Understanding through Discussion


Welcome! You are not logged in. [ Login ]
EvC Forum active members: 122 (8773 total)
Current session began: 
Page Loaded: 07-26-2017 6:31 AM
374 online now:
PaulK, Vlad (2 members, 372 visitors)
Chatting now:  Chat room empty
Newest Member: Tom Larkin
Post Volume:
Total: 814,632 Year: 19,238/21,208 Month: 1,997/3,111 Week: 218/574 Day: 14/46 Hour: 1/0

Announcements: Reporting debate problems OR discussing moderation actions/inactions


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Prev1
...
78
9
1011
...
14Next
Author Topic:   MACROevolution vs MICROevolution - what is it?
kofh2u
Member (Idle past 1292 days)
Posts: 1162
From: phila., PA
Joined: 04-05-2004


Message 121 of 202 (671319)
08-24-2012 10:50 AM
Reply to: Message 120 by vimesey
08-24-2012 10:40 AM


Re: So, Big_Al35, what is MACROevolution?
By "observed", do you mean "seen by the human eye" ?

/////

That will never work.
Remember that Socrates said "believe only half of what you see, and nothing you hear."

What is necessary is that the younger children in religious families come in contact with information that does not require them to contradict their elders, but can influence them to embrace Science as a support for their faith in the bible as Truth:

This is directly supported by the latest Book published on the subject and authored by a group of esteemed paleontologists:

The Last Human: A Guide to Twenty-Two Species of Extinct Humans
by G.J.Sawyer, (Author)


This message is a reply to:
 Message 120 by vimesey, posted 08-24-2012 10:40 AM vimesey has not yet responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 122 by Coyote, posted 08-24-2012 11:08 AM kofh2u has not yet responded
 Message 123 by Eli, posted 08-24-2012 11:13 AM kofh2u has responded
 Message 137 by Dr Adequate, posted 08-24-2012 7:19 PM kofh2u has not yet responded

    
Coyote
Member
Posts: 5905
Joined: 01-12-2008
Member Rating: 4.4


Message 122 of 202 (671322)
08-24-2012 11:08 AM
Reply to: Message 121 by kofh2u
08-24-2012 10:50 AM


Boo-boo
There is a significant error in your last image.

The human line did not lead from Caucasian to Negroid to Mongoloid.


Religious belief does not constitute scientific evidence, nor does it convey scientific knowledge.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 121 by kofh2u, posted 08-24-2012 10:50 AM kofh2u has not yet responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 124 by ICANT, posted 08-24-2012 11:43 AM Coyote has not yet responded
 Message 127 by NoNukes, posted 08-24-2012 12:13 PM Coyote has acknowledged this reply

  
Eli
Member (Idle past 964 days)
Posts: 274
Joined: 08-24-2012


Message 123 of 202 (671324)
08-24-2012 11:13 AM
Reply to: Message 121 by kofh2u
08-24-2012 10:50 AM


Re: So, Big_Al35, what is MACROevolution?
I don't think you've read that book. It doesn't support the pictures you posted and doesn't have any talk about "negroids" or mongoloids" as a seperate species.

It's also not the "latest" insight on human evolution, considering it's 6 or 7 years old.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 121 by kofh2u, posted 08-24-2012 10:50 AM kofh2u has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 125 by kofh2u, posted 08-24-2012 11:52 AM Eli has responded

  
ICANT
Member
Posts: 5625
From: SSC
Joined: 03-12-2007


Message 124 of 202 (671329)
08-24-2012 11:43 AM
Reply to: Message 122 by Coyote
08-24-2012 11:08 AM


Re: Boo-boo
Hi Coyote,

Correct, a real Boo-boo by someone.

Shem, Ham and Japheth were brothers the sons of Noah.

God Bless,


"John 5:39 (KJS) Search the scriptures; for in them ye think ye have eternal life: and they are they which testify of me."

This message is a reply to:
 Message 122 by Coyote, posted 08-24-2012 11:08 AM Coyote has not yet responded

    
kofh2u
Member (Idle past 1292 days)
Posts: 1162
From: phila., PA
Joined: 04-05-2004


Message 125 of 202 (671333)
08-24-2012 11:52 AM
Reply to: Message 123 by Eli
08-24-2012 11:13 AM


Re: So, Big_Al35, what is MACROevolution?
It's also not the "latest" insight on human evolution, considering it's 6 or 7 years old.

/////

?

I clearly stated that the list of 22 now extinct humans was a reference to the latest published book.

And the criticism that the last three correlations with our three racial stocks has analogy with the "sons" of Noah does not imply one was the source of the other, but the three separate speciations occurred from the same stock refered to as Naoh:


This message is a reply to:
 Message 123 by Eli, posted 08-24-2012 11:13 AM Eli has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 138 by Eli, posted 08-25-2012 12:20 AM kofh2u has not yet responded

    
ICANT
Member
Posts: 5625
From: SSC
Joined: 03-12-2007


Message 126 of 202 (671334)
08-24-2012 11:55 AM
Reply to: Message 119 by kofh2u
08-24-2012 10:39 AM


Re: So, Big_Al35, what is MACROevolution?
Hi kofh2u,

kofh2u writes:

Gen 5:2 says god called them, the man and his wife, the "Adamites,"... i.e.; a species:

Well God did not call them "Adamites".

God called them ארם as the author wrote. The definition of ארם is man or mankind.

The Masoretes added vowel pointings to Biblical Hebrew in 600 AD and ארם with the vowel pointings is transliterated adam. But that does not change the meaning of ארם it still means man (singular) or mankind (plural).

So instead of translating ארם the translators chose to transliterate ארם along with the Masoretes vowel points adam instead of translating it mankind or humans as we would use.

Be careful not to say God said something when you are attributing what translators said He said.

God Bless,


"John 5:39 (KJS) Search the scriptures; for in them ye think ye have eternal life: and they are they which testify of me."

This message is a reply to:
 Message 119 by kofh2u, posted 08-24-2012 10:39 AM kofh2u has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 128 by kofh2u, posted 08-24-2012 12:40 PM ICANT has responded

    
NoNukes
Member
Posts: 9734
From: Central NC USA
Joined: 08-13-2010
Member Rating: 3.1


Message 127 of 202 (671338)
08-24-2012 12:13 PM
Reply to: Message 122 by Coyote
08-24-2012 11:08 AM


Re: Boo-boo
I'll also note that the association of Ham with the the Negroid is a concept that most people find abhorent.

I'd be inclined to use stronger negative terms than boo-boo, for this crap.


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

The apathy of the people is enough to make every statue leap from its pedestal and hasten the resurrection of the dead. William Lloyd Garrison.

Choose silence of all virtues, for by it you hear other men's imperfections, and conceal your own. George Bernard Shaw


This message is a reply to:
 Message 122 by Coyote, posted 08-24-2012 11:08 AM Coyote has acknowledged this reply

Replies to this message:
 Message 129 by kofh2u, posted 08-24-2012 12:57 PM NoNukes has responded

    
kofh2u
Member (Idle past 1292 days)
Posts: 1162
From: phila., PA
Joined: 04-05-2004


Message 128 of 202 (671341)
08-24-2012 12:40 PM
Reply to: Message 126 by ICANT
08-24-2012 11:55 AM


Re: So, Big_Al35, what is MACROevolution?
Well God did not call them "Adamites".

God called them as the author wrote. The definition of is man or mankind.

The Masoretes added vowel pointings to Biblical Hebrew in 600 AD and with the vowel pointings is transliterated adam. But that does not change the meaning of it still means man (singular) or mankind (plural).

So instead of translating the translators chose to transliterate along with the Masoretes vowel points adam instead of translating it mankind or humans as we would use.

///

LOL

Now you want to change the King James Bible so that the science dows not fit what every Christian reads in Sunday School???

Do you agree that there was no Adam at all then, and we need go back and change every reference to an Adam to read merely, Man?

Or are you saying just when I draw your attention to these details you do not like to read about?

What I am saying is that a strict reading of Genesis can support that the 22 now extinct humans referred to by science may well agree with the 22 references to our earliest roots as enumerated in Genesis genealogy.

In fact, until this theological hypothesis has been presented here,that list of begats was rather beneath the valuable space used by God to talk to us about our creation and roots.
It was a mere list of names with about the same message, a special son was born among many others not so special thereafter.

But this Theological hypotheis answers the perplexing questions of who Cain could have married and where did the women come from for Seth and so on.
Seeing these names as EPONYMS or symbolic representation for "THEM," a species, makes rational sense in SUPPORT of the Bible.

We are told also, that other types of "men" co-existed before the flood, and that we were even products of their sexual intercourse and hybridizations:

Gen. 6:4 There were giants, (Homo Erectus, two species, Methuselahian and Methusaelian), in the earth in those days; and also after that, when the sons of God, (the Methusaelian Homo erectus), came in unto the daughters of men, (Lamechian Homo antecessors, and even Neanderthal), and they bare (Neanderthal) children to them, the same became mighty men, (hybrids preceding the advent of Archaic Homo Sapiens, Cro-Magnon man), which were of old, men of renown.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 126 by ICANT, posted 08-24-2012 11:55 AM ICANT has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 130 by ICANT, posted 08-24-2012 1:15 PM kofh2u has responded

    
kofh2u
Member (Idle past 1292 days)
Posts: 1162
From: phila., PA
Joined: 04-05-2004


Message 129 of 202 (671344)
08-24-2012 12:57 PM
Reply to: Message 127 by NoNukes
08-24-2012 12:13 PM


Re: Boo-boo
NoNukes:

I'll also note that the association of Ham with the the Negroid is a concept that most people find abhorent.
I'd be inclined to use stronger negative terms than boo-boo, for this crap.

/////

True.
It is now Politically Incorrect to express the science which tells us this is true, and the idea of distinct racial lines in taboo today.

Well we all know that the term Race is socially charged and the government is prone to differ with the science of the matter, and such scientists as Dwakins, who supports the work of Geneticist Edwards who insists that the seven racial differences that Lawton first proposed are actually correct:

NOTE:
Edwards saw the argument against such identities as being based mostly in a political stance that denies the existence biological difference in order to argue for social equality. [4]

But the implication of the three Racial Stocks going back 40,000 years has evident to support it, and agree that from that Stock, today, a diversity of seven geneticlly different racial sources has emerged or evolved:

Edwards argued that, even if the probability of misclassifying an individual based on a single genetic marker is as high as 30% , the misclassification probability becomes close to zero if enough genetic markers are studied simultaneously

Richard Dawkins (2005) agreed with Edwards' view, summarizing the argument against Lewontin as being, "However small the racial partition of the total variation may be, if such racial characteristics as there are, highly correlate with other racial characteristics, they are by definition informative, and therefore of taxonomic significance."[27]


This message is a reply to:
 Message 127 by NoNukes, posted 08-24-2012 12:13 PM NoNukes has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 132 by NoNukes, posted 08-24-2012 2:12 PM kofh2u has responded
 Message 133 by Coyote, posted 08-24-2012 3:01 PM kofh2u has not yet responded

    
ICANT
Member
Posts: 5625
From: SSC
Joined: 03-12-2007


Message 130 of 202 (671350)
08-24-2012 1:15 PM
Reply to: Message 128 by kofh2u
08-24-2012 12:40 PM


Re: So, Big_Al35, what is MACROevolution?
Hi kofh2u,

I was simply pointing out that you was putting words in God's mouth as He did not say what you said that He said.

Now if you would like to discuss your post in great detail please start a thread in the Biblical division and I will join you.

This is a science thread and such discussion would be off topic.

My email address is available in my profile so when you have started the thread notify me.

God Bless,


"John 5:39 (KJS) Search the scriptures; for in them ye think ye have eternal life: and they are they which testify of me."

This message is a reply to:
 Message 128 by kofh2u, posted 08-24-2012 12:40 PM kofh2u has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 131 by kofh2u, posted 08-24-2012 1:44 PM ICANT has not yet responded

    
kofh2u
Member (Idle past 1292 days)
Posts: 1162
From: phila., PA
Joined: 04-05-2004


Message 131 of 202 (671358)
08-24-2012 1:44 PM
Reply to: Message 130 by ICANT
08-24-2012 1:15 PM


Re: So, Big_Al35, what is MACROevolution?
Hi kofh2u,
I was simply pointing out that you was putting words in God's mouth as He did not say what you said that He said.

Now if you would like to discuss your post in great detail please start a thread in the Biblical division and I will join you.

This is a science thread and such discussion would be off topic.

My email address is available in my profile so when you have started the thread notify me.

God Bless,

////

1) How do you quote the previous poster?

2) I am not discussing religion, but comparing what science says to what anyone can read in the King James Bible, Gen 5:2.

3) If God said what I read then your accusation is warranted, as opposed to your argument that I dismiss the clear statement in the Bible.
It seems to me that you are changing what Gen 5:2 says and arguing that you have support to so do.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 130 by ICANT, posted 08-24-2012 1:15 PM ICANT has not yet responded

    
NoNukes
Member
Posts: 9734
From: Central NC USA
Joined: 08-13-2010
Member Rating: 3.1


Message 132 of 202 (671363)
08-24-2012 2:12 PM
Reply to: Message 129 by kofh2u
08-24-2012 12:57 PM


Re: Boo-boo

It is now Politically Incorrect to express the science which tells us this is true, and the idea of distinct racial lines in taboo today.

It's not uncommon to see the term 'political correct' used to defend racist nonsense.

Do you really believe that you can trace racial differences to one of Noah's sons or alternatively to separate lines traceable to a single set of siblings? This isn't an issue of what the government says, or of political correctness or a denial of science. This is you spouting 18th century nonsense used to justify enslaving African people.


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

The apathy of the people is enough to make every statue leap from its pedestal and hasten the resurrection of the dead. William Lloyd Garrison.

Choose silence of all virtues, for by it you hear other men's imperfections, and conceal your own. George Bernard Shaw


This message is a reply to:
 Message 129 by kofh2u, posted 08-24-2012 12:57 PM kofh2u has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 135 by kofh2u, posted 08-24-2012 6:42 PM NoNukes has not yet responded

    
Coyote
Member
Posts: 5905
Joined: 01-12-2008
Member Rating: 4.4


(1)
Message 133 of 202 (671369)
08-24-2012 3:01 PM
Reply to: Message 129 by kofh2u
08-24-2012 12:57 PM


Re: Boo-boo
You are spouting pure nonsense, and off-topic nonsense at that.

If you want to discuss human races then start a new thread for that subject. That's something I studied in graduate school and have quite a good library on.


Religious belief does not constitute scientific evidence, nor does it convey scientific knowledge.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 129 by kofh2u, posted 08-24-2012 12:57 PM kofh2u has not yet responded

  
Tangle
Member
Posts: 4890
From: UK
Joined: 10-07-2011
Member Rating: 3.7


(2)
Message 134 of 202 (671376)
08-24-2012 4:47 PM


Is there any reason why we allow the fallacy of the micro and macro evolution argument to continue?

As far as I'm aware, science has no use for the terms as neither condition actually exists; there's simply evolution where a cumulation of small changes can eventually lead to what we call a distinct species - a purely arbitrary condition.

How about we bin both terms and move on?


Life, don't talk to me about life - Marvin the Paranoid Android

  
kofh2u
Member (Idle past 1292 days)
Posts: 1162
From: phila., PA
Joined: 04-05-2004


Message 135 of 202 (671390)
08-24-2012 6:42 PM
Reply to: Message 132 by NoNukes
08-24-2012 2:12 PM


Re: Boo-boo
NoNukes:

Do you really believe that you can trace racial differences to one of Noah's sons or alternatively to separate lines traceable to a single set of siblings? This isn't an issue of what the government says, or of political correctness or a denial of science. This is you spouting 18th century nonsense used to justify enslaving African people.

////

///

kofh2u:

I posted below that Dwakins agrees with this whole trend of thought, including the attempt to repress the Science that specifies racialdifferences as a Social convention that arose because of racism duringthe last century.

Here is what Dwakins said again:

"Well we all know that the term Race is socially charged and the government is prone to differ with the science of the matter, and such scientists as Dwakins, who supports the work of Geneticist Edwards who insists that the seven racial differences that Lawton first proposed are actually correct."

Richard Dawkins (2005) agreed with Edwards' view, summarizing the argument ... as being:
"However small the racial partition of the total variation may be, if such racial characteristics as there are highly correlate with other racial characteristics, they are by definition informative, and therefore of taxonomic significance."[27]
What Edwards had claimed was this:
Edwards saw the argument against such identities as being based mostly in apolitical stance that denies the existence biological difference in order to argue for social equality.
But he held firmly to the scientific concept that modern men can be sorted out and scientifically classified into seven groups that essentially are what is meant by "race."
Edwards argued that, even if the probability of misclassifying an individual based on a single genetic marker is as high as 30%, the misclassification probability becomes close to zero if enough genetic markers are studied simultaneously.

The chart above is another scientist idea of how the three racial stocks, (Ham, Japheth, and Shem), differentiated into other racial differences we see today.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 132 by NoNukes, posted 08-24-2012 2:12 PM NoNukes has not yet responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 136 by Dr Adequate, posted 08-24-2012 7:16 PM kofh2u has not yet responded

    
Prev1
...
78
9
1011
...
14Next
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2015 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.0 Beta
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2017