Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 50 (9179 total)
3 online now:
Newest Member: Jorge Parker
Post Volume: Total: 918,215 Year: 5,472/9,624 Month: 497/323 Week: 137/204 Day: 7/4 Hour: 1/1


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Evolution Logic
Belfry
Member (Idle past 5199 days)
Posts: 177
From: Ocala, FL
Joined: 11-05-2005


Message 11 of 302 (313970)
05-20-2006 6:30 PM
Reply to: Message 10 by dorkfrommarn
05-20-2006 6:26 PM


Re: Need, want or curiosity
dorkfrommarn writes:
I'm just wondering if someone could present a situation in which macroevolution would be better than micro yet still have enough time to work.
Your question doesn't make sense, dork. Micro- and Macro-evolution are not different types of evolution, such that you could choose one or another. Macroevolution results from an accumulation of microevolutionary changes.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 10 by dorkfrommarn, posted 05-20-2006 6:26 PM dorkfrommarn has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 12 by dorkfrommarn, posted 05-21-2006 9:40 AM Belfry has not replied

Belfry
Member (Idle past 5199 days)
Posts: 177
From: Ocala, FL
Joined: 11-05-2005


Message 36 of 302 (318482)
06-06-2006 10:58 PM
Reply to: Message 33 by Someone who cares
06-06-2006 10:36 PM


SWC writes:
Um, I would not say that speciation is macroevolution. Macroevolution would have to evolve one kind of an organism from another kind. Like a human from a monkey. A bird from a reptile. Etc. That is what I am looking for, not speciation.
If you mean a human individual born from a monkey individual, or a bird hatching from an egg laid by a reptile, these are not things that are expected according to evolutionary theory. They are silly creationist straw-man ideas of what evolution is. What you want is not macroevolution (which is really just the result of an accumulation of microevolutionary changes), but something more like saltationism.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 33 by Someone who cares, posted 06-06-2006 10:36 PM Someone who cares has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 40 by Someone who cares, posted 06-06-2006 11:07 PM Belfry has not replied

Belfry
Member (Idle past 5199 days)
Posts: 177
From: Ocala, FL
Joined: 11-05-2005


Message 199 of 302 (319910)
06-10-2006 8:55 AM
Reply to: Message 194 by Someone who cares
06-09-2006 11:55 PM


Re: Allow me to defend myself
SWC writes:
Actually, evolutionists say whales came from hippos, pigs, cattle, buffalo, etc. Creatures that have one certain hoof structure. I believe it was even on this thread, someone who was an evolutionist made the claim that whales came from hippos, pigs, cattle, etc, maybe a little while back.
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).
SWC writes:
I meant mammals and reptiles and the rest of those. Yes, insects are animals. But they are very different in several ways from the rest of the animals.
It sounds like you mean "vertebrates" or perhaps "tetrapods." Insects are also very much like other arthropods.
SWC writes:
Are you willing to support your claim, that they [Neandertals] walked properly and upright? Please do.
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.
SWC writes:
No way, I do not mean you are in any way unsmarter than others. Just that the average brain size of a European is generally a bit smaller, like Homo erectus' brain size. Hey, I'm European too, don't think I would mean offense to myself.
All the same, I suggest that you provide a source for the claim.
SWC writes:
Because they didn't have refined sugars, and chocolate back then. They didn't eat as much sugar as we do today. Their sweets would be like honey, not cookies, and chocolate, and cakes, and frosting, and candy, and sticky candies, and brownies, and cupcakes, and gum, and pastries, and ice cream, etc..., as ours are today.
This is quite silly. Any mammal can get tooth decay, regardless the amount of sugar in the diet. Ask a veterinarian.
SWC writes:
Actually, I was referring to Henry Morris' quote, I just followed the rules about making a new paragraph for a quote. But see, no one is claiming that our common ancestor is a butter bean! Or a chicken, or garter snake! Maybe I should have used the words "common ancestor" instead of "related to." That would have made it clearer.
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.
SWC writes:
Are you saying that the octopus and the human came from one ancestor?!?
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.
swc writes:
But what about evolution in general? How is that single cell going to get to a human, if 99% or so of mutations are harmful or neutral?
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.
SWC writes:
God doing it, and random processes doing it, are two different things. God can do anything. Random processes cannot form life from non life, that goes against scientific principles.
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.
SWC writes:
Oh, and you say a random, chance process did all this?!? ^^ How could it?
Your personal incredulity aside, evolution is not a random, chance process.
Evolution does not require upgrading or degrading. (This one is refering to vestigial organs)
Then how did a single cell evolve into a human?
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.
SWC writes:
It shows that evolution is flawed. I mean, if humans have been around for "millions" of years or something, then, according to average reproduction speed, we would have way too many humans!
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.
SWC writes:
You know what? Why did evolutionists only make up some charts for how animals evolved? Why didn't they make up a chart of how each plant evolved, and the common ancestors, etc.? Hmmm...
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

This message is a reply to:
 Message 194 by Someone who cares, posted 06-09-2006 11:55 PM Someone who cares has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 247 by Someone who cares, posted 06-11-2006 12:19 AM Belfry has replied

Belfry
Member (Idle past 5199 days)
Posts: 177
From: Ocala, FL
Joined: 11-05-2005


Message 205 of 302 (320000)
06-10-2006 3:24 PM
Reply to: Message 200 by crashfrog
06-10-2006 10:42 AM


Re: Defending plants
crashfrog writes:
Damn, why all the hating on plants all of a sudden? "Less features"? "Don't learn all that much?"
Zoocentrism rears its ugly head again... I see it all the time on the forums.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 200 by crashfrog, posted 06-10-2006 10:42 AM crashfrog has not replied

Belfry
Member (Idle past 5199 days)
Posts: 177
From: Ocala, FL
Joined: 11-05-2005


Message 236 of 302 (320258)
06-10-2006 9:26 PM
Reply to: Message 234 by Someone who cares
06-10-2006 9:00 PM


Re: Allow me to defend myself
SWC writes:
Really? Could you show me a plant evolution chart with all of the plant types in it? I haven't come across one yet.
ALL the plant types? It would be hard to fit everything on one chart. If you haven't come across a plant phylogeny, you haven't looked. Folks talk about animals in these debates more because they are easier to relate to, I suppose (or perhaps animal evolution is more threatening to creationists). Try doing a google image search on "plant phylogeny." Here are some that I found within a few minutes:
Phylogeny showing some major groups and relatedness to other kingdoms:
Charophytes to Seed Plants:
Vascular Plants
another one for bryophytes and vascular plants, includes more detail of angiosperm and gymnosperm clades:
These are, of course, very general. You can find finer detail of pretty much any group you wish; it is extensively studied.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 234 by Someone who cares, posted 06-10-2006 9:00 PM Someone who cares has not replied

Belfry
Member (Idle past 5199 days)
Posts: 177
From: Ocala, FL
Joined: 11-05-2005


Message 259 of 302 (320454)
06-11-2006 8:28 AM
Reply to: Message 247 by Someone who cares
06-11-2006 12:19 AM


Re: Allow me to defend myself
SWC writes:
Yes, fully human, that's what I say as well. It's either fully monkey or fully human, and Neanderthal is fully human.
LOL, it's funny to see you grab wholeheartedly onto the AiG party line, once you're made aware of it. Monkeys are another matter. Neandertals certainly weren't monkeys. I suggest that you educate yourself on these words before using them to "refute" the whole body of modern biological knowledge.
SWC writes:
But they say we are related to chimps due to blood precipitation tests.
I assume you're talking about the Nutall precipitation, which is a way of comparing the similarity of blood proteins. Since these proteins are ultimately based on DNA templates, it is an indirect way of looking at genetic similarity. It's a simple technique that can be used in science classes with kits you can order.
However, we do not rely on Nutall precipitation tests. In fact, we now have mapped the entire genomes of both chimpanzees and humans (and other organisms, too).
SWC writes:
Oh, and by chromosomes, monkeys have 2 more chromosomes than humans, this is a big difference!
Again, this is referring to chimpanzees and other non-human apes, which are not monkeys. They have 24 pairs of chromosomes, and humans have 23. We now know that this is because at some point after the divergence of the human lineage, one pair of chromosomes became fused with another at the telomere (see this page, which includes literature cites that you can check out for more info). It's actually not unusual for closely related organisms to have different numbers of chromosomes, and we know a few different mechanisms by which that can happen.
SWC writes:
Then what makes evolutionists think that the humans' immediate ancestor was the same as a monkeys', just because of some similarities?
We don't. PLEASE educate yourself on what an ape is, and what a monkey is, and what evolutionary theory says about the history of the human lineage. Without this knowledge, you're not arguing against evolution, you're arguing against a straw man that you have built from creationist sources.
SWC writes:
Yes, so the cells may stick together, but that's not showing how they evolved into a human!
Of course not. You can't sum up the entire evolutionary history of the human race in a forum post. That's why you have to take it one step at a time. When you start with unicellular organisms, a reasonable next step is to look at the origin of multicellularity. No one thinks that humans arose fully-formed directly out of a one-celled population.
SWC writes:
Belfry writes:
Your personal incredulity aside, evolution is not a random, chance process.
So you say evolution is a directed, specific, purposeful process instead?
No. Non-random does not equal "directed, specific, and purposeful." Natural selection is not intelligently directed, or purposeful (except in the case of human cultivation), but it is not random.
SWC writes:
Oh, so you don't need an increase of information to turn that single cell into a human? Please...
That's not what I said. This is ridiculous, respond to what is written in the post, not to your own misconceptions of what you think is probably meant.
SWC writes:
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.
LMAO! This statement shows a profound ignorance of ecology, and even a lack of common sense. It's so ludicrous, I don't even know where one would begin to respond.
SWC writes:
Could you show me a graph with every type of plant graphed on it showing evolution?
A number of plant phylogenies have been posted, the best one by WK in Message 240. Although I applaud your effort to respond to everyone, it's still advisable to scan ahead and see if your questions have already been answered. Phylogenies don't "show evolution," they chart the relatedness of organisms, which supports the theory of common descent.
Edited by Belfry, : No reason given.
Edited by Belfry, : 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

Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024