Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
2 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:   Ape to Man or Common Ancestor
Modulous
Member
Posts: 7801
From: Manchester, UK
Joined: 05-01-2005


Message 11 of 38 (479337)
08-26-2008 3:08 PM
Reply to: Message 9 by TheDarin
08-26-2008 2:47 PM


the evolution image
I agree its not accurate or funny.
And most evolutionary biologists would agree. It is a popular visual that tends to give people the wrong impressions about evolution. Then again, it's art, not science.
However, showing the known players in hominid evolution in approximately chronological order isn't necessarily terrible, but a more accurate (but less visually appealing to the layman) would be something like this.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 9 by TheDarin, posted 08-26-2008 2:47 PM TheDarin has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 13 by TheDarin, posted 08-26-2008 3:21 PM Modulous has replied
 Message 15 by New Cat's Eye, posted 08-26-2008 3:30 PM Modulous has not replied

  
Modulous
Member
Posts: 7801
From: Manchester, UK
Joined: 05-01-2005


Message 16 of 38 (479350)
08-26-2008 3:41 PM
Reply to: Message 13 by TheDarin
08-26-2008 3:21 PM


Re: the evolution image
And most evolutionary biologists won't object because it serves the objective of excluding a designer.
Won't object to what? Most evolutionary biologists are busy doing work, not personally involving themselves in the public understanding of science. Those that are involved, officially or informally, in discussing evolutionary biology with the public do generally object to the image because of its power to develop misconceptions akin to the Aristotlean 'Great Chain of Being'.
God made man from the dust of the earth.
Depends which God we're talking about. Amen-Re created man from his tears (accidentally I think). Marduk creates man by amassing blood and creating bones. How do you know that El did it as opposed to Amen-Re or Marduk? I ask because you don't phrase it as a belief but as a statement of fact.
This is why man has so much in common as say, common yeast.
What does 'dust' have to do with yeast?
Edited by Modulous, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 13 by TheDarin, posted 08-26-2008 3:21 PM TheDarin has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 17 by TheDarin, posted 08-26-2008 3:59 PM Modulous has replied

  
Modulous
Member
Posts: 7801
From: Manchester, UK
Joined: 05-01-2005


Message 19 of 38 (479360)
08-26-2008 4:46 PM
Reply to: Message 17 by TheDarin
08-26-2008 3:59 PM


Re: the evolution image
They are not not personally involving themselves in the public understanding of science.???????????? What cave are you in?????
I'm very close friends with several evolutionary biologists (I see three of the people listed on this page several times a week). They spend 12 hours a day in labs sequencing proteins and then publishing the results for their peers (ie., not the public). I am not friends with a single evolutionary biologist involved in the public understanding of science: they are the minority. Scientists mostly do science as a job. Occasionally, a scientist will come along and is able to sell books, draw in public audiences etc. Sometimes it will be a biologist. They are the ones that reporters inevitably ask about developments in the field.
Sometimes they will teach students about science (people paying to become scientists are not really the 'public'.).
So in reality, there are few scientists that publish books for the lay public, a few that work in museums and for/with other media like television and then 100s of thousands of hard working anonymous people grinding through boring days of lab work.
Do you honestly think that all evolutionary biologists are personally involved in trying to increase the public understanding of science?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 17 by TheDarin, posted 08-26-2008 3:59 PM TheDarin has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 20 by TheDarin, posted 08-27-2008 8:15 AM Modulous has replied

  
Modulous
Member
Posts: 7801
From: Manchester, UK
Joined: 05-01-2005


Message 27 of 38 (479542)
08-28-2008 8:22 AM
Reply to: Message 20 by TheDarin
08-27-2008 8:15 AM


Re: the evolution image
Re: "Do you honestly think that all evolutionary biologists are personally involved in trying to increase the public understanding of science? "
Define "Honestly"
Sounds like you are conceding the point by default. Since we should be able to agree that there isn't a very large conspiracy of scientists whose only concern is trying to produce adverts/PR for Darwinism I refer back to the original point: Linear images of apes transmogrifying into humans might be an appealing mental shortcut to laypeople, it has probably lead to more misconceptions than it has crushed.
Hopefully though, your questions in the OP have been answered to your satisfaction? 'Ape' is an imprecisely defined term which is the reason there appears to be different 'camps' on the issue. The reality is that all modern Great Apes and Hominids share a common ancestor. I think most people would call said ancestral species, 'apes'

This message is a reply to:
 Message 20 by TheDarin, posted 08-27-2008 8:15 AM TheDarin has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 28 by TheDarin, posted 08-28-2008 8:39 AM Modulous has replied

  
Modulous
Member
Posts: 7801
From: Manchester, UK
Joined: 05-01-2005


Message 29 of 38 (479550)
08-28-2008 9:56 AM
Reply to: Message 28 by TheDarin
08-28-2008 8:39 AM


Did you want me to pick apart your question as you do mine and insist that you rephrase the question using terms more pleasing to me before I answer them?
What question did I pick apart? You became somewhat hostile with me when you accused me of living in a cave after I suggested that most evolutionary biologists do not involve themselves directly with the public understanding of science. I could not believe you'd think contrary, so my question was designed to express my incredulity at this possibility.
It is a side issue, but should you indicate there is disagreement with us on this subject it might make for a new thread in its own right.
But that is what you do when I ask a question; "dust" is the term the Bible uses, so how am I to define "dust" - I am using terms given.
I don't remember asking for a definition of dust. I just asked what does dust have to do with yeast?
I asked a simple question: Don't you think that Creationist and evolutionist share common ground on the point of common ancestor?
According to creationists the creeping things, flying things, and other animals were created separately usually around 6-10k years ago. They do not share common ancestry, they share a common creator. Creationists now argue that the various species today share a common ancestral baramin or 'kind', but that they are not related to other baramin except in the identity of their creators.
Other than the fact that both camps accept the existence of ancestors...what common ground do you think there is?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 28 by TheDarin, posted 08-28-2008 8:39 AM TheDarin has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 30 by TheDarin, posted 08-28-2008 11:38 AM Modulous 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