Hellbender

I think you are forgetting one important fact; the so called "primitive apes" a group which we are a part of have no tails. Its one of the easiest way to descern us from monkeys. Take it back and wonder why proconsul had no tail.

oh wait a minute those numbered items were the original post started by "reverse" I think. Those aren't claims I am making at all, I thought some were erroneous too, especially the worm one. Read the original post of this thread (they should be there) Sorry for the confusion.

oops allow me to make a quick correction. I figure I am already in the whole, not two hours into being a member of this site for my underlining errr typo. But then again neither can plants, which are reliant on the sun for food. I meant plants can make their own food, but for the sake of argument, they cannot make food without the sun, making them dependant on something as well.

oh ok well I base my opinions on current evolutionary knowledge and findings. I didn't see anyone else giving sources, so I didn't think I had to. To tell you the truth I read so much about it that it would be impossible and a silly waste of time to provide all my sources. Please explain what is self evidently wrong with my discussion. I noticed the topics in the original post were kind of open to semantic discussions and I personally hate that. On #1 I always have a problem expressing what I think about that cohesively, I guess I am a little scatterbrained. And tired. BTW don't you think it would be simpler if you just could click the "U", type what you want underlined and have the underline show right there and then click it again to make it stop underlining (as in Microsoft word) instead of bothering with the funny little symbols next to the word? Just becasue this is a science site it doesn't mean you can't keep it simple.

hmm thanks for the link sayo. yeah I wanted to talk about archeopteryx too. Might spring up some juicey evo vs. creat debates.

wow thanks for the quick reply. All fossils are transitional, but I think the purpose of the term in the context didn't go unnoticed. I meant transition between 2 clades of animals. I find discussion on this topic very interesting. "Well, that was fun. it sure was wasn't it?

Huh? Basing what on? I didn't realize I had to base my opinions and factual knowledge on anything. I thought the purpose was to provide my opinion on the statements. I didn't mean to mess up the underlining, I am new here and I apologize for that mistake. Looks pretty crappy huh?

I am starting this thread merely becasue I want to discuss the role of transitional fossils and their role in the science of evolution. Prominent examples include ichthyostega, archeopteryx, amphioxous, ambulocetus, australopithecus, etc. Thanks a llot

Movies change trends the way Michael Jackson changes skin color. With all the good possible superhero movie franchises taken (Read:Spider-Man, X-Men, not Daredevil, Elektra, Cat-woman etc.) They are looking towards video games for the basis of new action movies. Many of the games I know and love are being turned into movies that only inckude a stick-figure of the original plot plus a few names. I liked Resident Evil, even though I like the games much more, even though there were no characters from the game, just clever references to it. "Alone in the Dark" will be up next, and I have a sneaking suspicion that, even though I like those games too, it will be crappy. If they want to make a good movie based on a Ps2 survival horror game I say go with "Silent Hill". Anyone who has played any one of those games would agree that a movie based on that franchise would practically direct and write itself. Anyways whats my point umm oh yeah I have never played Doom3, even though I have been waiting for it to come out for like 11 years. id should have never shifted their efforts to the Quake series. I am sure the flavor of the game hasn't changed, and by the description of the movie I find leaving out all those things to be stupid. But remember it isn't gamers who are making this movie, its filmmakers who aren't concerned with the opinion or thoughts of the remaining Doom fans, just making the movie seem appealling as possible to their particular demographic. All about money.

sorry, I owuld like to help, by my realm of knowledge is more evolution, biopsychology, and zoology than general biology anymore. I think thats bad. Hmmm. I think cells produce RNA, so in theory there is an endless supply, within reason.

RNA. The DNA is just a single "blueprint" for the RNA to copy.

Good point. As a matter of convenience I feel it is certainly easier to pigeonhole a plethora or behaviors and actions into one personified entity. This, and the fact that religion is a potent form of social control is what make belief in the supernatural so ubiquitous in human societies.

I was bullied a lot in my younger years, but I only recently let go of my anger towards those older guys and realized "I am bigger than they are now, I can beat them up", but I also looked at the nature of bullies objectively. Bullies are insecure people. Insecure, maybe a little afraid, but mostly insecure. The need to feel dominant or superior to anyone motivates them. Bullys are commonly associated with younger kids like Nelson Muntz clones, but I think some people never grow out of bullying. I have seen grown men on many occasions act like a-holes, maybe in more sublt ways, but the motivation is the same.

Loneliness hmmm... I personally value alone time but I never push people away (unless I don't like them). I like my friends, my girlfriend, family etc., but I am alone as I write this and feel fine. Being alone gives my brain time to think. I like to think most of my character and who I am today in formed from hours deep in solitary thought. Some people tend to push people away as a defense mechanism. The best way to avoid being eaten by a shark is to never swim in the ocean, so to speak.

I feel that someties when advice is given, there is an air of superiority saying "Ha! my idea is better!" I hate getting advice becasue I find that 9 out of 10 times is it condescending. No one wants to hear, even with the best intentions in mind "you need to lose weight" or "you must find Jesus in your life". It makes you feel like you aren;t doing something right.

IQ tests have something to them, but they can be lacking. I have a serious learning handicap with mathematics or math related topics. My average grade in school was 75-95. But I do not consider myself "stupid in any way". I took an IQ test, and because there were a lot of math questions I don't feel I got the grade I deserve. I think they just need to measure some different things. I am by no means stupid, I am just very poor at math. They have calculators anyway for that junk. Humans are a very diverse animal and your background, upbringing, education quality and to an extent genetics differs with everyone. An inner-city kid with a poor education, bad upbringing etc. is not going to do as good as someone who grew up in the rich suburbs and got to take advantage of an good education and a much more nurturing environment. This does not meant the unfortunate inner-city kid is "stupid" by any means, it just means she/he hasn't had the same benefits as another person. I do think, however, that IQ tests give good "ballpark" statistics on intelligence.

Are dogs smarter than humans? Intelligence is all relative. Dogs are smarter than us about a lot of things, but they are things that our species (in the state of simply not being a dog and under entirely different selective pressures) can't measure or don't consider a sign of human intelligence. Dogs evolved to be a lot of things, and the main thing is being a pet for humans, as well as the standard traits inherited from their "smarter" wolf ancestors. But I love dogs just the way the are, anthropomorphic congnitive abilities or none.

My opinions/knowledge on the following.. 1 : Creatures evolve to greater complexity The statement is the fuel for the thinking that evolution is nothing more than a straight line towards more and more complex animals. It seems this way because simply traits are built on other traits and so on and so on. Its like a upside-down pyramid. Living things estabilish more and more traits coded in their genes, making the more recent group appear as if they are the pinnacle, and in a sense they are, but not for the traditional reaons. [/u]2 : A human being is a collection of smaller life forms. I need clarification for this statement. Humans, like members of any relatively recent group of animals have an very long family tree. In a needlessly figurative sense, all of these animals have some trait or traits that one of their direct ancestors had/have. BUt I didn't understand the question, so I may be a little off topic here. 3 : unused structures remain latent within the genetic coding and may be re-expressed at a later date. This is an odd statement. What later date are we talking here? I am a literalist to the very core, because assumption is a very dangerous thing. Do you mean to say that if I needed scales or gills (which at least one of my ancestors had), I could concentrate and grow a couple of gill slits and cover my body with cycloid scales? If that is it I would say lay off the old Spider-Man comics. All joking aside, I think you meant that ancestral traits such as the ones above will be expressed at some point (or this "later date") in the form of a mutation. While I have never seen much to verify this, it is certainly concievable. 4 : people are highly specialised worms - with fancy sensors and limbs and other energy storage and distribution systems tacked on. Why not take this further and say that humans are merely self-replication molecules with fancy stuff added on. Again, in a needlessly figurative sense this is true. 5 : In that primeval pond at the dawn of time we looked fairly similar to the microscopic viruses that are now competing for life with us. Using the word "we" denoted the fact that we identify ourselves as the ape Homo sapiens. Considering the fact that our species wasn't aound at the dawn of time, I can assure that this wasn't so. If you mean our ancestors looked scarcely different, then I would agree with this statement. 6 : It is the most foolish thing to think of a person as an individual organism because we can not synthesize sunlight directly, therefore are at best symbiotic. These are all philosophical questions, but I will try my best. Depending on how you define symbiotic this statement is either correct of false. Animals, fungi and protists are all dependant on some source of food;we cannot make our own food. But then again neither can plants, which are reliant on the sun for food. Every living thing is dependant on something for the raw materials required to carry out life's functions.

my name is Hellbender, I am new as well