Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
0 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,806 Year: 3,063/9,624 Month: 908/1,588 Week: 91/223 Day: 2/17 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Micro v. Macro Creationist Challenge
Pressie
Member
Posts: 2103
From: Pretoria, SA
Joined: 06-18-2010


(1)
Message 61 of 252 (813971)
07-03-2017 8:35 AM
Reply to: Message 60 by mike the wiz
07-03-2017 8:20 AM


mikethe wiz writes:
Well it's always rhetorical to compare apples to oranges then say apples are the same as oranges.
The only thing we share with "flat earthers" is that we have arguments to the contrary of a popular claim.
It's a generalisation fallacy to say "you're no different from a flat earther". Did you know the members of flat-earth society are evolutionist? At least some of them are.
Of course, but all members of the flat earthers and YEC's and all creationists and evolutionists and all other people have the same thing in common. All of them. They're all carbon-based.
Edited by Pressie, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 60 by mike the wiz, posted 07-03-2017 8:20 AM mike the wiz has not replied

  
Tangle
Member
Posts: 9489
From: UK
Joined: 10-07-2011
Member Rating: 4.9


Message 62 of 252 (813975)
07-03-2017 8:46 AM
Reply to: Message 59 by mike the wiz
07-03-2017 8:06 AM


Mike writes:
The "special" claim is a term atheists love to hang on to
Actually, I'm just reporting back what I'm told by believers. The difficulty in discussing stuff with creationists is that we don't know what you believe - you all believe something different. But I'm pretty sure you all think we're 'special' and apart from other animals. If you're now claiming otherwise, then the thread ends here.
but the main point with the bible is that it says we are made in God's image, and what is God?
You, like me, have absolutely no knowledge about that.
I think it's a superficial claim to only compare anatomy or only compare genetics because that presumes that the only difference between chimps and humans are differences in those areas. Nevertheless monkeys and apes share many things that humans don't share with them anyway, we speak, have sentient personas, can think abstractly, are fully bipedal, have the software for speech, don't have dense animal hair, etc....
I understand why you would prefer to ignore the fact that we are physically very close to other apes, but it presents you with the entire problem. Because of that fact - and all the other facts that build the ToE - the evidence leads us to conclude that we are descended from an ape line. If we *were* actually different, then you'd have an argument but as we're not, you're stuck with explaining the similarities away as 'superficial'. Yet it's these very similarities that lead to the conclusion. God has played you a tricky hand hasn't he?
So you've taken Hollywood's version of religion which describes a "soul", and applied that to creationists, but informed creationists know that a living soul includes the physical miracle of life. We argue that when the living soul dies the spirit which is supernatural, remains. To say we have "found out" this spirit isn't real, well - no, you have made a statement
based on argumentum ad ignorantiam, but personally I would not expect necessarily to find direct evidence of a supernatural spirit in some natural form after death since the bible doesn't say we linger as a soul with natural residues for science testing.
Sorry Mike, you can't arm wave thousands of years worth of beliefs away just because science has now proved them wrong and you have to get cuter. We had 'scientists' attempting to physically weigh the soul only 100 years ago. People thought it was real. It's a pity for your argument, but that hope faded away too; now you're left with semantics.
It seems you are just making assertions and claims here which creationists wouldn't even agree with, which are predicated on things you only half understand. (Half might be a little generous).
Then before you open any thread, you need to start by saying what *your* particular flavour of creationism is. You do not represent creationist beliefs - no-one does, you all have personal beliefs, wheel them out as if universal and then complain that that is not what creationists believe.
It really would help if you guys could sort your act out.

Je suis Charlie. Je suis Ahmed. Je suis Juif. Je suis Parisien. I am Mancunian. I am Brum. I am London.
"Life, don't talk to me about life" - Marvin the Paranoid Android
"Science adjusts it's views based on what's observed.
Faith is the denial of observation so that Belief can be preserved."
- Tim Minchin, in his beat poem, Storm.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 59 by mike the wiz, posted 07-03-2017 8:06 AM mike the wiz has not replied

  
caffeine
Member (Idle past 1024 days)
Posts: 1800
From: Prague, Czech Republic
Joined: 10-22-2008


Message 63 of 252 (814124)
07-04-2017 3:37 PM
Reply to: Message 58 by mike the wiz
07-03-2017 7:57 AM


Humans share two main anatomical similarities with apes compared to monkeys and apes which share nine.
I've seen you say this before, but am confused. Why do you consider these 11 characters to be of so much more weight than thousands of others we could pick from? Especially since you include a fairly obscure piece of skeletal anatomy in there. This seems very odd, since if you take into account all the rest of the skeletal anatomy humans clearly group with apes. It's not until the advent of molecular biology that the idea chimps were more closely related to humans than orangutans became widely accepted; but the grouping of humans and apes to the exclusion of monkeys predates Darwin.
But as a skeletal plan, all are mammals with forward vision and a collar bone. That's about all that's shared.
Nails?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 58 by mike the wiz, posted 07-03-2017 7:57 AM mike the wiz has not replied

  
JonF
Member (Idle past 167 days)
Posts: 6174
Joined: 06-23-2003


Message 64 of 252 (814126)
07-04-2017 4:35 PM


Tits?

  
Tanypteryx
Member
Posts: 4344
From: Oregon, USA
Joined: 08-27-2006
Member Rating: 5.8


Message 65 of 252 (814127)
07-04-2017 4:37 PM


Thumbs?

What if Eleanor Roosevelt had wings? -- Monty Python
One important characteristic of a theory is that is has survived repeated attempts to falsify it. Contrary to your understanding, all available evidence confirms it. --Subbie
If evolution is shown to be false, it will be at the hands of things that are true, not made up. --percy
The reason that we have the scientific method is because common sense isn't reliable. -- Taq

  
RAZD
Member (Idle past 1404 days)
Posts: 20714
From: the other end of the sidewalk
Joined: 03-14-2004


Message 66 of 252 (814131)
07-04-2017 7:11 PM
Reply to: Message 58 by mike the wiz
07-03-2017 7:57 AM


... But as a skeletal plan, all are mammals with forward vision and a collar bone. That's about all that's shared.
With hair, backward facing retinas, single eyelids (some cats and dogs have vestigial nictating membranes) ...
But we can also count all the hand and foot bones, arm and leg bones ... can you tell me which of these bones are not in humans?
Enjoy

we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand
RebelAmerican☆Zen☯Deist
... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ...
to share.


Join the effort to solve medical problems, AIDS/HIV, Cancer and more with Team EvC! (click)

This message is a reply to:
 Message 58 by mike the wiz, posted 07-03-2017 7:57 AM mike the wiz has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 67 by Coyote, posted 07-04-2017 8:04 PM RAZD has seen this message but not replied

  
Coyote
Member (Idle past 2105 days)
Posts: 6117
Joined: 01-12-2008


(2)
Message 67 of 252 (814132)
07-04-2017 8:04 PM
Reply to: Message 66 by RAZD
07-04-2017 7:11 PM


On bones
In my first osteology class in graduate school we studied the human skeleton in minute detail. We knew every bone, we knew left from right, we knew ages, sizes, sexes, and a lot about races.
Then the teacher brought out the ape and monkey bones.
We found that we know pretty much everything about them as well, with some adjustments for dimorphism and species. But the important part--the bones were all the same as in humans!

Religious belief does not constitute scientific evidence, nor does it convey scientific knowledge.
Belief gets in the way of learning--Robert A. Heinlein
In the name of diversity, college student demands to be kept in ignorance of the culture that made diversity a value--StultisTheFool
It's not what we don't know that hurts, it's what we know that ain't so--Will Rogers
If I am entitled to something, someone else is obliged to pay--Jerry Pournelle
If a religion's teachings are true, then it should have nothing to fear from science...--dwise1
"Multiculturalism" demands that the US be tolerant of everything except its own past, culture, traditions, and identity.
Liberals claim to want to give a hearing to other views, but then are shocked and offended to discover that there are other points of view--William F. Buckley Jr.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 66 by RAZD, posted 07-04-2017 7:11 PM RAZD has seen this message but not replied

  
Taq
Member
Posts: 9970
Joined: 03-06-2009
Member Rating: 5.6


(1)
Message 68 of 252 (814246)
07-05-2017 11:19 AM
Reply to: Message 50 by mike the wiz
07-02-2017 12:46 PM


mike the wiz writes:
So then evolution claims more than to have just evolved a primate into a primate doesn't it.
In this thread we are just looking at the primate into primate claim.
So for me I would say that the burden of proof isn't upon me to prove micro evolution is an omniscient designer that can come up with the Bombardier beetle, anemone-dart eating sea slugs, Archer fish or humans. I would say the true burden of proof is upon those saying that micro evolution, given enough time, will lead to man from molecules.
That's exactly what the opening post does. From what I can see, humans and chimps evolving from a common ancestor is defined as macroevolution. Going back further in the tree is just a reiteration of the steps that got humans from that common ancestor that is shared with chimps. A difference in two mutations was produced in the same manner as a difference in twelve mutations.
For example if a bacteria becomes resistant, or a fish gets anti-freeze, or a beak is slightly tougher and larger, or a lizard's toe pad slightly differently shaped, does that mean that if we add up those changes they will lead from molecules to man? If they do, you should be able to show a sequential pattern in the micro changes.
Why? Those genomes are long gone and irretrievable.
The problem with that reasoning is that on the MACRO level there are changes that don't have to occur on the MICRO level. For example, all of a planes parts individually, can not fly on the micro level. So then does that mean we can conclude that all the parts together on the macro level, will mean a non-flying plane?
Planes and organisms are not analogous. Planes don't give birth to new planes. Planes don't self assemble, while life does. Planes don't have DNA, while life does.
For me it's reasonable to then say, "then the micro will reveal this macro change" so then show me micro changes which are changing a contraflow lung into a different design of lung, a novel anatomy!
That's not the topic of this thread.
Trying to change the subject is a tacit admission that you find the material in the opening post to be problematic for your argument.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 50 by mike the wiz, posted 07-02-2017 12:46 PM mike the wiz has not replied

  
Taq
Member
Posts: 9970
Joined: 03-06-2009
Member Rating: 5.6


(1)
Message 69 of 252 (814247)
07-05-2017 11:27 AM
Reply to: Message 52 by mike the wiz
07-03-2017 5:57 AM


mike the wiz writes:
I wasn't making a point about evolution really, I was making a point about anatomy. For example let us say we have a lung of the bellows type like in humans (rather than the contraflow avian lung), can you see that micro evolution might mean that our lungs "evolve" because of selection pressure, for a demand for a better efficiency.
That's not the topic of this thread.
For me it's tautologous that there was always going to be other species we as humans would be "closest" to anatomically.
We are talking about genetics. At the genetic level, it is not guaranteed that one species would be the closest to humans, at least at a statistically significant level. Let's say that chimps, bonobos, gorillas, and orangutans are in the same kind and evolved from a common ancestor while humans are a separate kind and descend from a separate common ancestor. What would we expect to see when we compared the human genome to that of other apes? What we should see is that humans are genetically equidistant from other ape species. Is that what we see? Nope. What we see is that chimps share more DNA with humans than they do any other ape. This is what we would expect to see if humans evolved from an ape lineage.
So all I am saying is that there is an alternative explanation. I appreciate you don't accept that explanation and are thoroughly convinced of evolution, and I appreciate that you expound that viewpoint with intelligence and clarity, and barely a fallacy in any of your arguments, generally speaking!
The problem is that your explanation is it is falsified by genetics which clearly shows that humans evolved from an ape.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 52 by mike the wiz, posted 07-03-2017 5:57 AM mike the wiz has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 75 by CRR, posted 07-09-2017 8:11 PM Taq has replied

  
Taq
Member
Posts: 9970
Joined: 03-06-2009
Member Rating: 5.6


Message 70 of 252 (814249)
07-05-2017 11:31 AM
Reply to: Message 60 by mike the wiz
07-03-2017 8:20 AM


mike the wiz writes:
Thirdly we must ask, is it tautologous that, "all evolutionary scientists accept the ToE". Well to be honest I can't really picture too many passionate creationists being evolutionary biologists, I am going to bet that most people that want to become an evolutionary biologist, are already passionate about science.
What we point to is the massive mountains of peer reviewed primary research papers supporting evolution and the tiny, paltry attempts at any type of scientific research on the part of creationists. Remember, science is an activity. Creationists aren't doing any science which is why their claims are not accepted.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 60 by mike the wiz, posted 07-03-2017 8:20 AM mike the wiz has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 71 by Coyote, posted 07-05-2017 11:38 AM Taq has not replied

  
Coyote
Member (Idle past 2105 days)
Posts: 6117
Joined: 01-12-2008


Message 71 of 252 (814250)
07-05-2017 11:38 AM
Reply to: Message 70 by Taq
07-05-2017 11:31 AM


Creationists aren't doing any science which is why their claims are not accepted.
In spite of what they often claim, creationists are anti-science.
They have to be, as science refutes so many of their claims and beliefs.

Religious belief does not constitute scientific evidence, nor does it convey scientific knowledge.
Belief gets in the way of learning--Robert A. Heinlein
In the name of diversity, college student demands to be kept in ignorance of the culture that made diversity a value--StultisTheFool
It's not what we don't know that hurts, it's what we know that ain't so--Will Rogers
If I am entitled to something, someone else is obliged to pay--Jerry Pournelle
If a religion's teachings are true, then it should have nothing to fear from science...--dwise1
"Multiculturalism" demands that the US be tolerant of everything except its own past, culture, traditions, and identity.
Liberals claim to want to give a hearing to other views, but then are shocked and offended to discover that there are other points of view--William F. Buckley Jr.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 70 by Taq, posted 07-05-2017 11:31 AM Taq has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 73 by CRR, posted 07-09-2017 7:54 PM Coyote has replied

  
CRR
Member (Idle past 2242 days)
Posts: 579
From: Australia
Joined: 10-19-2016


Message 72 of 252 (814433)
07-09-2017 7:45 PM
Reply to: Message 60 by mike the wiz
07-03-2017 8:20 AM


Did you know the members of flat-earth society are evolutionist? At least some of them are.
Well in 2011 that included their president.
The Flat Earth Society is an active organization currently led by a Virginian man named Daniel Shenton. Though Shenton believes in evolution and global warming, he and his hundreds, if not thousands, of followers worldwide also believe that the Earth is a disc that you can fall off of.
Wolchover, N., Ingenious ‘Flat Earth’ Theory Revealed In Old Map, Live Science, 23 June 2011.
Just checked, Daniel Shenton is still the president.
Edited by CRR, : reference put in italics

This message is a reply to:
 Message 60 by mike the wiz, posted 07-03-2017 8:20 AM mike the wiz has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 90 by ringo, posted 07-10-2017 12:35 PM CRR has not replied

  
CRR
Member (Idle past 2242 days)
Posts: 579
From: Australia
Joined: 10-19-2016


Message 73 of 252 (814434)
07-09-2017 7:54 PM
Reply to: Message 71 by Coyote
07-05-2017 11:38 AM


In spite of what they often claim, creationists are anti-science.
So all these people are "anti-science"?
Professor Dr Bernard Brandstater, Prof. Stuart Burgess, Professor Dr Ben Carson, Dr Raymond Damadian, Dr John Hartnett, Dr Raymond Jones, Dr Felix Konotey-Ahulu, Dr John Sanford, Dr Wally (Siang Hwa) Tow.
Creationist scientist contributions - creation.com
Not to mention all past scientists such as Faraday and Maxwell.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 71 by Coyote, posted 07-05-2017 11:38 AM Coyote has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 79 by Coyote, posted 07-09-2017 11:08 PM CRR has replied
 Message 89 by JonF, posted 07-10-2017 8:37 AM CRR has replied

  
CRR
Member (Idle past 2242 days)
Posts: 579
From: Australia
Joined: 10-19-2016


Message 74 of 252 (814435)
07-09-2017 7:59 PM
Reply to: Message 1 by Taq
05-22-2017 12:55 PM


Can any creationist give us a single reason why two microevolutionary events could not produce those two base differences?
Microevolutionary events could have produced those two base differences.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by Taq, posted 05-22-2017 12:55 PM Taq has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 95 by Taq, posted 07-10-2017 5:14 PM CRR has not replied

  
CRR
Member (Idle past 2242 days)
Posts: 579
From: Australia
Joined: 10-19-2016


Message 75 of 252 (814438)
07-09-2017 8:11 PM
Reply to: Message 69 by Taq
07-05-2017 11:27 AM


Let's say that chimps, bonobos, gorillas, and orangutans are in the same kind and evolved from a common ancestor while humans are a separate kind and descend from a separate common ancestor. What would we expect to see when we compared the human genome to that of other apes? What we should see is that humans are genetically equidistant from other ape species.
No, that's not what we should see. Even in the scenario you propose it's quite unlikely that humans are genetically equidistant from the other ape species. Starting from the initial separation the different apes should have drifted closer to or further away as they evolved within the kind.
When we compare the human genome to any two other species it is almost certain that one of those will be genetically closer to humans than the other. E.g. Human vs dog vs banana. I bet the dog is closer genetically.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 69 by Taq, posted 07-05-2017 11:27 AM Taq has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 76 by RAZD, posted 07-09-2017 8:20 PM CRR has replied
 Message 96 by Taq, posted 07-10-2017 5:18 PM CRR has not replied

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024