Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 63 (9161 total)
2 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,585 Year: 2,842/9,624 Month: 687/1,588 Week: 93/229 Day: 4/61 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Evolution for Dummies and Christians
Carico
Inactive Member


Message 272 of 299 (266872)
12-08-2005 2:48 PM
Reply to: Message 266 by Yaro
12-08-2005 11:07 AM


Re: Confusing words
And where did this "common ancestor" obtain human qualities? Some primate had to acquire them in the first place in order to pass them along. So if you're going to say that this "common ancestor" just appeared, then why not say that humans just appeared? At least we have evidence that humans exist, but this "common ancestor" is still missing which means it has always only existed in the imagination. So why invent this theory and common ancestor in the first place? Evolution, therefore, still does not explain the first living creature, or where this common ancestor came from, or the incalculable number of mutations that had to all occur by chance in the same offspring in order to produce a human being, or what this creature looked like, or if he even existed at all! That's hardly scientific. And yet they call evolution a fact that they teach our children in the classrooms. Well they darn well better be able to explain these gaping holes in their theory and the perverse insuation that apes and humans are intermingled, or they're doing a gross injustice to our children and to the world.
This message has been edited by Carico, 12-08-2005 02:49 PM

This message is a reply to:
 Message 266 by Yaro, posted 12-08-2005 11:07 AM Yaro has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 274 by Yaro, posted 12-08-2005 3:12 PM Carico has replied
 Message 276 by Modulous, posted 12-08-2005 3:25 PM Carico has replied

Modulous
Member
Posts: 7799
From: Manchester, UK
Joined: 05-01-2005


Message 273 of 299 (266876)
12-08-2005 3:00 PM
Reply to: Message 270 by macaroniandcheese
12-08-2005 2:32 PM


Blast from the past
I think that was my point

This message is a reply to:
 Message 270 by macaroniandcheese, posted 12-08-2005 2:32 PM macaroniandcheese has not replied

Yaro
Member (Idle past 6486 days)
Posts: 1797
Joined: 07-12-2003


Message 274 of 299 (266881)
12-08-2005 3:12 PM
Reply to: Message 272 by Carico
12-08-2005 2:48 PM


Re: Confusing words
Hey Carico. we aren't this far yet. Did you read the other question yet?
Message 259
If you can reply yes to that, I will be happy to explain the rest.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 272 by Carico, posted 12-08-2005 2:48 PM Carico has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 275 by Carico, posted 12-08-2005 3:25 PM Yaro has replied

Carico
Inactive Member


Message 275 of 299 (266884)
12-08-2005 3:25 PM
Reply to: Message 274 by Yaro
12-08-2005 3:12 PM


Re: Confusing words
Not until someone answers my question about how this common ancestor acquired the traits of a human being which I've been asking repeatedly.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 274 by Yaro, posted 12-08-2005 3:12 PM Yaro has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 277 by Yaro, posted 12-08-2005 3:31 PM Carico has not replied

Modulous
Member
Posts: 7799
From: Manchester, UK
Joined: 05-01-2005


Message 276 of 299 (266885)
12-08-2005 3:25 PM
Reply to: Message 272 by Carico
12-08-2005 2:48 PM


Re: Confusing words
Some primate had to acquire them in the first place in order to pass them along. So if you're going to say that this "common ancestor" just appeared, then why not say that humans just appeared?
The human/ape common ancestor didn't just appear.
So why invent this theory and common ancestor in the first place?
The theory was designed to explain how life changed on earth over time. One of the consequences of the theory is that we share common ancestry with other species.
Evolution, therefore, still does not explain the first living creature
The theory of evolution deals with biological populations. The first living thing, by definition, did not come from a biological population.
or where this common ancestor came from
The human/ape common ancestor? The people who use ToE to produce a natural history have charted hominid history beyond that ancestral population.
or the incalculable number of mutations that had to all occur by chance in the same offspring in order to produce a human being,
That incaluclable number would be about 1,000,000 and they would not have to occur in one offspring, indeed evolution discusses how these mutations build up and are directed over many generations of a population.
or what this creature looked like
The theory was not formulated to predict the morphology of organisms, and would be unable to do so given the random nature of the mutations.
or if he even existed at all!
There is a massive wealth of evidence to support its existance, however no proof can ever exist.
That's hardly scientific.
You should try reading some of the 'hardly scientific' papers about population genetics.
And yet they call evolution a fact that they teach our children in the classrooms.
Who calls evolution a fact? It is almost certain that life has changed over time, and the theory that explains this is well supported.
Well they darn well better be able to explain these gaping holes in their theory
The theory is incomplete, and new ideas and discoveries are being made all the time. That's science for you.
perverse insuation that apes and humans are intermingled
If it is perverse in your mind to note that human beings share all the characteristics of an animal, a vertebrate, a mammal and a primate then so be it.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 272 by Carico, posted 12-08-2005 2:48 PM Carico has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 278 by Carico, posted 12-08-2005 3:31 PM Modulous has replied
 Message 279 by Parasomnium, posted 12-08-2005 3:34 PM Modulous has replied
 Message 282 by Minnemooseus, posted 12-08-2005 3:44 PM Modulous has not replied
 Message 289 by Carico, posted 12-08-2005 7:07 PM Modulous has replied

Yaro
Member (Idle past 6486 days)
Posts: 1797
Joined: 07-12-2003


Message 277 of 299 (266887)
12-08-2005 3:31 PM
Reply to: Message 275 by Carico
12-08-2005 3:25 PM


Re: Confusing words
Not until someone answers my question about how this common ancestor acquired the traits of a human being which I've been asking repeatedly.
You wouldn't even begin to be able to grasp this concept unless you first had a basic understanding of genetics. So far you have shown to have no concept as to how genes work, how they are copied, the meaning of 'random mutation' or 'genetic drift'.
If you can't even understand those concepts how in the world do you expect anyone to give you an answer to your question?
So again, do you agree that a group of animals can change enugh to the point where they wouldn't be able to breed with a previous group (Chihuahua and Great Dane)?
I have shown you a specific case where all the variables are known. We bread the creatures in question thrugh selective breeding. A Great dane, for all practical purposes, cannot mate with a chihuahua. Do you understand now that this is possible?
If you do, we can move on.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 275 by Carico, posted 12-08-2005 3:25 PM Carico has not replied

Carico
Inactive Member


Message 278 of 299 (266888)
12-08-2005 3:31 PM
Reply to: Message 276 by Modulous
12-08-2005 3:25 PM


Re: Confusing words
Well at least someone has made a truthful statement! The theory is therefore, only a theory and not based on facts. But again, the facts bear out the biblical account of creation perfectly, yet scientists are trying to convince the public not to allow it in our schools!
Sorry, but all elementary biology students know that if an animal of one species is mixed with the traits of an animal of another species, there has been interbreeding going on. That can be learned in Biology 101 and most teen-agers can make that inference. So it's not my fault if evolutionists insinuate that apes and humans are intermingled. That has come from their minds, not mine. I don't buy into it at all. But this is what they're teaching our children.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 276 by Modulous, posted 12-08-2005 3:25 PM Modulous has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 280 by Yaro, posted 12-08-2005 3:41 PM Carico has not replied
 Message 281 by Modulous, posted 12-08-2005 3:43 PM Carico has not replied
 Message 284 by macaroniandcheese, posted 12-08-2005 3:50 PM Carico has replied

Parasomnium
Member
Posts: 2224
Joined: 07-15-2003


Message 279 of 299 (266890)
12-08-2005 3:34 PM
Reply to: Message 276 by Modulous
12-08-2005 3:25 PM


Re: Confusing words
Modulous writes:
Who calls evolution a fact?
Evolution is a fact and a theory.
The fact of evolution is that life has evolved, we have all sorts of evidence for it.
The theory of evolution is the scientific explanation of the mechanism behind the fact.

"We are all atheists about most of the gods that humanity has ever believed in. Some of us just go one god further." - Richard Dawkins

This message is a reply to:
 Message 276 by Modulous, posted 12-08-2005 3:25 PM Modulous has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 283 by Modulous, posted 12-08-2005 3:49 PM Parasomnium has replied

Yaro
Member (Idle past 6486 days)
Posts: 1797
Joined: 07-12-2003


Message 280 of 299 (266891)
12-08-2005 3:41 PM
Reply to: Message 278 by Carico
12-08-2005 3:31 PM


Re: Confusing words
Carico, you are now demonstrating a compleat lack of understanding concerning the scientific method. You also, apparantly, have no clue what the word 'theory' means:
Well at least someone has made a truthful statement! The theory is therefore, only a theory and not based on facts.
A theory is something designed to explain facts. The fact that life changes over time is undisputed, the theorie that currently explains it is the ToE.
Gravity is also "only a theory". It's based on the fact that things fall down when we drop them. Should we chastise physicists now?
From the dictionary:
quote:
the·o·ry ( P ) Pronunciation Key (th-r, thr)
n. pl. the·o·ries
1. A set of statements or principles devised to explain a group of facts or phenomena, especially one that has been repeatedly tested or is widely accepted and can be used to make predictions about natural phenomena.
But again, the facts bear out the biblical account of creation perfectly, yet scientists are trying to convince the public not to allow it in our schools!
Here, you are entirely wrong. Infact, everything in science so far, has done nothing but contradict the bible. If the bible is to be taken litteraly your beef is not only with biology but physics, astronomy, medicin, etc.
This message has been edited by Yaro, 12-08-2005 04:02 PM

This message is a reply to:
 Message 278 by Carico, posted 12-08-2005 3:31 PM Carico has not replied

Modulous
Member
Posts: 7799
From: Manchester, UK
Joined: 05-01-2005


Message 281 of 299 (266892)
12-08-2005 3:43 PM
Reply to: Message 278 by Carico
12-08-2005 3:31 PM


Evolution is a theory, not a fact (etc)
The theory is therefore, only a theory and not based on facts.
This statement seems contradictory, but I understand what you are saying. Theories, however, are by definition based on facts. The theory of evolution is a framework used to explain facts. A fact could exist that falsifies the theory, forcing a new idea to be adopted.
But again, the facts bear out the biblical account of creation perfectly
I fear only because the biblical account is vague and makes no predictions one what we should see, when and how. The facts also support evolution, and evolution has also made succesful specific predictions, passed falsification tests and so on, which makes it a stronger and more useful theory than biblical creation.
Evolution doesn't require miracles to explain certain facts such as radio dating, light from the stars, the fossil record and so on.
yet scientists are trying to convince the public not to allow it in our schools!
Certainly not in our science classes, for good reason. That's a thread for another forum.
Sorry, but all elementary biology students know that if an animal of one species is mixed with the traits of an animal of another species, there has been interbreeding going on
Well, of course! Its in the definition (assuming we ignore genetic modification).
So it's not my fault if evolutionists insinuate that apes and humans are intermingled.
A different issue from the one above. If you want to go into detail about this, though, I would be more than happy to. Unfortunately your sentence is ambiguous so if you'd like to, I'd like to see you expand on this a little.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 278 by Carico, posted 12-08-2005 3:31 PM Carico has not replied

Minnemooseus
Member
Posts: 3940
From: Duluth, Minnesota, U.S. (West end of Lake Superior)
Joined: 11-11-2001
Member Rating: 10.0


Message 282 of 299 (266893)
12-08-2005 3:44 PM
Reply to: Message 276 by Modulous
12-08-2005 3:25 PM


Evolution - Fact and Theory
And yet they call evolution a fact that they teach our children in the classrooms.
Who calls evolution a fact? It is almost certain that life has changed over time, and the theory that explains this is well supported.
My bolds.
By any rational observation, it is extremely certain that life has changed over time. This makes (biological) evolution to be a fact.
Gould's famous statement (from Evolution is a Fact and a Theory):
Moreover, "fact" doesn't mean "absolute certainty"; there ain't no such animal in an exciting and complex world. The final proofs of logic and mathematics flow deductively from stated premises and achieve certainty only because they are not about the empirical world. Evolutionists make no claim for perpetual truth, though creationists often do (and then attack us falsely for a style of argument that they themselves favor). In science "fact" can only mean "confirmed to such a degree that it would be perverse to withhold provisional consent." I suppose that apples might start to rise tomorrow, but the possibility does not merit equal time in physics classrooms.
That (biological) evolution happened is a fact. The theory of (biological) evolution is the collected data of and about how it happened.
Moose
Added by edit - Other forum topics:
Evolution as Fact and Theory
The Fact of the Evolution (change) of Life on Earth
This message has been edited by minnemooseus, 12-08-2005 04:00 PM

Professor, geology, Whatsamatta U
Evolution - Changes in the environment, caused by the interactions of the components of the environment.
"Do not meddle in the affairs of cats, for they are subtle and will piss on your computer." - Bruce Graham

This message is a reply to:
 Message 276 by Modulous, posted 12-08-2005 3:25 PM Modulous has not replied

Modulous
Member
Posts: 7799
From: Manchester, UK
Joined: 05-01-2005


Message 283 of 299 (266895)
12-08-2005 3:49 PM
Reply to: Message 279 by Parasomnium
12-08-2005 3:34 PM


Re: Confusing words
I'm perfectly aware of that Pars
I was using the word fact, as Carico was using, implying 100% known truth. I was hoping you'd pick up on this with the next sentence which you neglected to quote.
quote:
Who calls evolution a fact? It is almost certain that life has changed over time, and the theory that explains this is well supported.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 279 by Parasomnium, posted 12-08-2005 3:34 PM Parasomnium has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 285 by Parasomnium, posted 12-08-2005 3:59 PM Modulous has replied

macaroniandcheese 
Suspended Member (Idle past 3918 days)
Posts: 4258
Joined: 05-24-2004


Message 284 of 299 (266896)
12-08-2005 3:50 PM
Reply to: Message 278 by Carico
12-08-2005 3:31 PM


Re: Confusing words
there has been no such intermingling. common ancestry should never insinuate intermingling. that's idiocy. common ancestry insinuates divergence; intermingling is convergence.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 278 by Carico, posted 12-08-2005 3:31 PM Carico has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 288 by Carico, posted 12-08-2005 6:55 PM macaroniandcheese has replied

Parasomnium
Member
Posts: 2224
Joined: 07-15-2003


Message 285 of 299 (266899)
12-08-2005 3:59 PM
Reply to: Message 283 by Modulous
12-08-2005 3:49 PM


Confusing conversations
Modulous writes:
I'm perfectly aware of that Pars
And I knew that you are. Actually, my comment was directed more at Carico, I should have made that clearer. Sorry about that.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 283 by Modulous, posted 12-08-2005 3:49 PM Modulous has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 286 by Modulous, posted 12-08-2005 4:01 PM Parasomnium has replied

Modulous
Member
Posts: 7799
From: Manchester, UK
Joined: 05-01-2005


Message 286 of 299 (266901)
12-08-2005 4:01 PM
Reply to: Message 285 by Parasomnium
12-08-2005 3:59 PM


*guilt*
Of course! Please, accept my apologies for not even considering that, it was quite disrespectful of me.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 285 by Parasomnium, posted 12-08-2005 3:59 PM Parasomnium has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 287 by Parasomnium, posted 12-08-2005 4:03 PM 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