So I asked these questions in Biology and Zoology sections, and are not getting very many answers...?

Question

http://answers.yahoo.com/question/index?qid=20071029064252AAmEVhS&r=w

http://answers.yahoo.com/question/index;_ylt=AodKzejT9zu18G7eUGXywSnty6IX;_ylv=3?qid=20071029063215AA0gVSR

So I tried to do what all the evolutionists say the creationist should do when asking about evolution and I got crap for answers.

What do you suggest I do now? Ignore the evolutionists and continue to ask in R&S or keep wasting 5 points and get crappy answers?

Riegan- Your right, not neccessarily crappy, but not many answers. Had I more people looking at the question maybe someone would have answered why we havent lost them since walking upright.

Also remember that since asking *this* question more people could have answered the questions mentioned above.

You try to apease the masses and follow their suggestions and when the suggestions dont seem to work and you complain (if you want to call it complaining) then you get lambasted for daring to ask a evolutionary question in (aghast!) the Biology section!

Also, did I ever say that I stumped (or tried to stump or even intended to stump) the scientific community? NO! I merely put forth a question (possibly showed lack of knowledge of certain scientific elements) as a way of saying, "Hey have you considered this?" or "I was thinking and would like to know what you think..." It is the same thing that atheists do when they ask about our religions in a way to discredit them when they havent done in depth studies of our beliefs.

Thank you Aviator for recognizing the Catch-22 (did I see that on a little square or what you smart people call "books"?) and taking the time to enlighten someone who received their diploma 10 years ago and didnt care about science then (just math).

Answer 1

I ask evolution questions in biology and get a few (weak) answers... I think the poeple of Yahoo Answers conglomerate into 5 sections or so (math and dating are two biggies)

Answer 2

You bring up a good point. Most creationists are too ignorant to ask a good question in the science section. They don't get answers, because the question itself is flawed. The question points out the ignorance, and doesn't actually ask a valid question worthy of a scientific response.

So they go to the R & S section, where the scientifically literate people laugh and scoff at the question, but tell them to ask in the science section so they won't continue to look ignorant. Catch 22.

I will try and answer your questions.

Answer 3

Did you read the responses? If you aren't able to read or comprehend what is written, you aren't going to get much from this forum.

But, as an apparent follower of creationism, I suspect you aren't really here out of a genuine sense of inquiry. It's been my experience that creationists care little about science or inquiry. They care more about feeling their beliefs are right. They identify their person value with that of their beliefs, and if they feel their beliefs are challenged they respond as if they are personally attacked. Talking to creationists is largely useless. They are unable or unwilling to accept even the possibility they could be wrong they because feel that doing so would mean they are admitting they are, as people, wrong.

Unfortunately, the people who would most benefit from the objective, rational structure of scientific inquiry (the poor and uneducated) are exactly those who cannot even begin to understand it because the are unable to separate their egos from their beliefs.

These people are to be pitied.

Answer 4

>>What do you suggest I do now?

Here's an idea: instead of relying on Yahoo Answers for definitive knowledge (where anybody can answer any questions about anything, regardless of credentials or accuracy, and usually only SEE the question if they happen to log in within the same hour), how about actually making the effort to research these subjects on your own? There are these square paper things called "books".

Surely, you don't think that by getting no answers on some posts to one random internet forum, that you've somehow stumped the whole science community?

I'm sure glad my doctor didn't learn about biology from posting to Yahoo Answers, or that my car mechanic doesn't learn his trade from Wikipedia!

Answer 5

Mutations for ASPM and microcephalin both improved intellectual functioning. Mutations that created trichromatic vision in higher primates have been studied at the level of molecular genetics. there are many more. For an introduction to some of the recent advances in molecular genetics, read Sean Carroll's book on DNA.

Answer 6

how was this a crap answer?

"Firstly, there is no pre-determined point to evolution. Nobody is making decisions. The strongest most useful attributes merely survive because they make the organisms utilizing them stronger and more able to survive and pass on the genes responsible.

Secondly, our finger and toe nails are similar to claws and hooves found in other animals. More generally called “digital appendages”, they are enlarged keratinized structures that protect the tips of the fingers and toes in most vertebrate
species, or aminals with backbones.

So the answer is, they are _protective_ in function."

Answer 7

frankly I think the answers to the first question are excellent, and to the second a little technical but not too bad. And I don't see why R&S should be a complaints section for the quality of Biology?

Answer 8

One of the last major changes in the human genome has been the ability to digest cow milk.

http://www.nature.com/news/2007/070226/full/news070226-4.html

Answer 9

I suggest you ask interesting questions...that's basically the key in this forum....

Such as these:

http://answers.yahoo.com/question/index;_ylt=AjRCwzEsYw4tSLtj4vZJcAfty6IX;_ylv=3?qid=20071023150539AAuaLnc

http://answers.yahoo.com/question/index;_ylt=AuHykuQvpPIBBrDcy3FLpbrty6IX;_ylv=3?qid=20071009172932AAU1MvP

Answer 10

And of course, the logical next step is to ask in the R&S section....