Understanding through Discussion


Welcome! You are not logged in. [ Login ]
EvC Forum active members: 114 (8734 total)
Current session began: 
Page Loaded: 03-27-2017 2:20 PM
445 online now:
Chatting now:  Chat room empty
Newest Member: timtak
Post Volume:
Total: 802,016 Year: 6,622/21,208 Month: 2,383/2,634 Week: 46/525 Day: 21/25 Hour: 2/3


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Prev1234
5
6Next
Author Topic:   A good summary of so called human evolution.
New Cat's Eye
Member
Posts: 11181
From: near St. Louis
Joined: 01-27-2005
Member Rating: 1.7


(1)
Message 61 of 81 (798058)
01-30-2017 2:57 PM
Reply to: Message 59 by mike the wiz
01-30-2017 1:27 PM


Cat's eye writes:

But it is so outdated it is either incorrect or even fraudulent.

In what way, specifically? Because it mentions things that were once accepted? If it presents it as though it is now the accepted evidence this would be misleading perhaps.

The fact that Nebraska and Piltdown Man are even mentioned is highly suspect, those finds are from 100 years ago. Also, the title of the article is "Who’s who and what’s what in the world of “missing” links?", which in present-tense implies that it's current. It is not current. On top of that, its conjecture is comically off-base.

It just doesn't read as an honest article at all.

I didn't check the date. I read data and if it strikes me as logicallly sound or meritorious in some way I will accept it. It's age isn't relevant because of the fallacy of Argumentum Ad Novitatem and Argumentum Ad Antiquitatem, respectively.

Regardless of any fallacies, the date is relevant to whether or not it is, or supports, a good argument. It does neither.

Cat's eye writes:

You could be doing a much better job.

This is just a bare assertion though.

And worth every penny.

You started this thread, I was just letting you know that it's kinda crappy.

It seems to me I am correct, that a transitional between a foot from arboreal brachiators, and a bipedal human, should consist of transitional stages, rather than two distinct groups that either have ape anatomy or human anatomy, with blurred edges.

Why would you think that? Nothing in evolution is clear-cut, everything is blurry.

Any transitional will be able to be as a part of a group, and that group is going to overlap with other groups. Every transitional stage will lack a succinct distinction from other groups. That is the nature of the beast; evolution happens to populations not individuals.

Also:

either have ape anatomy or human anatomy

Humans. Are. Apes.

Every single aspect of human anatomy is also ape anatomy because humans are a subset of apes. It is impossible for something to be human and not ape.

So when you say, I, "could be doing better", what else can I really do?

Well, for starters, get it right. What you're talking about as evolution has differences from the current modern Theory of Evolution.

Also, get some up-to-date sources. Stuff from 20 years ago is ancient.

And there are more recent and more interesting finds that could better challenge your understanding of the case for evolution.

At what stage do you at least entertain the possibility that the evidence expected to be there, isn't there because it never existed?

It won't be from the holes in the data that we do have.

It will be from new data that puts holes in the theory.

Currently, there is not a single falsification of the Theory of Evolution and until there is it will continue to be the best explanation we have.

But first, the "expected evidence" that is supposed to be there will have to be vetted to verify that it is actually expected. Things like distinct transitionals that don't fit within any blurred lines are not reasonable expectations.

Question; at what stage does the negative evidence COUNT as falsification evidence?

As soon as, and at once, it falsifies the theory. Until then, it'll remain as inconclusive.

Think about it - if evolution had not happened then the evidence we could only expect is the lack of evidence.

Of course not; find one creature that emerged in way that couldn't have happened via evolution. The proverbial "Rabbit in the Precambrian" is the quintessential example.

But you think about it: Don't you know how babies are made? That is, how new creatures emerge from the existing ones? What, in any way, suggests to you that there were creatures that emerged in any other way? Given that's the only way creatures emerge, it's no wonder that since babies are not perfect copies of a parent then there are going to be changes that can accumulate greatly over long periods of time. Certainly to the point that there will be species today that did not exist in the past.

Give it up, cat's eye - and follow the Lord's wisdom. You no longer belong to the darkside. Time to stop kissing evolutionary butt.

If standing up for what's true is kissing butt, then you can call me a butt-kisser.

Evolution is not the darkside and it ain't Lord's wisdom if it is leading you away from reality.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 59 by mike the wiz, posted 01-30-2017 1:27 PM mike the wiz has not yet responded

  
Modulous
Member
Posts: 7385
From: Manchester, UK
Joined: 05-01-2005
Member Rating: 2.8


(3)
Message 62 of 81 (798061)
01-30-2017 3:08 PM
Reply to: Message 60 by mike the wiz
01-30-2017 1:59 PM


Which you say are ancestors.

Relatives of ancestors, unlikely we'd find actual direct ancestors - particularly of those closest to us.

A moot point. Darwin said they would be found.

Many have since Darwin said that.

The missing links should not still be missing

Why?

That is true, but 150 years ago evolution-theory existed.

Yes. I don't understand the 'but' here. Darwin's Theory of Evolution didn't propose to give us perfect understanding of fossil reconstruction.

Your claim is that humans are apes, but anatomically we aren't.

Anatomically we are.

but in fact anatomically apes are closer to monkeys

Than what? Humans? No. Quite wrong.

It is the begging-the-question fallacy you commit here.

No it isn't.

To look at the main defining characteristics of monkeys, apes, and humans

Sure let's look at it.

Tail? Apes - No. Humans - No. Monkeys - yes.

and humans please read this opening message here

quote:
Attached File compareee.jpg 161.5KB 1 downloads

Attached File compareeee2.jpg 52.01KB 1 downloads


I read all those words. Doesn't say anything relevant. Perhaps you can bring the evidence here?

but as evolutionists you have to prove your claim we are apes;

We are large, tailless, tool-using broad-backed barrel-chested primates with large brains, non-webbed feet, a short distance of backbone between spine and pelvis and opposable thumbs from Africa. Since this is, in layman's term, the definition of an ape: we are apes.

So your bare-assertion we are apes, is of little logical worth.

True, but then all biologists agree with me, as you know. So that carries a little weight - and they have all these fancy degrees and reasons with reference to evidence.

Another bare assertion.

Well I accept evolution, and it still holds consensus view among scientists. Are you disputing this?

This type of sophistry only means something to evolutionists, who commonly argue argumentum ad verecundiam and argumentum ad populum as though this proves something.

So you concur that it wasn't a bare assertion, but one supported by facts. Good.

A neurotic agreement BY evolutionists, that evolution is true, is not impressive.

The agreement is among biologists.

It isn't the best explanation because it is less parsimonious to invoke millions of missing transitions

There is nothing unparsimonious about proposing animals existed who died and were not fossilized. Compared with 'a designer designed and built them', especially. We know animals exist. We know they die. We know their remains regularly degrade without fossilizing, we know we haven't searched every square inch of buried earth, we know that erosion and subduction occurs, I am not proposing any entities which we don't already know actually exist.

for example where are the transitionals for the quadruped progenitors for apes?

We've found some of them, others we haven't. Where is whatever you propose as the explanation, which I understand is some kind of designer you believe personally to be a deity?

That things, "appear" at certain of your dates, doesn't mean it follows they did not exist previously.

Correct, but I'm not claiming that they did not. Indeed, I insist they must have existed previously. Given you seem to believe we'd be awash with transitionals if evolution were true, I detect a contradiction in your complaint here. Either the fossil record accurately preserves fossils and thus the dates are basically correct, or it doesn't and that supports the fossil scarcity explanation. Have your cake or eat it.

You are quite happy to argue missing transitionals existed even though they would be ABUNDANTLY silent, for the missing transitionals are thousands of forms, not the odd hominid.

I'm not sure what the problem is. We have certain evidence, you have the same evidence. There is no contradiction with the evidence and the theory of evolution and evolution makes sense out of it. So what's the problem?

"Pines for a long time did not appear earlier than X date therefore it didn't exist previously"

But then they found a wollemi pine near on 300 fictional millions of years old. They have also now found grass with dinos, and mammals in their bellies.

Are you suggesting that it is a flaw to update one's understanding based on new evidence?

"If we find Lystrosaurus with species P then they lived at the same time"
"we don't find them together therefore they didn't"

I would prefer "If we find Lystrosaurus with species P then they lived at the same time; we don't find them together therefore we can't say they did".

First of all the posteriori EXCUSE that "fossil scarcity" would mean you wouldn't find the transitionals, is mostly circular reasoning.

No it isn't. We know as a fact most terrestrial animals don't become fossils upon death, so it shouldn't be surprising we don't find many fossils. Hardly circular to point out facts.

Real scientists don't argue proof, and certain conclusions of evolution, but amateur evolutionists really motivated by atheism, like you, on boards like this, do.

I didn't use the word proof in my post, other than once when I was quoting the article you posted.

I have dealt with ALL of the excuses for evolution in this thread;

Bring it here.

The fact is, there is no reasonable argument that can enable you to say that "the expected direct evidence is not there, therefore this other indirect evidence means we evolved anyway".

I haven't said that. I have said we don't expect the evidence you say we should expect and that there is still plenty of evidence that shows that life on earth has changed and the theory of evolution is the best explanation in the opinion of almost every person who has studied the subject formally.

That's INSUFFICIENT. Do you know LITTLE about the burden of proof?

Your strawman representation of my position is insufficient. Do you know little of comprehending what people are saying and representing it faithfully and in its strongest possible terms before attempting to refute it?

Circumstantial evidence, indirect evidence that superman exists, can in no way replace direct evidence, or are you saying you would believe superman existed based on circumstantial evidence, like with this comment that you believe the evidence shows we evolved from apes?

I'm not saying anything about circumstantial evidence and I am saying we are apes. My mother was an ape, my father was an ape, I am an ape - I descended from apes QED.

There are no genuine logically meritorious excuses for the various ad-hoc sophistry of appealing to none-existent gaps in the record

I make no appeals to non-existent gaps. I appeal to the evidence we have, and I can provide explanations for why we don't have a fossilized example of every species that ever lived. You seem to have got carried away in your inventions about what I am saying.

the transitionals if evolution occurred, would so swamp all other forms

How do you know this? On what basis are you making this claim?


This message is a reply to:
 Message 60 by mike the wiz, posted 01-30-2017 1:59 PM mike the wiz has not yet responded

    
Tangle
Member
Posts: 4408
From: UK
Joined: 10-07-2011
Member Rating: 2.8


Message 63 of 81 (798072)
01-30-2017 4:14 PM
Reply to: Message 57 by mike the wiz
01-30-2017 12:24 PM


Mike writes:

Well, that's not what I was doing anyway,

Don't be disingenuous. You are raising hundred year old frauds and errors that science itself corrected for no other reason than to imply that because such things happened the entire edifice of human evolution and therefore evolutionary theory itself is in doubt. How many of your precious fallacies does that process contravene?

Yes, when we're talking about trolls, I've noticed that primarily your posts seems to consist of tomato throwing.

In your case, perhaps. I'm calling you a troll because that's what you do. You come here every few months, throw in a handful of many times refuted, ancient claims, sprinked with rediculous pseudo-philosophical, fake logic then disappear for a few months to claim your triumphs over at EFT - a site that won't allow free debate.

You are a sham and a charlatan Mike, and yes, that is ad hominem. But being true, it is not a fallacy. Think about it. Objectively if you can.

Edited by Tangle, : No reason given.


Je suis Charlie. Je suis Ahmed. Je suis Juif. Je suis Parisien.

"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 57 by mike the wiz, posted 01-30-2017 12:24 PM mike the wiz has not yet responded

  
Admin
Director
Posts: 12390
From: EvC Forum
Joined: 06-14-2002
Member Rating: 2.0


Message 64 of 81 (798078)
01-30-2017 4:47 PM


Moderator Warning
Please keep discussion focused on the topic. We have no control over what members do at other boards like Evolution Fairy Tale, only what we do here. Mike and his approach to discussion are not the topic. In Message 15 I suggested these discussion areas:

  1. Chutzpah - how in the past human origin researchers again and again expressed certainty that the fossils they'd discovered lay on the human evolutionary path.

  2. Mistakes and frauds - how do human origin researchers occasionally go so wrong, such as Piltdown Man and Nebraska Man?

  3. Science - how does the scientific process correct errors introduced by points 1 and 2?

  4. Accurate information - what is it we know today about the human evolutionary bush?

--Percy
EvC Forum Director

Replies to this message:
 Message 65 by Tangle, posted 01-30-2017 5:51 PM Admin has responded

    
Tangle
Member
Posts: 4408
From: UK
Joined: 10-07-2011
Member Rating: 2.8


Message 65 of 81 (798081)
01-30-2017 5:51 PM
Reply to: Message 64 by Admin
01-30-2017 4:47 PM


Re: Moderator Warning
I accept the decree that we should refute spurious argument with fact and evidence.

That alone is the reason why this place is by far the best place to argue these issues.

However, it would be entirely wrong and naive to ignore the posting history, bad character, and corrupt agenda of a known disingenuous poster.

The witness has 'previous' - this is evidence of propensity to commit similar offences. To treat him as a virgin poster would be silly.

But, of course, I bow to the will of the court.


Je suis Charlie. Je suis Ahmed. Je suis Juif. Je suis Parisien.

"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 64 by Admin, posted 01-30-2017 4:47 PM Admin has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 66 by Admin, posted 02-01-2017 7:01 AM Tangle has responded

  
Admin
Director
Posts: 12390
From: EvC Forum
Joined: 06-14-2002
Member Rating: 2.0


Message 66 of 81 (798213)
02-01-2017 7:01 AM
Reply to: Message 65 by Tangle
01-30-2017 5:51 PM


Re: Moderator Warning
Tangle writes:

The witness has 'previous' - this is evidence of propensity to commit similar offences. To treat him as a virgin poster would be silly.

If I get your meaning, in this country we call them 'priors'. I'm not asking participants to ignore the elephant in the room, but it's already been well noted, and I think participants are already aware that Mike might abandon the topic at any time, then return in weeks or months to post a new topic where he'll do the same.

Mike's main points seem to be that there should be more evidence of human evolutionary history than we've found, that humans are not apes, and that evolution doesn't explain the evidence.

Edited by Admin, : Grammar.


--Percy
EvC Forum Director

This message is a reply to:
 Message 65 by Tangle, posted 01-30-2017 5:51 PM Tangle has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 67 by Tangle, posted 02-01-2017 10:43 AM Admin has acknowledged this reply

    
Tangle
Member
Posts: 4408
From: UK
Joined: 10-07-2011
Member Rating: 2.8


Message 67 of 81 (798254)
02-01-2017 10:43 AM
Reply to: Message 66 by Admin
02-01-2017 7:01 AM


Re: Moderator Warning
Yup, previous convictions - 'previous' - must=’priors'.

Je suis Charlie. Je suis Ahmed. Je suis Juif. Je suis Parisien.

"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 66 by Admin, posted 02-01-2017 7:01 AM Admin has acknowledged this reply

  
Astrophile
Member
Posts: 48
From: United Kingdom
Joined: 02-10-2014


Message 68 of 81 (801978)
03-10-2017 5:12 PM
Reply to: Message 49 by mike the wiz
01-30-2017 7:44 AM


quote:
One disclaimer is this; I am not saying that all of the evidence, in no way shows anything that might be considered part of an evolution. I actually think a bird with dinosaur features is the type of evidence you might expect had they evolved from them. Not that I would affirm the consequent, I just think the evidence is better explained as the relatively few transitions actually being chimeras, which seems far more parsimonious than assuming the other 99.999999999999% conspicuously absent transitionals, had to exist at some time.

I have said this several times, but it looks as if I shall have to repeat it.

We all know that all life comes from life (and usually from life of the same kind), that every living thing (including ourselves) has parents, grandparents, great-grandparents, great-great-grandparents, and so on in an unbroken lineage that extends indefinitely far back into the geological past, through the Pleistocene, Pliocene, Miocene, Oligocene, etc.

Scientists haven't found fossils belonging to the genus Homo in Lower Pliocene and Miocene rocks, but they have found fossil apes, for example Australopithecus, Ardipithecus, Ouranoptihecus and Kenyapithecus. These apes are, of course, classified, like us, as Primates. Since we must have had Early Pliocene and Miocene ancestors, it seems reasonable to suppose that these ancestors belonged to the same order and family as ourselves (i.e. that they were primates and hominids) rather than that they were, for example, cattle, or whales, or lizards, or fish, or that humans originated by spontaneous generation from dirt.

To summarise this argument, we must have had ancestors that lived in the geological past, and the most likely, perhaps even the only, fossil candidates for these ancestors are apes such as Australopithecus and Ardipithecus.

Can you, or anybody else, either refute this argument, for example by identifying other fossil candidates for human ancestry, or by showing that living things can come into existence without having parents? Alternatively, is there anybody who is wiling to say that this argument is valid, and that I am not talking utter nonsense?

By the way, what do you mean by chimeras? The Wikipedia article on chimeras (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chimera_%28genetics%29) doesn't say anything about chimeras consisting of parts of different animals.

Edited by Astrophile, : Omitted interesting point that Mike raised about chimeras.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 49 by mike the wiz, posted 01-30-2017 7:44 AM mike the wiz has not yet responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 69 by NoNukes, posted 03-12-2017 7:49 PM Astrophile has responded
 Message 73 by Rrhain, posted 03-13-2017 7:47 PM Astrophile has responded

    
NoNukes
Member
Posts: 9327
From: Central NC USA
Joined: 08-13-2010
Member Rating: 2.6


Message 69 of 81 (802175)
03-12-2017 7:49 PM
Reply to: Message 68 by Astrophile
03-10-2017 5:12 PM


Can you, or anybody else, either refute this argument, for example by identifying other fossil candidates for human ancestry, or by showing that living things can come into existence without having parents? Alternatively, is there anybody who is wiling to say that this argument is valid, and that I am not talking utter nonsense?

I can understand the appeal of this argument, but let's also note that it has an important limitation. The sword you use is just as sharp against abiogenesis as it is against creationism. If we are going to require evidence before accepting one, then we need evidence for the other.

Creationist invoke a miracle to explain the beginning of live, while scientist invoke abiogenesis which requires a chain leading from chemistry on basic molecules to self-replicating molecules then to life. Neither side can claim that their required process has been observed.


Under a government which imprisons any unjustly, the true place for a just man is also in prison. Thoreau: Civil Disobedience (1846)

History will have to record that the greatest tragedy of this period of social transition was not the strident clamor of the bad people, but the appalling silence of the good people. Martin Luther King

I never considered a difference of opinion in politics, in religion, in philosophy, as cause for withdrawing from a friend. Thomas Jefferson

Seems to me if its clear that certain things that require ancient dates couldn't possibly be true, we are on our way to throwing out all those ancient dates on the basis of the actual evidence. -- Faith

Some of us are worried about just how much damage he will do in his last couple of weeks as president, to make it easier for the NY Times and Washington post to try to destroy Trump's presidency. -- marc9000


This message is a reply to:
 Message 68 by Astrophile, posted 03-10-2017 5:12 PM Astrophile has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 70 by jar, posted 03-12-2017 8:20 PM NoNukes has not yet responded
 Message 71 by Modulous, posted 03-12-2017 8:31 PM NoNukes has responded
 Message 72 by Astrophile, posted 03-13-2017 4:59 PM NoNukes has responded

    
jar
Member
Posts: 28437
From: Texas!!
Joined: 04-20-2004
Member Rating: 2.6


(1)
Message 70 of 81 (802180)
03-12-2017 8:20 PM
Reply to: Message 69 by NoNukes
03-12-2017 7:49 PM


Yet
NN writes:

Creationist invoke a miracle to explain the beginning of live, while scientist invoke abiogenesis which requires a chain leading from chemistry on basic molecules to self-replicating molecules then to life. Neither side can claim that their required process has been observed.

Yet. There is a very high probability that before this decade is out life will have been created in the lab from simple chemicals.


My Sister's Website: Rose Hill Studios     My Website: My Website

This message is a reply to:
 Message 69 by NoNukes, posted 03-12-2017 7:49 PM NoNukes has not yet responded

  
Modulous
Member
Posts: 7385
From: Manchester, UK
Joined: 05-01-2005
Member Rating: 2.8


Message 71 of 81 (802182)
03-12-2017 8:31 PM
Reply to: Message 69 by NoNukes
03-12-2017 7:49 PM


Creationist invoke a miracle to explain the beginning of live, while scientist invoke abiogenesis which requires a chain leading from chemistry on basic molecules to self-replicating molecules then to life. Neither side can claim that their required process has been observed.

It should be noted too that all the entities proposed to be involved in abiogenesis have been observed.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 69 by NoNukes, posted 03-12-2017 7:49 PM NoNukes has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 77 by NoNukes, posted 03-16-2017 3:08 PM Modulous has responded

    
Astrophile
Member
Posts: 48
From: United Kingdom
Joined: 02-10-2014


Message 72 of 81 (802222)
03-13-2017 4:59 PM
Reply to: Message 69 by NoNukes
03-12-2017 7:49 PM


I can understand the appeal of this argument, but let's also note that it has an important limitation. The sword you use is just as sharp against abiogenesis as it is against creationism. If we are going to require evidence before accepting one, then we need evidence for the other.

Creationist invoke a miracle to explain the beginning of live, while scientist invoke abiogenesis which requires a chain leading from chemistry on basic molecules to self-replicating molecules then to life. Neither side can claim that their required process has been observed.

I wasn't discussing the origin of life; I was discussing human evolution from putative ancestors such as Australopithecus and Ardipithecus, which was the subject of the OP. If one rejects the fossil hominids mentioned by Mike's link, then so far as I can see, either humans (members of the genus Homo) must have evolved from other ancestors (either primates or non-primates) or the first humans must have come into existence without parents. Which of these possibilities does Mike prefer?

As you say, the sword that I am using may be just as sharp against abiogenesis as it is against creationism, but I do not think that it is as sharp against evolution. We know where individual living things come from, and we know how small changes accumulate over many generations to produce new species. The fact that living things have ancestors is actually an argument in favour of evolution, even though it may be an argument against abiogenesis.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 69 by NoNukes, posted 03-12-2017 7:49 PM NoNukes has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 76 by NoNukes, posted 03-16-2017 6:29 AM Astrophile has responded

    
Rrhain
Member
Posts: 6072
From: San Diego, CA, USA
Joined: 05-03-2003
Member Rating: 3.4


(1)
Message 73 of 81 (802234)
03-13-2017 7:47 PM
Reply to: Message 68 by Astrophile
03-10-2017 5:12 PM


Astrophile writes:

quote:
Can you, or anybody else, either refute this argument, for example by identifying other fossil candidates for human ancestry, or by showing that living things can come into existence without having parents?

Define what you mean by "living."

It isn't that easy to do. Currently, we can create self-replicating, auto-catalysing, homochiral molecules that evolve.

Are they "living." Is a virus "alive"?

You start your post with this:

quote:
We all know that all life comes from life (and usually from life of the same kind), that every living thing (including ourselves) has parents, grandparents, great-grandparents, great-great-grandparents, and so on in an unbroken lineage that extends indefinitely far back into the geological past, through the Pleistocene, Pliocene, Miocene, Oligocene, etc.

You are making an invalid, post hoc ergo propter hoc assumption: That because all the life we currently see is the product of a reproductive process of another living thing, that means that life necessarily comes from other living things.

Well, unless you are going to say that life has always existed, that necessarily isn't true. Even if you are going to invoke magic to zap-poof life into existence, that requires that at some point in time, there wasn't any life and after that point, there was and thus, life does not need to come from living things.

But that said, we can't even make the claim that "life comes from life" because casual examination of life shows that it actually comes from non-life: You eat things, break them down into non-living components, and then engage in chemical reactions that incorporate them into the living thing. Remember, you started life as a single cell. You now have trillions of cells. They didn't magically appear and they aren't accumulations of other living things. They were created because that cell took in non-living material and converted it into other cells.

So clearly, there is a chemical pathway by which non-living material can be turned into living material.

Unless you're going to say that there's some magic in that old cell wall they found. For when they placed it around the nucleus, it began to dance around.

But back to my point: The fact that life as we know it now comes from reproductive processes of other living things doesn't mean that life necessarily requires it. It may simply be that it's much easier to make new life once you have some than if you're starting from scratch.

Take the creation of water, for example. Suppose you have two moles of hydrogen gas and one mole of oxygen gas. You mix them at STP. You're not going to get any water out of it because there isn't enough reaction energy to start a reaction.

But once you do spark the mixture, you get a huge reaction...much more than the energy of the spark that got it started. That's because the energy released from one set of molecules reacting is sufficient to get another set of molecules reacting which then cascades throughout the mixture. If you had a huge volume of such a mixture such that the reaction could be sustained for a significant time, then you might conclude that in order to create water, you need to have a reaction of water nearby. After all, all the water that we see is the result of a previous water reaction. We never see water coming into existence in an area where there wasn't a water reaction going on.

But that's not because it can't be done. It's simply because it's easier to get hydrogen and oxygen to react if they're next to a reaction. At the beginning, it was a different chemical reaction that started it which then found a much easier pathway to continue.

We don't know how life got started. We have some intriguing suggestions that evolution is showing us and our knowledge of biochemistry is pointing in, but we don't really know.

But just because life today always seems to use a biological process to produce new life doesn't mean that's the only way.


Rrhain

Thank you for your submission to Science. Your paper was reviewed by a jury of seventh graders so that they could look for balance and to allow them to make up their own minds. We are sorry to say that they found your paper "bogus," specifically describing the section on the laboratory work "boring." We regret that we will be unable to publish your work at this time.

Minds are like parachutes. Just because you've lost yours doesn't mean you can use mine.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 68 by Astrophile, posted 03-10-2017 5:12 PM Astrophile has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 74 by Astrophile, posted 03-14-2017 6:06 PM Rrhain has responded

    
Astrophile
Member
Posts: 48
From: United Kingdom
Joined: 02-10-2014


(2)
Message 74 of 81 (802309)
03-14-2017 6:06 PM
Reply to: Message 73 by Rrhain
03-13-2017 7:47 PM


Rrhain writes:

Define what you mean by "living."

It isn't that easy to do. Currently, we can create self-replicating, auto-catalysing, homochiral molecules that evolve.

Are they "living." Is a virus "alive"?

I think that this is getting unnecessarily complicated. This thread is supposed to be about 'so called human evolution', not about defining life or about the origin of life.

You are making an invalid, post hoc ergo propter hoc assumption: That because all the life we currently see is the product of a reproductive process of another living thing, that means that life necessarily comes from other living things.

Well, unless you are going to say that life has always existed, that necessarily isn't true. Even if you are going to invoke magic to zap-poof life into existence, that requires that at some point in time, there wasn't any life and after that point, there was and thus, life does not need to come from living things.

But that said, we can't even make the claim that "life comes from life" because casual examination of life shows that it actually comes from non-life: You eat things, break them down into non-living components, and then engage in chemical reactions that incorporate them into the living thing. Remember, you started life as a single cell. You now have trillions of cells. They didn't magically appear and they aren't accumulations of other living things. They were created because that cell took in non-living material and converted it into other cells.

So clearly, there is a chemical pathway by which non-living material can be turned into living material.

Unless you're going to say that there's some magic in that old cell wall they found. For when they placed it around the nucleus, it began to dance around.

But back to my point: The fact that life as we know it now comes from reproductive processes of other living things doesn't mean that life necessarily requires it. It may simply be that it's much easier to make new life once you have some than if you're starting from scratch.

Take the creation of water, for example. Suppose you have two moles of hydrogen gas and one mole of oxygen gas. You mix them at STP. You're not going to get any water out of it because there isn't enough reaction energy to start a reaction.

But once you do spark the mixture, you get a huge reaction...much more than the energy of the spark that got it started. That's because the energy released from one set of molecules reacting is sufficient to get another set of molecules reacting which then cascades throughout the mixture. If you had a huge volume of such a mixture such that the reaction could be sustained for a significant time, then you might conclude that in order to create water, you need to have a reaction of water nearby. After all, all the water that we see is the result of a previous water reaction. We never see water coming into existence in an area where there wasn't a water reaction going on.

But that's not because it can't be done. It's simply because it's easier to get hydrogen and oxygen to react if they're next to a reaction. At the beginning, it was a different chemical reaction that started it which then found a much easier pathway to continue.

We don't know how life got started. We have some intriguing suggestions that evolution is showing us and our knowledge of biochemistry is pointing in, but we don't really know.

But just because life today always seems to use a biological process to produce new life doesn't mean that's the only way.

All this is true, but I think that you are missing the point of the thread and of my reply to Mike the wiz.

In the OP, Mike (or rather his link) mentioned some Pliocene and Pleistocene fossil hominids that have been proposed as ancestors of Homo sapiens and said that none of them had been proved to be human ancestors. His argument appears to be that if we cannot prove that Homo erectus, Homo habilis, Australopithecus africanus, Australopithecus afarensis, Ardipithecus, Orrorin, Sahelanthropus, etc. were our ancestors, then we have no grounds for thinking that we actually had ancestors.

My argument was that we must have had Pleistocene, Pliocene, Miocene, etc. ancestors, and that if the fossils that we know of weren't our ancestors then there must be as yet undiscovered fossil hominids that were our ancestors. You appear to be raising the alternative possibility that Homo sapiens originated directly from non-living organic or inorganic matter by some sort of spontaneous generation, without evolutionary ancestors. Do you actually believe that this is possible, or is this merely a jeu d'esprit, or have I simply misunderstood you?


This message is a reply to:
 Message 73 by Rrhain, posted 03-13-2017 7:47 PM Rrhain has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 75 by Rrhain, posted 03-14-2017 6:55 PM Astrophile has acknowledged this reply

    
Rrhain
Member
Posts: 6072
From: San Diego, CA, USA
Joined: 05-03-2003
Member Rating: 3.4


(2)
Message 75 of 81 (802314)
03-14-2017 6:55 PM
Reply to: Message 74 by Astrophile
03-14-2017 6:06 PM


Astrophile responds to me:

quote:
This thread is supposed to be about 'so called human evolution', not about defining life or about the origin of life.

I agree that it was a bit of topic drift. You're a bit new here so let me introduce myself: I'm one of the local pedants who likes to pick at things, even if I agree with the general statement. I like to think of myself as congenial, but I understand that I can come off as an ass.

Nice to meet ya.

quote:
My argument was that we must have had Pleistocene, Pliocene, Miocene, etc. ancestors

And here's me nit-picking even though I agree with you:

If you think god zap-poofed life into existence, then no, there is no justification that we had such ancestors. In fact, there are many creationists who make that very claim. They talk of "ages of the earth" and create scenarios where god created, for lack of a better term, "test" animals and these other fossils aren't related to humans at all.

Now, I certainly agree that if one presumes that there is a connectedness to life, then surely our ancestors go all the way back to the first life. But creationists don't have that assumption. There is no interconnectedness and certain organisms simply zap-poofed into existence. They'll claim that these fossils that show strong deviation from a typical human are either some form of ape or are merely a deformed human and don't represent a different species of human at all.

quote:
You appear to be raising the alternative possibility that Homo sapiens originated directly from non-living organic or inorganic matter by some sort of spontaneous generation, without evolutionary ancestors. Do you actually believe that this is possible, or is this merely a jeu d'esprit, or have I simply misunderstood you?

What? Me state my case in less than crystal clear terms? Why the nerve!

But since you brought it up...Genesis does say that god makes Adam out of the dust of the ground....

But seriously: No, I am not saying that humans were created de novo out of clays around a hot spring. Human life is "too complex" for that. Instead, humans evolved from previous ancestors that go all the way back to the first life. We don't rightly know how life got started in the first place, but it certainly seems to be the case that it started chemically since life is, after all, just a particular set of chemical reactions.

As Dobzhansky said: Nothing in biology makes sense except in the light of evolution.


Rrhain

Thank you for your submission to Science. Your paper was reviewed by a jury of seventh graders so that they could look for balance and to allow them to make up their own minds. We are sorry to say that they found your paper "bogus," specifically describing the section on the laboratory work "boring." We regret that we will be unable to publish your work at this time.

Minds are like parachutes. Just because you've lost yours doesn't mean you can use mine.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 74 by Astrophile, posted 03-14-2017 6:06 PM Astrophile has acknowledged this reply

    
Prev1234
5
6Next
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2015 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.0 Beta
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2017