|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
Thread ▼ Details |
|
|
Author | Topic: What i can't understand about evolution.... | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Peg Member (Idle past 4959 days) Posts: 2703 From: melbourne, australia Joined: |
firstly, 'boys n girls' was not meant in a derogatory way in the slightest...i would include myself in that
and i did look at your links and i guess i'm hoping you dont rest your belief of a 'tree of life' on those links this is what is said from the first link ....
quote: and this is what they say about the 'tree' in the your 2nd link
quote: this does not inspire confidence unfortunately, but thank you for trying.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Peg Member (Idle past 4959 days) Posts: 2703 From: melbourne, australia Joined: |
percy writes: True, but we cannot rule out aliens or magic, either. In science it is never a case of, "That which we cannot rule out must be true." Science is about finding evidence for your hypotheses. Unfortunately for intelligent design, it has no scientific evidence. you dont think its possible that evolutionary scientists, who are trying to prove their theory, could be interpreting the data to fit in with their preconceived ideas that life is a product of evolution and not creation? there have been many scientific frauds in the recent past that show that some will go to extraordinary lengths for evolution
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Peg Member (Idle past 4959 days) Posts: 2703 From: melbourne, australia Joined: |
bluescat48 writes: First Monkeys are not apes. 2nd Gorillas aren't earlier apes, they are modern apes. Humans, chimps, gorillas & gibbons are all "modern apes" to use your word. The "earlier" apes are all extinct, that being the common ancestors and any intermediate species between the common ancestors & the current species. in the same way that i am the common ancestor of my great great great great great great great great great great great great grandparents?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Peg Member (Idle past 4959 days) Posts: 2703 From: melbourne, australia Joined: |
im not sure that is a very good comparison Percy,
it is quite clear why bad things happen and why God allows it...if theologians havn't worked it out yet, then there is something wrong with their theology
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Peg Member (Idle past 4959 days) Posts: 2703 From: melbourne, australia Joined: |
hi DevilsAdvocate,
i really want to see a 'tree' that shows the roots ...ie, where it all began two were posted from wiki, but i dont want one that doubts its own accuracy... i want one that is accurate and precise and one that can provide evidence for where the roots began perhaps i'm asking for something that does not exist?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Huntard Member (Idle past 2325 days) Posts: 2870 From: Limburg, The Netherlands Joined: |
Hello again Peg.
Peg writes:
Yes. We don't know every single organism that ever lived, and the farther back you go, the harder it is to get the organisms. Especially when there aren't any "hard" parts to fosilize. So, when we get to single cell life, that will probbaly never be found. I of course mean the ancestral single cell life, I know there are "modern" single cell organisms, but they are probably very different from those earliest lifeforms. perhaps i'm asking for something that does not exist? I hunt for the truth
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
DrJones* Member Posts: 2290 From: Edmonton, Alberta, Canada Joined: Member Rating: 7.6 |
in the same way that i am the common ancestor of my great great great great great great great great great great great great grandparents?
No you're a descendant of your multi-great grandparent. Your parents are a common ancestor of you and your siblings. Your grand-parents are common ancestors of you and your siblings and your parents (or more accurately 1 set of grandparents are the common ancestors of you, your siblings and 1 parent) etc. Edited by DrJones*, : No reason given. soon I discovered that this rock thing was true Jerry Lee Lewis was the devil Jesus was an architect previous to his career as a prophet All of a sudden i found myself in love with the world And so there was only one thing I could do Was ding a ding dang my dang along ling long - Jesus Built my Hotrod Ministry Live every week like it's Shark Week! - Tracey Jordan Just a monkey in a long line of kings. - Matthew Good If "elitist" just means "not the dumbest motherfucker in the room", I'll be an elitist! - Get Your War On *not an actual doctor
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Percy Member Posts: 22505 From: New Hampshire Joined: Member Rating: 5.4 |
RAZD writes: some creatures have not evolved such as crocodiles They have not changed significantly, but they are different. So are sharks and coelacanths. This is more accurate than what Huntard posted when he implied some creatures haven't evolved, but saying that these creatures haven't changed significantly leaves it unclear about how much these creatures have actually evolved. None of the living species of crocodiles, sharks and coelacanths are the same as the fossil species from millions of years ago. These are family- and order-level classifications, and while I haven't researched this I doubt if any of the species or genera from millions of years ago have survived until today. --Percy
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Percy Member Posts: 22505 From: New Hampshire Joined: Member Rating: 5.4 |
Peg writes: you dont think its possible that evolutionary scientists, who are trying to prove their theory, could be interpreting the data to fit in with their preconceived ideas that life is a product of evolution and not creation? You used just this sort of thing to drive Modulous over the edge, so let me reply in kind, pardon me if I use capitalization and punctuation. You don't think it's possible that conservative Christians, who are trying desperately to hold onto the illusion that their religious beliefs are not contradicted by all evidence, could be ignoring and misrepresenting the data to fit their Biblically based ideas about creation, including falsely maligning scientists and their work? If you want to believe in a world-wide mass delusion then go ahead, but the rest of us live in reality and would like to focus on the evidence.
there have been many scientific frauds in the recent past that show that some will go to extraordinary lengths for evolution Tell you what, why don't you propose a thread to enumerate frauds, misrepresentations and significant mistakes for evolution versus those for creation, and we'll keep a count of each. In fact, if someone proposes such a thread I'll promote it as quickly as I can, I think it would be illuminating. --Percy
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
RAZD Member (Idle past 1435 days) Posts: 20714 From: the other end of the sidewalk Joined: |
Just a quick check
Coelacanths:
Order: Coelacanthiformes quote: One genus in one family has two living species, neither of which are represented in the fossil record. They disappeared from the fossil record at the end of the Cretaceous, and have only been found recently since then (no intermediates). Also see http://www.dinofish.com/esp DINOFISH.COM - Weird Bodies Frozen in Time Sharks:
Superorder: Selachimorpha quote: I believe that "”" marks extinct orders. They have no gaps in the fossil record from the Ordovician to the last fossils and to living specimens. I would have to look further to see how old the current living species are, but I don't think they extend to the fossil record. Crocodiles
Family: Crocodylidae quote: The four chamber heart is unusual, and there is some evidence that crocs "devolved" from a warm-blooded ancestor, adapting the heart for diving and staying underwater while becoming coldblooded again (another example of the lack of direction in evolution). See Adelaidean -- Crocodile evolution no heart-warmer
quote: Again, I would have to look further to see how old the current living species are, but I don't think they extend to the fossil record. Enjoy. ps - this could be a good place to ask about sharks:http://www.brighthub.com/science/medical/articles/7196.aspx Edited by RAZD, : added ps by our ability to understand Rebel American Zen Deist ... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ... to share. • • • Join the effort to solve medical problems, AIDS/HIV, Cancer and more with Team EvC! (click) • • •
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
bluescat48 Member (Idle past 4220 days) Posts: 2347 From: United States Joined: |
Not ancestor but decendant. Your 10th great grandparent would be a common ancestor of you and, an example, your 20th cousin.
There is no better love between 2 people than mutual respect for each other WT Young, 2002 Who gave anyone the authority to call me an authority on anything. WT Young, 1969
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
DevilsAdvocate Member (Idle past 3131 days) Posts: 1548 Joined: |
hi DevilsAdvocate, i really want to see a 'tree' that shows the roots ...ie, where it all began two were posted from wiki, but i dont want one that doubts its own accuracy... i want one that is accurate and precise and one that can provide evidence for where the roots began perhaps i'm asking for something that does not exist? Nice one Peg, You pulled a fast one on me. The old bait and switch or moving the goal posts argument. I actually thought you were being sincere. But now I know you are just another Creationist who could care less about the evidence and just want to randomly throw stones at an natural phenomena accepted by 99.9% of the scientific community, because you think it undermines your religious beliefs. I take time out of my day to peruse the internet to look for some ape/human evolutionary trees and you pull this crap about wanting seeing the 'roots of the tree' on me. Thanks for wasting my time. #1 Like I said previously the study of human/ape paleontology is a relatively new scientific endeavor that has only 60 or so years of serious scientific inquiry behind it (Louis and Mary Leakey being some of the early founders of this scientific field) as compared to other fields such as physics with literally hundred if not thousands of years of scientific discoveries. Therefore there is still much we are still speculating, filling the holes in, and modifying our understanding of as I spoke about here: Message 342. #2 How far back do you want to see? We were talking about human/ape evolution not the origination of all life. So how far back are you asking? As pointed out by others a theory of abiogenesis is not a prerequisite for to acknowledge the reality that biological evolution occurs. Some people think that some supernatural deity may have planted the blueprints of life on Earth and then kicked started the mechanism of evolution to create the diversity of life we see around us, others believe in panspermia (though this just delays the origination of life to some other location in our universe), and some (like myself) believe that abiogenesis as well as biological evolution are natural processes that don't need an initial supernatural designer. All three agree that the preponderance of evidence shows that biological evolution has and continues to occur; and all three are "unproven" hypothesis. We don't have to know exactly how life originated on this planet to know that life diversifies and biologically evolves driven by the processes of natural selective and genetic drift. Here is a great dynamic site that Kapyong originally gave and which is overseen by professional biologists, that lets you visualize the evolutionary tree/branches/roots/whatever of just about every type of organism on the planet: Tree of Life web project. If you have specific problems with a specific i.e. line of descent (branch) I would bring it up with them or we can discuss it here. If you want to discuss the evidence behind abiogenesis we probably will have to open up a new thread to discuss this, as this is a whole new and complex ball of wax. Edited by DevilsAdvocate, : No reason given. Edited by DevilsAdvocate, : No reason given. Edited by DevilsAdvocate, : No reason given. For me, it is far better to grasp the Universe as it really is than to persist in delusion, however satisfying and reassuring. Dr. Carl Sagan
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
RAZD Member (Idle past 1435 days) Posts: 20714 From: the other end of the sidewalk Joined: |
Peg, Peg, Peg.
there have been many scientific frauds in the recent past that show that some will go to extraordinary lengths for evolution No No No. There have been many frauds in the past by unscrupulous PEOPLE. ALL of them have been exposed by scientists looking for the truth. Stop reading those creationist sites that are frauds and hoaxes. Not one fraud\hoax has been exposed by creationists. Not one. Meanwhile many creationist sites continue to show stuff like man-dino footprints and other hogwash that are frauds\hoaxes, and they continue to do so after the fact they are FAKE has been demonstrated. Do you want to go down the list?
Nebraska Man - all newspaper hype, the original scientist determined it was a pig.
Piltdown Man - hoax perpetuated ON science, exposed by science. Glen Rose Man - fraud perpetuated by Carl Baugh, exposed by science. Baugh (a creationist) continues to present it in his "museum" perpetuating his hoax to gullible people. China bird ancestor "fossils" - perpetuated by people looking to make money, exposed by science. Not ONE of these is necessary in ANY WAY for evolution. by our ability to understand Rebel American Zen Deist ... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ... to share. • • • Join the effort to solve medical problems, AIDS/HIV, Cancer and more with Team EvC! (click) • • •
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
RAZD Member (Idle past 1435 days) Posts: 20714 From: the other end of the sidewalk Joined: |
Tell you what, why don't you propose a thread to enumerate frauds, misrepresentations and significant mistakes for evolution versus those for creation, and we'll keep a count of each. In fact, if someone proposes such a thread I'll promote it as quickly as I can, I think it would be illuminating. We'd have to list almost every existing YEC creationist website. (I say "almost" for scientific tentativity, as I am not aware of any that stick to the truth, but it is possible ...) Certainly Carl Baugh (his degree is a hoax, it doesn't exist) and Kent Hovind (convicted of fraud, his degree is a fraud from a paper mill) and the "creation museum" (showing adam and eve and a vegetarian TRex) Then there is Harun Yahah (a muslim creationist, who also happens to be a convicted extortionist and anal rapist of underage women) - he puts Hovind to shame. Is this a good start?
Message 1 Enjoy. Edited by RAZD, : added new post link Edited by RAZD, : . Edited by AdminNosy, : update the link to the new topic by our ability to understand Rebel American Zen Deist ... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ... to share. • • • Join the effort to solve medical problems, AIDS/HIV, Cancer and more with Team EvC! (click) • • •
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
helper Junior Member (Idle past 5581 days) Posts: 3 Joined: |
Thanks Peg. I can see you've got a lot of replies so I'll just try to explain this.
Peg writes: it was said earlier that some creatures have not evolved such as crocodiles...apparently they are the same and havnt changed in hundreds of thousands of years. It is incorrect to say they have not evolved. Crocodiles have remained similar phenotypically (in terms of appearance and features) for millions of years. There are phenotypic differences among modern and ancestral species just as there are differences among modern day species today.
Peg writes: So, what does this imply? Does it mean that the crocodile is perfectly adapted to its environment and therefore has not had need to evolve? The crocodile is well adapated but not perfectly so. I pointed out earlier that nothing is perfectly adapated. Evolution has occured as the modern day crocodile species differ both in their phenotype and genotype to ancient crocodile species. In general however crocodiles show stabalising selection whereby the constant enviroment causes selection for individuals that generally maintain the already well adapted features.
Peg writes: Or Does it mean that evolution is not random but rather directed somehow? Evolution is not random. It has no ultimate goal but natural selection gives a short term direction to the process. In the case of the crocodile as I mentioned stabilising selection has caused relative similarity for millions of years.
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024