Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9164 total)
5 online now:
Newest Member: ChatGPT
Post Volume: Total: 916,912 Year: 4,169/9,624 Month: 1,040/974 Week: 367/286 Day: 10/13 Hour: 0/1


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   explaining common ancestry
nwr
Member
Posts: 6412
From: Geneva, Illinois
Joined: 08-08-2005
Member Rating: 4.9


Message 9 of 159 (268332)
12-12-2005 5:14 PM
Reply to: Message 7 by Carico
12-12-2005 3:24 PM


On scientific theories
Hello Carico, welcome back.
Since nobody else has posted much to this thread, let me start. And I want to start by explaining what is a theory.
Let me start by talking about the theory of gravity. I'm sure you have heard of it. One of the things that the theory of gravity allows us to explain, is how the earth moves around the sun in an elliptical orbit. Apologies if this looks like a diversion. But I would rather start with a theory that you probably accept. Then I'll comment on the theory of evolution later in this message.

On the theory of gravity


Strictly speaking, the theory of gravity does not tell us anything about the sun or about the earth. The theory is about process that exist in nature. Those processes would exist even if there happened to be no sun and no earth.
When we measure some facts about the sun and the earth, we can use the theory of gravity to compute how the earth should move around the sun. A good way of describing this is that the theory of gravity allows us to interpret data (measurements) and use them to make useful predictions.
Scientists are often sloppy when they talk about theories. They often say "the theory of gravity tells us how the earth moves around the sun". However, strictly speaking, the theory doesn't say anything about this. It should be "the theory of gravity, together with some measurements of the earth and sun, tell us how the earth moves around the sun".
I hope you can see how it is often convenient for scientists to be a bit sloppy in what they say. Unfortunately, that sloppiness can be confusing to non-scientists trying to understand what they say.

On the theory of evolution


The theory of evolution is about processes, and how they are involved in changes in biological creatures. Believe it or not, but the theory of evolution does not say that apes evolved into humans. That's because it is about processes. The theory itself would be just as valid even if there were no apes and no humans.
We use the theory of evolution to help us interpret data and make predictions. In this case the data is what we know about species that exist today and what we know from fossils. The theory of evolution can thus tell us how anxient species could evolve into modern species.
Most scientists believe that humans evolved from apes. People will sometimes say "the theory of evolution says that apes evolved into humans." But, strictly speaking, the theory itself does not say that, since it is only about the processes. A better statement would be "the theory of evolution, together with the known data, implies that humans evolved from an earlier species of apes."
Strictly speaking, even that last statement is not quite right. The problem with it, is that we have too few fossils to fully map out the origin of humans. The evidence that humans evolved from apes is very strong, and no evolutionist doubts it. But it actually does fall a little short of proof. There are currently at least two (probably more) hypotheses on the evolution of humans. According to one hypothesis (the Aquatic Ape Theory), humans evolved from a species of aquatic apes that lived near the shore and probably used fish as the main diet. The other hypothesis is that a band of apes adapted themselves to living on the savannah instead if in the forest, and humans evolved from these savannah apes.
I think the majority of evolutionists think the aquatic ape hypothesis is very unlikely, and the way we evolved is more likely to be along the lines of the savannah hypothesis. I mention both of these hypotheses only to indicate that the exact path by which humans evolved is uncertain.
The main conclusion is that there is still some uncertainty on the history of human origins. However, we do know that modern humans have been on earth for far longer than the 6000 year age that some creationists claim. There are fossils of modern humans, and there are human artifacts which are significantly older than that.
Enough for now. Unless somebody beats me to it, I will later post something about the processes of evolution, and about how it might have happened.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 7 by Carico, posted 12-12-2005 3:24 PM Carico has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 16 by Carico, posted 12-12-2005 8:55 PM nwr has replied
 Message 24 by RAZD, posted 12-12-2005 10:29 PM nwr has not replied

  
nwr
Member
Posts: 6412
From: Geneva, Illinois
Joined: 08-08-2005
Member Rating: 4.9


Message 18 of 159 (268439)
12-12-2005 9:21 PM
Reply to: Message 16 by Carico
12-12-2005 8:55 PM


Re: On scientific theories
Man didn't invent gravity. Man DISCOVERED gravity that has always been here. All anyone has to to is observe the magnetic pull that exists in the earth's atmosphere and give it a name.
A clarification. Gravity and magnetism are quite different things. Gravity doesn't come from any "magnetic pull". Maybe you just made a poor choice of words.
Man discovered evolution in exactly the same sense that man discovered gravity.
Again, when scientists discover God's laws, they will always be right.
Biological evolution is just as much one of God's laws as is gravity.
But apes produce apes and humans produce humans.
That's correct. But I can see how that can be confusing.
The offspring of ape parents are a little bit different from their parents. Now imagine just a little bit of difference, time after time, then these differences could all add up to a big change.
What makes it confusing to you, is that it looks as if there had to be a time when ape parents had a human child. The problem is that the difference between what is a human and what is an ape, is somewhat vague and hard to determine.
The apes we see today are quite different from the humans we see today. But suppose that we could do some time travelling and go back in a time machine to look for the event where a pair of apes had human children. What we would actually see is a pair of creatures that we could not be sure whether we should call them apes or we should call them humans, having children that we could not be sure whether we should call them ape children or we should call them human children.
I hope that helps to clear up the confusion.

What shall it profit a nation if it gain the whole world, yet lose its own soul.
(paraphrasing Mark 8:36)

This message is a reply to:
 Message 16 by Carico, posted 12-12-2005 8:55 PM Carico has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 19 by Carico, posted 12-12-2005 9:35 PM nwr has replied

  
nwr
Member
Posts: 6412
From: Geneva, Illinois
Joined: 08-08-2005
Member Rating: 4.9


Message 23 of 159 (268485)
12-12-2005 10:15 PM
Reply to: Message 19 by Carico
12-12-2005 9:35 PM


Re: On scientific theories
Gravity is a pull. You can call it magnetic or not magnetic but it is part of God's design, not human design.
No, it isn't magnetic.
But there is no evidence that shows that primates and humans can interbreed, only speculation that comes from the imagiations of men.
I have never suggested that they can interbreed. This is a red herring.
Sorry, but God didn't mention anything about evolution in the bible.
God didn't mention anything about automobiles in the bible. Does that mean that your automobile doesn't work?
He said that he created man out of dust.
That was a metaphor.
So evolution very definitely contradicts God's laws.
Either you misunderstand God's laws, or the God you believe in was wrong.
But since human genes were never present in any ape or primate to begin with, ...
Somewhere around 95% of human genes are also found in chimpanzees.
I'm afraid that you have a lot of your facts wrong.

What shall it profit a nation if it gain the whole world, yet lose its own soul.
(paraphrasing Mark 8:36)

This message is a reply to:
 Message 19 by Carico, posted 12-12-2005 9:35 PM Carico has not replied

  
nwr
Member
Posts: 6412
From: Geneva, Illinois
Joined: 08-08-2005
Member Rating: 4.9


Message 106 of 159 (271998)
12-23-2005 11:40 AM
Reply to: Message 104 by Carico
12-23-2005 11:17 AM


Humans are apes
But you can go to a jungle and to the zoo to see what it is since you have no idea what it is. But again,I'll try to explain it to you.
ROTFL
I remember, years ago, visiting the ape house at the Bronx Zoo. There was a sign there, announcing the world's most dangerous ape. If you checked out the sign, you found it was a mirror.
Zoos have long recognized that humans are apes.
Satya July 00: Editorial by Catherine Clyne

Impeach Bush.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 104 by Carico, posted 12-23-2005 11:17 AM Carico 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