Evolution Logic

We evolved as a social species. That is, we are a species that depends on cooperation with other members of our group (or culture or tribe). Our moral judgement amounts to the practices that our culture follows to facilitate cooperation. Presumably these practices were developed through experience.If you read some of the literature from anthropological studies, you will find that moral practices vary from culture to culture.On embarrassment, arachnophilia corrected me. The origin is hard to track down. Religions have spread the idea of embarrassment. There are other cultures where people do not feel embarrassed to be naked. The "National Geographic" magazine sometimes prints studies of these cultures, including photos of people in their nakedness. That's what crashfrog was referring to in Message 280. I'm not sure what coincidence you are seeing there. Religions developed within a culture. Many of the religious traditions came from the cultures in the regions where those religions developed. That the earth was round was well known in the middle east cultures.You should also be aware that many Christian theologians take parts of the old testament that meant something else, and reinterpret them to fit modern knowledge. That's not coincidence, it is quote mining.

Behaviour doesn't fossilize so that question doesn't have a good answer. Before you get on me about contradicitng myself I took your question: To be the usual creationist garbage along the lines of "if we come from monkies why are there still monkies?" and answered it in that vein. The correlation between the multiple dating methods means we can be pretty confident about the accuracy of the dates produced, even to millions of years ago. Check out the various correlation threads in the Dates and Dating forum. Dunno, thats more of a socialogical/physcological question than a biological one As crash has already pointed out shame at being nekkid is not a universal theme in humanity.from your messgae 285 It came about just how the King of Kings and Lord of Lords Odin the Allfather said, obviously. I'm sure arach will correct me if I'm wrong but doesn't the hebrew word in question actually describe the Earth as a circle, a flat 2D object, not a 3D sphere.Edited by DrJones*, : Added last quote/paragraph

---

Just a monkey in a long line of kings.
If "elitist" just means "not the dumbest motherfucker in the room", I'll be an elitist!
*not an actual doctor

Define "advance" and then tell me what part of evolution says that they should "advance" - cite scientific sources not creatortionista sites (like SWC's - that badly misrepresent the science).Evolution is change in species over time. No "value" added to what the change is - that is a common creationist misconception. LOL. What's the difference between UFOism and religions?You are applying the "logic" of creationism to the observation of facts. The creationist looks at evidence and trys to make it fit his preconceptions. His mind of course will try to make it agree with his preconception about life. The UFO fanatic is in the same boat as the creationist - convinced his world view will be justified by a proper evaluation of the evidence.The scientist, however, first looks at the evidence, then makes theories about how rusted piles of metal could appear in fields, then he tests those theories. If he can come to no conclusive reason for the rusted piles of metal to be there he concludes ... that it is inconclusive. Only the UFOist and the creationist leap to the conclusion that it must be what they want. (1) But the selection is for {survival\reproduction} not for brains. Brains can help {survival\reproduction}, but they will only be selected for as long as they promote {survival\reproduction}.(2) How do you know they aren't? We have lots of examples of 'moral' behavior in animals, we have lots of examples of adults teaching young certain behavior (passing on their wisdom), and we have lots of examples of communication with animals that reveal they are not that different from humans. That's fine, but when you apply that {open mind} make sure you use it to test the validity of the sources of some of your information. You have just posted a couple of misconceptions on evolution -- that is not a fault of your {open mind} and it may not be a fault of your "proper education" but it is certainly the fault, somewhere along the line, of taking a source as valid that isn't.Do you think "standing tall for the truth" means repeating misrepresentations and known falsehoods as if they were true? Science is based on evidence, not coincidence. But no, in this case it is not a coincidence it is a circular reference system -- because some people (not all) behave according to the precepts of some traditional behavior code, this does not mean that observing people behaving according to some traditional code makes the code true, it's just evidence of some people (not all) behave according to the precepts of some traditional behavior code. This is YOUR rustly pile of metal in a field ...Enjoy.

---

Join the effort to unravel {AIDSHIV} with Team EvC! (click)

---

we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand

​

RebelAAmerican.Zen[Deist
... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ...
to share.

Creationists (at least I do), tries to fit what they see with the Bible. And it does! Then they can make a scientific theory as long as it doesnt go against the Bible. If all matter in this world would prove the Bible cannot be true, I wouldnt believe in it. It appears to me that scientists (evolutionists) makes theories about how rusted piles of metal could appear in HIS field.
For example: A scientist (i forgot who) in the National Geographic mag about the Hobbit, said the first thing he thought when he saw the skeletal remains, was the evolution of humans. Why? Because evolution was stuck in his mind.

---

Read "Time Has an End" by, H. Camping for great evdence that the Bible is true and the word of God. You can read it online at Time Has An End

You've got it backwards. You can make a Bible interpretation as long as it doesn't go against what we see in the world around us. If your Bible interpretation is that the sun moves around the earth or that there was a world-wide flood, you need to change your Bible interpretation, not the facts.

---

Help scientific research in your spare time. No cost. No obligation.
Join the World Community Grid with Team EvC

Yep. The sun rises and the sun sets: evidence for a flat earth, and it fits with the bible, so it must be true.Evidence for something is not sufficient reason to accept it as valid as long as there is evidence that INvalidates the concept involved: ignoring the rest of the evidence does not make the concept any less INvalid, it just makes the opinion more IGnorant. Why? Where is this stated in the scientific method? Where is this listed in the "rules" for evidence? What purpose does it serve?The evidence that the earth is round is undeniable, real and based on science whether it fits with some interpretation of a certain book or not. That is all that is necessary -- and what is required -- of science, that it provide the best explanation of the evidence, regardless of what that explanation is. The search is for the truth of reality, regardless of where that leads.The minute you DISallow explanations that DISagree with some preconception, not matter WHAT that preconception is, you are DISengaged from science.This is not a standard for science, it is a standard for ignorance, ultimately promoting the willfull denial of reality. Scientists make theories and then they TEST them. They don't just assume that the theory is correct, the look for ways to validate it, and for things that could INvalidate it. Faith, by definition does NOT operate that way.What was your first thought? That evolution was false? LOL. Your opinion of scientists, whether justified or not, is still just your opinion and not fact. It is also wrong.Recognizing that the pile of metal is a pile of metal is not the answer to how the pile of metal got in the field. Recognizing that the bones are hominid bones did not take rocket science and does not answer the question to how that pile of bones got in that field.The first thing he thought of was evolution, hominid evolution ... likely because they were different from other fossils, and evolution is change in species over time. "Stuck" in his mind was the explanatory power of the theory of evolution to show change in species over time, and how it was challenged -- tested -- with each new discovery as unusual as this one ... instead of the reliance on ignorance and superstition.If the first thing he had thought of was that elves must have been real THAT would have been something to comment on.The predominant scientific concensus on Homo Floriensis is that we don't know where and when they branched off of which line of hominid ancestor. That makes it an interesting question.Edited by RAZD, : deleted last paragraph

---

Join the effort to unravel {AIDSHIV} with Team EvC! (click)

---

we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand

​

RebelAAmerican.Zen[Deist
... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ...
to share.

Sorry Percy, it wasn't message 180 ( http://EvC Forum: Evolution Logic -->EvC Forum: Evolution Logic ) It was this I wanted to respond to.This is my question... I concede that the amount of information is irrelavant as to the complexity of the organism (i.e. the amoeba in question).Is the complexity of the information relavant in your opinion?In other words, an amoeba may contain a lot more information, but is that information as complex and specified as the genetic information for a Mammal of Reptile?In your opinion, does that complexity in the genetic information of the higher animals originate from a random process? or do you assume a pupose or design somehow other than by a pre-creation designer?Edited by Rob, : No reason given.

Your post was directed towards Percy, but I'll take a crack at it too.Humans, while having roughly 25000 genes, can get more than one protein per gene in quite a few cases. This is all I can think you mena when you say that: And this increased "complexity" (because I don't know exactly what you're driving at) was arrived at by a not entirely random process called evolution. So while God (I assume that's who you refer to in your last statement) may not be necessary for it, that doesn't mean that the process was random and unguided.It'll help when I know what you're driving at though.

---

All a man's knowledge comes from his experiences

We've seen how information can be measured and assigned a quantitative value. Can you tell us how one does this with "complexity" and "specificity"? I've never seen them defined well enough to be able to assign a number to. Without a number I can't tell if a mammal or a reptile or an amoeba has "more" or "less" of this stuff.The important thing to note is that one needs to be able to arrive at a number before you can talk in terms of more or less.

I think I understand, but have no number to give you. I only offer the concept which is intuitively recognizable without such a value.1+1=2.What is the square root of 4,567,896,345?Differnet scales of problems no doubt! However, it is the same simplicity of 1+1=2 that offers the 'reason' or logic, for both problems.Very interesting regardless...If I may interject a metaphysical analogy to this observation, perhaps you may find it interesting as well:An excerpt from an unpublished article of mine called, 'The Fanatic!'just thinking...

We can test and find over and over in the lab that mutations cause a loss of information.
*snip*
When the occasional accident or 'error' does occur, it almost exclusively results in death or an inability to procreate. Statistically irrelevant exceptions due occur. I finally found my source... Specifically his name is Dr. Lee Spetner. But in addition, there is Michael Denton, Werner Gitt, and Don Batten.The arguments Are compliled on a DVD documentary called, From a Frog to a Prince. Produced by Keziah, and available from Answers in Genesis .I know it is not your kind of source... but who can say what the truth is, when the truth is absolute?

Loosly translated as:I was fooled when I read about it because it sounded so scientific.orI have not clue what it means.Given what I understand complexity to mean it is probably that both a mammal and a reptile are more complex than an amoeba (but I can't prove it since I don't know what complexity is). I am pretty darn sure that a reptile and a mammal are about the same in complexity and it would be very difficult indeed to figure out if there is an difference.Guessing what "specificity" is (and making up a bit of definition of my own)I would say that in that sense they all have very close to zero specificity. So close as to be safely approximated by zero. If you think it is significantly greater than zero you will have to show that.Rob, you've been had. You've read this stuff somewhere and thought it was really hot stuff. It is just random words made up to sound good. When questioned on it you've gone off into words without any more meaning that the ones that were used to fool you. Try again. I'm not fooled.

Thank you for approximating an answer. unfortunately that does not qualify as truth. So... touche'. I offer none myself!Fortunately for me, I do not need proof that we (as life on earth) are devolving, as oppossed to evolving. Your photograph speaks volumes...I imagine that's it for me...Oh well, I'm tired of the games anyhow. My Lord was right... wipe the dust off my feet lest they deystroy me. Pride is so contagious. I must flee!Edited by Rob, : No reason given.Edited by Rob, : Offended that I'm offended!

Thanks for that Crue. I used to catch that old fart on the radio and was enamored with Him. I don't know about the 2012 stuff, but hey... the old man was good! I'll read it...(sorry I self destructed on the last post... I'm only human!)

Sorry to say, but you have been paying attenting to intellectual scam artists. These intellectual scammers have befuddled you with their sophisticated-sounding arguments.In order to say that information has been lost, you would need a way of quantifing the amount of information. But look at what Spetner does when asked about the amount of information. He weaves and dodges, so as to pretend that he is answering, but he completely evades the question.You mention a DVD as your source. Your link doesn't seem to take me to the DVD, but it does lead to the AnswersInGenesis site. You mention Michael Denton. I seriously doubt that Denton is actually supporting these sleight-of-hand arguments about information. But I'm not about to watch a long video to find out. If you can find a transcript of what Denton said, that would be appreciated.