Understanding through Discussion


Welcome! You are not logged in. [ Login ]
EvC Forum active members: 67 (9079 total)
117 online now:
AZPaul3, Dredge, nwr, PaulK, Phat, Tanypteryx, vimesey, xongsmith (8 members, 109 visitors)
Newest Member: Test Moose
Post Volume: Total: 895,219 Year: 6,331/6,534 Month: 524/650 Week: 62/232 Day: 1/38 Hour: 1/3


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Evolution Logic
RAZD
Member (Idle past 724 days)
Posts: 20714
From: the other end of the sidewalk
Joined: 03-14-2004


Message 241 of 302 (320276)
06-10-2006 10:11 PM
Reply to: Message 240 by Wounded King
06-10-2006 10:06 PM


Tree of Life - Plant hyperbole
cool tree. click on any branch and it expands. shows the bush characteristic rather than old fashioned tree trunks and branches.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 240 by Wounded King, posted 06-10-2006 10:06 PM Wounded King has not replied

arachnophilia
Member (Idle past 663 days)
Posts: 9069
From: god's waiting room
Joined: 05-21-2004


Message 242 of 302 (320279)
06-10-2006 10:19 PM
Reply to: Message 225 by Someone who cares
06-10-2006 8:18 PM


Ok, thanks for the info. But pterosaur is classified as an archosaur, which contains birds. But you're right, there's also crocodiles and dinosaurs in that category. So, you say this is a reptile-dinosaur type of creature?

you never liked dinosaurs as a kid? seriously? i had cartoon dinosaurs all over my room when i was 6. my sheets, my curtains, a wallpaper border... they always, ALWAYS had a pterodactyl thrown in.

they're similar enough to dinosaurs that most 6 year olds confuse them with dinosaurs pretty regularly. they're not dinosaurs, they're flying reptiles.

but no, it's not a bird. pterosaurs are a sister group to dinosaurs. birds are a daughter group.

Probably not all. But there is a possibility that some were faked. It's easy to carve into an old fossil, if you have the right tools.

no, actually, it's not.

trust me on this. not only do i have some understanding of paleontology, i have more understanding of art. carving stuff that detailed is nowhere near easy -- and carving stuff that detailed, accurate, consistent, AND convincing enough that it fools people who know what to look for is nothing short of miraculous.

this may suprise you, but fake fossils are relatively commonplace on the black market. and to the trained eye, they're easy to spot. much easier to spot than to create, actually.

a good example, btw, is the creationist favourite, archaeoraptor. creationists make a big deal of it, but the fact that it was discovered as a fake so quickly that the article never made it to publication should speak for itself. by contrast, archaeopteryx has been around for 150 years. we have seven specimens, all of which are absolutely identical in the feathers.

But see, that is from one creature, a bird that had the genes for scutes and feathers. But how about reptilian scales and bird feathers, do you have proof that they came from one gene?

you're really not listening, are you?

bird feathers ARE NOT RELATED to reptilian scales.

But those dinosaurs are not birds.

i recently got my ass handed to me on talk.origins for saying something similar regarding archaeopteryx. it's actually a somewhat arbitrary line, what we call a "bird" and what we call a "feathered dinosaur." technically, all birds are feathered dinosaurs.

And I thought they can only turn into feathers easily in chickens.

chickens are birds. with the gene turned off, chickens grow feathers on their feet. here's a dinosaur with feathers on his feet. it's not a coincidence.

But that's not reptilian scales evolving into bird feathers.

no, it's dinosaurian feathers evolving into bird scales.

reptilian scales did not evolve into bird feathers

So you're saying that the chicken has reptilian scales? How?

yes. go to a pet store, and ask to hold one of their parrots sometime. birds are quite fascinating animals. while its claws are wrapped around your finger, have a look at its foot. notice the two types of scales. the big flat ones on top are called "scutes." the round ones everywhere else are reptilian scales.

Oh, and, scutes are also the scales of turtles and other creatures, not just chickens.

same name, similar idea. not actually related (those that are scales are reptilian scales, though on turtles, they're part of the shell)


אָרַח

This message is a reply to:
 Message 225 by Someone who cares, posted 06-10-2006 8:18 PM Someone who cares has not replied

arachnophilia
Member (Idle past 663 days)
Posts: 9069
From: god's waiting room
Joined: 05-21-2004


Message 243 of 302 (320297)
06-10-2006 10:51 PM
Reply to: Message 222 by Someone who cares
06-10-2006 8:00 PM


Re: Great example
I think you missed something. See, Gingerich probably did draw the picture with only two skull fragments. And later, someone found the whole skull or something.

somewhat ironically, though not coincidentally, also gingerich.

But we are speaking of Gingerich's picture, when speaking of the skull fragments.

what "we?" we have the skull now. the first artist interpretation (NOT reconstruction) was mistaken on the length of the legs, because that particular guess was based on ambulocetus.

Sure, maybe later along the way, someone found the whole skull, or fake it, or something like that...

do you really think that all paleontology is people sitting in dark smokey room conspiring to commit fakes?

hanks for the picture, where did you get it? What is the source? Can we rely on it?

which one? two are from aig.

When I said knee cap I was referring to the hind legs, the part they haven't yet found. And, this may startle you, but yes, you do have a ball and socket joint for your shoulder, check out this site: http://vilenski.org/science/humanbody/hb_html/ballnsocketjoint.html

Bet you didn't know that, huh? It's okay, we all make mistakes sometimes.

yes, we all do make mistakes. here a much better source:

quote:
Enarthrosis (ball-and-socket joints).—Enarthrosis is a joint in which the distal bone is capable of motion around an indefinite number of axes, which have one common center. It is formed by the reception of a globular head into a cup-like cavity, hence the name “ball-and-socket.” Examples of this form of articulation are found in the hip and shoulder.

http://education.yahoo.com/reference/gray/subjects/subject?id=70#9


however. it is still clearly obvious that you were thinking of hind limbs, not forelimbs (eg: kneecaps).

But my point was, you called it a pectoral fin, not a limb, or something. As someone claimed it was a leg.

it is somewhere between a pectoral fin, and a forelimb.

So it's not a fish with legs? Like someone said? Because legs have to be able to move a creature on land, you just said those "things" wouldn't be able to do that.

depends on your definition of a leg. it is an appendage that extends from the body and ends with clearly defined digits. being able to bear weight on land is not and issues. simple pushing an animal around in shallow water is an advantage. and even so, many un-legged fish today use their weak appendages to help themselves over land. they don't have to WALK on them to make them work.

I know, but I didn't see any hands or fingers.

then you weren't looking.

See, if it were just half a fish, or just half a newt, we wouldn't really need the back end. But evolutionists are claiming it is a transitional fossil, a fish with legs, so the rear end is important to see if that is valid and true.

evolution doesn't create mermaids. you do not make a transitional creature by sweing together the back half of a fish and the front half of a newt. attempts to fake fossils as such are quickly recognized. i'm sure you can think of one famous example. someone phrased it as "about like faking a 1950's car by welding together pieces from a 1920's car and a 1980's car."

what we have with tiktaalik are FORMS that are somewhere between fish and amphibians. not parts from both, but parts that shaped like compromises between the two. we don't need the other half of the skeleton to tell us that the pieces we have are somewhere between the two -- though the rest of the skeleton would certainly be interesting.

Edited by arachnophilia, : typo


אָרַח

This message is a reply to:
 Message 222 by Someone who cares, posted 06-10-2006 8:00 PM Someone who cares has not replied

Someone who cares
Member (Idle past 5070 days)
Posts: 192
Joined: 06-06-2006


Message 244 of 302 (320307)
06-10-2006 11:05 PM
Reply to: Message 197 by kuresu
06-10-2006 1:04 AM


Re: Allow me to defend myself
Evolutionists can be wrong, and I don't think that hippos have a similar hoof structure to pigs, cattle, and I don't think that the whale ancestor would be based off of hoof structure alone, esp. since today whales have no hooves.

Even someone here said that the supposed pre-whale forms like Ambulocetes had legs, and this would be under the category ungulates, so this means that the whales, hippos, pigs, cattle are all related. It's not my words, an evolutionist said it.

You agree that insects are animals, which was not evienced in your paper. If I remeber correctly, the way you wrote it was to imply that insects aren't animals. However, they are not that different. First off, they represent one of the major classes in the animal kingdom. And that class belongs to one of the major phylums of the same kingdom.

Yes, I never considered insects to be like the rest of the animals, I don't know if I do now. But according to the classification system, it appears they are animals. But I see much difference between an insect and another animal, I probably wouldn't have classified it to be an animal, but I guess scientists have.

Then you are still wrong on saying that Homo erectus is not a hominid. The definition you use is not too different from the one I used. Fact is, they are hominids, or else they wouldn't be the the hominidae family (which is where hominidae is gotten).

The fact that we may or may not have been alive along with H. erectus and H. neanderthalensis does not mean that we didn't evolve from them. Of course, in the H. neanderthalensis case, the scientific conclusion is that they are a cousin, not an ancestor. H.erectus is, if I remember correctly.

When I refer to hominid, I mean a primate human, as it was in the first part of the definition I gave earlier. So when I say a certain class is not hominid, I mean to say, it is not a primate human, it is either a primate, or a human, not a transition or combination.

For previously stated reasons, you are still wrong on this. Cro-magnon is H.sapiens (and we are, more specifically, H. sapiens sapiens). As such, he is a hominid.

As I have stated above, "not hominid" means he is not a monkey human, he is either fully monkey, or fully human, not an inbetween.

That doesn't mean that they can't have tooth decay. All you need is for bacteria to break through the lining on our teeth, which is what plaque does. A cracked tooth would easily allow for it, I'd say.

Maybe. But it was rarer back then, than it is now, if not totally non existent.

And of course they aren't our ancestor--all those species are currently alive today, and our links with them are millions and millions of years older--when these species weren't present.

Even the chimpanzee?

Yes. I would need to look at a cladistics chart to be more precise, but we do share a common ancestor. Now, if you mean that Octupi and humans share a recent ancestor, then no (recent being less than several hundred million years ago).

That's a first! You say that the octopus and the human branched off from one creature?!? That they had a common ancestor?

You don't need mutations to get multicelled creatures. You just need a colony (which most likely is created because the genetics allow for communication or whatever). From there things get more complex, and even if 99% of mutations won't help doesn't mean it won't, or can't, happen. I refer you to my post regarding the 603 or more generations needed to rework your post into one supporting evolution, as to why this is so.

I'm sure you heavily rely on mutations as the mechanism which did most of the supposed evolving.

A somewhat long answer. First off, what do you mean by stooped, because that generally refers to a hung head and a bent back. Monkeys do not walk upright because their hips and head don't allow for it. You need to change the orientation of the pelvis so that the legs are closer to gether (closer to being parallel with each other, rather than being pointed away from each other at something like a 45 degree angle). Then, the spinal cord needs to enter from the bottom of the skull, not the back, in order for the head to be held up porperly. This would be done through mutation.

You think mutations would be able to do all that? Totally move bones and put them in different positions and different places?

I really wish you would get the time to check out the "morality, charity according to evolution" thread. It should help increase your understanding of how they fit in.

I really wish too! But I'm just so busy with only 2 threads! I can barely keep up! And I just started visiting these forums. I have a lot of threads I would still like to see, but it may take some time for me to get there...

You were using it as a disproof of evolution, which it isn't, which is why I explained it out. I am curious as to how life originated, but it's not important to the theory of evolution, the one area I'm schooled in as far as science goes. (though not so much as some others here)

But how did the first living cell or organism come about? Did it evolve from non living matter?

You're moving the goalpost. You claimed that we did not fully understand how this process works, and by doing so, trying to claim "how can we then fully understand anything else". I was just showing you how much we do know. And yes, random processes were invovled, as in the mutations that lead to the ability to create chlorophyll, and whether or not it was inbedded in the thylakoid membrane. However, the reaction is predictable, nothing random about the chemical reaction itself.

I don't believe scientists COMPLETELY know how it all works out, why it happens like it does, etc. Can you COMPLETELY explain the conversion process that turns light energy into chemical energy? Not just what mechanisms it uses and the steps, but how it exactly works.

Perhaps the parent species outlived the daughter species. Or, maybe we haven't found any daughter species fossils yet in the younger layer. Again, not a disproof of evolution, which I contend you were using it as.

Look, by your theory, simple organisms evolved into more complex ones. Now why would we find simpler organisms above the more complex ones in the geologic column? I say a flood would explain it.

I'm going to assume that you mean water molecules. I left out that statement because of the ambiguity as to which molecule the UV rays were breaking up. After all, Hsub2 has no oxygen. Now, Hsub2O does.
And how I wish this were true. That would mean that we could get all the hydrogen needed for the hydrogen powered cars really cheap. Let the sun do the work. But question--considering its the UV rays that create the sunburn, that means that UV rays reach the earth's surface. Why does it now not split water?

Yes, water molecules. H20

Now, if the early earth didn't have oxygen, there would be no ozone layer, which would allow A LOT more UV rays to reach the earth. But now we have oxygen and an ozone layer, which helps protect the earth against most UV rays from the sun, which means we have a lot less UV rays now, than the "supposed" oxygen free atmosphere of the early earth. But, either way, oxygen in the beginning or not, amino acids would not survive, much less form a living cell...

I'm not even going to bother with the global flood. You do realize that the bible says it rained for 40 days and nights. The force you describe in your paper is that of a flash flood or a fire hose. Not the force of a global flood. And volcanoes do a really good job at fossilizing. I wouldn't be surprised if fossils were found in Indonesia (wherever it will be millions of years from now) from the recent eruption.

Yes, the Bible says it rained, but the Bible also says, "...on that day all the fountains of the great deep were broken up, and the windows of heaven were opened." Genesis 7:11

That sure does sound like the beginning of the flood was a flash flood, windows of heaven opening, fountains of the deep, probably geyesers, exploding, fire hose like pressure - you bet! If not greater!!

Now then, as to the contradiction. This is what you did.
"Evolution = microevolution and macroevolution.
When I say evolution, I mean macro."
or
"x = y,z
x = z
both are true"

And yet you have already defined what you consider evolution in the paper before you make the second statement. Which means that you are saying this.
"macro is evolution. macro is therefore micro and macro."
or
"x = z
z = z, y
both true"

do you not see the contradiction? Esp. if both statements are true. How can "x = y,z" be and "x =z" This means that "y,z" are the same thing. Which means that you are saying that macro is the same as micro. Or "y = z". Which means, since you accept micro, you must then also accept macro. Way to go for disproving macroevolution. It's the most original strategy I've seen--disprove by acceptance.

No, here's how it went. I said there are two basic forms of evolution, macro, and micro. Then I said, after describing macro, this is the evolution we will be talking about when referring to "evolution." So from that point on, unless specified, all terms "evolution" in my essay meant macroevolution. Thus it was not a contradiction.

This would assume that we all die at old age, and that our growth has been constant. It took over a million years to get a billion people. A century later, there were three billion. But that doesn't mean evolution is flawed. How can one too many of any organism disprove evolution?

But it does make evolution flawed, we are not overflowing with humans on earth! Yes, of course there are some factors like average age of death and all, but the point still remains.


"If you’re living like there is no God you’d better be right!" - Unknown

This message is a reply to:
 Message 197 by kuresu, posted 06-10-2006 1:04 AM kuresu has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 245 by DrJones*, posted 06-10-2006 11:18 PM Someone who cares has not replied

DrJones*
Member
Posts: 2216
From: Edmonton, Alberta, Canada
Joined: 08-19-2004


Message 245 of 302 (320312)
06-10-2006 11:18 PM
Reply to: Message 244 by Someone who cares
06-10-2006 11:05 PM


Re: Allow me to defend myself
I mean to say, it is not a primate human, it is either a primate, or a human

Humans are primates.

But how did the first living cell or organism come about?

Thats a chemistry question, not a biology question. Evolution doesn't care about how the first life came about, just what happened after.


Just a monkey in a long line of kings.
If "elitist" just means "not the dumbest motherfucker in the room", I'll be an elitist!
*not an actual doctor

This message is a reply to:
 Message 244 by Someone who cares, posted 06-10-2006 11:05 PM Someone who cares has not replied

Someone who cares
Member (Idle past 5070 days)
Posts: 192
Joined: 06-06-2006


Message 246 of 302 (320338)
06-11-2006 12:00 AM
Reply to: Message 198 by ReverendDG
06-10-2006 4:32 AM


Re: Allow me to defend myself
if someone did they don't understand how it all works then, what they might have meant was that whales share a common ancestor - or you may have misunderstood them

Ok, I think they said that the whale was related to ungulates, like hippos, pigs, cattle, etc.

well yes they differ but they are alike too, they have legs, lungs, eyes, organs, ect, infact they differ less than you seem to think they do

Actually, insects DO NOT have lungs. All the more proving my point that they are very different from the rest of animals.

any evidence of this?, i've read black people have smaller brains than eurpeans (i don't believe this eather) i'm starting to think brain size isn't that much of an impact on intellegence. example the "hobbits" scientists have been finding, they are found with stone tools and other things and have a culture but have a smaller brain that us

Ok, first off, I don't think that brain sizes means too much for smartness or intelligence. But, here is what I found out: The average Eastern Asian person has a cranial volume of 1,415 cm3, while the average European person has a cranial volume of 1,362 cm3. So, it is a bit smaller, but I don't think that really matters in intelligence, although some will claim it does. Here is the site, with more info on that, though I don't like how they put other people down because of these facts: http://christianparty.net/grebrainsize.htm

supposed? its well supported, its not complete and i doubt it will ever be in creationists views - heres a nice site on it from T.O http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/homs/species.html

Yes, supposed, and I showed in my essay why.

how is this relevent its not even arguing agenst the post, they never said anything about erectus, the fact that they arn't exact doesn't mean they are wrong

I was supporting the claim I used in my essay, which someone else here challenged.

uh what? i think you need to go read what a hominid is first, of course its a hominid, cro magnon isn't a modern human, which is homo sapian sapian, there are differences between modern humans and archic man, you need to go read about it though

When I say hominid, I mean a primate human, an ape man. And there are no ape men, as I have shown in my essay. They were either fully monkey or fully human, not a mix.

what does the way its made have to do with tooth decay? honey is sugar as much as the things you listed

Honey is a natural sugar like source. While modern sweets are made using refined sugars. And they are probably consumed in greater portions than honey ever was, and with more sugar content than honey. Candy is loaded with sugar, soda is loaded with sugar, etc.

wolves have a more complex language than we do, they use movement smell and sound to communicate - we only view ours as complex because other animals languages make no sense to us

Again, you forgot the main word "SPOKEN."

true it is not guided by intelligence, do you really think intelligence would allow stupid faulty things such as the apendix to exist? i mean an organ that doesn't function the way it used to and is dangerus to a good percent of humans - or a back bone that isn't bult for standing on two legs fully? even from human design i can tell no one would do that
what life is guided by is pressure from the envirnment, and natural selection

WOAH! Did you read the part in my essay about the appendix and coccyx? I think you should. You would be surprised, and you may even change your thinking in that post right there. Go on, you will learn something new about your bones and organs and their functions in day to day things: http://www.freewebs.com/noevolutionguy/

the eyes similarities end at seeing in color and being an eye, the envirment is so different that there is very little similarity between them

Here, take a look at this, over there you will find an octopus eye and a human eye side by side: http://www.godrules.net/evolutioncruncher/images/co9p/Image344.gif

universal common decent (one line of decent) isn't fully accepted, but most people accept common decent - the ancester would be really far back between the two right before backbones

What kind of creature would that be? Do you have a chart or something to show me?

i would say bacteria has more genetic code, considering the rate of mutation and how long its been around, but i may well need some help from a microbiologist

You say the bacteria has more volume of genetic code material than a human? More DNA volume?

you need to see the big picture, populations evolve not indivigals, so something with a mutation that helps will survive to produce while the ones that don't will die out - for someone who says they understand NS, you have to ask this question?
if a gene that leads to survival is there the other 99% doesn't matter if it leads to survival

We're not speaking of a gene, we are speaking of beneficial mutations, and it's more like 0.1%.

they didn't learn anything, they evolved having a straighter frame to survive, this is the basic structure of NS, if the requirment to survive and pass genes on is to have a straighter back then those that have a mutation that causes this would survive while those that did not wouldn't, thus the next generation would have this trait thus the lifeform would continue
your argument sounds too lamarkian and lamark was put to rest years ago

So you say mutations would totally displace and relocate bones?

many have written about evolution and emotion, the vertict is that emotion evolved to help survival of a population, after all lifeforms tend to survive better if they have a strong bond to thier mates
NS is the filter, mutation is the cause of change

I don't see how evolution would make emotions which aren't necessary for survival... But like I said, I may visit those threads a bit later, when things slow down on this thread or when I have more time.

the problem is this doens't work, what is life? what is non-life? there is hardly a line between the two, are viruses alive?
what is the difference between a dead person and a living? basically an electronic spark causing the brain to do things - why couldn't a mixure of chemecals that are very much like the ones that make up our bodies get hit and form the beginings of what we term life?

You mind demonstrating this simple act of forming life? Man has been trying to do it since...?

who is to say god didn't start evolution?

That would be Theistic Evolution. Most people here are just evolutionists who don't believe in God. Oh, and are you a Reverend like your username suggests?

you need to stop reading creationist propaganda sites, i've read this before and its wrong, all the oxygen in our atmosphere is organic - produced by organisms, none of it is inorganic, plus i think you mean water not hydrogen

What do you mean by organic and inorganic oxygen? Yes, I changed it to "water" already.

no because a huge quick flood would leave too many markers and would not show up the way things look, have you ever looked at a picture of say the grand cannon?
its layers on layers with order, floods wouldn't do that - think about it the reason it has layers, is that it was put down over time by different things a huge flood would leave one layer not more than one

local floods would be plausable

Local floods wouldn't have the pressure needed to leave an imprint in rock...

But the layers COULD HAVE been formed by ONE GREAT FLOOD! They most likely were! The universal flood wouldn't be like one swoop, there would be many tide changes and reversing paths and bumps, that would be laying layer after layer of sediments.

lots and lots of time, trying to survive envierment changes

Lots of time wouldn't help it, if it's impossible to do at all.

its not a contradiction, its just not meaningful, macroevolution is microevolution on a grander scale, its all the same, science doesn't differate the two much

THANK YOU! It's not a contradiction.

(This is to the person who said it was a contradiction.) See? It's not a contradiction! Even another member says so!

what do you mean by information? single cells tend to mutate more so have more information, but a microbiologist would know more about it

Information, that would be the genetic code, DNA. The volumes of it. Not the length of the sequence or something, but the volumes of the DNA content.

wow, just wow, do you really think humans don't die? we only live max now of 75 years on average, but the birth/death rate was pretty high before 19th century, most people through out the ages were lucky to make it a quarter of that
how is a theory flawed if you make a strawman arguement like this?
oh yes by the way we do have way too many humans now, though its not because of evolution

Even if the average death age was different back then, look at how many people we have from just (I believe) around 6,000 years! Imagine what a couple "million" years would do!


"If you’re living like there is no God you’d better be right!" - Unknown

This message is a reply to:
 Message 198 by ReverendDG, posted 06-10-2006 4:32 AM ReverendDG has not replied

Someone who cares
Member (Idle past 5070 days)
Posts: 192
Joined: 06-06-2006


Message 247 of 302 (320355)
06-11-2006 12:19 AM
Reply to: Message 199 by Belfry
06-10-2006 8:55 AM


Re: Allow me to defend myself
Actually, no. I believe you're referring to Message 46, where arachnophilia said this:

quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
so you have no problem with the fact that whales are even-toed ungulates? in the same "kind" with hippos, pigs, llamas, camels, deer, sheep, goats, and antelope?
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Not that they "came from" hippos, pigs, etc., but that they are related cladistically. Whales apparently evolved from primitive even-toed land ungulates (order Artiodactyla).

Yes, I said this in a later post. "Related", not "coming from."

The idea that Neandertals walked with a stoop is based on a faulty reconstruction of one of the first complete Neandertal skeleton by Pierre Marcellin Boule in 1915. That individual did happen to have evidence of arthritis, but the reconstruction (which also featured a falsely divergent big toe) appeared to be influenced by Boule's ape-man preconceptions.

We now have many neandertal skeletons of many ages and physical condition, and their anatomy shows that their posture was much like that of modern humans. So much so, that many of your fellow creationists insist that they were "completely human."

source links, for more info:
http://www.mnh.si.edu/anthro/humanorigins/ha/neander_misconc.html
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/homs/a_neands.html
http://www.answersingenesis.org/creation/v25/i4/neandertal.asp

Of course, many long threads have been devoted to this issue alone, and if you want to continue that line of discussion we'd probably want to start a new topic.

Yes, fully human, that's what I say as well. It's either fully monkey or fully human, and Neanderthal is fully human.

All the same, I suggest that you provide a source for the claim.

Just did in an above reply somewhere. ^^

No, it still wouldn't make much sense in the context. Humans share common ancestry with all of those, the common ancestor with the butter bean plant (Phaseolus lunatus) being the most distant.

In any case, this is in reference to the following paragraph in your essay:

quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
“Milk chemistry indicates that the donkey is man’s closest relative.” “Cholesterol level tests indicate that the garter snake is man’s closest relative.” “Tear enzyme chemistry indicates that the chicken is man’s closest relative.” “On the basis of another type of blood chemistry test, the butter bean is man’s closest relative.”
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

This is mostly nonsensical. Cholesterol level tests?? As in, garter snakes have similar cholesterol levels to humans, and this is supposed to say something about ancestry? How exactly would you compare the blood chemistry of a plant?
Genes are the primary units of heredity. It makes sense, therefore, to make comparisons of DNA to make conclusions regarding ancestry.

But they say we are related to chimps due to blood precipitation tests. Oh, and by chromosomes, monkeys have 2 more chromosomes than humans, this is a big difference!

This is an odd question. According to evolutionary theory, the octopus and human share a common ancestor. This does not mean that the immediate ancestors of the two groups are the same.

Then what makes evolutionists think that the humans' immediate ancestor was the same as a monkeys', just because of some similarities?

The harmful ones tend to be culled out by natural selection. The neutral ones have no effect (unless other factors later make them harmful or beneficial). Beneficial mutations will be selected for, and increase in prevalence. We actually do see examples of single-cell organisms showing primitive multicellularity under certain conditions. Consider Dictyostelium, for example, unicellular amoebae which form a multicellular assembly when the food supply runs out.

Yes, so the cells may stick together, but that's not showing how they evolved into a human!

Your personal incredulity aside, evolution is not a random, chance process.

So you say evolution is a directed, specific, purposeful process instead?

He is not saying that an increase in complexity cannot occur in evolution. That is one aspect or mode of evolution. It is not, however, necessary for evolution. Evolution is simply change, there is no assumption of an increase in complexity in all cases.

Oh, so you don't need an increase of information to turn that single cell into a human? Please...

An assumption of optimum reproductive rate is foolish, because there are many factors limiting that rate (ETA: You might want to google "sigmoid curve"). In any case, IMO we do currently have way too many humans.

Do you have some elbow room? Then there are not too many humans on the earth. Unless you have every square meter of space near you filled with humans, one human per square meter, for miles away, then we do not have way too many humans.

This is a stunningly ignorant statement. There is no kingdom of life for which we do not study phylogenetic relatedness.

Could you show me a graph with every type of plant graphed on it showing evolution?


"If you’re living like there is no God you’d better be right!" - Unknown

This message is a reply to:
 Message 199 by Belfry, posted 06-10-2006 8:55 AM Belfry has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 248 by crashfrog, posted 06-11-2006 12:25 AM Someone who cares has not replied
 Message 259 by Belfry, posted 06-11-2006 8:28 AM Someone who cares has not replied

crashfrog
Member (Idle past 786 days)
Posts: 19762
From: Silver Spring, MD
Joined: 03-20-2003


Message 248 of 302 (320360)
06-11-2006 12:25 AM
Reply to: Message 247 by Someone who cares
06-11-2006 12:19 AM


Re: Allow me to defend myself
Do you have some elbow room? Then there are not too many humans on the earth. Unless you have every square meter of space near you filled with humans, one human per square meter, for miles away, then we do not have way too many humans.

Um...

If we've got humans standing on every square meter of the Earth, where are we going to grow all the food?

Or did it escape your notice that human beings have to eat?

Edited by crashfrog, : No reason given.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 247 by Someone who cares, posted 06-11-2006 12:19 AM Someone who cares has not replied

Someone who cares
Member (Idle past 5070 days)
Posts: 192
Joined: 06-06-2006


Message 249 of 302 (320368)
06-11-2006 12:38 AM
Reply to: Message 211 by RAZD
06-10-2006 6:38 PM


Re: The essay -- the problems start at the very beginning.
Looks like this thread is devolving into "What is Wrong With SWC's Essay" so maybe we should take it a step at a time to show the logical fallacies and erroneous information.

I'm sorry if it's starting to be that way. I do realize this is kind of floating away from the point of this thread, my apologese. If it becomes too much of an issue, administrators and moderators, maybe I should propose a new thread for it? Would you make a new thread for people to take apart my essay and examine it bit by bit? Or is this ok? Please tell me, I don't want to do something that would be wrong here.

Ever wondered what an argument from incredulity looked like? This first paragraph is nothing but fluff and the assertion that the author actually knows something that the reader does not. As we shall see (if we haven't already) this is a false assumption.

I was kind of writing it to an audience that was just fed evolution in public schools and didn't know what to believe.

Wrong again. We are talking about a science not a "popular belief" -- science based on factual evidence.

No, evolution is a popular belief, I may even call it a religion. You may not call it that, but I do. Because you have yet to show me the factual evidence directly supporting evolution. I see evidence against it.

No "belief" involved.

Really? Did you know, that the chance for the first cell to form by chance is mathematically impossible? It takes faith to believe in something that is mathematically impossible...

Either the author does not understand the topic enough to define it properly, and thus will be unable to talk intelligently about it,

Or the author is purposely misrepresenting the topic, and thus will misrepresent anything else he needs to in order to make whatever point he intends with such misrepresentation,

Or the author is ignorant of the proper definition, and thus is likely to be ignorant of any other related issue,

Or the author is deluded into thinking this is the truth, in which case his delusions will likely color any thing else he says.

Let me add an "Or."

Or the author has challenged many evolutionists in several forums to provide undebatable evidence directly in support of evolution, and they couldn't. And he did MUCH research, from MANY sources, and found that the evidence is actually against evolution. Thus he came to the conclusions that he did.


"If you’re living like there is no God you’d better be right!" - Unknown

This message is a reply to:
 Message 211 by RAZD, posted 06-10-2006 6:38 PM RAZD has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 252 by anglagard, posted 06-11-2006 12:58 AM Someone who cares has not replied
 Message 256 by RAZD, posted 06-11-2006 7:37 AM Someone who cares has not replied
 Message 258 by PaulK, posted 06-11-2006 7:57 AM Someone who cares has not replied
 Message 263 by kuresu, posted 06-11-2006 12:03 PM Someone who cares has not replied
 Message 277 by Lithodid-Man, posted 06-11-2006 8:12 PM Someone who cares has not replied

Someone who cares
Member (Idle past 5070 days)
Posts: 192
Joined: 06-06-2006


Message 250 of 302 (320374)
06-11-2006 12:48 AM
Reply to: Message 216 by RAZD
06-10-2006 6:53 PM


Re: age of the earth ... again?
I doubt it. So far you have run from any discussion of actual evidence for anything. And that when others provide the evidence -- your record of substantiating any assertion you have made is zero.

If you say I have given no evidence for my "assertions", you are ignorant of the truth. Please take a look back at my numerous replies, I have supported many of my "assertions", to those who would ask. Like I said, many of my "assertions" are supported in my essay, and I don't want to repeat myself numerous times to many evolutionists on several forums. Just read it and you will see. Please.

Why no response on my suggestion to talk about simple speciation with an example?

I have made a reply! This again shows that you just skipped over my posts. Please look back, I replied to this issue earlier.


"If you’re living like there is no God you’d better be right!" - Unknown

This message is a reply to:
 Message 216 by RAZD, posted 06-10-2006 6:53 PM RAZD has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 257 by RAZD, posted 06-11-2006 7:47 AM Someone who cares has not replied

Someone who cares
Member (Idle past 5070 days)
Posts: 192
Joined: 06-06-2006


Message 251 of 302 (320375)
06-11-2006 12:50 AM
Reply to: Message 217 by RAZD
06-10-2006 6:56 PM


Re: The essay -- the problems start at the very beginning.
And protraying evolution as being common descent is making a strawman out of a molehill of incredulity eh?

What is that supposed to mean? I said evolution is the popular belief that a single cell or something simpler evolved into humans over time.


"If you’re living like there is no God you’d better be right!" - Unknown

This message is a reply to:
 Message 217 by RAZD, posted 06-10-2006 6:56 PM RAZD has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 255 by RAZD, posted 06-11-2006 6:53 AM Someone who cares has not replied

anglagard
Member (Idle past 156 days)
Posts: 2339
From: Socorro, New Mexico USA
Joined: 03-18-2006


Message 252 of 302 (320378)
06-11-2006 12:58 AM
Reply to: Message 249 by Someone who cares
06-11-2006 12:38 AM


Re: The essay -- the problems start at the very beginning.
quote:
'm sorry if it's starting to be that way. I do realize this is kind of floating away from the point of this thread, my apologese. If it becomes too much of an issue, administrators and moderators, maybe I should propose a new thread for it? Would you make a new thread for people to take apart my essay and examine it bit by bit? Or is this ok? Please tell me, I don't want to do something that would be wrong here.

I would personally enjoy taking your essay apart piece by piece (as has already begun to occur). Hope that should you propose its own thread that it would be in coffee house so it can be revealed for what I believe it is, a tract against science and mainstream Christanity.

Edited by anglagard, : Take out extra 'has'


This message is a reply to:
 Message 249 by Someone who cares, posted 06-11-2006 12:38 AM Someone who cares has not replied

Crue Knight
Inactive Member


Message 253 of 302 (320393)
06-11-2006 1:23 AM


Question!
Look all around us. We've got a shopping mall. We've created "horseless carriages". We've even got an autoshop for that too. We've gone to the moon. All that in 100 years!

Look at the monkeys or any other animal. Why are they the same as they were thousands of years ago? Why has evolution "chosen" humans to rule the earth? (which coincidently the Bible says God put the animals under us to be meat)

Are you sure this evolution thing is working? It's all started as a crazy idea, then we got more serious into it and started to create theories about it to make sence. But if you look way back, this "theory" of evolution has no foundation.

Think! If evolution promotes the "strongest" animals, why arent elephants, or gorrilas, or tigers wiser or smarter than us? Why us humans that are 10x weaker than a gorrila becomes a million times smarter and more advanced then a gorrila? Why couldnt some other animal be smarter than us. Or even become a little more advanced than what they were a thousand years ago? Do they all depend on instincts? Where did those insticts come from?

Questions that stumps me.

Edited by Crue Knight, : Add


Read "Time Has an End" by, H. Camping for great evdence that the Bible is true and the word of God. You can read it online at www.timehasanend.org

Replies to this message:
 Message 254 by DrJones*, posted 06-11-2006 1:43 AM Crue Knight has replied

DrJones*
Member
Posts: 2216
From: Edmonton, Alberta, Canada
Joined: 08-19-2004


Message 254 of 302 (320395)
06-11-2006 1:43 AM
Reply to: Message 253 by Crue Knight
06-11-2006 1:23 AM


Re: Question!
ok at the monkeys or any other animal. Why are they the same as they were thousands of years ago?

They aren't.

But if you look way back, this "theory" of evolution has no foundation.

You mean other than the fossil record and the genetic evidence?

If evolution promotes the "strongest" animals, why arent elephants, or gorrilas, or tigers wiser or smarter than us?

Cause evolution doesn't promote the strongest. The organisms that are best adapted to their ecological niche are the ones that survive.

Questions that stumps me.

Well, get an education.


Just a monkey in a long line of kings.
If "elitist" just means "not the dumbest motherfucker in the room", I'll be an elitist!
*not an actual doctor

This message is a reply to:
 Message 253 by Crue Knight, posted 06-11-2006 1:23 AM Crue Knight has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 279 by Crue Knight, posted 06-12-2006 10:40 PM DrJones* has replied

RAZD
Member (Idle past 724 days)
Posts: 20714
From: the other end of the sidewalk
Joined: 03-14-2004


Message 255 of 302 (320433)
06-11-2006 6:53 AM
Reply to: Message 251 by Someone who cares
06-11-2006 12:50 AM


Re: The essay -- the problems start at the very beginning.
I said evolution is the popular belief that a single cell or something simpler evolved into humans over time.

Evolution is not a belief, and it is not common descent.

So it's wrong on both counts. It's careless wording that misses the real definition of evolution.

Evolution is the change in species over time.

Common descent is a prediction of the theory, but it is not the theory. We see common descent happen, therefore the theory of species change over time is {tested\validated\corroborated}.

You word your essay as if you are an authority on the subject, but you get the definition of evolution wrong and you are careless about the truth of the facts that you use. You are not an expert, you use logical fallacies and incorrect information to reach invalid conclusions.

I assume you do it out of careless ignorance instead of intent, as if it was intentional then you would be a fraud and a liar, instead of just careless ignorance. I give you the benefit of the doubt on intent, but I expect you to learn that you have made some mistakes (several) and take the steps to correct them.

Enjoy.


Join the effort to unravel {AIDSHIV} with Team EvC! (click)

we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand

RebelAAmerican.Zen[Deist
... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ...
to share.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 251 by Someone who cares, posted 06-11-2006 12:50 AM Someone who cares has not replied

Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2018 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.1
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2022