Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
4 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
molbiogirl
Member (Idle past 2641 days)
Posts: 1909
From: MO
Joined: 06-06-2007


Message 61 of 69 (462150)
03-31-2008 6:15 PM
Reply to: Message 60 by Jason777
03-31-2008 4:56 PM


Given that you check in, at most, once a month ... your inattention can be forgiven.
Now.
Please sum up your position and provide cites for all of your claims.
PS
A cite can be a link or it can look like this:
Fathers and sons: the Y chromosome and human evolution
Mark A. Jobling and Chris Tyler-Smith
Trends in Genetics
Volume 11, Issue 11, November 1995, Pages 449-456

This message is a reply to:
 Message 60 by Jason777, posted 03-31-2008 4:56 PM Jason777 has not replied

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


Message 62 of 69 (465333)
05-05-2008 5:05 AM
Reply to: Message 54 by Jason777
11-14-2007 9:34 PM


quote:
Actually there have been no changes.Scientific data has shown that some modern homo sapiens in isolated geographic areas still have the same brain capacity and facial features as homo erectus,neandratal and cro-magnon.
Yet they failed to adapt to the greatest weapon of survival: speech. This despite having the advantage of time and greater phonation dexterity. We can deduce from this:
Humans are a different species, and this difference is not dictated by skeletal, biological or dna imprints, which are common to all life.
Darwin erred when he failed to classify humans a species of its own. The notion of tracking via skeletal and bio imprints, obviously does not yeild the conclusion made in ToE. In fact, even if the view is taken that modern humans descended from another life form, the factor of adaptation does not apply here: no other life forms attained speech! The break between humans and all other life forms is such that it also negates any accumulated transmissions; what I mean here is, the skeletal and bio imprints only prove that humans begat a trait which is outside of that sphear for 5 B years.
Mostly, there is a pervasive disdain of anything which can dent ToE, and that humans have a factor which points elsewhere. There is a Talibanic, exaggerated disdain here, and it is accompanied by very imaginitive reasonings to replace or explain what occurs. There are no changes in modern man - they have remained constant, except for advancements in their unique traits, but not in skeletal and bio designs. This will break down not via any academic or de-contructionist example of retro virus' or outgrowths which can resemble that of another species - for two reasons: they do not conclude in reality by what is theorised; the criteria does not result in modern alligators or modern birds - just modern man.
Whether science likes it or not, the most blatant scientific factor is that it appears there is an external impact in all things in the universe. This can be proven very logically. Science's most aspired goal is to find the base, common particle of all things, and to peer far enough into the BB to determine the universe origins. What do they expect to find? A: Nothing. There cannot be anything from all scientific views, becayse science upholds a finite universe and the same applying to space, time and energy. This means - there has to be an external trigger factor. So if we see a scientific anomoly of speech only in one life form, even over 5 billion years, and even when examining the known universe - we have to consider that there could have been no impact via evolution in this case and in this instant. This says, no other alternative exists to an external impact.
I see science as being the best ultimate proof of an external factor applying, and there are indicators this is happening. Hubble's last mission showed hitherto unseen pictures, that the star clusters become rarer as we go back in time, which points to a space-time when no stars would exist in the early universe; indeed this also points to the absence of complex atoms and matter. This means, the particles enjoined to become complicated atoms, with differential attributes, occured outside of the BB explosion point. Considering that nothing existed outside of the BB or before it, including time, space and energy - there is no options but to consider an external impacting here. This will be confirmed when NOTHING is found at the end of the scientific journey. That would mean only one thing.
QED.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 54 by Jason777, posted 11-14-2007 9:34 PM Jason777 has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 63 by Vacate, posted 05-05-2008 6:47 AM IamJoseph has replied

  
Vacate
Member (Idle past 4600 days)
Posts: 565
Joined: 10-01-2006


Message 63 of 69 (465334)
05-05-2008 6:47 AM
Reply to: Message 62 by IamJoseph
05-05-2008 5:05 AM


Darwin erred when he failed to classify humans a species of its own.
Huh? What are we then?
no other life forms attained speech!
Nor did any other life form attain Giraffe necks.
There are no changes in modern man - they have remained constant, except for advancements in their unique traits, but not in skeletal and bio designs.
We are taller.
So if we see a scientific anomoly of speech only in one life form, even over 5 billion years, and even when examining the known universe
There is only one Mississippi, does that help you?
that the star clusters become rarer as we go back in time, which points to a space-time when no stars would exist in the early universe; indeed this also points to the absence of complex atoms and matter. This means, the particles enjoined to become complicated atoms, with differential attributes, occured outside of the BB explosion point.
So your saying hubble is looking back to a point in space-time when there was no space-time. Can you think how this differs from what every other person who describes the Big Bang explains it?
This will be confirmed when NOTHING is found at the end of the scientific journey. That would mean only one thing.
Loki?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 62 by IamJoseph, posted 05-05-2008 5:05 AM IamJoseph has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 64 by IamJoseph, posted 05-05-2008 8:16 AM Vacate has replied

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


Message 64 of 69 (465336)
05-05-2008 8:16 AM
Reply to: Message 63 by Vacate
05-05-2008 6:47 AM


I have heard the arguement each life form has a trait not shared by humans or any other group, alligning this reason to show humans are thus just another differential. It is purposefully faulty. While all life forms have their own distinct features, they can all also be groupted as one kind of life forms, and on the other side will be humans as distinct from all of the others.
You can have a sack of peas, and color each one different and give each a distinct dna imprint and a distinct serial number; but if one of them can sing and dance, all the other differentials will not allign them. Whether one chooses to agree on that or not, is the differentials which has caused two distinct views on this issue. Most leading scientists also turn away from the notorious example you counter me with - so don't be so confident.
quote:
We are taller.
Speech is not a variance of degree but of kind. There is an anomoly that only one species has it, despite life being so varied and able to attain all manner of differences distinct from another: this reason ultimately favors my position. Height variances are common to all life forms, thus not impacting here.
quote:
So your saying hubble is looking back to a point in space-time when there was no space-time. Can you think how this differs from what every other person who describes the Big Bang explains it?
Hubble was to look for something which would explain the universe complexity, what it is based on, and how it occured. Science is now at a stage it can detect what the eye cannot see, even including indicators of another non-corporeal realm, such as a 4th dimension - apparently there are imprints to gauge this today. But if there is nothing, no imprints, which resembles the premise of nothingness before and outside of the universe - what does that mean? I say, it shows an external impact, by reason of the elimination of all other options.
I say further, that the most recent findings already indicate this. If going back in time shows rare density of galaxies, and nothing else [gaps of void], and if the atoms are seen as born outside of the BB sphear [many millions of years later] - it indcates an external impact already. This is a new direction of thought emerging, and is based on recent scientific findings derived from hubble.
To deflect such findings from where it points, the black holes premise was re-examined, to determine if it leads to outside of the universe, and to determine if other universes exist, namely to avoid the nothing scenario. This possibility was negated as highly unlikely, the reason being a black hole is theoretical, and nothing can escape its vicinity. Photons were seen in hubble, which are theorised as remnants of the BB original, primal explosion/action; but these photons had a life span of millionth of a second, whereby they stretched to a degree they longer had mass [clumpings], so they appear and disappear, or they are something and then nothing again. So all indicators thus far point to nothingness before the BB point, and that the complexity of the universe occured well outside this point. Life emerged outside of this point, as we know this to be correct; the notion of life emerging as a result of past atoms and molesculescombining in certain, critical frmations, also becomes voided if those molescules were non-existant in the early space-times - this again favours an outside impact.
Here, the question is, what can be found which will negate the possibility of an external, independent impacting - I cannot even imagine an answer here, even one which is sureal, meta-physical or sci-fi based. The next question is, what does it mean if there is nothing behind the final brick wall? Semantics do not help - instead, one must examine this issue as if there is nothing past a certain point in space-time, to determine what it points to, even if to discredit it.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 63 by Vacate, posted 05-05-2008 6:47 AM Vacate has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 65 by Vacate, posted 05-05-2008 9:42 PM IamJoseph has replied

  
Vacate
Member (Idle past 4600 days)
Posts: 565
Joined: 10-01-2006


Message 65 of 69 (465367)
05-05-2008 9:42 PM
Reply to: Message 64 by IamJoseph
05-05-2008 8:16 AM


I have heard the arguement each life form has a trait not shared by humans or any other group, alligning this reason to show humans are thus just another differential. It is purposefully faulty. While all life forms have their own distinct features, they can all also be groupted as one kind of life forms, and on the other side will be humans as distinct from all of the others.
While you insist that humans are distinct from all others you give no credible reason to think this way. Speech, though unique, is not special. Unless of course you plan to define why its special; saying that its unique immediately begs the question of why other unique attributes are not special.
You can have a sack of peas, and color each one different and give each a distinct dna imprint and a distinct serial number; but if one of them can sing and dance, all the other differentials will not allign them.
So we call the 'sing and dance' pea another species, thats what is meant by species... its different from the others. So are you saying this is an example of a special type of pea?
Most leading scientists also turn away from the notorious example you counter me with - so don't be so confident.
I will retain my confidence until you provide a link to a credible reason why I should not hold my position. Why should an appeal to authority have any impact when its a bare assertion?
Speech is not a variance of degree but of kind. There is an anomoly that only one species has it, despite life being so varied and able to attain all manner of differences distinct from another: this reason ultimately favors my position.
Favor your position then by explaining why speech should be considered any more important than communication, height, weight, population, hearing, smell, flight, swimming, photosynthesis, or any other criterea used to separate one animal from another. I sense some type of specialness in your insistance that speech is seperate from all other criterea.
Height variances are common to all life forms, thus not impacting here.
Nice changing goalposts. You said "There are no changes in modern man - they have remained constant", I replied we are taller. Therefore I claim that there are changes in modern mans skeletal and bio designs. You say no change, I show change, you say no impact. Was this deliberate or an honest mistake?
Science is now at a stage it can detect what the eye cannot see, even including indicators of another non-corporeal realm, such as a 4th dimension - apparently there are imprints to gauge this today.
We call them clocks.
But if there is nothing, no imprints, which resembles the premise of nothingness before and outside of the universe - what does that mean?
There was no time until Big Bang.
I say, it shows an external impact, by reason of the elimination of all other options.
Well sure, but its up to you to show it was the God of the bible and not all the other possibilities.
and if the atoms are seen as born outside of the BB sphear
You not really making much sense here. Please explain. Who sees atoms born outside of time and space? If everything was created when Big Bang started then who are these people saying that everything was not created when Big Bang happened? Why are you talking about them when talking about Big Bang?
This is a new direction of thought emerging, and is based on recent scientific findings derived from hubble.
I will ask again "so your saying Hubble is looking back to a point in space-time when there was no space-time."? Can you provide a link to this new direction of thought? Perhaps provide some explanation of how Hubble is seeing events that happened before time or space?
Life emerged outside of this point, as we know this to be correct; the notion of life emerging as a result of past atoms and molesculescombining in certain, critical frmations, also becomes voided if those molescules were non-existant in the early space-times - this again favours an outside impact.
So your saying that because molecules didn't exist previously nothing can exist presently that requires molecules? Wow.
Are molecules special in your statement or can we safely say that "since everything that exists didn't exist at some point previously, nothing actually exists presently"?
Here, the question is, what can be found which will negate the possibility of an external, independent impacting - I cannot even imagine an answer here
Does this "external impact" have to be your God? How did you manage to exclude the infinite alternative possibilities that could have provided the external impact?
----------
This will once agian come down to the same discussion that has taken place previously. My hope however is that at some point you could expand on a few of your assertions. You claim speech is seperate and that scientists will not admit as such - I rebut saying that it is a defining feature of the definition of human and also ask why speech is special from all other unique features in nature. Your insistance that speech is a different "kind" begs the question of what is a "kind". These problems will understandably lead to me asking what you mean by special and what you mean by kind. Thus far however you generally refuse to provide a testable definition and merely insist that your position is the correct one.
Another issue that will eventually crop up is that you inextricably link Big Bang with speech/kind/biology that our discussion will most certainly ride the fence of moderator action. I always find your posts to be an interesting read and prompts me to think in a different way. Though we both obviously find the topics interesting, they belong in different threads.
Edited by Vacate, : spelling

This message is a reply to:
 Message 64 by IamJoseph, posted 05-05-2008 8:16 AM IamJoseph has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 66 by IamJoseph, posted 05-05-2008 10:21 PM Vacate has replied

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


Message 66 of 69 (465370)
05-05-2008 10:21 PM
Reply to: Message 65 by Vacate
05-05-2008 9:42 PM


quote:
You can have a sack of peas, and color each one different and give each a distinct dna imprint and a distinct serial number; but if one of them can sing and dance, all the other differentials will not allign them.
-----------------------------
So we call the 'sing and dance' pea another species, thats what is meant by species... its different from the others. So are you saying this is an example of a special type of pea?
Surprise, surprise: my answer is 'YES'. The question is one of slight of hand casino science - which does not belong in honest science.
quote:
There was no time until Big Bang.
The issue is, what if there is nothing per se.
quote:
I will ask again "so your saying Hubble is looking back to a point in space-time when there was no space-time."? Can you provide a link to this new direction of thought? Perhaps provide some explanation of how Hubble is seeing events that happened before time or space?
No, what I said was, Hubble's discoveries show a time when stars did not exist, and that it can trace non-corporeal existence, via particle acceleration imprints. Remember that quarks are not visable, there existence has a life span of millionths of a second - we track them only via their imprints.
This is a BBC doc, named 'the 6 B $ Experiment', a tv special which can be seen on you-tube. And yes, this is a new insight, and can potentially bring down ToE and numerous other premises: it points to complexites emerging with nothing behind it - no evolution. This is not such a far fetched potential - eventually, there must be nothing out there - which says there is only an external impact. Do the maths.
quote:
Does this "external impact" have to be your God? How did you manage to exclude the infinite alternative possibilities that could have provided the external impact?
Absolutely not. This has nothing to do with any religion or one's wish list. This is true even if it turns out, the most plausable pointer of an external force does most resemble an invisable, undefinable Creator God. It will be just a co-incidence and an intellgent guess if the OT version is the case. My point here is not to ridicule science, but to allow all possibilities, and I see many glitches in neo science conclusions, which are based on faulty, agenda based premises and much blackmail therein. Its become Talibanic.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 65 by Vacate, posted 05-05-2008 9:42 PM Vacate has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 67 by Vacate, posted 05-05-2008 11:21 PM IamJoseph has not replied

  
Vacate
Member (Idle past 4600 days)
Posts: 565
Joined: 10-01-2006


Message 67 of 69 (465373)
05-05-2008 11:21 PM
Reply to: Message 66 by IamJoseph
05-05-2008 10:21 PM


Surprise, surprise: my answer is 'YES'. The question is one of slight of hand casino science - which does not belong in honest science.
So, since you claim that {speech = special} I will, as I promised, ask you to say what special means. Lets do some honest science, no slight of hand.
quote:
There was no time until Big Bang.
The issue is, what if there is nothing per se.
The real issue is what if there is no way to ever provide evidence for or against your assertion? Does it have any impact whether or not there is a way to make conclusions on causation?
No, what I said was, Hubble's discoveries show a time when stars did not exist, and that it can trace non-corporeal existence, via particle acceleration imprints
You also originally said "occured outside of the BB explosion point", meaning that Hubble can trace our "corporeal existence" to a time before there was time when "particles joined to become atoms". This makes no sense. "Particles joined to become atoms" after the Big Bang event and Hubble is only able to look back into time, not before time.
Time, space, particles, quarks, photons, whatever "stuff" you wish to bring up only existed after the Big Bang event.
This is a BBC doc, named 'the 6 B $ Experiment', a tv special which can be seen on you-tube.
The only videos I could find are seven minute previews of the full program. I am currently tracking down the entire episode, but in the future when asked for a link could you provide a link to your source please?
The preview however has no mention of the Theory of Evolution or complexities emerging with nothing behind it (whatever that means). How in the world you think that the Higgs Boson or the Large Hadron Collider has anything at all to do with biology I don't know. If you are unable to provide a link to the full program or actual papers describing what you are talking about, you will have to wait until I am able to track down the program myself. In the mean time some relevant quotes would be nice as a 45 minute program may prove difficult to isolate your point.
This is true even if it turns out, the most plausable pointer of an external force does most resemble an invisable, undefinable Creator God.
Or a limited imagination on your part. Unimportant however, its an unprovable assertion anyhow.
My point here is not to ridicule science, but to allow all possibilities, and I see many glitches in neo science conclusions, which are based on faulty, agenda based premises and much blackmail therein. Its become Talibanic.
OR !! you don't understand. Perhaps the fact that all religions, countries, races, and political views work together yet somehow produce what you call agenda based and talibanic views will reveal the imposibility of proving your position.
Whats the agenda?
Who are these masked men?
I am curious if you have conceded my point that there are changes in modern mans skeletal and bio designs (a.k.a. we are taller)? It will help to clarify as it applies to defining special.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 66 by IamJoseph, posted 05-05-2008 10:21 PM IamJoseph has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 68 by Adminnemooseus, posted 05-06-2008 11:05 PM Vacate has not replied

  
Adminnemooseus
Administrator
Posts: 3974
Joined: 09-26-2002


Message 68 of 69 (465429)
05-06-2008 11:05 PM
Reply to: Message 67 by Vacate
05-05-2008 11:21 PM


Contact with the topic theme rather minimal
I am curious if you have conceded my point that there are changes in modern mans skeletal and bio designs (a.k.a. we are taller)? It will help to clarify as it applies to defining special.
The closing sentence sure seems to be on topic. Some of the rest of the message might be considered on-topic.
THE BIG BANG AND HUBBLE ARE CLEARLY OFF-TOPIC! Mention said again (to all participants, not just Vacate) at your own peril.
Adminnemooseus

This message is a reply to:
 Message 67 by Vacate, posted 05-05-2008 11:21 PM Vacate has not replied

  
redwolf
Member (Idle past 5791 days)
Posts: 185
From: alexandria va usa
Joined: 04-13-2004


Message 69 of 69 (467244)
05-20-2008 2:28 PM


I've got a dopey question in mind and am not sure as to an optimal thread for posting it, this one seemed good enough more or less...
My understanding of the claims being made regarding "genetic entropy" is that basically, mutation rates in humans have been found to be outside of what any known theory would allow for and the species survive for any great length of time. That could be wrong, but it's the way I've heard it.
The question is, what about lions, tigers, bears, rabbits, and that sort of thing? Is it only humans who have a genetic entropy problem or do any or all other animals have the same problem?

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024