of emotions. However, there is also a lot of overlap in broader areas of emotions, so there appears to be some genetic basis for emotions.

So it's genetic, but it's not. Fine, I guess that just allows you to argue whatever you think is right at that moment.

Quite frankly, I really don't know, and am just giving possibilities. Ask a neurologist if you actually care.

Why? He'd tell me that he didn't know either. I actually have read numerous science books in my lifetime, the one thing I've always noticed is the more I read, the more I realize they really have no idea what they're talking about.

It will likely have been developed for other situations. For example, hearing wolf calling somewhere in a mile area allows you to analyse the situation and try and respond without giving yourself away. There are other reflexes to make people be able to fun faster for longer in situations like that (adrenaline triggers a lot of them), so in situations like that, other reflexes should come into play as soon as you register the situation. However, running at every little noise is not a good first reflex.

Wolves don't howl when they're hunting, that would be rather stupid on their part. To be honest looking at the human being, if it wasn't for God, there's no way we could of survived as a species. We have no claws, no teeth, no shell, we don't procreate at large numbers like rodents and we're slow. If evolution was true, we would of never made it off the Savannah.

[Malaysia_Christian]

Re: Questions that evolutionist can’t answer

Seth,

If he wants to show us proof, he should provide a link instead of telling us to look it up.

Don't fall for his "shifting the burden" trick.