Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 63 (9161 total)
1 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,585 Year: 2,842/9,624 Month: 687/1,588 Week: 93/229 Day: 4/61 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   The Definition and Description of a "Transitional"
Itachi Uchiha
Member (Idle past 5605 days)
Posts: 272
From: mayaguez, Puerto RIco
Joined: 06-21-2003


Message 61 of 110 (165128)
12-04-2004 11:51 AM
Reply to: Message 53 by arachnophilia
12-01-2004 1:55 AM


Re: Question
Arachnophilia writes:
ok. how about this one. i like cold weather. so not only can i do well in, say a puerto rican environment, maybe i can do well in an alaskan one as well, where as you might not enjoy freezing your behind off. do i have more information than you?
and before you say that's not a genetic difference, it is: my family is all from northern countries. i'm willing to get i have much thicker body hair than you do, among other differences.
The truth is that we adapt to our surroundings. If you get used to the cold you will not like the weather in my country the same way i dont like the cold. This has nothing to do with information. A lion that lives in a zoo cannot live in the wild. it will most likely die befores it adapts or gets used to it.

Ponlo todo en las manos de Dios y que se joda el mundo. El principio de la sabiduria es el temor a Jehova

This message is a reply to:
 Message 53 by arachnophilia, posted 12-01-2004 1:55 AM arachnophilia has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 68 by arachnophilia, posted 12-04-2004 10:56 PM Itachi Uchiha has not replied

  
AdminJazzlover
Inactive Member


Message 62 of 110 (165130)
12-04-2004 12:05 PM
Reply to: Message 55 by zephyr
12-01-2004 3:07 AM


Re: Question
zephyr writes:
I'm finding it very hard to believe that's an accident. What kind of admin are you anyway? Are they so desperate for creationist admins that they'll let just anyone in these days?
I thought the whole point of admins was to stay above the fray and ensure debaters play nice, not throw insults at those of whom they disapprove. If you want to be respected, you need to avoid taking this kind of thing personally.
Yes it was on purpose and it came after various attacks from him to me and others in this forum that dont agree on his point of view. I was expecting Lam himself to respond to this because I wanted him to feel the way he usually makes the others feel with the purpose of letting him know that personal attacks lead nowhere here. I only take personal what is personal. Neither me or the other admins are gonna take any crap with Lam, you or anybody else. The evo admins and evo posters here now that I dont disrespect anybody here and that it is usually me who gets disrespected just for being a creo. When I am attacked personally you can be sure I'm gonna hit back. I dont scratch my head unless it itches and I dont dance unless I hear some music.

Yo soy BoriCua Pa Que tu lo Sepas

This message is a reply to:
 Message 55 by zephyr, posted 12-01-2004 3:07 AM zephyr has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 69 by Darwin Redux, posted 12-06-2004 12:17 AM AdminJazzlover has replied

  
Itachi Uchiha
Member (Idle past 5605 days)
Posts: 272
From: mayaguez, Puerto RIco
Joined: 06-21-2003


Message 63 of 110 (165133)
12-04-2004 12:24 PM
Reply to: Message 57 by JonF
12-03-2004 10:03 AM


Re: Trying to head back towards the topic...
JonF writes:
Ah, but the theory does not say (and the evidence does not indicate) that you are an updated version of the chimp. You and the chimp are different updated versions of a common ancestor. As such, we can do things that the common ancestor couldn't and the chimp can do things that the common ancestor couldn't.
It is obvious that new version does things the older version could not do. If that werent the case there would be no point in updating.
The new version does the new updated things plus the old things. My point is that if we are and updated version of the common ancestor (in this case the ape)why then we cant do what the ape easily does plus what we humans can do. What is disadvantageous about climbing trees the way apes do. Wouldnt that help us harvesting crops that grow in tall trees?
JonF writes:
For example, blind cave fish (which have non-functional eyes) have obviously lost an ability that their distant ancestors had ... because they have no use for it and there's an advantage in their particular environment to not putting any energy into operating eyes. Eventually they'll probably lose the eyes altogether.
From this example you give me the idea that you believe that humans and fish have the common ancestor. If this is true, give some evidence or a link.

Ponlo todo en las manos de Dios y que se joda el mundo. El principio de la sabiduria es el temor a Jehova

This message is a reply to:
 Message 57 by JonF, posted 12-03-2004 10:03 AM JonF has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 66 by jar, posted 12-04-2004 1:02 PM Itachi Uchiha has replied
 Message 67 by JonF, posted 12-04-2004 1:12 PM Itachi Uchiha has not replied

  
Itachi Uchiha
Member (Idle past 5605 days)
Posts: 272
From: mayaguez, Puerto RIco
Joined: 06-21-2003


Message 64 of 110 (165134)
12-04-2004 12:29 PM
Reply to: Message 60 by jar
12-03-2004 12:52 PM


Re: Trying to head back towards the topic...
jar writes:
But you are still avoiding the question. How are a human and a chimpanzee different?
I thought you were talking about similarities and not differences. Inteligence, habitat, size, way of communicating, etc

Ponlo todo en las manos de Dios y que se joda el mundo. El principio de la sabiduria es el temor a Jehova

This message is a reply to:
 Message 60 by jar, posted 12-03-2004 12:52 PM jar has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 65 by jar, posted 12-04-2004 12:42 PM Itachi Uchiha has replied

  
jar
Member (Idle past 384 days)
Posts: 34026
From: Texas!!
Joined: 04-20-2004


Message 65 of 110 (165138)
12-04-2004 12:42 PM
Reply to: Message 64 by Itachi Uchiha
12-04-2004 12:29 PM


Re: Trying to head back towards the topic...
I'm trying to get an idea of how you can tell a chimp from a human.
you gave a list:
Inteligence, habitat, size, way of communicating, etc
Some of those might be useful, for example habitat, but others, for example size, can vary greatly form individual to indiviual.
But let's start working with your list.
There are habitats where both chimp and human live. If you find a skeleton there, how can you tell if it's a chimp or human?

Aslan is not a Tame Lion

This message is a reply to:
 Message 64 by Itachi Uchiha, posted 12-04-2004 12:29 PM Itachi Uchiha has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 71 by Itachi Uchiha, posted 12-06-2004 12:35 PM jar has not replied

  
jar
Member (Idle past 384 days)
Posts: 34026
From: Texas!!
Joined: 04-20-2004


Message 66 of 110 (165140)
12-04-2004 1:02 PM
Reply to: Message 63 by Itachi Uchiha
12-04-2004 12:24 PM


Re: Trying to head back towards the topic...
You said:
It is obvious that new version does things the older version could not do. If that werent the case there would be no point in updating.
There are a couple things in that statement that may indicate a basic, low level misunderstanding.
First, you say, "It's obvious". Whenever that crops up my first reaction is to dismiss the statement because very, very seldom is anything that's correct obvious. Usually that means someone is saying "I think it's true".
The second part that shows a possible missunderstanding is using the word "Update". That seems to imply you think that evolution is some trend from worse to better. That's not the case. There is no directionality to evolution. All we can see of evolution is one result, "Did the critters live and reproduce or did they die off".
The new version does the new updated things plus the old things. My point is that if we are and updated version of the common ancestor (in this case the ape)why then we cant do what the ape easily does plus what we humans can do.
Because we are not updated versions. Again, evolution is not a trend, it's a history.
Evolution has nothing to do with getting better. The new version might not do the old things.
So back towards the topic, you find two skeletons. How do you identify whether they are humans or chimps?
This message has been edited by jar, 12-04-2004 01:03 PM

Aslan is not a Tame Lion

This message is a reply to:
 Message 63 by Itachi Uchiha, posted 12-04-2004 12:24 PM Itachi Uchiha has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 72 by Itachi Uchiha, posted 12-06-2004 12:55 PM jar has replied

  
JonF
Member (Idle past 158 days)
Posts: 6174
Joined: 06-23-2003


Message 67 of 110 (165146)
12-04-2004 1:12 PM
Reply to: Message 63 by Itachi Uchiha
12-04-2004 12:24 PM


Re: Trying to head back towards the topic...
The new version does the new updated things plus the old things.
Nope. The new version is just different. The differences can, and do, include new abilities or loss of old abilities.
My point is that if we are and updated version of the common ancestor (in this case the ape)why then we cant do what the ape easily does plus what we humans can do
Because we have lost those abilities.
What is disadvantageous about climbing trees the way apes do. Wouldnt that help us harvesting crops that grow in tall trees?
It's difficult to come up with a solid answer to that question. It appears that our ancestors lived in savannahs, and were cursorial hunters. They didn't need to climb trees ('cause there weren't a lot of trees, and there wasn't a lot of food in the trees that there were), but they did need to run; it's quite possible that the changes that made us better runners required losing the good climbing abilities, because good climbing ability was neither advantageous nor disadvantageous in the environment in which our ancestors found themselves. Or perhaps good climbing ability in a human-like frame is incompatible with good running ability.
Remember, we do not develop or lose abilities because it would be cool to develop or lose them; it happens because there is a difference in reproductive success in the current environment. Also remember that all changes work on already-existing structures, and that the process of evolution tends to find solutions that are good enough (seldom best) and similar to existing solutions to other problems. Perhaps good climbing ability would help to harvest fruits and suchlike, perhaps the ability to fly would help in geting away from predators. We don't have those abilities because they did not confer better reproductive success on the savannah (and, in the case of flying, it would probably be too far away from the existing structures to develop at all).
From this example you give me the idea that you believe that humans and fish have the common ancestor. If this is true, give some evidence or a link.
I do believe that humans and fish have a common ancestor, but that's not the subject of this discussion. (Of course, we share a very large percentage of our DNA with fish, and we can trace the morphological changes through the fossil record). The point of my example is that there are obvious cases when an ability of an ancestor has been lost in a descendant.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 63 by Itachi Uchiha, posted 12-04-2004 12:24 PM Itachi Uchiha has not replied

  
arachnophilia
Member (Idle past 1334 days)
Posts: 9069
From: god's waiting room
Joined: 05-21-2004


Message 68 of 110 (165263)
12-04-2004 10:56 PM
Reply to: Message 61 by Itachi Uchiha
12-04-2004 11:51 AM


Re: Question
The truth is that we adapt to our surroundings. If you get used to the cold you will not like the weather in my country the same way i dont like the cold. This has nothing to do with information
so you're saying that i am genetically no different than you?
see, i'm not what you would call genetically adapted for warm weather. my nose is structured to keep heat in, i have very pale skin, and thick body hair. i'm build large and stocky, because it keeps heat in.
now, i was born in florida. i've lived here my entire life. warm weather doesn't bother me. you and i live in the same climate, if you still live in puerto rico. and i bet we've been alive about the same amount of time.
now, stick us in canada in february, and see who adapts better.
i am do equally or slightly worse than you in one climate, and a lot better in another. since i've now ruled adapting to my surroundings, seeing as how i've never lived in a cold climate, and we're operating strictly on a genetic basis, do i have more information than you?
This message has been edited by Arachnophilia, 12-04-2004 10:58 PM

This message is a reply to:
 Message 61 by Itachi Uchiha, posted 12-04-2004 11:51 AM Itachi Uchiha has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 70 by sidelined, posted 12-06-2004 7:01 AM arachnophilia has not replied

  
Darwin Redux
Inactive Member


Message 69 of 110 (165524)
12-06-2004 12:17 AM
Reply to: Message 62 by AdminJazzlover
12-04-2004 12:05 PM


Totally off topic
Your Admin Avatar is totally hot. Who is it?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 62 by AdminJazzlover, posted 12-04-2004 12:05 PM AdminJazzlover has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 73 by AdminJazzlover, posted 12-06-2004 1:01 PM Darwin Redux has replied

  
sidelined
Member (Idle past 5898 days)
Posts: 3435
From: Edmonton Alberta Canada
Joined: 08-30-2003


Message 70 of 110 (165575)
12-06-2004 7:01 AM
Reply to: Message 68 by arachnophilia
12-04-2004 10:56 PM


Re: Question
Arachnophilia
We it is not too bad here today {-20 C -4 F} with a windchill at -29.
Perhaps you and Jazzlover could come working with me roofing one day in the bowels of winter here and test out the cold weather abilty of the two of you.We operate up to minus 30 C and only stop then because of equipment being dangerous at that temperature.
I am sure you guys could enjoy skiing or snowmobiling or ice fishing.There are so many activities in winter here that are not often stopped by the cold.Come on up and see life at its best.Winter rules.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 68 by arachnophilia, posted 12-04-2004 10:56 PM arachnophilia has not replied

  
Itachi Uchiha
Member (Idle past 5605 days)
Posts: 272
From: mayaguez, Puerto RIco
Joined: 06-21-2003


Message 71 of 110 (165655)
12-06-2004 12:35 PM
Reply to: Message 65 by jar
12-04-2004 12:42 PM


Re: Trying to head back towards the topic...
jar writes:
There are habitats where both chimp and human live. If you find a skeleton there, how can you tell if it's a chimp or human?
Let me see. Well we can start with size which is in the list and we can also go with skeleton structure.

Ponlo todo en las manos de Dios y que se joda el mundo. El principio de la sabiduria es el temor a Jehova

This message is a reply to:
 Message 65 by jar, posted 12-04-2004 12:42 PM jar has not replied

  
Itachi Uchiha
Member (Idle past 5605 days)
Posts: 272
From: mayaguez, Puerto RIco
Joined: 06-21-2003


Message 72 of 110 (165658)
12-06-2004 12:55 PM
Reply to: Message 66 by jar
12-04-2004 1:02 PM


Re: Trying to head back towards the topic...
jar writes:
The second part that shows a possible missunderstanding is using the word "Update". That seems to imply you think that evolution is some trend from worse to better. That's not the case. There is no directionality to evolution. All we can see of evolution is one result, "Did the critters live and reproduce or did they die off".
Apparently there are as many definitions for evolution as there are minds. For some people evolution is getting better and better for others its just survival of the fittest. For some everything started with the big bang and for others the big bang has nothing to do with evolution. Who am I gonna believe? Heres a quote from David Menton PhD. He is a researcher for AiG.
"They are quite certain, for example, that the similarities between apes and humans prove they evolved from a common ape-like ancestor "only" 2 or 3 million years ago. By comparison, evolutionists say we are far more distantly "related" to our insect "relatives." The Living World exhibit at the St. Louis Zoo at one time had a sign by a dish of fruit flies that confidently declared: "humans and flies had a common ancestor 630 million years ago." This hypothetical "common ancestor" is not identified because no one has the slightest evidence of what it looked like, or even if it existed at all!
This belief, that similarities between animals can only be understood in terms of an evolutionary relationship, is the most fundamental axiom of evolution -- almost all arguments for evolution depend upon it. Evolutionists do not feel compelled to prove their claim that similarity necessarily means common evolutionary ancestry -- they assume it. Indeed, evolutionists never question or investigate whether evolution is true or not, rather they ask which animal evolved into which, and their answer is generally based on similarity!Most evolutionists are dead certain that this very ape-like ape evolved into man because of certain arguable similarities to man in its teeth and pelvic bones. Perhaps you heard the story of the evolutionist who dug up a fossilized fragment of an ape's jaw and promptly declared it to be an ancestor of man -- he was so excited about the find he said, "I wouldn't have seen it if I hadn't believed it."
One of the problems with the similarity = evolutionary ancestry axiom is that evolutionists ignore it whenever it doesn't fit their evolutionary scenarios. There are many instances of remarkable similarities between animals that evolutionists consider to be only distantly related. The eye of the squid, for example, is strikingly similar to the human eye. Sometimes almost the whole body and even the behavior of animals are obviously similar and still evolutionists argue they are not closely related!For example, many of the Australian marsupials have strikingly similar counterparts to certain North American placental mammals. There are both marsupial and placental mammal versions of mice, moles, rabbits, wolves, and badgers. There is even evidence that there once were both marsupial and placental saber-toothed tigers! Yet evolutionists consider marsupials and placental mammals to be only distantly related because their mechanism of reproduction is so different. Evolutionists believe that the primitive ancestors of marsupial and placental mammals split off from a hypothetical common ancestor about 120 million years ago, long before there were mice, moles, rabbits, wolves, and badgers, and have been evolving separately ever since. How then did both these separate lines manage to come up with such similar animals?
Incredibly, evolutionists explain away amazing similarities between animals they consider to be only distantly related by simply invoking "convergent evolution." Convergent evolution is the unobserved and unexplained process whereby two very different animals independently evolve into two very similar animals by an incredible run of countless lucky mutational coincidences extending over tens of millions of years! It seems that some folks will believe almost anything, as long as it doesn't appear in the Bible."
Are you seeing the flaws in logic of your theory.
jar writes:
So back towards the topic, you find two skeletons. How do you identify whether they are humans or chimps?
Are talking about complete skeletons or a part of a skeleton. if it is a part mention which part.

Ponlo todo en las manos de Dios y que se joda el mundo. El principio de la sabiduria es el temor a Jehova

This message is a reply to:
 Message 66 by jar, posted 12-04-2004 1:02 PM jar has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 74 by PaulK, posted 12-06-2004 1:14 PM Itachi Uchiha has not replied
 Message 75 by NosyNed, posted 12-06-2004 1:47 PM Itachi Uchiha has not replied
 Message 76 by jar, posted 12-06-2004 4:01 PM Itachi Uchiha has not replied

  
AdminJazzlover
Inactive Member


Message 73 of 110 (165659)
12-06-2004 1:01 PM
Reply to: Message 69 by Darwin Redux
12-06-2004 12:17 AM


Re: Totally off topic
He's Carlos Arroyo point guard for the Utah Jazz in the NBA and point guard also for the Puerto Rico National team. He led the mercilles destruction of Puerto Rico over the Dream Team in the olympics. I just hpoe you are a girl.
This message has been edited by AdminJazzlover, 12-06-2004 01:01 PM

Yo soy BoriCua Pa Que tu lo Sepas

This message is a reply to:
 Message 69 by Darwin Redux, posted 12-06-2004 12:17 AM Darwin Redux has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 87 by Darwin Redux, posted 12-14-2004 8:57 PM AdminJazzlover has not replied

  
PaulK
Member
Posts: 17815
Joined: 01-10-2003
Member Rating: 2.1


Message 74 of 110 (165661)
12-06-2004 1:14 PM
Reply to: Message 72 by Itachi Uchiha
12-06-2004 12:55 PM


Re: Trying to head back towards the topic...
I see the flaw in Menton's logic. He claims that simple similarities are assumed to be evidence of common ancestry. Then he goes and lists examples of similarities that are not accepted as resulting from common ancestry. Obviously it is not as simple as Menton tries to suggest.
For instance dolphins icthyosaurs and sharks share a similar overall form because of the way they live. Convergent evolution is often largely the result of functional constraints - and often the results can be seen to be quite distinct. Convergent evolution is certainly not unexplained and it is clearly evidenced.
Or to show the limits of convergence, the thylacine dentition lacks the distinctive carnassial tooth of the canids - the convergence does not include details like that. Convergence typically produces similarities that are seen to be "skin deep" when examined in more detail.
And nowhere in the quote from Menton do we see an attempt to address the overall pattern of similarities found in living species let alone the fossil record. Yet that is a key part of the argument - but addressing it would destroy the claim that simple similarity in itself is taken as proof of common ancestry.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 72 by Itachi Uchiha, posted 12-06-2004 12:55 PM Itachi Uchiha has not replied

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


Message 75 of 110 (165670)
12-06-2004 1:47 PM
Reply to: Message 72 by Itachi Uchiha
12-06-2004 12:55 PM


definition of evolution
Apparently there are as many definitions for evolution as there are minds. For some people evolution is getting better and better for others its just survival of the fittest. For some everything started with the big bang and for others the big bang has nothing to do with evolution. Who am I gonna believe? Heres a quote from David Menton PhD. He is a researcher for AiG.
There may be a lot of definitions from those who don't understand the field. That doesn't mean that they are meaningful.
The "getting better" one is a very common misconception. However, if you just look at what evolution is and how it operates it is clear that isn't possible. It is obviously wrong when you understand how evolution works.
Everything "starting" with the big bang doesn't mean that the truth or falsity of the evolutionary process depends in any way on the idea of the big bang. If the big bang idea is totally wrong and the steady state theory, or devine creation or anything else is right then evolution of life on earth, separated from the origin of the universe by almost 10 billion years is just the same.
If you don't know who to believe, why don't you reason it out for yourself. Both the idea of "getting better" and the connectin between the big bang and evolution can be worked out for yourself. You don't have to refer to what anyone says.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 72 by Itachi Uchiha, posted 12-06-2004 12:55 PM Itachi Uchiha has not replied

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024