as we enter the age of never going back or being able to for that matter. we start to see a new day that separates reality from desire. desire is everything we think we can achieve and reality is everything we can achieve. if these are not your definitions of these words. i do not care. when speaking freely someone usually says something that guiltys themselves in some way. but as we now break the folkways of society and pursue the goal of breaking the mores i for one realize that our brains dont need to be figured out and explored. why the need to know everything. i head the day where every being sits on the natural ground and breathes natural air and closes there eyes. just to think maybe we are here for something unbenounced to us. maybe somethings cant be explained. maybe science isnt real. because it isnt. this isnt pro religion this is pro think. pro realize. pro love. pro-fane. yes very profane. and as now we enter a time where learning is profane and to understand is to speculate and speculation is based on folk tales. we need to realize there are no laws. there is nothing. everything we know is nothing. what lies beyond the visible universe is nothing. because we dont know anything. our young naive closed minded species knows nothing but theory and grabs onto these jokes as if we understand what cant be understood. i dont preach. "you" the bloodshed christian who takes his faith to death. you are wrong. not in your beliefs but in your heart. you have not thought what if. what if will drive us into the future and keep our young naive closed minded species alive. "you" the bloodshed evolutionist who would share a coffin with darwin. darwin the magician for that fact. illusion was his theory. you are wrong. not in your believes but in your thoughts. because you have said what if but you have stopped and when we stop we die and when we die we realize. i applaud you but you cannot share. sharing the what if will drive us into the future and keep our young naive closed minded species alive.
I believe "We" will be referring to the only non-extinct variations of hominids known as "Homo Sapiens" (humans)
Contention 1- Why are we here?
Because if humans weren't around, there would be no one to ask."What is the meaning of life?"
There are human's on Earth because of a semantic identification of ourselves as humans and this planet as Earth. Silicon based fluorine breathers on a planet circling Sirius could ask a very similar question about themselves. The answers for both questioners would be the same: We evolved here, we are suited for the conditions here (not the other way around)
We serve no higher purpose than to exist.
Contention 2- How are we here?
Again by "We" I assume you are referring to the only non-extinct variation of hominids known as "Homo Sapiens"
According to genetic studies, primates diverged from other mammals about 85 million years ago in the Late Cretaceous period, and the earliest fossils appear in thePaleocene, around 55 million years ago. The family Hominidae diverged from the Hylobatidae (Gibbon) family 15-20 million years ago, and around 14 million years ago, the Ponginae (orangutans), diverged from the Hominidae family. Bipedalism is the basic adaption of the Hominin line, and the earliest bipedal Hominin is considered to be either Sahelanthropus or Orrorin, with Ardipithecus, a full bipedal, coming somewhat later. The gorilla and chimpanzee diverged around the same time, about 4-6 million years ago, and either Sahelanthropus or Orrorin may be our last shared ancestor with them. The early bipedals eventually evolved into the Australopithecines and later the genus Homo.
The earliest documented members of the genus Homo are Homo habilis which evolved around 2.3 million years ago. Homo habilis is the first species for which we have positive evidence of use of stone tools. The brains of these early homininas were about the same size as that of a chimpanzee. During the next million years a process of encephalizationbegan, and with the arrival of Homo erectus in the fossil record, cranial capacity had doubled to 850cc. Homo erectus and Homo ergaster were the first of the hominina to leave Africa, and these species spread through Africa, Asia, and Europe between 1.3 to 1.8 million years ago. It is believed that these species were the first to use fire and complex tools. According to the Recent African Ancestry theory, modern humans evolved in Africa possibly from Homo heidelbergensis and migrated out of the continent some 50,000 to 100,000 years ago, replacing local populations of Homo erectus and Homo neanderthalensis.
Archaic Homo sapiens, the forerunner of anatomically modern humans, evolved between 400,000 and 250,000 years ago. Recent DNA evidence suggests that several haplotypes of Neanderthal origin are present among all non-African populations, and Neanderthals and other hominids, such as Denisova hominin may have contributed up to 6% of their genome to present-day humans. Anatomically modern humans evolved from archaic Homo sapiens in the Middle Paleolithic, about 200,000 years ago. The transition to behavioral modernity with the development of symbolic culture, language, and specialized lithic technology happened around 50,000 years ago according to many anthropologists although some suggest a gradual change in behavior over a longer time span.
In conclusion, I have fully answered a) Why we are here b) How we got here.
Good luck with your rebuttals.
First of all, the lack of a case for evolution is clear from the fact that no one has ever seen it happen. If it were a real process, evolution should still be occurring, and there should be many "transitional" forms that we could observe. What we see instead, of course, is an array of distinct "kinds" of plants and animals with many varieties within each kind, but with very clear and -- apparently -- unbridgeable gaps between the kinds. That is, for example, there are many varieties of dogs and many varieties of cats, but no "dats" or "cogs." Such variation is often called microevolution, and these minor horizontal (or downward) changes occur fairly often, but such changes are not true "vertical" evolution.
Evolutionary geneticists have often experimented on fruit flies and other rapidly reproducing species to induce mutational changes hoping they would lead to new and better species, but these have all failed to accomplish their goal. No truly new species has ever been produced, let alone a new "basic kind."
A current leading evolutionist, Jeffrey Schwartz, professor of anthropology at the University of Pittsburgh, has recently acknowledged that:
. . . it was and still is the case that, with the exception of Dobzhansky's claim about a new species of fruit fly, the formation of a new species, by any mechanism, has never been observed.1
2: Everything is nothing.
I dont think you understand that everything around us that we know is nothing.
Contention 1 Rebuttals-
Evolution: Human Beings Still Changing, Says Study- A new study suggests that humans aren't exempt from evolutionary pressures. Despite using culture and technology as ways of adapting to new environments, humans, like all other living things on Earth, undergo genetic changes as a response to conditions around them -- or in this case, favorable traits in their genes. In other words, we're all still evolving. Most discussion about our evolutionary history focuses on macroevolution, or changes occurring over long periods of time, including why our teeth are smaller when compared with our ancestors' and how our species may have interacted with Neanderthals. Instead, the study's authors provide an example of microevolution, or changes tracked in a few generations. The team, led by Canadian researchers, studied the small island town of Ile aux Coudres, located in the Gulf of Saint Lawrence in Quebec. Researchers looked at church records from 1799 to 1940, which provided detailed accounts of marriages, births and deaths. Because the vast majority of families have remained on the island with few newcomers arriving, it was possible to build extensive family trees from the demographic data. The team studied the age at which women are capable of giving birth, a trait that's heritable between generations. They found that the average age at which women on the island had their first child fell from 26 years to 22 years of age over the time period. But what makes the finding unique -- an example of microevolution -- is the relationship between younger childbirth and family trees. The trend closely follows genetic ties, and it increased over time, suggesting the trait was passed down and favored by natural selection. But how can scientists rule out social and cultural factors that affect when a woman first gives birth? Since the small island has a rather egalitarian history, social standing has been less of an issue. In addition, if cultural factors and better nutrition caused the spike in younger mothers, it would be traceable through all women suddenly, not through family lineages over time. Natural selection, as suggested by a researcher not involved in the study, may have even acted on a group of genes, not just one gene, responsible for sexual maturity, according to a New York Times article. Culture still matters, though, and one Wired blog post points out that social conditions still allowed for natural selection to occur, meaning conditions were favorable for it to happen.
Humans are still evolving - and it's happening faster than ever- Humans are evolving more quickly than at any time in history, researchers say. In the past 5,000 years, humans have evolved up to 100 times more quickly than any time since the split with the ancestors of modern chimpanzees 6m years ago, a team from the University of Wisconsin found. The study also suggests that human races in different parts of the world are becoming more genetically distinct, although this is likely to reverse in future as populations become more mixed. "The widespread assumption that human evolution has slowed down because it's easier to live and we've conquered nature is absolutely not true. We didn't conquer nature, we changed it in ways that created new selection pressures on us," said anthropologist Dr John Hawks, who led the study. The researchers analysed data from the international haplotype map of the human genome, and analysed genetic markers in 270 people from four groups: Han Chinese, Japanese, Africa's Yoruba and northern Europeans. They found that at least 7% of human genes have undergone recent evolution. The changes include lighter skin and blue eyes in northern Europe and partial resistance to diseases such as malaria among some African populations, according to the study in Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences. Some of the changes were tracked back to just 5,000 years ago, and "today they are in 30 or 40% of people because they [are] such an advantage," said Hawks. Many Chinese and African adults cannot digest lactose in milk, but across Europe a lactose-tolerance gene is now widespread. One reason is thought to be that at northern latitudes sunlight is weaker, so people make less vitamin D in their skin. Vitamin D is crucial for absorbing calcium, so being able to digest milk throughout life made people in colder climes healthier. The surge in global population had also led to faster evolution since more mutations occur, the researchers said. They believe that in future, the tendency to start families later in life will drive evolution. "People are having problems with infertility, so any kind of genetic variation that increases the success of later fertility will be selected for," said Hawks.
Changing Regions of Genome Suggest Evolution is Still Occurring in Humans- Providing the strongest evidence yet that human beings are still evolving, researchers have detected some 700 regions of the human genome where genes appear to have been reshaped by natural selection, a principal force of evolution, within the last 5,000 to 15,000 years. The genes that show this evolutionary change include some responsible for the senses of taste and smell, digestion, bone structure, skin color and brain function. Many of these instances of selection may reflect the pressures that came to bear as people abandoned hunting and gathering for settlements and agriculture, a transition well under way in Europe and East Asia some 5,000 years ago. Under natural selection, beneficial genes become more common in a population as their owners have more progeny. Three populations were studied, Africans, East Asians and Europeans. In each, a mostly different set of genes had been favored by natural selection. The selected genes, which affect skin color, hair texture and bone structure, may underlie the present-day differences in racial appearance. The study of selected genes may help physical anthropologists explain why people over the world have a such a variety of distinctive appearances, even though their genes are on the whole very similar, said Spencer Wells, director of the Genographic project of the National Geographic Society. The finding adds substantially to the evidence that human evolution did not grind to a halt in the distant past, as is tacitly assumed by many social scientists. Even evolutionary psychologists, who interpret human behavior in terms of what the brain evolved to do, hold that the work of natural selection in shaping the human mind was completed in the pre-agricultural past, more than 10,000 years ago. “There is ample evidence that selection has been a major driving point in our evolution during the last 10,000 years, and there is no reason to suppose that it has stopped,” said Jonathan Pritchard, a population geneticist at the University of Chicago who headed the study. He and his colleagues, Benjamin Voight, Sridhar Kudaravalli and Xiaoquan Wen, report their findings in Tuesday’s issue of PLoS-Biology, a peer-reviewed, open-access journal published by the Public Library of Science, a nonprofit organization. The researchers’ data is based on DNA changes in three populations gathered by the HapMap project, a venture that built on the decoding of the human genome in 2003. The data, though collected to help identify variant genes that contribute to disease, also provide evidence of evolutionary change. The fingerprints of natural selection in DNA are hard to recognize. Just a handful of recently selected genes have previously been identified, like those that confer resistance to malaria or the ability to digest lactose in adulthood, an adaptation common in northern Europeans whose ancestors thrived on cattle milk.
Contention 2 Rebuttals-