Evolution versus Creationism is a 'Red Herring' argument

You may be aware that humans have 23 pairs of chromosomes and that our closest living relatives, the bonobos, have 24 pairs. These two species are not thought to be interfertile. But were you aware that the domestic horse has 33 pairs, that Przewalski's horse has 32 pairs, and that the two are perfectly able to breed fertile offspring? The Przewalski's horse is near extinction because of crossbreeding with domestic horses. And no cloning was involved anywhere......"Spirit." I think that term applies to something that high-school cheerleaders are supposed to possess. I certainly lost what little I had when we lost to our arch-rival Rogers in 1964.

A nearly unreadable mess! There are a few modern inventions that you might want to learn something about: formatting, newlines, paragraphs. It's amazing what they can do for your and especially for us!Perhaps once you've reformed this mess into something that we can actually read, then we might have some chance of addressing your two "hypotheses" -- we need to, after all, first determine just what it is you're trying to say. Same old typical creationist nonsensical claim of "when the first 'hopeful monster' sprang into being, where did it find another 'hopeful monster' of the same type to mate with?" Yes, I know you distance yourself from the typical creationists, but this demonstrates the same erroneous thinking and assumptions that they use.To start with, evolution does not work through sudden "hopeful monster" leaps (AKA "saltation", in which new complex changes suddenly arise; many early evolutionists subscribed to saltation, whereas Darwin did not). Rather, the degree to which each generation of a changing population changes is very slight; "sudden" changes in the fossil record (in geologic time, so in thousands of years) result from the accumulation of lots of small gradual changes with each generation (in generational time, so in one to a couple tens of years, depending on the species in question).That being the case, individuals born to a population will have very little problem finding mates -- outside of the usual dating problems we've all had. Within a single generation, no individual will have had his genome change so radically as to be unable to mate; indeed, those to whom that may happen will be unable to mate and will not have contributed to the evolution of that species -- large-scale mutation is maladaptive and gets filtered out.

I said nothing whatsoever about the length of time involved for a primate to be born with the requisite brain-to-body mass enabling his will to be a free will- i.e.: one capable of making decisions resulting from being limited only to instinct or logic. Only that the apparent discernible difference between man and the rest of life was his possession of a free will. The Bible even states that animal life has "souls"- mind, emotion, and will. But that only man has a spirit- which is not a testable condition.Edited by PaulGL, : No reason given.

Uniformitarianism as a philosophical influence upon scientific thought, causing invalid conclusions in some areas historically. Namely, in the area of cosmology in general and stellar system formation in particular. The historical effect most apparent was the influence of "the music of the spheres" philosophy upon solar system formation theories, pre-Kepplerian & pre-telescope (circular perfection vs. elliptical reality) 'what we see is the same as things have always been' nebular hypothesis ramifications. Uniformitarianism to the unwarranted and unsubstantiated exclusion of planetary gravitational interaction, astral catastrophism. Exclusion of the possibility of such interaction involving the terrestrial, inner planets; and certainly precluding events of such magnitude possibly occurring within recent (geologically) and even historical time frames.

So, your point is that if horses were the first animal to achieve a free will, then cloning would not be necessary in their case. Remark about spirit is juvenile.

Uh, excuse me, but yes you did!You assumed that that event had to have happened within a single generation. Single-generational time is exactly what I was talking about! A male had transitioned over the arbitrary threshold that you propose? So within the same generational time-span you supposed that no appropriate female existed? Based on what? And even if she did not exist, then so what? They would have still procreated nonetheless. A male crossed your arbitrary "threshold", but no female did. So they procreate and their offspring are kind-of there. And eventually enough of their offsprings would have procreated to the point that full "crossing over the threshold" would finally have been accomplished." OK, so what about it?So just what the frak is this imaginary barrier that you're fretting about?

What the fuck!?!?!?!Would you mind putting that mound of bullshit into normal language?

I suppose the barrier that PaulGL is referring to (although he doesn't appear to know what he is referring to) is the fusion of human chromosome 2. This event could bring about the "hopeful monster" you referred to in Message 62. It is a sudden, major genomic change and contrary to (from Message 62):

quote:

---

Rather, the degree to which each generation of a changing population changes is very slight; "sudden" changes in the fossil record (in geologic time, so in thousands of years) result from the accumulation of lots of small gradual changes with each generation (in generational time, so in one to a couple tens of years, depending on the species in question).

---

This fusion did not occur a little bit at a time, in small gradual changes. It may have made a small difference morphologically, but it was a major event in the genome.Now whether this fusion event itself caused infertility or not is uncertain. In at least in one situation, the Przewalski's horse (mentioned by Coragyps in Message 61), this type of event does not cause infertility but it does result in offspring with a conglomerate of chromosomes ie. 65 as opposed to 64 or 66.Since none of the great apes are known to have 46 chromosomes, it is most likely that either:1. The fusion event caused the split OR ...
2. The fusion event occurred within the human lineage (after the chimp / human split)If option 1 is true then either If option 2 is true then Is there any evidence that Homo spp. have chromosome numbers other than 46? Note: I do understand that we don't have access to all DNA from all extinct species and that absence of evidence is not evidence of absence. Since chromosome fusion is a relatively rare event, I would assume that this event did occur in a single individual and then spread to that individual's descendants. And since all known hominids except humans (Homo spp.) have 24 chromosomes, it seems most plausible that option 1 is true (that is: the fusion event caused the split). And since it is pretty obvious that the human lineage survived (the event did not cause infertility), shouldn't we expect to find Homo spp. (living or extinct) with a conglomerate of chromosomes?What is the most accepted understanding of this? Are there any known hybrids of species with different chromosome numbers that do not have a conglomerate of chromosomes?HBD

I actually had to look up what a 'red herring' argument wasDefinition:

quote:

---

A red herring is a detail or remark inserted into a discussion, either intentionally or unintentionally, that sidetracks the discussion. The red herring is invariably irrelevant and is often emotionally charged. The participants in the discussion go after the red herring and forget what they were initially talking about; in fact, they may never get back to their original topic."

---

So what is the actual 'red herring' (in your opinion) here? Is it that you think the whole debate distracts people from accepting Christ? You have not at all clarified what you think is distracting from the argument!The problem is that many people believe that all that exists is what we can see, hear and touch.They insist on evidence (this is especially true on a forum like this). So for them, your emotionally charged bluster about satan, uniformitarianism, divine creation, and discrediting the Bible is distracting from the main argument - which is evidence! Back up some of your claims (for example that uniformiarianism is in contradiction of scientific evidence) with evidence.And for those on the other side of the fence, the young earthers, who hold that the Bible is the infallible Word of God and that it is to be taken literally; your comment on time elements not appearing until the 4th day is a 'red herring' since the important topic is the inerrancy of the Bible. "Making Christians appear ignorant and illogical" is also irrelevant since what makes people wise is believing the Word of God and when Christians believe the Word of God - they will appear foolish to the world.And to those of us who are somewhere in the middle ... there is really nothing which we can agree with or support either. The closest you come is ... ... except that here you say the evolutionists have discarded the Genesis account for "nonscientific" reasons - when in fact, the reasons for rejection of the Genesis account are for scientific reasons ie. lack of evidence. And that religionists reject evolution which is just not true. There are many "religionists" who do not reject evolution. If your point is that religion and evolution are are two separate ideas and that they can exist independently, then I could agree with that, but you need to word your point much, much better.It appears that you are cut-n-pasting your posts from another source (not just this OP, but most subsequent posts too) - a book you wrote on the subject, maybe?? Wow, what a bore that book must be. It seems you have done nothing more than lifted ideas from various website and scrambled them onto some pages. Try posting some of your own words (not cut-n-paste). Describe the actual 'red herring' you are inferring. Present some evidence of your claims. Narrow your topic down a bit, I am not even sure what you are arguing. Stop painting everyone with the same brush (actually you have 3 brushes - evolutionsts, religionists and you).HBD

Don't drink and post.

By 'red herring', I meant it as you found its definition to be. I meant, specifically, that the whole argument of Evolution vs. 'Creation' is a distraction from what is of genuine life and death validity. Namely, that it is NOT of primary importance to know HOW we got here. BUT it IS of crucial (both individually and as a species) importance to know WHY we are here. The answer to the first question will not in itself be of any value to answering the second, relevant issue. The answer to WHY we are here does not lie within the purview of knowledge

Profanity is the first resort of the illiterate

And just what is, "Life and death validity" ? Genuine or otherwise?

Genetic mutation with the surviving traits trending towards an increase in intelligence. Eventually crossing (by possibly and perhaps even a single mutational change at the chromosomal level- of course) a threshold level whereby the increased intelligence resulted in a free will.

a very boring book, yes. don't read it, you might get the message.