|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
Thread ▼ Details |
|
Thread Info
|
|
|
Author | Topic: Is Ape/Human Common Ancestory Enough? | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
lucyman fake Inactive Member |
We expect to give Charles Darwin a chance for further study by the scientific community but when a scientist with a revolutionary idea that challengs evolution namely Velikovsky: changes in the structure of the solar system during hystorical times. Do you think the scientific community gave him a chance as we do with Charles Darwin? hell no. They shut him out saying if he is right then everyone else is crazy. They boycotted and ridiculed him all because he challenged a dogma. Ironically Velikovsky, a supposedly crazy doctor wasnt even a creationist. 1960's when space research began to give startling new data about the nature of the solar system, Velikosvky was many times proven correct. He inferred certain astronomical events which he claimed would be proven by scientific experimentation. IE: 1950, he said the cloud surface above venus universally known to be -25 degrees centigrade day and night yet he declared that the surface temperature would be much higher in the range of incandesence. When mariner2 flew past venus it recorded a surface temperature of 800 degrees f. (1961)--velikovsky was right. 1953 he predicted according to his deductions, Jupiter would be found to send out radio noises as do the sun and stars... this was totally unacceptable to the scientific community at the time including Albert Einstein(June 1954). Astromers at the Carnagie Institution witnessed for the first time radio noises pouring in from Venus... the predictions based from Velikovsky's deductions was right (early 1955). Ironically since not only was he proven right but after Einstein emphatically declared to test Velikovsky's theory he died 9 days later with Velikovsky's book open on his desk.
Worlds in collision - VelikovskyEarth in upheaval My speculations run beyond the bounds of true scienceIt is a mere rag of an hypothesis with as many flaw[s] and holes as sound parts. Charles Darwin letter to Asa Gray, cited by Adrian Desmond and James Moore, Darwin, (New York: W.W. Norton and Company, 1991) p. 456, 475. [b] "Why do we not find beneath this system great piles of strata stored with the remains of the progenitors of the Cambrian fossils? [b]Charles Darwin, The Origin of Species, p. 617, 618.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
lucyman fake Inactive Member |
this evidence to show valid proof of a theory is remarkable unlike darwinism which he himself has no faith in his claims
My speculations run beyond the bounds of true scienceIt is a mere rag of an hypothesis with as many flaw[s] and holes as sound parts. Charles Darwin letter to Asa Gray, cited by Adrian Desmond and James Moore, Darwin, (New York: W.W. Norton and Company, 1991) p. 456, 475. [b] "Why do we not find beneath this system great piles of strata stored with the remains of the progenitors of the Cambrian fossils? [b]Charles Darwin, The Origin of Species, p. 617, 618.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
arachnophilia Member (Idle past 1365 days) Posts: 9069 From: god's waiting room Joined: |
Do you think the scientific community gave him a chance as we do with Charles Darwin? all major scientific revolutions have been met with great dogmatic objection. galileo almost got killed for it. the reception for darwin wasn't especially warm either. creationists are the objectors to darwinism. they just refuse to go away even after 150 years. and PLEASE use the reply button and stay on topic. this thread is about HUMAN ANCESTRY. This message has been edited by Arachnophilia, 07-09-2004 07:43 AM
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
arachnophilia Member (Idle past 1365 days) Posts: 9069 From: god's waiting room Joined: |
this evidence to show valid proof of a theory is remarkable unlike darwinism which he himself has no faith in his claims that's just not true. someone posted a link on the quote. go look for it. and even if it were true, darwin's opinion of his own theory has nothing to do with it's validity. take this to biological evolution forum. This message has been edited by Arachnophilia, 07-09-2004 07:44 AM
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
lucyman fake Inactive Member |
i have no idea what you're talking about.
I agree, that is what it amounts to you Far from confirming evolution as fact, the proven reality of adaptive change does not and cannot equate evolution. Adaptation: absolutely! Evolution producing an entirely new and different critter: never! um. evolution is adaptive change, by means of natural selection. that's what it is. how do i make this clearer? you're debating maybe the theory of common descent? uhmm evolution isnt stationary to adaptive change exclusively as presupposed by your colleagues since they confront the 'cause' issue.the notion of natural selection does not lay proof for species turning into a total different kind of species based on outside stimuli. Redundant clichs citing fruit fly and bacteria mutations confirm only the adaptation potential within a preexisting genetic code, never evolution to an entirely new life form. Thousands of generations later, fruit flies remain fruit-flies (albeit possibly crippled and deformed) never emerging as dragon flies or butterflies. And of course bacteria replicate prodigiously as bacteriaad infinitum. actually, you seem to be the one full of redundant cliches. seriously, aig is more coherent than this, we've all heard this stuff before. actually the original statment stands correct and we've heard evolutionist rhetoric all too often. and so far, all we've ever done in evolving is change pre-existing genetic code. we don't for instance see something entirely new, like a new set of amino acids. just duplications, and transcription errors. and yet these two simple things are capable of producing endless varieties of things. To allege the fiction of evolution is to turn nature upside down. The human mind uses inanimate matter as raw material to design, create and innovate. The reverse has never been demonstrated in the laboratory. Can it be argued seriously that non-intelligent inanimate matter actually produced intelligent life, on its own, by the luck of the draw? yes, actually, quite convincingly. normally, it's the creationists who turn nature upside-down, as they try to fit it into their little bible-shaped hole. again you do not have substantial proof to negate the original rebuttal. Trying to flip the coin does not equate proof to evolution. My speculations run beyond the bounds of true scienceIt is a mere rag of an hypothesis with as many flaw[s] and holes as sound parts. Charles Darwin letter to Asa Gray, cited by Adrian Desmond and James Moore, Darwin, (New York: W.W. Norton and Company, 1991) p. 456, 475. [b] "Why do we not find beneath this system great piles of strata stored with the remains of the progenitors of the Cambrian fossils? [b]Charles Darwin, The Origin of Species, p. 617, 618.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
lucyman fake Inactive Member |
if you can show valid proof of where the billions of skeletons are with real bones not fake ones then then and only then i will believe you but since 1858 you and all of the other evolutionist have failed to provide that evidence. Yes the BILLIONS of skeletons which should have been found by now. The phantom weapons of mass destruction in Iraq can now be added to the collection of phantom skeletons in evolution lol
This message has been edited by lucyman fake, 07-09-2004 07:54 AM My speculations run beyond the bounds of true scienceIt is a mere rag of an hypothesis with as many flaw[s] and holes as sound parts. Charles Darwin letter to Asa Gray, cited by Adrian Desmond and James Moore, Darwin, (New York: W.W. Norton and Company, 1991) p. 456, 475. [b] "Why do we not find beneath this system great piles of strata stored with the remains of the progenitors of the Cambrian fossils? [b]Charles Darwin, The Origin of Species, p. 617, 618.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
crashfrog Member (Idle past 1489 days) Posts: 19762 From: Silver Spring, MD Joined: |
Evolution producing an entirely new and different critter: never! There are no "new and entirely different critters." Every "critter" is a variation on the theme of its ancestors. The very fact that we can organize "critters" into a hierarcheal structure of classification (devised by your creationist guy, Linnaeus) is proof that there's never been such a thing as a "new and entirely different critter."
Redundant clichs citing fruit fly and bacteria mutations confirm only the adaptation potential within a preexisting genetic code, Right, and just as the "adaptive potential" of the English alphabet is sufficient to give rise to every book ever written, the "adaptive potential" of a fruit fly, bacterium, or any other living thing is sufficient to give rise to literally any organism whatsoever.
Thousands of generations later, fruit flies remain fruit-flies (albeit possibly crippled and deformed) never emerging as dragon flies or butterflies. And of course bacteria replicate prodigiously as bacteriaad infinitum. And life always gives rise to life. So what? You're still saying the same things you think are wrong - all life is decended from one "kind" of common ancestor.
The reverse has never been demonstrated in the laboratory. Not true. Evolutionary algorhythms have given rise to electronics designs - better ones, in fact, than those devised by any human intelligence.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
arachnophilia Member (Idle past 1365 days) Posts: 9069 From: god's waiting room Joined: |
wow, ok, now we have to teach you to quote somehow.
uhmm evolution isnt stationary to adaptive change exclusively as presupposed by your colleagues since they confront the 'cause' issue. the notion of natural selection does not lay proof for species turning into a total different kind of species based on outside stimuli. speciation is easily observed. how do you debate that it? it happens, we record it, and we can even induce it. deal with it.
actually the original statment stands correct and we've heard evolutionist rhetoric all too often. it's not rhetoric. the notion that there is a barrier the prevents changes from adding up is presumptious and illogical. go read the thread i linked, which asks what mechanism there is to prevent such an addition of changes. stop being off topic here.
again you do not have substantial proof to negate the original rebuttal. Trying to flip the coin does not equate proof to evolution. nor does it equate to proof of creation. tell you what, go back the early posts in this thread, and address the pictures i posted. after you've sufficiently rebutted that evidence, please provide your proof of creation. for example, i will accept an interview with god, or you demonstrating special creation of an animal out of thin air in a lab setting. deal? i've posted evidence already, you have not.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
arachnophilia Member (Idle past 1365 days) Posts: 9069 From: god's waiting room Joined: |
There are no "new and entirely different critters." because that would be special creation. funny how creationists can't keep their own ideas straight.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Loudmouth Inactive Member |
quote: Good, then you agree that humans and chimps shared a common ancestory. After all, humans are just primates adapted to better tool use and communication. Both chimps and humans are in the primate kind, so this is microevolution. Both chimps and humans are the same kind of critter, no macroevolution needed.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Darwin's Terrier Inactive Member |
if you can show valid proof No such thing in science. Proof is for mathematics and alcohol. But we have plenty of valid evidence...
of where the billions of skeletons are Try the cliffs of Dover.
with real bones not fake ones Which ones do you think are fake? (As if I can't guess )
then then and only then
i will believe you but since 1858 you and all of the other evolutionist have failed to provide that evidence. So mere 'lots' of evidence, and none that refutes evolution, is not enough...?
Yes the BILLIONS of skeletons which should have been found by now. Please explain, using your understanding of taphonomy, why that should be.
The phantom weapons of mass destruction in Iraq can now be added to the collection of phantom skeletons in evolution lol Nope. We have plenty of skeletons. Want to see? Could you tell me, for instance, whether KNM-WT 15000, 'Turkana Boy', is ape or human please?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Lewissian Member (Idle past 4748 days) Posts: 18 From: USA Joined: |
Deleted.
Edited by Lewissian, : Outdated.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
NosyNed Member Posts: 9003 From: Canada Joined: |
I don't know enough about the details to know if the measurement method is sensible or not.
Can you supply anything on any arguments by the experts. That's usually a good way to learn something about it. And when you've heard the opinions of both then it is often possible to understand enough to make up your own mind. LOL, I like the "only" 86.7%. It is a lot less than other numbers. But how restricted is the piece being examined. Somewhere in the human and chimp genome there must be some strechs of base pairs( even 100's or 1,000's long) where the similarity drops below this. So what? This message has been edited by NosyNed, 07-26-2004 03:05 AM
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
sfs Member (Idle past 2555 days) Posts: 464 From: Cambridge, MA USA Joined: |
n it MHC Class I genes are sequenced in both the human and chimp, and the similarity is equal to only 86.7% when indels (insertions/deletions) are included. Other similar studies have been published by Roy J Britten. Does anyone have thoughts as to whether or not indels should be considered in estimates?
It depends on what it is you want to estimate. If you are estimating the time that humans and chimps diverged, then no, they shouldn't be included, at least until we have a much better handle on how often insertions and deletions occur and how often they fix in a population. Indels are fairly rare events, but each can involve a much larger amount of DNA, so they have a disproportionate effect on the total difference in sequence. A paper was just published last week in Science, by the way, identifying numerous indels that segregate in humans (i.e. some people have them and some don't).
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024