Evolution Logic

You really need to look stuff up while you're typing it, because this sentence doesn't make a lick of sense. "Hydrogen molecules" don't contain oxygen. And this? I mean, what are you talking about? Of course there's charts for how plants evolved. Plant evolution is a huge deal, particularly in agroscience, where it's super-important. There's a lot of work being done on plant evolution.You really need to be checking your statements more carefully.

I'm glad you took the time to respond. Now then . . .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.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.Let me get back to the Neanderthalensis not stooping, so I can get the appropriate evidence. 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. 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. 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.As to the Henry Morris, if you're following MLA format, then you need to double-indent your paragraph. But as you're from Europe, I don't know which country or language you speak, so I'm not familiar with whatever format you use. In the US, we use MLA for formal papers. 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. 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).I further and more specifically defined NS because the definition you used in your paper was lacking, and no, not everyone knows what NS is. And if you are trying to disprove evolution, it helps to give a good, precise defintion of what NS is.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. 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.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. 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) 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. 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. 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?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.I'm also ignoring the repeat of "how can it become human"--I've already answered why that is the wrong type of question because of what it implies.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. 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?I will do another disection when I've more time, and any points you replied to, that I did not reply to in this post, may or may not be covered at a later time. Right now, I find them irrelevant to the larger issue, and hopefully people will firgure out what I didn't respond to. Of course, that would mean looking at yours and mine, and both are long, so . . .

---

All a man's knowledge comes from his experiences

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 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 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 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 Hominid Species 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 all i see is you are running out of arguments 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 what does the way its made have to do with tooth decay? honey is sugar as much as the things you listed 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 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 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 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 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 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 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 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 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?who is to say god didn't start evolution? theh thing is how life started is irrelevent to a theory about how life changes through envirmental forces - whether it was by gods hand or by nature is not that important - scientists thing it is from natural causes because god is not testible or verifible 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 because the parent species survives longer than the daughter species, maybe the split was a short event such as a rock slide that split two groups, one had a niche but the other moved and they surived for a while then died out - then the parent died 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 onelocal floods would be plausable lots and lots of time, trying to survive envierment changes 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 what do you mean by information? single cells tend to mutate more so have more information, but a microbiologist would know more about it 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 they have, but plants have less features than animals and evolve at a slower rate, i figure because they can't move much. i've seen "trees" for non-seed plants and seed-plants. the thing is we don't learn all that much from plants evolution so why make priorities about something that really doesn't progress us in understanding? they are mistakes your grasp of evolution is flawed, if you make an unthinking mistake as arguing that evolution is flawed because you believe we would have more people than we do, i mean come on, forgeting people die?

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). It sounds like you mean "vertebrates" or perhaps "tetrapods." Insects are also very much like other arthropods. 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:
No webpage found at provided URL: http://www.mnh.si.edu/anthro/humanorigins/ha/neander_misconc.html
Creationist Arguments: Neandertals
Neandertal Manthe Changing Picture | Answers in Genesis 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. All the same, I suggest that you provide a source for the claim. This is quite silly. Any mammal can get tooth decay, regardless the amount of sugar in the diet. Ask a veterinarian. 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. 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. 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. Abiogenesis is an important topic, but it is a different topic from evolution. Even if God did make the first life form (or it fell from a meteor, or developed through natural processes), that does not impact evolutionary theory, which involves what happened after the first life appeared. Your personal incredulity aside, evolution is not a random, chance process. 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. 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. This is a stunningly ignorant statement. There is no kingdom of life for which we do not study phylogenetic relatedness.Edited by Belfry, : marked addition

Damn, why all the hating on plants all of a sudden? "Less features"? "Don't learn all that much?"I get it that plants are a lot less sexy, but if you like to eat, thank a plant and the people who study them. And they're no slouch in the features department, either.Norman Borlaug studied plants. As a result of what he learned he saved over a billion human lives. "Don't learn all that much?"

Technical mumbo jumbo, dumbo...I confess that particularly relating to one's definition of information, and further more, how one then chooses to interpret that information plays a large role in attempting to decide for oneself what science is, and what it means.

Everything after this point is off topic. Please do not reply.

It is the ultimate honesty testNow, I have the sense (and you do not have to agree), that I was doing quite well when containing my arguments within philosophical boundaries. Several of you such as Frog guts: ...As well as Road Kill ...Advanced the argument that all of this information is abstraction anyway.I think the conclusion to those debates tells the whole truth and nothing but the truth.In my maiden voyage into this sea of humanity known as the Evc forum, I laid out my entire argument for what the proper interpretation of reality is. I was hoping to challenge those who interpret the quantum to be evidence that we create reality by interpreting truth for ourselves.The whole point is that we can interpret what we want to believe into anything. But when Christ spoke, He was able to call our bluff and force us to accept or crucify Him.He showed that light is not just physical, but that Gods Spirit is logical and reasonable, and conveys the ultimate objective reality that many would prefer to believe is unknowable.This debate over evoution and creation is irrelevant if in the final analysis, truth is unknowable. The only person I know of who adamantly spoke the truth, claimed to be the truth, and professed not that you can know the truth, but that you shall know the truth.For those of us who do know Him, that's a done deal. For those of you who will, I pray that it is in this life...Sorry for meandering off topic. We all know how broad this discussion can be. In the end, it encompasses all of reality...That's what we're talking about here boys and girls... Reality!Let's give it the respect it deserves...Rob Edited by AdminJar, : No reason given.

---

Any biters in the stream?

Gosh, you mean to say that a discussion of scientific findings became technical? Who would have thought?Look, if you want to understand the issues at hand, here, you're going to have to get over your deep hatred for all things intellectual.

This is not relevant to the comparison of eyes. If I recall correctly it is clear that the octocpus and human eye evolved separately. Eyes have evolved lots (don't remember the number --more than 10?) time.The nature of the differences helps point that out. In addition the last common ancestors of octopi and mammals is so far back it is (I think) before eyes evolved. It would be in the Cambrian I believe.

quote:

---

It would be in the Cambrian I believe.

---

Before that, even. If I recall correctly, the molecular evidence suggests that at least some of the major phyla diverged about half a billion years before the Cambrian.

---

"We must respect the other fellow's religion, but only in the same sense and to the extent that we respect his theory that his wife is beautiful and his children smart."
-- H. L. Mencken (quoted on Panda's Thumb)

Zoocentrism rears its ugly head again... I see it all the time on the forums.

A couple points.First, you can't pick and choose your definition of information. Information has a definition accepted by science. The initial definition is contained in Shannon's landmark paper. If Dembski and Gitt would like to challenge that definition then they are free to do so, but so far all they're done is presented their material to conservative Christians as evidence against evolution.Second, you seem to have forgotten your original question, which was, "Well, I know that what I was asking was whether anyone had a reference for an increase in genetic info during mutations or cell division."And so I provided a link to Shannon's paper and provided a very simple example of how genetic information can increase through mutation. It might look like "technical mumbo, jumbo, dumbo" to you, but it is actually quite easy to understand when taken step by step, and I'd be happy to answer any questions you have.--PercyEdited by Percy, : Fix grammar.

I do believe that you are right that brain size (within a certain bounds) does not mean much when it comes to intelligence, but rather the size of certain sections of the brain (the area that deals with intellence was a much high percentage of the 'hobbit' brain).HOwever, on average , the brains of blacks is slightly smaller than of whites.. The brains of asians are slightly larger. The key her is 'on average'. There is much more variation within a group that between the different ethnic groups. This goes back to the "bottleneck" event that happened 70K to 80K years ago.Also, the difference in brain size between the different genders in the same ethnic group is greater than the brain size differnce between
the brain size of the same gender accross the ethnic group. Yes, there is a trend, but the difference is small enough to be totally irrelavent.

We had a thread a while back that dealt with the issue of brain size and intelligence, the thread is titled "Bones of Contention"http://EvC Forum: Bones of Contentions. -->EvC Forum: Bones of Contentions.There is no relation within a species between brain size and intelligence because there are several other factors the also affect intelligence that are in no way related to relative sizes of brains in normally developed members of the species.This argument is easily falsified by comparing ID scores or other measures of intelligence with brain size -- no relationship has yet been shown that correlates between the two, the data is scattered.The intelligence in a species is more related to the surface area of the brain and the interconnectedness of the different portions.Smaller volume skulls contain brains that can still have the same or more surface area and can still have the same or better interconnections, thus removing the constraints of volume on individual intelligence compared to other individuals within the same species.Any argument based on brain size within the same species is therefore suspect.What we see in hominid development though is not just an increase in volume, but development of certain areas more than others -- areas that relate to what we call "higher" cognitive functions. This is where you see the evidence for the evolution of brain capacity.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.

My apologies jar, I missed that entirely the first time. I was so caught up in my assumption that simple life = simple DNA sequences, that it did not even register...That is interesting isn't it...So what's the deal, are men evolving into Amoebas?I am forced to agree with you on one point... irrespective of whether one believes in evolution or special creation, the amount of information in the genome (however one defines it) does appear irrellavent.

We don't have a clue. But we are evolving. Remember, Evolution can best be seen looking backwards. It's a history of what did happen.Evolution is not worse ----> better, it's what is just good enough to get by. And when we do look back over our shoulder, that is just what we see. What we see is a bunch of features that really aren't all that great, but rather good enough to get by for awhile.

---

Aslan is not a Tame Lion