|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
Thread ▼ Details |
|
|
Author | Topic: Why are there no human apes alive today? | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
traste Member (Idle past 5171 days) Posts: 173 Joined: |
Dr Adequate wrote:
He is writing what the Moonies are saying. There's a difference Are,the moonies all biologist? How in your opinion, can someone without solid credentials in biolgy can cause so much trouble?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Huntard Member (Idle past 2324 days) Posts: 2870 From: Limburg, The Netherlands Joined:
|
traste writes:
Yes, let's assert all around. You studied biology and therefore know that wells is telling the truth? I'd like some evidence for that claim.
No,he is telling the truth. If I were the one you task, I will not because you will simply said they are lying.
So, there aren't any. Lying is frowned upon, you know. Or, if you're not lying, provide the names of the many biologists who disagree. I'm hardly in a position to deny a list of say...10.000 biologists who agree with Wells (yes, that would constitute many. Not 100, not 200, not 500. Do you have any idea how many biologists there are, anyway?) I hunt for the truth I am the one OrgasmatronThe outstretched grasping hand My image is of agony My servants rape the land Obsequious and arrogant Clandestine and vain Two thousand years of misery Of torture in my name Hypocrisy made paramount Paranoia the law My name is called religion Sadistic, sacred whore. -Lyrics by Lemmy Kilmister of Motorhead
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
traste Member (Idle past 5171 days) Posts: 173 Joined: |
DrJones writes:
Advanced is relative, this was pointed out to you with the whale example up thread Would you mine stating those relativity factors? If so advancement is not universal. So, how does an organism survived in this instance,while it cannot surived in the next instance?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
DrJones* Member Posts: 2290 From: Edmonton, Alberta, Canada Joined: Member Rating: 6.9
|
Would you mine stating those relativity factors?
I stated 2 of them, enviroment and other species.
So, how does an organism survived in this instance,while it cannot surived in the next instance?
you mind rewriting this to make sense? It's not enough to bash in heads, you've got to bash in minds soon I discovered that this rock thing was true Jerry Lee Lewis was the devil Jesus was an architect previous to his career as a prophet All of a sudden i found myself in love with the world And so there was only one thing I could do Was ding a ding dang my dang along ling long - Jesus Built my Hotrod Ministry Live every week like it's Shark Week! - Tracey Jordan Just a monkey in a long line of kings. - Matthew Good If "elitist" just means "not the dumbest motherfucker in the room", I'll be an elitist! - Get Your War On *not an actual doctor
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Dr Adequate Member (Idle past 313 days) Posts: 16113 Joined:
|
Are,the moonies all biologist? No. Indeed, part of their faith involves rejecting the most fundamental truths of biology.
How in your opinion, can someone without solid credentials in biolgy can cause so much trouble? You don't need solid credentials in a subject to be wrong about it. "Father" Sun Myung Moon may know bugger-all about biology, but he can still persuade his followers to talk nonsense about it --- after all, he's got them convinced that he's the Second Coming of Jesus, and, as the actual Jesus said, who swallows a camel and strains at a gnat? --- My point, in case you missed it, was that one can hardly cite Wells as representative of a shift in biological thought. He first became a cult member, then, because the cult leader ordered him to, he got a PhD in biology the better to serve the propagandizing mission of the cult.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
traste Member (Idle past 5171 days) Posts: 173 Joined: |
Huntard writes:
Yes, let's assert all around. You studied biology and therefore know that wells is telling the truth? I'd like some evidence for that claim. Yeah I know some biology, like for example the DNA, folding the folding is very precise because if not it cease to function properly. He is telling the truth on the ground that he implied, there is no way for blind material to bring up those precision, those precision according to our common sense was design.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Huntard Member (Idle past 2324 days) Posts: 2870 From: Limburg, The Netherlands Joined:
|
traste writes:
I asked if you had studied it. That doesn't mean you know some biology. That means you have spent several years really studying the subject. Your other comments here make me think that was not the case.
Yeah I know some biology like for example the DNA, folding the folding is very precise because if not it cease to function properly.
I appreciate English is not your first language, but what are you talking about here?
He is telling the truth on the ground that he implied, there is no way for blind material to bring up those precision
There is no way for simple water molecules to ever form a nice ordered and precise snowflake, it's just blind material. God must make every little snowflake himself.
those precision according to our common sense was design.
"Common sense" eh? So, the literal hundreds of thousands of studies into the subject are wrong, yet your "common sense" has cleared the matter in mere minutes. I'm sorry if I don't nominate you for the nobel price yet. I hunt for the truth I am the one Orgasmatron, the outstretched grasping handMy image is of agony, ,y servants rape the land Obsequious and arrogant, clandestine and vain Two thousand years of misery, of torture in my name Hypocrisy made paramount, paranoia the law My name is called religion, sadistic, sacred whore. -Lyrics by Lemmy Kilmister of Motorhead
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Dr Adequate Member (Idle past 313 days) Posts: 16113 Joined:
|
That is 100%, that is the real reason why we cannot see intermidiate forms today. Intermediate forms are abundant in the fossil record.
Even honest paleontologist noticed the sudden apperance of organism. Honest paleontologists think that creationism is crap.
Just give me an example of a dog with out an eye and then gradually have it through blind naturalistic process. I presume you intended that sentence to be written in the English language. But your meaning is somewhat obscure. Edited by Dr Adequate, : No reason given.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
traste Member (Idle past 5171 days) Posts: 173 Joined: |
Dr Adequate writes:
No. Indeed, part of their faith involves rejecting the most fundamental truths of biology Therefore they dont believe that dogs are animals? Or you mean something about that rejecting "the most fundamental truhts in biology". Maybe you mean rejecting the most fundamental truth of evolution?
You don't need solid credentials in a subject to be wrong about it. "Father" Sun Myung Moon may know bugger-all about biology, but he can still persuade his followers to talk nonsense about it --- after all, he's got them convinced that he's the Second Coming of Jesus, and, as the actual Jesus said, who swallows a camel and strains at a gnat? Let's dont talk about his status, in fact I dont agree much of his religious beliefs.,Evaluating the status of someone is no help to refute his argument. Have you ever think about that?
My point, in case you missed it, was that one can hardly cite Wells as representative of a shift in biological thought. He first became a cult member, then, because the cult leader ordered him to, he got a PhD in biology the better to serve the propagandizing mission of the cult. In this regards the National Academy Of Science , very wrong for appointing him as a fellow.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Dr Adequate Member (Idle past 313 days) Posts: 16113 Joined:
|
Evaluating the status of someone is no help to refute his argument. It is very relevant when the pertinence of your argument hinges on his status. You wrote:
biologist Jonathan Wells writes: At the level of kingdoms, phyla, and classes, descent with modification from common ancestors is obviously not an observed fact. To judge from the fossil and molecular evidence, it’s not even a well-supported theory. many within the field are seeing it for themselves. Obviously Wells' words would have been of no particular interest if he was, for example, a professional pastry chef. Your whole point was: "Look, look, here's someone with status who's saying what I want to hear". The entire relevance of the quotation rested on his status. Therefore, it is worthwhile examining his status. The fact that he has a PhD in biology does, in fact, make his words more relevant than those of a pastry chef. But the fact that he only got his PhD because his cult leader ordered him to get it so that he could more effectively propagandize against evolution somewhat undercuts that: for his views on evolution do not result from any biological research, but from joining a cult in which the cult leader and self-proclaimed Messiah told him what his views ought to be.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Dr Adequate Member (Idle past 313 days) Posts: 16113 Joined:
|
In this regards the National Academy Of Science , very wrong for appointing him as a fellow. Oh look, you're talking about his status again. Do you have any sources for this claim? Only it doesn't mention this in Wells's Wikipedia biography; the NAS does not have "fellows", it has "members"; and although membership, once elected, is for life, I can't find his name using the search engine provided by the NAS to search their list of members. Also, they only elect scientists with considerable scientific achievements under their belts.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Percy Member Posts: 22503 From: New Hampshire Joined: Member Rating: 4.9
|
Hi Traste,
First, I have a request. When you resume posting to a thread, please don't post eight responses to eight different messages. No thread should be spread out across so many subtopics that it can support eight different conversations. The main topic in this thread is the classification of humans as one species of Hominidae, or more informally, apes.
traste writes: Those statements, are saying that the evidences are inconflict with there evolutioanary beliefs. No, they're not. They're using the literary device of first posing a conundrum for which they then provide a solution, except that:
Yes, but they are posting negative comments. No, they're not posting negative comments. They're not posting anything at all. Creationist websites posted those comments, and they posted only a portion of what was said in order to give the false appearance that they both believe the evidence is not in concert with the theory.
If he is an advocate of punctuated equilibrium,he cannot be an advacate of gradualism. Uh, yes, that's what he was getting at, that he's not an advocate of gradualism. That's okay, I understand English isn't your first language. The main point to take from this is that punctuated equilibrium, the view accepted by Stanley and Eldredge, is compatible with evolution. Where they differ with advocates of gradualism is on the tempo and pace of evolution, not on whether it happened. Look at this by way of example. Say scientists believed that toadstools could only grow gradually, and that one day a scientist came along who claimed that toadstools could spring up overnight. How much sense would it make to take this disagreement over the tempo and pace of toadstool growth to argue that it means this scientist believes the evidence is inconsistent with the existence of toadstools? You're basically arguing the same thing, that a disagreement over the tempo and pace of evolution means the evidence is in conflict with evolution. Returning to the topic, we're talking about a classification system, not story telling. Humans are in the same grouping as chimps and gorillas when it comes to Animalia. Do you have a problem with calling humans animals, along with chimps and gorillas? And we're all in the same grouping when it comes to Chordata (vertebrates). Do you have a problem with calling humans vertebrates, along with chimps and gorillas. And we're all in the same grouping when it comes to Mammalia (mammals). Do you have a problem with calling humans mammals, along with chimps and gorillas? And we're all in the same grouping when it comes to Primates. Do you have a problem with calling humans Primates, along with chimps and gorillas? And we're all in the same grouping when it comes to Hominidae. Do you have a problem with calling humans Hominidae, along with chimps and gorillas? The informal name for Hominidae is apes. --Percy
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Coragyps Member (Idle past 763 days) Posts: 5553 From: Snyder, Texas, USA Joined:
|
In this regards the National Academy Of Science , very wrong for appointing him as a fellow. OT anecdote: at the Texas Board of Education hearings on biology textbooks in 2003, one of the anti-science board members referred to the creationist/ID luminary William Dembski's credentials: "He's a member of the American Association for the Advancement of Science!" The fifty or so of us there who had also paid our $129 for a year's subscription to Science and a membership in AAAS got a giggle out of that. Wells ain't an NAS member.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Granny Magda Member Posts: 2462 From: UK Joined: Member Rating: 3.8
|
Traste, there is no need to be rude.
Im, very much afaid I cannot for the simple reason that if I present those source you just simply said they are lying, Idont like to waste my effort. You seem to be accusing me of a dishonest response before I have even responded. That is extremely poor form. The fact remains that evolution is not defined by "advancement".
Different in what sense? Different in that they display morphological and genetic differences from their parents and other ancestors.
Yeah, I know that they are much more complex and more advanced in the same time, like the many machine we observe today, the complex one is more advanced than the other. Wrong. Imagine that I have a wheelbarrow. Now imagine that I make it more complex, by adding some gears, levers, flashing lights, pulleys, pistons, and a little machine that goes *ping!*. Is my wheelbarrow more advanced? It isn't going to be any better at moving soil around my garden. In fact, it is going to be worse, since it's bogged down with useless gadgetry. It has been made more complex, but not more advanced in any meaningful sense. Advancement is a human conceit. To advance, there must a clear line from worse to better. These are purely subjective judgements. You may think that a human is a big improvement on a jellyfish and I would be inclined to agree with you insofar as it goes. Nature however has no such opinions. Nature does not differentiate between good and bad, advanced or primitive. All that matters in nature is whether an organism can survive long enough to reproduce or not. That's it, the bottom line.
Your faith in evolution is showing..Hasty generalization. Three winking smilies? Are you having some kind of seizure? Nothing else you have to say seems relevant to me, so I think I'll leave it there. The take-home message is that evolution is not dependant on any human notion of advancement. Mutate and Survive "A curious aspect of the theory of evolution is that everybody thinks he understands it." - Jacques Monod
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
traste Member (Idle past 5171 days) Posts: 173 Joined: |
Huntard wrote:
Because those apes were adapted to their (ever changing) environment, yet those apemen weren't. It's really that simple The question remains. What made the better adapted? the obvious answer is because they are more complex. So, it follows that the more complex the more itis better adapted. So bacause apemen is more complex, the question is: Why there are no apemen alive today?
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024