Jump to content


Photo

The macroevolution equivocation


  • Please log in to reply
101 replies to this topic

#21 Ron

Ron

    Advanced Member

  • Member
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 6,530 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Age: 50
  • Christian
  • Creationist
  • Johnstown, PA

Posted 02 June 2010 - 06:48 AM

This requires a language, which I'll get to in a few more lines, but it also requires us not to assume that art, music or poetry/books would be interesting to a non human species; in other words what might sound beautiful to use may be uninteresting to them.

View Post

My dog let’s me know when she’s hungry, and when she need to go out. And there’s no evidence that has changed much in the history of k-9’s. There is also no evidence that monkeys have done other than minor adaptation over that time as well.

Also: where did the music come from? This question answers itself (and the monkeys aren’t the answer). Also, appreciation is an assumed and presupposed definition in this case. Did you ask the monkey if it appreciated the music? Or are you assuming so?

There are many things that could potentially wipe out life on this planet.  One of those things is the Clostridium botulinum bacterium.  It produces botulinum toxin which is the most toxic substance known to man and with as little as 15 lbs of this stuff all humanity could be wiped out.

View Post

Did the Clostridium botulinum bacterium invent this capability, or is it simply inherent in its genome? And how many of these Clostridium botulinum bacterium have access to fifteen pounds of the botulinum toxin, and show the intelligence and will to use it to wipe out humanity.

Here's some information on language and SYNTAX with Cambell's monkeys.

View Post


Wow, “six types of alert calls”…. How does that compare to the multitude of human languages (both dead, and still in use today?) Again, the complete and total superiority of the human race shines through once again.

#22 Ron

Ron

    Advanced Member

  • Member
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 6,530 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Age: 50
  • Christian
  • Creationist
  • Johnstown, PA

Posted 02 June 2010 - 06:53 AM

Ok you are wrong with that statement because their were other intelligent primates example Neanderthal,  Homo neanderthalensis etc
http://www.newscient...ith-humans.html

View Post


Really, and is there any evidence (other than mere speculative opinion) that Neanderthals weren’t human? In fact, the link you provided makes that very claim (ouch)!


They are so closely related that some researchers group them and us as a single species. "I would see them as a form of humans that are bit more different than humans are today, but not much," says Svante Pääbo, a palaeogeneticist at the Max Planck Institute in Leipzig, Germany, whose team sequenced the Neanderthal genome.



And, even if that weren’t the case, the massive numbers of other creatures crushes evolutionary models based upon my hypothesis.

Why, after supposed millions of billions of years, are there only two superior creatures. The odds against are astronomical when you stop to think about it (that is IF you stop to think about it).

#23 Mr.Razorblades

Mr.Razorblades

    Banned Troll from a troll forum

  • Banned
  • PipPipPip
  • 144 posts
  • Age: 28
  • no affiliation
  • Atheist
  • US

Posted 02 June 2010 - 07:37 AM

Incorrect, “before anything can be invented the simplest of tools need to be” invented/discovered by the user. Not invented by scientists/advocates in an attempt to “prove” a “naturalistic” explanation at all costs.

Exactly where in my previous sentence did you see me state these tools were or had to be invented by scientists/advocates? My exact quote like you quoted was "Before anything can be invented the simplest of tools need to be in place before hand." This is saying that the tools have to be found/invented before any other steps can be accomplished which means that these animals are only in the beginning stages of invention.

Incorrect again, “as a consequence of being the” only ones “to achieve mastery over tools” design, logic, mathematics, etc… Which itself begs the question “where is the evolution answer?

I showed you examples of tool use, yet you ignore them and say they are not? We have this mastery because of our intellect, which is our only advantage in this world. Other animals are now discovering how to make tools, and how to use tools. I don't know what the evolutionary answer is, but I can tell you we are NOT the only animals making and using tools, we are not the only animals mastering tool usage, but we are the only animals to have mastered tools to a high degree. This does not mean we are the "only ones to achieve mastery over tools". That sir, is incorrect.

Case in point… Where did the tools and equipment come from (or provided by)? From the scientists/advocates of course, not the rooks. And what makes this so amazing is the actual confession “This finding is remarkable because rooks do not appear to use tools in the wild”… This experiment is nothing more than a modification of Pavlov’s experiments. Kind of knocks the stuffing right out of that model.


So when I provide you with this link that completely discredits what you say will you agree that it is both observed in the wild and in captivity, or will you hand waive that away as well? The first link I gave was one month prior, this link is Jan of 2010.

Rooks being observed using tools in the WILD with no intervention from SCIENTISTS

And, after millions of years of supposed evolution, this is the best chimps can do? Poke a stick at food? My children mastered the skill in infancy (and grew past it shortly thereafter. This is complete and total pawnage, by the humans, over the chimps (of epic proportions) on the presumed-evolutionary scale.

So you think that the first ones to cross the finish line of tool mastery causes all of the other runners to quit and walk away?

My dog let’s me know when she’s hungry, and when she need to go out. And there’s no evidence that has changed much in the history of k-9’s. There is also no evidence that monkeys have done other than minor adaptation over that time as well.

If you can disprove this evidence then you would win a nobel.

Also: where did the music come from? This question answers itself (and the monkeys aren’t the answer). Also, appreciation is an assumed and presupposed definition in this case. Did you ask the monkey if it appreciated the music? Or are you assuming so?

You really aren't even reading the links are you? I'm going to assume that because the answers to your questions were in the provided links. If I was wrong that you didn't read them then it is safe to say you didn't understand the data.

Did the Clostridium botulinum bacterium invent this capability, or is it simply inherent in its genome? And how many of these Clostridium botulinum bacterium have access to fifteen pounds of the botulinum toxin, and show the intelligence and will to use it to wipe out humanity.

This post was to show you that it does not require an intelligent force to wipe out all humanity. If 15 lbs sounds like to large of a number for this creature to produce how about this number, 1 millionth of a gram; this will kill 1 person. The plague almost completely destroyed the European population, but it was halted due to observation. It does not take a very intelligent organism to kill all of humanity.

Wow, “six types of alert calls”…. How does that compare to the multitude of human languages (both dead, and still in use today?) Again, the complete and total superiority of the human race shines through once again.

I'm at a loss of words to the arrogance here. Six type of alert calls combined with SYNTAX creates SENTENCES that have MEANING about the environment around them. For someone who is so in love with god's creations you seem to have the lowest regard for them.

#24 Ron

Ron

    Advanced Member

  • Member
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 6,530 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Age: 50
  • Christian
  • Creationist
  • Johnstown, PA

Posted 02 June 2010 - 08:09 AM

Exactly where in my previous sentence did you see me state these tools were or had to be invented by scientists/advocates?

View Post

In order for your comment to be valid, it needs to be in the context of the conversation.


My exact quote like you quoted was "Before anything can be invented the simplest of tools need to be in place before hand." This is saying that the tools have to be found/invented before any other steps can be accomplished which means that these animals are only in the beginning stages of invention.

View Post

Three things:
The tools were put in place by design (defeating atheistic evolution).
The animals didn’t find the tools (The tools were put in place by design. Again, defeating atheistic evolution)
The only thing these were “in the beginning stages of” was experimentation of superior beings.

I showed you examples of tool use, yet you ignore them and say they are not?

View Post

You provided designed experimentation of superior beings (not unlike Pavlov’s experimentation), that did nothing to support evolution. But it did support design, which is diametrically opposed to what you were trying to do.

We have this mastery because of our intellect, which is our only advantage in this world.

View Post

We have this mastery because of our intellect, which is the only advantage we need to be superior.

Other animals are now discovering how to make tools, and how to use tools.

View Post

Other creatures have had the same amount of time as we have (or more if you believe the model of evolution). And yet you are saying that they are just now “discovering how to make tools”? And they are only doing so within the controlled environment of out designed experiments?

All of this only supports my hypothesis.

#25 Ron

Ron

    Advanced Member

  • Member
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 6,530 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Age: 50
  • Christian
  • Creationist
  • Johnstown, PA

Posted 02 June 2010 - 08:10 AM

I don't know what the evolutionary answer is, but I can tell you we are NOT the only animals making and using tools, we are not the only animals mastering tool usage, but we are the only animals to have mastered tools to a high degree.

View Post

Again, you are not only “not” answering the questions I asked (although I cannot blame you, you have no cogent answer), but you are changing them to fit what you want for an answer. And even then, your answers fall way short, and aren’t really within the context of the questions asked.

The questions I posed were in the form of an interrogatory dialogue set-up. I posed a series of questions that are interrelated, cogent, succinct and specific.

“If evolution were true, why then are humans the ONLY animals who have evolved to the superior status that we have achieved? After all of these supposed millions and billions of years, why are we the only species that:

Can design and manufacture and automobile/airplane/submarine?
Write a sonnet/book/music?
Have the capability to wipe out all other life forms on this planet?
Invent a language including all the laws and rules that govern that language?
(there are many other such examples, but I think you get the picture)

In other words, if evolution were true; why are humans the only superior race.”

View Post



This does not mean we are the "only ones to achieve mastery over tools". That sir, is incorrect.

View Post

Actually, no, it is not… Especially if you remain with in the lines of context! Please see my questions above (again) and re-calibrate your attempt at a cogent answer.

#26 Ron

Ron

    Advanced Member

  • Member
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 6,530 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Age: 50
  • Christian
  • Creationist
  • Johnstown, PA

Posted 02 June 2010 - 08:11 AM

So when I provide you with this link that completely discredits what you say will you agree that it is both observed in the wild and in captivity, or will you hand waive that away as well? The first link I gave was one month prior, this link is Jan of 2010.

View Post

You have yet to provide said link that show inferior creatures:

Designing and manufacturing an automobile/airplane/submarine?
Writing a sonnet/book/music?
Displaying the capability to wipe out all other life forms on this planet with the push of a designed button, activating a mechanism, to deliver a payload capable of doing so?
Inventing a language including all the laws and rules that govern that language?

Rooks being observed using tools in the WILD with no intervention from SCIENTISTS

View Post


Sorry, that link doesn’t fit the bill. But it does lower the bar so far that you can attempt to equivocate your way out of your painted corner. Maybe you can borrow one of those so-called “tools” the wild crows used?

So you think that the first ones to cross the finish line of tool mastery causes all of the other runners to quit and walk away?

View Post

Actually, the “only” ones. Especially when one considers the pre-supposed Millions/Billions of years the competition has had.

If you can disprove this evidence then you would win a nobel.

View Post

No thanks, Gore and Obama have already devalued the Nobel to the point of folly.

#27 Isabella

Isabella

    Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPip
  • 589 posts
  • Gender:Female
  • Location:Vancouver, Canada
  • Interests:Cell biology, developmental biology, genetics, zoology, anthropology.
  • Age: 0
  • no affiliation
  • Atheist
  • Vancouver, Canada

Posted 02 June 2010 - 11:01 AM

No, Isabella, our superior intelligence provides us with the means to make ourselves physically superior because of the physicality of the machines we design and manufacture.

View Post

I disagree. Inventions like airplanes and submarines were not around when humans first came into existence. In fact, every machine you listed has only shown up within the last couple centuries. And it’s not as though every human independently developed their own jet plane. There are only a handful of people throughout history who have made these inventions possible, so I’d hardly give the credit to our species as a whole. A baby is not born with the ability to build a jet plane. Furthermore, any superiority these machines provide would become obsolete if it weren’t for our brains, even if the machines themselves existed.

#28 Ron

Ron

    Advanced Member

  • Member
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 6,530 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Age: 50
  • Christian
  • Creationist
  • Johnstown, PA

Posted 02 June 2010 - 11:17 AM

I disagree. Inventions like airplanes and submarines were not around when humans first came into existence. In fact, every machine you listed has only shown up within the last couple centuries. And it’s not as though every human independently developed their own jet plane. There are only a handful of people throughout history who have made these inventions possible, so I’d hardly give the credit to our species as a whole. A baby is not born with the ability to build a jet plane. Furthermore, any superiority these machines provide would become obsolete if it weren’t for our brains, even if the machines themselves existed.

View Post


So, what you’re saying is; every other creature has had the same amount of time to invent all of these things, but only man has? That just further strengthens my hypothesis. (regardless of whether you'd agree or not).

Time + Man = multiple superior designs, inventions, languages, maths, logic (etc...)
Time + ALL other creatures = the ability to poke a stick in a hole for a grub (etc...)
Time + Man = SUPERIOR

#29 Mr.Razorblades

Mr.Razorblades

    Banned Troll from a troll forum

  • Banned
  • PipPipPip
  • 144 posts
  • Age: 28
  • no affiliation
  • Atheist
  • US

Posted 02 June 2010 - 12:43 PM

Ron, I'm done with you, I'm done with this site. I show you evidence of other animals using tools, yet you disregard them saying "It doesn't fit the bill". As to why it doesn't fit the bill for you I don't know, maybe you need to see it in person, or maybe you're to arrogant to realize that we aren't the only intelligent tool using animals on this planet.

When I say something like "I don't know" it's me saying I DON"T KNOW THE ANSWER TO THAT QUESTION. I would rather say I don't know than say with absolute certainty that I know the answer, like you do time after time.

I have attempted to converse with the creationists here and I suprised myself when I could relate, and enjoy conversing with them, but you on the other hand are incapable of a reasoned conversation. You completely accuse anyone who studies evolution of equivocating, or assuming, or any number of fallacious arguments, BUT continue to do the same things you accuse others of. This has hammered my patience into the ground. There are many creationists who I have found to respect to some degree on this site, yet you are not one of them, and this is because of your accusatory and disengenuous method of conversation. I cannot comprehend how you live in this arrogrance, or denial. I cannot also comprehend how the moderation here does not see exactly what you do. So this is me bowing out completely from posting/visiting this site before I say anything uncivil, because that goes completely against what I believe. So moderators please ban me, suspend me eternally.

My only request, if fullfilled, is that the reason for banning was at my request. Good day.

#30 Isabella

Isabella

    Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPip
  • 589 posts
  • Gender:Female
  • Location:Vancouver, Canada
  • Interests:Cell biology, developmental biology, genetics, zoology, anthropology.
  • Age: 0
  • no affiliation
  • Atheist
  • Vancouver, Canada

Posted 02 June 2010 - 02:52 PM

So, what you’re saying is; every other creature has had the same amount of time to invent all of these things, but only man has? That just further strengthens my hypothesis. (regardless of whether you'd agree or not).

Time + Man = multiple superior designs, inventions, languages, maths, logic (etc...)
Time + ALL other creatures = the ability to poke a stick in a hole for a grub (etc...)
Time + Man = SUPERIOR

View Post


Yes, humans have the most superior brain among all the other animals. But the brain is just one part of the body. You could similarly ask why no animal has evolved a neck as long as a giraffe’s, given that all animals had the same amount of time to do so. Or you could ask why no animal has evolved a nose as long as an elephant’s.

You can pick pretty much any anatomical feature and find the animal with the largest or most efficient version, and it just so happens that we win in the brain category. And the brain is arguably the most powerful feature of all, which is why humans have found a way to become superior to other animals (I don’t like the word superior, but I’ll use it in this discussion to avoid a debate on semantics).

So why did we win in the most complex brain category? Well, let’s look at the things that are required for a large brain. First of all, the animal needs to be large in the first place. That rules out the majority of animals, since most animals are invertebrates. Secondly, the animal needs to have a lifestyle that necessitates higher thought process. A koala, which spends most of its time eating leaves and sleeping, wouldn’t need to have a complex brain. Brains are very energetically expensive organs, and it would be a hindrance to the animal to develop a bigger brain than needed. That brings me to my third point, which is diet. There’s a correlation between brain size and the complexity of an animal’s diet. It’s a process of co-evolution. As the diet increases in complexity, a larger brain is required to search for food. And as the quality of food improves, the brain has more calories and nutrients available to it and so it can increase in size.

#31 Guest_tomato_*

Guest_tomato_*
  • Guests

Posted 02 June 2010 - 03:38 PM

At a meeting of a skeptic group which I once belonged to, I asked why we can't all fly like birds AND run like cheetahs AND swim like fish AND prehend tree trunks like elephants AND think like humans AND so on and so forth.

I was told that each of those skills required energy, and an organism can put forth only so much energy.

#32 Ron

Ron

    Advanced Member

  • Member
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 6,530 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Age: 50
  • Christian
  • Creationist
  • Johnstown, PA

Posted 03 June 2010 - 03:31 AM

At a meeting of a skeptic group which I once belonged to, I asked why we can't all fly like birds AND run like cheetahs AND swim like fish AND prehend tree trunks like elephants AND think like humans AND so on and so forth.

I was told that each of those skills required energy, and an organism can put forth only so much energy.

View Post

Actually, we can do all those things... And more :)

#33 Ron

Ron

    Advanced Member

  • Member
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 6,530 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Age: 50
  • Christian
  • Creationist
  • Johnstown, PA

Posted 03 June 2010 - 03:40 AM

Ron, I'm done with you, I'm done with this site.  I show you evidence of other animals using tools, yet you disregard them saying "It doesn't fit the bill".  As to why it doesn't fit the bill for you I don't know, maybe you need to see it in person, or maybe you're to arrogant to realize that we aren't the only intelligent tool using animals on this planet.

When I say something like "I don't know" it's me saying I DON"T KNOW THE ANSWER TO THAT QUESTION.  I would rather say I don't know than say with absolute certainty that I know the answer, like you do time after time.

I have attempted to converse with the creationists here and I suprised myself when I could relate, and enjoy conversing with them, but you on the other hand are incapable of a reasoned conversation.  You completely accuse anyone who studies evolution of equivocating, or assuming, or any number of fallacious arguments, BUT continue to do the same things you accuse others of.  This has hammered my patience into the ground.  There are many creationists who I have found to respect to some degree on this site, yet you are not one of them, and this is because of your accusatory and disengenuous method of conversation.  I cannot comprehend how you live in this arrogrance, or denial.  I cannot also comprehend how the moderation here does not see exactly what you do.  So this is me bowing out completely from posting/visiting this site before I say anything uncivil, because that goes completely against what I believe.  So moderators please ban me, suspend me eternally. 

My only request, if fullfilled, is that the reason for banning was at my request.  Good day.

View Post


You gave absolutely NO evidence that answered my questions, and no rebuttal that refuted my hypothesis. You gave weak evidence that some of creation can use a stick,or a stone to get food. There is absolutely no evidence that these animals haven't been doing this since creation.

If you cannot respect the the truth of it,and want to continue fabricating way to hide from it, there is nothing I can do about that. If you wish to leave because you cannot refute the evidences, there is nothing I can do about that either. Those are your choices.

But, quit pretending that your post is anything more than an ad Hominem abusive, because you don't like the answers.

#34 OneHourPhoto

OneHourPhoto

    Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPip
  • 144 posts
  • Age: 30
  • no affiliation
  • Atheist
  • Melbourne

Posted 03 June 2010 - 03:48 AM

Ron, I'm done with you, I'm done with this site.  I show you evidence of other animals using tools, yet you disregard them saying "It doesn't fit the bill".  As to why it doesn't fit the bill for you I don't know, maybe you need to see it in person, or maybe you're to arrogant to realize that we aren't the only intelligent tool using animals on this planet.

When I say something like "I don't know" it's me saying I DON"T KNOW THE ANSWER TO THAT QUESTION.  I would rather say I don't know than say with absolute certainty that I know the answer, like you do time after time.

I have attempted to converse with the creationists here and I suprised myself when I could relate, and enjoy conversing with them, but you on the other hand are incapable of a reasoned conversation.  You completely accuse anyone who studies evolution of equivocating, or assuming, or any number of fallacious arguments, BUT continue to do the same things you accuse others of.  This has hammered my patience into the ground.  There are many creationists who I have found to respect to some degree on this site, yet you are not one of them, and this is because of your accusatory and disengenuous method of conversation.  I cannot comprehend how you live in this arrogrance, or denial.  I cannot also comprehend how the moderation here does not see exactly what you do.  So this is me bowing out completely from posting/visiting this site before I say anything uncivil, because that goes completely against what I believe.  So moderators please ban me, suspend me eternally. 

My only request, if fullfilled, is that the reason for banning was at my request.  Good day.

View Post


I believe the original question/statement posted by Ron:

Can design and manufacture and automobile/airplane/submarine?
Write a sonnet/book/music?
Have the capability to wipe out all other life forms on this planet?
Invent a language including all the laws and rules that govern that language?
(there are many other such examples, but I think you get the picture)


Would be referring to design and manufacture not primarily using tools. Now obviously one could list many building capabilities that animals display; bee hives, beavers making a damn, ant nests, woodpeckers etc. they would be excellent answers, but that is mostly based on instinct. I do believe there is a couple of capabilities that are actually taught to the offspring/learnt by other members of the species but none come to mind immediately. Watch this space.

I think Ron was referring to the design and manufacturing capabilities that require a thought process and not instinct.
I apologise if I misinterpreted your statement Ron.

#35 OneHourPhoto

OneHourPhoto

    Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPip
  • 144 posts
  • Age: 30
  • no affiliation
  • Atheist
  • Melbourne

Posted 03 June 2010 - 04:03 AM

So why did we win in the most complex brain category? Well, let’s look at the things that are required for a large brain. First of all, the animal needs to be large in the first place. That rules out the majority of animals, since most animals are invertebrates. Secondly, the animal needs to have a lifestyle that necessitates higher thought process. A koala, which spends most of its time eating leaves and sleeping, wouldn’t need to have a complex brain. Brains are very energetically expensive organs, and it would be a hindrance to the animal to develop a bigger brain than needed. That brings me to my third point, which is diet. There’s a correlation between brain size and the complexity of an animal’s diet. It’s a process of co-evolution. As the diet increases in complexity, a larger brain is required to search for food. And as the quality of food improves, the brain has more calories and nutrients available to it and so it can increase in size.

View Post


I know what you are stating there Isabella, e.g. Humans are supposed to have developed the larger brain capacity due to our increased consumption of lean red meats and our early ancestors increased methods of sourcing this type of diet, and thus developing our intelligence. I find a problem with this is the diet of a relative of ours, the gorillas, the gorillas diet consists primarily of plants/fruits and also some insects, I would have to suspect that the gorillas ancestors diet consisted of more red meats, and the modern day gorilla switched to a herbivorous diet, switching the diet would be more detrimental to the gorilla I would have thought, not sure of any answers on this though?

#36 Ron

Ron

    Advanced Member

  • Member
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 6,530 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Age: 50
  • Christian
  • Creationist
  • Johnstown, PA

Posted 03 June 2010 - 04:09 AM

I think Ron was referring to the design and manufacturing capabilities that require a thought process and not instinct.
I apologise if I misinterpreted your statement Ron.

View Post


Not at all Photo, you are mostly correct and on point (although I would refine it a little more). Plus, there is absolutely no evidence that any of the animals you have used in your analogy, have done much differently since creation. But man, on the other hand, is an altogether different story.

#37 Guest_Eocene_*

Guest_Eocene_*
  • Guests

Posted 03 June 2010 - 05:07 AM

I believe the original question/statement posted by Ron:
Would be referring to design and manufacture not primarily using tools. Now obviously one could list many building capabilities that animals display; bee hives, beavers making a damn, ant nests, woodpeckers etc. they would be excellent answers, but that is mostly based on instinct. I do believe there is a couple of capabilities that are actually taught to the offspring/learnt by other members of the species but none come to mind immediately.

View Post



There have been many such documentaries showing where that immediately upon hatching or being born, that such animals listed above do have the behaviorial knowledge instinctively programmed into their genetic informational make up as no active teaching or instructing has ever observed from by the adult, bees, ants, etc. Animals, like beaver , chimps, etc, may have a bit of programming, but I believe they can also learn by watching and observing the older ones which improves their personal fine tuned technique. But trying to stretch believing this to be proof of evolutionary progression is simply philosophical wishful thinking on the part of anthropogists more than the actual truth of the matter.

#38 Ron

Ron

    Advanced Member

  • Member
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 6,530 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Age: 50
  • Christian
  • Creationist
  • Johnstown, PA

Posted 03 June 2010 - 05:47 AM

There have been many such documentaries showing where that immediately upon hatching or being born, that such animals listed above do have the behaviorial knowledge instinctively programmed into their genetic informational make up as no active teaching or instructing has ever observed from by the adult, bees, ants, etc. Animals, like beaver , chimps, etc, may have a bit of programming, but I believe they can also learn by watching and observing the older ones which improves their personal fine tuned technique. But trying to stretch believing this to be proof of evolutionary progression is simply philosophical wishful thinking on the part of anthropogists more than the actual truth of the matter.

View Post


And, if the evolutionists would admit as much, there wouldn't even be an issue. But to promulgate these speculations and presuppositions as fact, is doing science a great disservice.

#39 Ron

Ron

    Advanced Member

  • Member
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 6,530 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Age: 50
  • Christian
  • Creationist
  • Johnstown, PA

Posted 03 June 2010 - 06:13 AM

Yes, humans have the most superior brain among all the other animals. But the brain is just one part of the body.

View Post


And, amazingly enough, amongst ALL the millions of creatures on this planet, and over the supposed millions of years of presupposed evolution; the human beings are the only creatures to have (again supposedly) evolved into a superior being.

You could similarly ask why no animal has evolved a neck as long as a giraffe’s, given that all animals had the same amount of time to do so. Or you could ask why no animal has evolved a nose as long as an elephant’s.

View Post


And I would similarly answer “That is the way they were designed”.

You can pick pretty much any anatomical feature and find the animal with the largest or most efficient version, and it just so happens that we win in the brain category. And the brain is arguably the most powerful feature of all, which is why humans have found a way to become superior to other animals (I don’t like the word superior, but I’ll use it in this discussion to avoid a debate on semantics).

View Post

You may not wish to use the word superior, but that is the best definition. And, there is absolutely no evidence that the human brain has been anything but the most superior brain of all creation.


So why did we win in the most complex brain category?

View Post

And I would again answer “That is the way we were designed”.

Well, let’s look at the things that are required for a large brain. First of all, the animal needs to be large in the first place. That rules out the majority of animals, since most animals are invertebrates. Secondly, the animal needs to have a lifestyle that necessitates higher thought process. A koala, which spends most of its time eating leaves and sleeping, wouldn’t need to have a complex brain. Brains are very energetically expensive organs, and it would be a hindrance to the animal to develop a bigger brain than needed. That brings me to my third point, which is diet. There’s a correlation between brain size and the complexity of an animal’s diet. It’s a process of co-evolution. As the diet increases in complexity, a larger brain is required to search for food. And as the quality of food improves, the brain has more calories and nutrients available to it and so it can increase in size.

View Post


None of which supports better than a speculative opinion of the evolutionary model; you could use the same evidence to argue design:

A koala, which spends most of its time eating leaves and sleeping, wouldn’t need to have a complex brain. That’s the way it was designed!

Brains are very energetically expensive organs, and it would be a hindrance to the animal to develop a bigger brain than needed. That’s why they are designed that way!

Etcetera… Etcetera…

#40 Isabella

Isabella

    Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPip
  • 589 posts
  • Gender:Female
  • Location:Vancouver, Canada
  • Interests:Cell biology, developmental biology, genetics, zoology, anthropology.
  • Age: 0
  • no affiliation
  • Atheist
  • Vancouver, Canada

Posted 03 June 2010 - 02:38 PM

I find a problem with this is the diet of a relative of ours, the gorillas, the gorillas diet consists primarily of plants/fruits and also some insects, I would have to suspect that the gorillas ancestors diet consisted of more red meats, and the modern day gorilla switched to a herbivorous diet, switching the diet would be more detrimental to the gorilla I would have thought, not sure of any answers on this though?

View Post

I’m pretty sure that the common ancestor we shared with gorillas and other apes was a herbivore, meaning that gorillas have always eaten plants as their primary food source (but I could be wrong, so if anyone has more information on that feel free to correct me). Red meat certainly helps with brain development, but it’s not the determining factor. If it were, lions would be more intelligent than us. But I suspect that our switch from eating mostly plants to eating large amounts of meat is one of the reasons humans were able to become more advanced than the other apes.

And I would similarly answer “That is the way they were designed”.

View Post

And I would again answer “That is the way we were designed”.

View Post

None of which supports better than a speculative opinion of the evolutionary model; you could use the same evidence to argue design:

A koala, which spends most of its time eating leaves and sleeping, wouldn’t need to have a complex brain. That’s the way it was designed!

Brains are very energetically expensive organs, and it would be a hindrance to the animal to develop a bigger brain than needed. That’s why they are designed that way!

Etcetera… Etcetera…

View Post

Well I really don’t have much more to say on this subject, Ron. You asked me why humans are the most intelligent animals, and I gave you an answer. I could’ve just said, “That’s just how we evolved” since that seems to be the type of answer you prefer. But yes, I suppose you could just say, “They were designed that way”.




0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users