Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
4 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,806 Year: 3,063/9,624 Month: 908/1,588 Week: 91/223 Day: 2/17 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Nuggin & Carico - Evolution Explained
Nuggin
Member (Idle past 2492 days)
Posts: 2965
From: Los Angeles, CA USA
Joined: 08-09-2005


Message 1 of 36 (272334)
12-24-2005 12:42 AM


Starting this 1 on 1 as an attempt to answer the questions that Carico has been repeatedly posting to multiple threads.
The point here is a foundation up explaination of evolution.
Carico has agreed, so long as I pick a definition and keep to it and don't take back things I say. I think I can handle that.
So, if someone with admin power would move this to a real thread, I'd appreciate it.
If you need a subject or something to make this an official thread - here we go:
The Theory of Evolution is self apparentent once you have an understanding of the building blocks of the Theory. It can be explained fairly easily.

  
Nuggin
Member (Idle past 2492 days)
Posts: 2965
From: Los Angeles, CA USA
Joined: 08-09-2005


Message 3 of 36 (272342)
12-24-2005 3:10 AM


Carico? You ready?
Thanks for moving this.
Carico, are you ready?
Before we start, let's lay out the ground rules/purposes so that visitors who aren't familiar with either of us will at least know where we are coming from.
It's my contention that the Theory of Evolution is fairly simply and easy to understand. Most of the anti-evolution rhetoric reflects general misunderstanding of the theory, or is a result of an insistance on a timeline not supported by evidence.
I understand that you have asserted an understanding of evolution, however, not having been there when you were learning what you've learned, I have no choice but to start at the beginning.
I further understand that you have a number of questions which I will refer to as "advanced questions". While I am perfectly willing to address these, I would ask that you hold off on them until we've established a foundation of understanding about what the theory does or does not say. You may discover that while setting the ground work of the theory you'll find the answers to the questions on your own.
For my part, I will try to be sensitive to your religious beliefs and refrain from baiting and flaming (two things I've done too much of in the past). I ask that you try to do the same.
Sound fair?
Do you have any requests of me before we start?
This message has been edited by Nuggin, 12-24-2005 03:11 AM

Replies to this message:
 Message 4 by Carico, posted 12-24-2005 8:36 AM Nuggin has replied

  
Nuggin
Member (Idle past 2492 days)
Posts: 2965
From: Los Angeles, CA USA
Joined: 08-09-2005


Message 5 of 36 (272477)
12-24-2005 1:50 PM
Reply to: Message 4 by Carico
12-24-2005 8:36 AM


Basics
Okay, starting off with the basics. I'm not trying to talk down here, just making sure we start from the bottom up.
Key Concepts:
The World is Very Old - While this may disagree with various religious accounts, it is fundamental to the understanding of the Theory that you first understand that the world is billions of years old, rather than a few thousand years old. We could go into great detail explaining how the geologists/nuclear physicists/etc come up with this age, but I don't want us to get mired down.
There is Life on Earth - Seems pretty obvious, but laying the ground work here.
Life on Earth has Certain Things in Common - All life on Earth, be it a bacteria, a rose, or a giraffe, has certain things in common:
1) All life is mortal
2) All life reproduces
3) All life uses genetic building blocks (DNA/RNA) in it's reproduction
There are more things in common as well, but these are the three which are most important to the theory.
Are we in agreement on these three key concepts? If not, I'll go into more detailed explainations of each - but we really can not move forward without these three.
This message has been edited by Nuggin, 12-30-2005 09:39 AM

This message is a reply to:
 Message 4 by Carico, posted 12-24-2005 8:36 AM Carico has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 6 by Carico, posted 12-24-2005 4:24 PM Nuggin has replied

  
Nuggin
Member (Idle past 2492 days)
Posts: 2965
From: Los Angeles, CA USA
Joined: 08-09-2005


Message 7 of 36 (272523)
12-24-2005 5:00 PM
Reply to: Message 6 by Carico
12-24-2005 4:24 PM


Re: Basics
Well, I'll respond to that in two ways:
First, this article you read may be talking about human ancestory, but even if that date were to change by millions of years either older or younger, it has nothing to do with the initial core concept - "The Earth is Very Old".
I'm not even asking that you accept a specific date for the creation of the Earth. Understanding the Theory of Evolution does not require you to be locked down to the idea that the Earth is 4.5 billion years old. It could be 2.5 billion. It could be 6 billion.
All I'm saying is that the Earth is very old. Much older than 5 thousand years.
Second, I'm not asking that you accept that the Earth is older than 5 thousand years. I only ask you to accept that in order to understand the Theory of Evolution, you need to grasp the key concept that the Earth is very old.
The goal here is not to convince you that Evolution is correct, it's to give you an understanding of what is or is not being said by the theory of evolution.
Recent questions you've raised on various threads have all met the same response from ToE supporters: "That's not what ToE says".
My goal here is to get you up to speed on what ToE says so you can better participate in the ongoing debates.
So....
"Earth is very old"
Ready to move on? Or are we stuck right here?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 6 by Carico, posted 12-24-2005 4:24 PM Carico has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 8 by Carico, posted 12-25-2005 12:58 PM Nuggin has replied

  
Nuggin
Member (Idle past 2492 days)
Posts: 2965
From: Los Angeles, CA USA
Joined: 08-09-2005


Message 12 of 36 (272645)
12-25-2005 2:42 PM
Reply to: Message 8 by Carico
12-25-2005 12:58 PM


Re: Basics
Carico,
I remind you again, I am not "debating" the age of the Earth with you. I don't care if you believe that the Earth is 4.5 billion years old, or if you believe the Earth is six and a half weeks old. What you believe is not relavent to the discussion.
What I am trying to answer here is what ToE supporters believe and why they believe it. You have repeatedly asked "advanced questions" about the beliefs of ToE supporters which have shown a general misunderstanding of the basics of the theory. That is what I am trying to correct here.
If you do not understand the basics, you can't possibly hope to understand the more advanced concepts.
An analogy would be you asking "How can such a heavy rocket get all the way into space?" but not being willing to learn about "fire".
If you choose not to try to understand the parts of the theory, that's your choice. You have free will.
But, if that's the case, I have no choice but to ask the Admins that they bar you from all participation in the science threads as it is impossible for you to contribute to any discussion.
On a final note,
Sorry, but I'm not going to disagree with God about this.
I don't understand this comment from you. Where in the Bible does it say that the Earth is 5,000 years old? The question is rhetorical. The "days" of Creation need not be 24 hour days. (In fact, without a sun or Earth, how could the first "day" be a day as we know it?). Believing in an Old Earth is not incompatible with belief in God, or even belief in Creationism.
In fact, the YEC dates come not from God, but from Dr. John Lightfoot.
This message has been edited by Nuggin, 12-25-2005 02:43 PM

This message is a reply to:
 Message 8 by Carico, posted 12-25-2005 12:58 PM Carico has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 13 by Carico, posted 12-25-2005 6:53 PM Nuggin has replied

  
Nuggin
Member (Idle past 2492 days)
Posts: 2965
From: Los Angeles, CA USA
Joined: 08-09-2005


Message 14 of 36 (272687)
12-25-2005 7:26 PM
Reply to: Message 13 by Carico
12-25-2005 6:53 PM


Age of the Earth
Also, since you have not proven that anyone can know the exact age of the earth
Just for fun, can you prove the exact age of the Earth?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 13 by Carico, posted 12-25-2005 6:53 PM Carico has not replied

  
Nuggin
Member (Idle past 2492 days)
Posts: 2965
From: Los Angeles, CA USA
Joined: 08-09-2005


Message 15 of 36 (272689)
12-25-2005 8:09 PM
Reply to: Message 13 by Carico
12-25-2005 6:53 PM


Your one and only question
Let's look at your question:
Is it possible for one species to turn into another species without being able to breed with that species?
Your question shows a basic miss understanding of what the Theory of Evolution states.
The Theory of Evolution does not suggest that a species will evolve into another species which already exists.
In other words: Dogs exist. Cats exist. Theory of Evolution does not suggest that dogs can become cats, or vice versa.
The Theory of Evolution DOES suggest that dogs can become something other than dogs, cats can become something other than cats.
So, let's address that.
Let's talk about concretes - not just "one species" but actual examples.
"Is it possible for [wolves] to turn into [foxes] without being able to breed with [foxes]?"
For this, I'm assuming that wolves and foxes can not infact interbreed. If it turns out they can, I'll pick different animals.
I'd say that we haven't changed the substance of your question?
Now let's look for more meaning in the question:
Are you asking, is it possible for me to go about breeding wolves until I end up with a final product which looks like a fox?
Sure.
After all, people started with this:
And ended up with these:
We could approximate this:
But if your question is, can you start with a wolf and end up with a creature which can breed successfully with a fox?
No. And the Theory of Evolution does not suggest that you can. In fact, the Theory of Evoluion would predict that you can't.
However, the problem with that example is that I'm picking two species which are currently alive.
Let's try the same question but changing out one of the species for a different one.
"Is it possible for [Miacas] to turn into [foxes] without being about to breed with [foxes]?"
You betcha.
What is Miacas?
Miacas is a now extinct carnivore that lived between 57.8 to 36.6 million years ago. It is an ancestor to both wolves and foxes.
However, if it were alive today, it would likely not be able to breed with modern wolves or foxes.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 13 by Carico, posted 12-25-2005 6:53 PM Carico has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 16 by Carico, posted 12-25-2005 11:03 PM Nuggin has replied

  
Nuggin
Member (Idle past 2492 days)
Posts: 2965
From: Los Angeles, CA USA
Joined: 08-09-2005


Message 17 of 36 (272750)
12-26-2005 1:10 AM
Reply to: Message 16 by Carico
12-25-2005 11:03 PM


Re: Your one and only question
the theory of evolution is suggesting that what creates a new species, is one species simply turning into that species, i.e., an ape turning into a human being. Is that correct?
No.
If not, then how could an ape have turned into a human when humans weren't around to begin with?
Apes do not have to "turn into" humans. Humans are apes.
please explain how one species can simply turn into another species
My previous post was about this exactly that. I'd go into greater detail, but unfortunately you yourself have stated that you are incapable of understanding the basics of the theory.
And I no longer want to hear that they are the same species when the dictionary clearly defines a species as members who are capable of breeding with each other and exchanging genes, which humans and apes clearly cannot do.
This statement goes to show that, along with the theory of evolution, you also don't understand the system of classification by which we sort out animals.
Apes are not a species. "Apes" refers to the superfamily Hominoidea. That superfamily contains the family Hylobatidae (gibbons and "lesser apes") and the family Hominidae (gorillas, chimps, humans, bonobos, orangs - the "great apes")
Perhaps you'd like to restate the question so that it makes sense?
how do you know that the ancestors of the fox lived that long ago when scientists keep changing their minds about when apes turned into human beings
First of all, this is a very bizarre question.
I might ask you, how do you know that "The Sound of Music" came out in 1965 when historians keep arguing about the release date of "Birth of a Nation". Though tangentially related, there is no correlation between the two.
Secondly, I can not answer this question for you, since you are unable to understand the answer I would give. Your time might better be served either asking questions about subjects you are capable of understanding, or striving to understand subjects about which you have questions.
especially when the carbon dating methods have been shown to be unreliable due to any intense heat on the surface of the ground that renders carbon dating unreliable?
Well, I could go into this, but it would require a discussion of geology, another of the subjects you are unable to understand.
And how do you know that species was the ancestor of a fox except that some people have simply said so?
Again, I'd answer this if you could understand the answer.
Instead, let's look at this question a different way:
"How do you know that there was a Great Flood except that some people simply said so?"
I know that my responses here seem harsh, and I'm sorry. I truly wish I could discuss these topics with you, since you obviously have questions. But, since you are unable to even consider a world older than 5,000 years, there's simply no point digging any deeper. The concepts would be far too hard for you to understand.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 16 by Carico, posted 12-25-2005 11:03 PM Carico has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 18 by Carico, posted 12-26-2005 8:52 AM Nuggin has replied

  
Nuggin
Member (Idle past 2492 days)
Posts: 2965
From: Los Angeles, CA USA
Joined: 08-09-2005


Message 19 of 36 (272884)
12-26-2005 3:59 PM
Reply to: Message 18 by Carico
12-26-2005 8:52 AM


Re: Your one and only question
Who says humans are apes? If we are apes, then why can't we breed with apes?
A human male can breed with a human female. Both are apes. Therefore we can breed with apes.
You continue to misuse the term "ape". "Ape" is a classification of a group. Just like "mammal" is a classification of a group.
Humans are mammals. Whales are mammals.
Perhaps you mean to ask why we can't reproduce with Chimps, or with Gorillas. That would be a more rational question.
YOU HAVE NOT EXPLAINED HOW AN APE TURNED INTO A HUMAN. yOU HAVE SIMPLY CLAIMED THAT THEY DID WITH ZERO PROOF OF IT.
There is no reason to offer proof. Just a few messages ago you said that you could not imagine a world that was older than 5,000 years old. With that kind of limitation, there's no point going deeper into details with you, as any point I make will be well above your ability to understand it.
It isn't difficult to determine the date when the "Sound Of Music" was first played
Wow! Did you ever miss the point on that analogy! You said that scientists did not know about fox evolution because other scientists had "changed" the date of human evolution. What one scientist says about one subject has no bearing on what another scientist knows about a different subject.
And until you understnd that, then you will make up whatever story suits your fancy even though it has nothing to do with reality whatsoever.
Nothing whatsoever to do with reality as you understand it. Of course, your reality is extremely subjective and ignores all evidence from science, history, logic, etc.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 18 by Carico, posted 12-26-2005 8:52 AM Carico has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 20 by Carico, posted 12-27-2005 3:52 AM Nuggin has replied

  
Nuggin
Member (Idle past 2492 days)
Posts: 2965
From: Los Angeles, CA USA
Joined: 08-09-2005


Message 27 of 36 (273187)
12-27-2005 10:12 AM
Reply to: Message 20 by Carico
12-27-2005 3:52 AM


Re: Your one and only question
Carico,
I'm positively baffled by your ability to type words when you show no ability to read words.
You continue to misuse the word "ape". Please restate your question using a more specific word.
Here are some examples:
"Can humans and chimps interbreed?"
or
"Does evolutionary theory suggest that humans and gorillas have interbreed at some point in the past?"
Instead, you keep asking questions that are the equivilent of:
"How can you say that a split level ranch is a house, when clearly a colonial is a house?!"
That question shows a misunderstanding of the word "house" just as your question shows a misunderstanding of the word "ape".

This message is a reply to:
 Message 20 by Carico, posted 12-27-2005 3:52 AM Carico has not replied

  
Nuggin
Member (Idle past 2492 days)
Posts: 2965
From: Los Angeles, CA USA
Joined: 08-09-2005


Message 28 of 36 (273190)
12-27-2005 10:19 AM
Reply to: Message 21 by Carico
12-27-2005 4:05 AM


Re: Your one and only question
Nuggins, you have just proven that evolution is based on a lie. Your overt declaration that humans can breed with apes has said it all.
First of all, NUGGIN, there is no S. For some reason, all the IDers and YECs think there is an S.
Second, what lie? Can humans mate with humans? Absolutely. Are humans part of the family of Hominidae? Yes. Are all members of Hominidae classified as apes? Yes. Which of these three questions do you not understand?
evolutionists suggest bestiality
Not to stray too far off topic, but as a YECrs I have to assume that you are also a "born again" or a evangelical, or whatever you want to call it.
Why are the fundies so OBSESSED with sex? Beastiality, gay marriage, etc. Everything for them is about sex. Frankly, it's a little suspicious.
bestiality, I was severely chastized for it
Oh, may that explains it.
this debate is over
Yawn. Cut and run if you like Carico, but please show me where I suggested beastiality before you go. And, while you are at it, please look up a few words in the dictionary so that you can better understand the actual questions you are asking.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 21 by Carico, posted 12-27-2005 4:05 AM Carico has not replied

  
Nuggin
Member (Idle past 2492 days)
Posts: 2965
From: Los Angeles, CA USA
Joined: 08-09-2005


Message 29 of 36 (273192)
12-27-2005 10:25 AM
Reply to: Message 23 by Carico
12-27-2005 7:45 AM


Carico, basic definitions
Carico,
You have frequently turned to wiki for definitions of words like species to try and prove your point.
I ask that you do that again.
Here is a diction definition of "ape" from wiki
Apes are the members of the Hominoidea superfamily of primates, including humans. Currently, there are two families of hominoids:
the family Hylobatidae consists of 4 genera and 12 species of gibbons, including the Lar Gibbon and the Siamang, collectively known as the "lesser apes"
the family Hominidae consisting of gorillas, chimpanzees, orangutans, and humans, collectively known as the "great apes".
Do you agree with this definition, or should we use a definition that you make up instead?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 23 by Carico, posted 12-27-2005 7:45 AM Carico has not replied

  
Nuggin
Member (Idle past 2492 days)
Posts: 2965
From: Los Angeles, CA USA
Joined: 08-09-2005


Message 32 of 36 (273466)
12-28-2005 10:37 AM
Reply to: Message 18 by Carico
12-26-2005 8:52 AM


Carico's Definitions
Alright Carico,
It's become obvious from other threads that getting you to use the same definitions as the rest of the world is simply not possible.
So, I'll bend over backwards and play your game.
Please help me understand this word you continue to use "Ape".
Can humans breed with "apes"?
Are humans "apes"?
Can "apes" breed with "apes"?
Is a gorilla an "ape"?
Is a chimp an "ape"?
Is a baboon an "ape"?
Is a gibbon an "ape"?
Is a turtle an "ape"?
Is "ape" a species or a collection of species?
If "ape" is a collection of species, how are you distinguishing what is or is not a member of the "ape" group?
If you want to use the word your own special way, better make it clear to us what the word means.
edit - spelling
This message has been edited by Nuggin, 12-28-2005 06:38 PM

This message is a reply to:
 Message 18 by Carico, posted 12-26-2005 8:52 AM Carico has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 33 by Carico, posted 12-28-2005 6:18 PM Nuggin has replied

  
Nuggin
Member (Idle past 2492 days)
Posts: 2965
From: Los Angeles, CA USA
Joined: 08-09-2005


Message 34 of 36 (273632)
12-28-2005 6:37 PM
Reply to: Message 33 by Carico
12-28-2005 6:18 PM


Carico can't define "ape"
Wow!
You won't accept the world's definition of "ape" and you won't give your own definition of "ape".
Three letter words too hard for you?
Cut and run now Carico, but please stop using words that you can't even define.
Also, Admins, pls remove Carico's rights to post to the science threads. He's proven himself FAR less able to hold up his end of a conversation than other members who have had such restrictions put upon them (Faith, Randman, etc.)

This message is a reply to:
 Message 33 by Carico, posted 12-28-2005 6:18 PM Carico has not replied

  
Nuggin
Member (Idle past 2492 days)
Posts: 2965
From: Los Angeles, CA USA
Joined: 08-09-2005


Message 35 of 36 (274150)
12-30-2005 9:55 AM
Reply to: Message 33 by Carico
12-28-2005 6:18 PM


A good read
Just reviewed the entire thread. Would recommend it to spectators.
Terrific example of how Creationist's misuse words they choose not to understand to try to make their points.
edit - how's that?
This message has been edited by Nuggin, 12-30-2005 12:38 PM

This message is a reply to:
 Message 33 by Carico, posted 12-28-2005 6:18 PM Carico has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 36 by AdminJar, posted 12-30-2005 11:18 AM Nuggin 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