Register | Sign In

Understanding through Discussion

EvC Forum active members: 59 (9176 total)
2 online now:
Newest Member: sirs
Post Volume: Total: 917,656 Year: 4,913/9,624 Month: 261/427 Week: 7/64 Day: 3/2 Hour: 0/0

Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Author Topic:   Evolution Logic
Member (Idle past 4199 days)
Posts: 1119
From: Topeka,kansas
Joined: 06-06-2005

Message 198 of 302 (319876)
06-10-2006 4:32 AM
Reply to: Message 194 by Someone who cares
06-09-2006 11:55 PM

Re: Allow me to defend myself
Actually, evolutionists say whales came from hippos, pigs, cattle, buffalo, etc. Creatures that have one certain hoof structure. I believe it was even on this thread, someone who was an evolutionist made the claim that whales came from hippos, pigs, cattle, etc, maybe a little while back.
if someone did they don't understand how it all works then, what they might have meant was that whales share a common ancestor - or you may have misunderstood them
I meant mammals and reptiles and the rest of those. Yes, insects are animals. But they are very different in several ways from the rest of the animals.
well yes they differ but they are alike too, they have legs, lungs, eyes, organs, ect, infact they differ less than you seem to think they do
No way, I do not mean you are in any way unsmarter than others. Just that the average brain size of a European is generally a bit smaller, like Homo erectus' brain size. Hey, I'm European too, don't think I would mean offense to myself.
any evidence of this?, i've read black people have smaller brains than eurpeans (i don't believe this eather) i'm starting to think brain size isn't that much of an impact on intellegence. example the "hobbits" scientists have been finding, they are found with stone tools and other things and have a culture but have a smaller brain that us
I was meaning hominid as in the part of the supposed primate human ancestors, as it is in this definition: hominid: "an adjective referring to primate human ancestors and the rest of the human line or family, starting from Australopithecus"
supposed? its well supported, its not complete and i doubt it will ever be in creationists views - heres a nice site on it from T.O Hominid Species
Take a look at this chart. It's not exactly the one I would like, but, notice here, that archaic homosapiens lived during the times of homoerectus; and Neanderthal and modern homosapiens, and archaic homosapiens all lived in the same time period. Each graph differs, this one isn't quite the one I need, but you can see how they tie in here:
And here homo erectus is shown to be alive during Neanderthal:
how is this relevent its not even arguing agenst the post, they never said anything about erectus, the fact that they arn't exact doesn't mean they are wrong
all i see is you are running out of arguments
Sorry for the double negative, but the point is, Cro Magnon Man is not a hominid, or primate human, he is a fully developed human.
uh what? i think you need to go read what a hominid is first, of course its a hominid, cro magnon isn't a modern human, which is homo sapian sapian, there are differences between modern humans and archic man, you need to go read about it though
Because they didn't have refined sugars, and chocolate back then. They didn't eat as much sugar as we do today. Their sweets would be like honey, not cookies, and chocolate, and cakes, and frosting, and candy, and sticky candies, and brownies, and cupcakes, and gum, and pastries, and ice cream, etc..., as ours are today.
what does the way its made have to do with tooth decay? honey is sugar as much as the things you listed
Humans are the only ones with a complex SPOKEN language. Yes, some creatures have their own form of communication, but not complex spoken languages...
wolves have a more complex language than we do, they use movement smell and sound to communicate - we only view ours as complex because other animals languages make no sense to us
By "unguided", I mean unguided by an Intelligent Being.
true it is not guided by intelligence, do you really think intelligence would allow stupid faulty things such as the apendix to exist? i mean an organ that doesn't function the way it used to and is dangerus to a good percent of humans - or a back bone that isn't bult for standing on two legs fully? even from human design i can tell no one would do that
what life is guided by is pressure from the envirnment, and natural selection
The octopus eye is very similar to the human eye. That doesn't mean there aren't any differences
the eyes similarities end at seeing in color and being an eye, the envirment is so different that there is very little similarity between them
Are you saying that the octopus and the human came from one ancestor?!?
universal common decent (one line of decent) isn't fully accepted, but most people accept common decent - the ancester would be really far back between the two right before backbones
No, that's not what it means. But take the bacteria, and take a human, which has more genetic code information?
i would say bacteria has more genetic code, considering the rate of mutation and how long its been around, but i may well need some help from a microbiologist
But what about evolution in general? How is that single cell going to get to a human, if 99% or so of mutations are harmful or neutral?
you need to see the big picture, populations evolve not indivigals, so something with a mutation that helps will survive to produce while the ones that don't will die out - for someone who says they understand NS, you have to ask this question?
if a gene that leads to survival is there the other 99% doesn't matter if it leads to survival
I didn't say mutations would do it. I just said IF a monkey did learn to walk upright, it's decsendants wouldn't. So how did stooped monkeys evolve into upright humans?
they didn't learn anything, they evolved having a straighter frame to survive, this is the basic structure of NS, if the requirment to survive and pass genes on is to have a straighter back then those that have a mutation that causes this would survive while those that did not wouldn't, thus the next generation would have this trait thus the lifeform would continue
your argument sounds too lamarkian and lamark was put to rest years ago
I know natural selection doesn't do the evolving part. But how could those emotions evolve WITH THE HELP of the mechanism - natural selection? I'm new here, I haven't gotten to all the threads I'd like to, so maybe a bit later I can see your thread.
many have written about evolution and emotion, the vertict is that emotion evolved to help survival of a population, after all lifeforms tend to survive better if they have a strong bond to thier mates
NS is the filter, mutation is the cause of change
God doing it, and random processes doing it, are two different things. God can do anything. Random processes cannot form life from non life, that goes against scientific principles.
the problem is this doens't work, what is life? what is non-life? there is hardly a line between the two, are viruses alive?
what is the difference between a dead person and a living? basically an electronic spark causing the brain to do things - why couldn't a mixure of chemecals that are very much like the ones that make up our bodies get hit and form the beginings of what we term life?
who is to say god didn't start evolution?
Oh, so you say it doesn't matter how life arose? You aren't even the least bit curious? Wish you would spend a little more time thinking about that, maybe you will come to the conclusion that God did it.
theh thing is how life started is irrelevent to a theory about how life changes through envirmental forces - whether it was by gods hand or by nature is not that important - scientists thing it is from natural causes because god is not testible or verifible
But then, ultraviolet rays of the sun break up hydrogen molecules, which would in effect release oxygen, which would kill the surrounding amino acids. This only goes to show how impossible the whole thing is, with or without oxygen in the atmosphere
you need to stop reading creationist propaganda sites, i've read this before and its wrong, all the oxygen in our atmosphere is organic - produced by organisms, none of it is inorganic, plus i think you mean water not hydrogen
But why would these "parent" species be found in "more recent" layers than the daughter species?
because the parent species survives longer than the daughter species, maybe the split was a short event such as a rock slide that split two groups, one had a niche but the other moved and they surived for a while then died out - then the parent died
Have you considered that a massive, quick flood would explain this better? Then volcano eruptions and dust and wind and local floods... A massive flood would do this instantly, whereas local floods and small events wouldn't have much of the same power to do it.
no because a huge quick flood would leave too many markers and would not show up the way things look, have you ever looked at a picture of say the grand cannon?
its layers on layers with order, floods wouldn't do that - think about it the reason it has layers, is that it was put down over time by different things a huge flood would leave one layer not more than one
local floods would be plausable
Then how did a single cell evolve into a human?
lots and lots of time, trying to survive envierment changes
That was not a contradiction. Didn't you read that part, where I said the evolution I will be referring to is macroevolution? So anywhere where I said "evolution", I was referring to macroevolution, therefore, that was not a contradiction.
its not a contradiction, its just not meaningful, macroevolution is microevolution on a grander scale, its all the same, science doesn't differate the two much
Then how does a single cell evolve into a human, without great increases of new information?
what do you mean by information? single cells tend to mutate more so have more information, but a microbiologist would know more about it
It shows that evolution is flawed. I mean, if humans have been around for "millions" of years or something, then, according to average reproduction speed, we would have way too many humans!
wow, just wow, do you really think humans don't die? we only live max now of 75 years on average, but the birth/death rate was pretty high before 19th century, most people through out the ages were lucky to make it a quarter of that
how is a theory flawed if you make a strawman arguement like this?
oh yes by the way we do have way too many humans now, though its not because of evolution
You know what? Why did evolutionists only make up some charts for how animals evolved? Why didn't they make up a chart of how each plant evolved, and the common ancestors, etc.? Hmmm...
they have, but plants have less features than animals and evolve at a slower rate, i figure because they can't move much. i've seen "trees" for non-seed plants and seed-plants. the thing is we don't learn all that much from plants evolution so why make priorities about something that really doesn't progress us in understanding?
You may continue showing supposed "mistakes." I will continue defending myself. If you don't want to, you don't have to. But I'm ready if you want to. No problem.
they are mistakes your grasp of evolution is flawed, if you make an unthinking mistake as arguing that evolution is flawed because you believe we would have more people than we do, i mean come on, forgeting people die?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 194 by Someone who cares, posted 06-09-2006 11:55 PM Someone who cares has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 200 by crashfrog, posted 06-10-2006 10:42 AM ReverendDG has replied
 Message 203 by NosyNed, posted 06-10-2006 2:48 PM ReverendDG has replied
 Message 207 by ramoss, posted 06-10-2006 4:28 PM ReverendDG has replied
 Message 246 by Someone who cares, posted 06-11-2006 12:00 AM ReverendDG has not replied

Member (Idle past 4199 days)
Posts: 1119
From: Topeka,kansas
Joined: 06-06-2005

Message 223 of 302 (320199)
06-10-2006 8:10 PM
Reply to: Message 200 by crashfrog
06-10-2006 10:42 AM

Re: Defending plants
sorry at the time it was a bit late so it may not have been as deep as i wanted, i thought more on it and realized that they study how plants evolve natural defences we can use
I get it that plants are a lot less sexy, but if you like to eat, thank a plant and the people who study them. And they're no slouch in the features department, either.
i'd like to learn more about plants, the way they evolved from non-seed producers to seed producers was interesting
Norman Borlaug studied plants. As a result of what he learned he saved over a billion human lives. "Don't learn all that much?"
*shrug* i'll look that up then

This message is a reply to:
 Message 200 by crashfrog, posted 06-10-2006 10:42 AM crashfrog has not replied

Member (Idle past 4199 days)
Posts: 1119
From: Topeka,kansas
Joined: 06-06-2005

Message 224 of 302 (320209)
06-10-2006 8:15 PM
Reply to: Message 203 by NosyNed
06-10-2006 2:48 PM

Re: Separate paths
This is not relevant to the comparison of eyes. If I recall correctly it is clear that the octocpus and human eye evolved separately. Eyes have evolved lots (don't remember the number --more than 10?) time.
no no i meant that comparing the two was not much of an arguement since the only relation was they where both forms of eyes and saw in color
The nature of the differences helps point that out. In addition the last common ancestors of octopi and mammals is so far back it is (I think) before eyes evolved. It would be in the Cambrian I believe.
i agree it was so far back its kind of irrelevent, since they are like comparing bats wings with birds wings

This message is a reply to:
 Message 203 by NosyNed, posted 06-10-2006 2:48 PM NosyNed has not replied

Member (Idle past 4199 days)
Posts: 1119
From: Topeka,kansas
Joined: 06-06-2005

Message 226 of 302 (320217)
06-10-2006 8:19 PM
Reply to: Message 207 by ramoss
06-10-2006 4:28 PM

Re: Allow me to defend myself
The only time i've heard of anyone claiming that brain size effects intellegence on adverage seems to be white nationalists claiming the size of black peoples brains makes them stupid
brain size may differ between groups on adverage but no one seems to be able to equate intellence and brain size with evidence
i guess WN's like to conflate the difference to sway the ignorent

This message is a reply to:
 Message 207 by ramoss, posted 06-10-2006 4:28 PM ramoss 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