Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
6 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,815 Year: 3,072/9,624 Month: 917/1,588 Week: 100/223 Day: 11/17 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   changes in modern man
Dr Adequate
Member (Idle past 284 days)
Posts: 16113
Joined: 07-20-2006


Message 16 of 69 (390886)
03-22-2007 1:30 PM
Reply to: Message 13 by MissCurious
03-22-2007 12:48 PM


I have to say we have changed sence the earlier times... I cannot possibly give you dates, and graphs without years of studying just this question, but think about it. In the beginning of time, people were really just like animals, then they began to wear clothes, eat with a fork, and "evolve". Today we drive cars, attend school, and are "domesticated". We have definitely evolved from the time of driving horse drawn wagons, to today...but be it better or worse would need another discussion.
Well, this is not necessarily the result of evolution, but rather of the accumulation of knowledge. I know more about astronomy than Galileo ever did, but this is probably not because I'm smarter than him. This seems to be confirmed by the fact that I can't paint better than Michelangelo or write better poetry than Dante; and by the fact that I have never actually discovered anything new facts in astronomy myself.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 13 by MissCurious, posted 03-22-2007 12:48 PM MissCurious has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 17 by Northern20, posted 04-19-2007 12:26 AM Dr Adequate has not replied

  
Northern20
Junior Member (Idle past 6187 days)
Posts: 5
From: Ontario, Canada
Joined: 04-19-2007


Message 17 of 69 (396183)
04-19-2007 12:26 AM
Reply to: Message 16 by Dr Adequate
03-22-2007 1:30 PM


Macro VS Micro evolution
Of course since there is no such thing of macro evolution then this leaves only micro evolution as the topic. I believe you are looking for the impossible in proving the exact answers to your question. It would all be just guess work. Newtons 2nd law of thermodynamics would be busted out if we were not created in the first place. So your question is not valid. Random mutation only degrades, and does not 'make better'. So we are less developed today than at the time of creation. Some people are shorter, some are taller, but our capacity is diminished, just due to the random degeneration of our bodies. We have more knowledge today, but if we had the Creator's original brain given us, un-touched by random change, we would be all the better for it. Our IQ would be higher.

I don't have enough faith

This message is a reply to:
 Message 16 by Dr Adequate, posted 03-22-2007 1:30 PM Dr Adequate has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 18 by crashfrog, posted 04-19-2007 12:33 AM Northern20 has replied
 Message 25 by sidelined, posted 04-19-2007 7:39 PM Northern20 has not replied

  
crashfrog
Member (Idle past 1466 days)
Posts: 19762
From: Silver Spring, MD
Joined: 03-20-2003


Message 18 of 69 (396184)
04-19-2007 12:33 AM
Reply to: Message 17 by Northern20
04-19-2007 12:26 AM


Re: Macro VS Micro evolution
Boy you just hit all the PRATT's, didn't you?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 17 by Northern20, posted 04-19-2007 12:26 AM Northern20 has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 21 by Northern20, posted 04-19-2007 6:12 PM crashfrog has not replied

  
nator
Member (Idle past 2169 days)
Posts: 12961
From: Ann Arbor
Joined: 12-09-2001


Message 19 of 69 (396220)
04-19-2007 7:52 AM


Well, there are group adaptations to deal with extremes in climate.
Link here.

Replies to this message:
 Message 20 by Northern20, posted 04-19-2007 6:11 PM nator has replied

  
Northern20
Junior Member (Idle past 6187 days)
Posts: 5
From: Ontario, Canada
Joined: 04-19-2007


Message 20 of 69 (396356)
04-19-2007 6:11 PM
Reply to: Message 19 by nator
04-19-2007 7:52 AM


So what would those adaptions be? I suppose that by 'adaptions' you do mean a micro evoultion model. Am I incorrect?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 19 by nator, posted 04-19-2007 7:52 AM nator has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 26 by nator, posted 04-19-2007 10:49 PM Northern20 has not replied

  
Northern20
Junior Member (Idle past 6187 days)
Posts: 5
From: Ontario, Canada
Joined: 04-19-2007


Message 21 of 69 (396357)
04-19-2007 6:12 PM
Reply to: Message 18 by crashfrog
04-19-2007 12:33 AM


Re: Macro VS Micro evolution
Please explain in a bit more detail.
Thanks

This message is a reply to:
 Message 18 by crashfrog, posted 04-19-2007 12:33 AM crashfrog has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 23 by NosyNed, posted 04-19-2007 6:51 PM Northern20 has replied

  
Northern20
Junior Member (Idle past 6187 days)
Posts: 5
From: Ontario, Canada
Joined: 04-19-2007


Message 22 of 69 (396361)
04-19-2007 6:32 PM
Reply to: Message 13 by MissCurious
03-22-2007 12:48 PM


changes in modern man
I think you are a bit neive. You've gotta be kidding with this explination.
Please try it again, but give it more thought first.
I'm sure you will find that you can express it better.
Blessings
N20

This message is a reply to:
 Message 13 by MissCurious, posted 03-22-2007 12:48 PM MissCurious has not replied

  
NosyNed
Member
Posts: 8996
From: Canada
Joined: 04-04-2003


Message 23 of 69 (396370)
04-19-2007 6:51 PM
Reply to: Message 21 by Northern20
04-19-2007 6:12 PM


PRATTs are...
PRATTs are "Points Refuted a Thousand Times".
You managed to cram and mangle a number in one paragraph. For fun let's break them out:
Newtons 2nd law of thermodynamics would be busted out if we were not created in the first place.
It is not Newton's law. Those laws developed over time from a number of scientists, mostly during the 19th century.
When discussing biological evolution the laws of thermodynamics do not present any problem whatever. That has been refuted so much that even the more respectable creationist organizations suggest that such arguements not be used. Just trust me on this one: don't get into thermodynamics if you aren't at least passingly familiar with the ideas.
Of course since there is no such thing of macro evolution then this leaves only micro evolution as the topic.
This one always gets in a mess because the terms are never defined very well. Macro and micro evolution are terns used in biology some of the time. By the definitions used there they both occur and can be examined.
You will have to define the terms. I suggest that you do so in:
JJ's Definition of Kind
Not that you are in a science forum. The guidelines you agreed to mean you have to back up what you say or withdraw it. Good luck.
Random mutation only degrades, and does not 'make better'. So we are less developed today than at the time of creation.
This one is utterly wrong too, of course. It is big enough that you might want to start a new thread on it. In your opening post (OP) you should show that you know what kind of mutations there are and how they can only go one way -- downhill. Again, good luck .
Three in one paragraph. It's probably not a record but it's good for a first attempt.
Another thing: Please don't clutter up threads with things that are not directly on topic. It is usually a good idea to create new threads or use the Search function to find an appropriate one. Thanks.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 21 by Northern20, posted 04-19-2007 6:12 PM Northern20 has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 24 by Northern20, posted 04-19-2007 7:06 PM NosyNed has not replied

  
Northern20
Junior Member (Idle past 6187 days)
Posts: 5
From: Ontario, Canada
Joined: 04-19-2007


Message 24 of 69 (396373)
04-19-2007 7:06 PM
Reply to: Message 23 by NosyNed
04-19-2007 6:51 PM


Re: PRATTs are...
Ok
Well taken.
New to the place and too much on the mind.
Correct, I am in error about Newton.
Blessings
N20

This message is a reply to:
 Message 23 by NosyNed, posted 04-19-2007 6:51 PM NosyNed has not replied

  
sidelined
Member (Idle past 5908 days)
Posts: 3435
From: Edmonton Alberta Canada
Joined: 08-30-2003


Message 25 of 69 (396379)
04-19-2007 7:39 PM
Reply to: Message 17 by Northern20
04-19-2007 12:26 AM


Re: Macro VS Micro evolution
Edit to remove off-topic post
Edited by Adminnemooseus, : Post off-topic thingy.
Edited by sidelined, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 17 by Northern20, posted 04-19-2007 12:26 AM Northern20 has not replied

  
nator
Member (Idle past 2169 days)
Posts: 12961
From: Ann Arbor
Joined: 12-09-2001


Message 26 of 69 (396423)
04-19-2007 10:49 PM
Reply to: Message 20 by Northern20
04-19-2007 6:11 PM


quote:
So what would those adaptions be?
Read the link, and you will learn what they are.
quote:
I suppose that by 'adaptions' you do mean a micro evoultion model. Am I incorrect?
Sure.
But there is known no mechanism that prevents populations above the species level from evolving.
So, "macro" and "micro" evolution are all just "evolution" WRT mechanisms.
This is, however, off-topic for this thread. If you would like to look for an existing thread, or propose a new one to discuss macroevolution, I'd be happy to participate.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 20 by Northern20, posted 04-19-2007 6:11 PM Northern20 has not replied

  
IamJoseph
Member (Idle past 3668 days)
Posts: 2822
Joined: 06-30-2007


Message 27 of 69 (410957)
07-18-2007 6:11 AM
Reply to: Message 1 by macaroniandcheese
12-26-2005 6:51 PM


quote:
give me population details. heights, weights, brain size, intellectual capabilities. whatever.
From all investigations, modern humans have no history prior to 6000 years. All stats, including pops and mental prowess aligns with this. In fact there is no 'history' per se before 6000. If modern man has any definition, its not limited to skeletal and biological imprints, which is common to all life: can anyone offer a 'NAME' of a modern man pre-6000?
The oft excuse there was no writings is inadequate: there was no writings in many areas till recently, yet they have a strong recall - so if modern man existed pre-6000, and did anything modern man represents - its evidence would have to come from outside the theoretical and academic: I asked for a NAME - but even a nation, a war or a pyramid type structure would suffice. You've the whole planet and all of ego-history at your disposal. By an equity, we should have MILLIONS of such examples, and all in a non-disputable mode.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by macaroniandcheese, posted 12-26-2005 6:51 PM macaroniandcheese has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 28 by macaroniandcheese, posted 07-18-2007 9:39 AM IamJoseph has not replied

  
macaroniandcheese 
Suspended Member (Idle past 3927 days)
Posts: 4258
Joined: 05-24-2004


Message 28 of 69 (410975)
07-18-2007 9:39 AM
Reply to: Message 27 by IamJoseph
07-18-2007 6:11 AM


From all investigations, modern humans have no history prior to 6000 years.
i suppose that depends on your definition of modern man.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 27 by IamJoseph, posted 07-18-2007 6:11 AM IamJoseph has not replied

  
Refpunk
Member (Idle past 6052 days)
Posts: 60
Joined: 08-17-2007


Message 29 of 69 (418955)
08-31-2007 10:06 AM
Reply to: Message 1 by macaroniandcheese
12-26-2005 6:51 PM


Well. let's see. to date, all humans still have:
1) 2 eyes, 2 ears, a nose, a mouth, walk on 2 legs, have 2 arms, have creamy flesh with varying degress of hair, have either blue, brown or green eyes, a heart lungs, teeth, intestines, a liver, stomach, a respiratory endocrine, nervous, circulatory and reproduvtice systems, we sill only breed humans, we have the ability to speak, form complex analyses, rule over the animals and on and on and on.
No human has yet:
1) developed wings
2) Dropped an arm or a leg to change the species
3) Turned into another animal
4) Turned into a species superior to humans.
But humans have; gotten more delusional in claiming that animals can change into humans, gotten more greedy, arrogant, and confused about history in the past several decades which proves that we are in a state of decay rather than evolving into a superior species.
And lastly, for evolutionists: what superior species would humans be evolving into according to them? Gods?
Edited by Refpunk, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by macaroniandcheese, posted 12-26-2005 6:51 PM macaroniandcheese has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 30 by Chiroptera, posted 08-31-2007 10:10 AM Refpunk has replied
 Message 31 by macaroniandcheese, posted 08-31-2007 10:12 AM Refpunk has not replied

  
Chiroptera
Inactive Member


Message 30 of 69 (418958)
08-31-2007 10:10 AM
Reply to: Message 29 by Refpunk
08-31-2007 10:06 AM


what superior species would humans be evolving into according to them?
None. Species don't evolve into superior species. They evolve into species that are better able to survive and reproduce in the particular environment in which they are found.
Edited by Chiroptera, : typo

I've done everything the Bible says, even the stuff that contradicts the other stuff! -- Ned Flanders

This message is a reply to:
 Message 29 by Refpunk, posted 08-31-2007 10:06 AM Refpunk has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 32 by Refpunk, posted 08-31-2007 10:18 AM Chiroptera has replied

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024