Jump to content


Photo

That’s The Evolution Way.


  • Please log in to reply
140 replies to this topic

#21 Mike Summers

Mike Summers

    Veteran Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 3,205 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Interests:Information theory, electronics, videography, writing, human psychology, psychotherapy
  • Age: 61
  • Christian
  • Creationist
  • Detroit Michigan area

Posted 13 January 2011 - 12:02 AM

Though I typically wouldn't want to defent the evolutionary point of view, I must remain honest with myself and what I know.
As a proper representation of the TOE Isabella is correct on that matter.  Most likely if the TOE were true than if a certain secluded population of humans were in an enviornment that was slowly being invaded by water those that were less fit for aquatic survival would die and those more fit would pass on their genes.
Than where creationists draw the line at adaptation evolutionists go on in the hopes that mutations will occur that are not only not fatal but beneficial to the situation endangering the population.
Nevertheless, as humans, in well funded populations of humans (as in not third world countries), we have the technology to surpass most effects of 'natural selection'.

View Post

If a hand is going to “evolve” from a foot-like mechanism, the associated muscles and ligaments must be modified accordingly to control the new function of the hand. More is involved than just one mutation. The mutations (modifications) need to be precise and supportive of the new function. Saying evolution did it is somewhat magical because evolution is non sentient.

Using a blind watch maker anaolgy to argue the construction of a new function that has to be perfectly coordinated is ridiculous, How many blind drivers do we know driving automobiles on our streets? More is needed than blind evolution to go from a reptile to a bird. But it's possible the evolutionists says. Yeah when the evolutionists gets in a car driven by a blind person and tells him to get on one of our freewyas let me know. Crash!

Moreover, a feedback loop is needed and code that will be accepted by the individual digits and its joints to adjust their position for the varying tasks that present themselves to the creature. Swinging through a tree would require different instructions than pealing a banana to eat it.

Software (instructions) needs to be present to run the new function and is never even mentioned. How did the software evolve concurrently with the “new” hardware to interface perfectly with the new function? If there is no software and code getting to the muscles and ligaments that control the hand, it will not function correctly.

Evos have no explanation for how the software to run the millions of different species that exist evolved into existence. Darwin could claim ignorance, but what is evolutions' excuse today? We have all observed people that have lost control of their extremities from damage to their spinal cord. The extremities are fully functional but the signals to operate the arm or leg do not make it through the usual nerve path to the particular limbs. No software-no function.

#22 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 13 January 2011 - 02:05 PM

If a  hand is going to “evolve” from a foot-like mechanism, the associated muscles and ligaments must be modified accordingly to control the new function of the hand. More is involved than  just one mutation. The mutations (modifications) need to be precise and supportive of the new function. Saying evolution did it is somewhat  magical because evolution is non sentient. 

Using a blind watch maker anaolgy to argue the construction of a new function that has to be perfectly coordinated  is ridiculous, How many blind drivers do  we know driving automobiles on our streets? More is needed than blind evolution to go from a reptile to a bird. But it's possible the evolutionists says. Yeah when the evolutionists  gets  in a car driven  by a blind person and tells him to get on one of our freewyas let me know. Crash!

View Post


My understanding of the blind watchmaker analogy is not that evolution is completely unguided, but rather that evolution lacks foresight. Mutation and environmental change are both random, however the resulting selective pressures these events place on a population is typically directional and therefore non-random.

Evolution is only blind in the sense that it does not plan ahead, which is a common misconception some creationists have.


Moreover, a feedback loop is needed and code that will be accepted by the individual digits and its joints to adjust their position for the varying tasks that present themselves to the creature.  Swinging through a tree would require different instructions  than pealing a banana to eat it. 

Software (instructions) needs to be present to  run the new function and is never even mentioned. How did the software evolve concurrently with the “new” hardware  to interface perfectly with the new function?  If there is no software and code getting to the muscles and ligaments that control the hand, it will not function correctly. 

Evos have no explanation for how the software to run the millions of different species that exist evolved into existence. Darwin could claim ignorance, but what is evolutions' excuse today?  We have all observed people that have lost control of their  extremities from damage to their spinal cord. The extremities are fully functional but the signals to operate the arm or  leg do not make it through the usual nerve path  to the particular limbs. No software-no function.

View Post


You seem to be implying that tree-climbing hands evolved from a structure which lacked muscles and nerves. This would not have been the case. An animal living on the ground would probably have feet resembling paws, which means that motor pathways and muscles were already in place. Mutations would only need to fine-tune these pathways, and to me that’s not an unfathomable idea.

Within your own lifetime, you have developed motor pathways you were not born with. You learned to write, type, draw, and possibly how to play musical instruments and sports. Some people with deformed/amputated hands have learned to write with their feet. All of these require a “re-wiring” of your brain, so to speak. I’m not suggesting that learned motor skills can be passed on to future offspring (that would be Lamarckism), but my point is that hand use does not necessarily depend on dramatic physical changes in your nerves or muscles.

#23 Mike Summers

Mike Summers

    Veteran Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 3,205 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Interests:Information theory, electronics, videography, writing, human psychology, psychotherapy
  • Age: 61
  • Christian
  • Creationist
  • Detroit Michigan area

Posted 13 January 2011 - 05:17 PM

My understanding of the blind watchmaker analogy is not that evolution is completely unguided, but rather that evolution lacks foresight. Mutation and environmental change are both random, however the resulting selective pressures these events place on a population is typically directional and therefore non-random.

A watch maker even if he is blind is still intelligent making this abalogy false. I admitt that life has selective qyalities and as far as I can see that is what is making adaptive choices not imaginary evolution. Selection is a function of choices--a life charateristic, You better have some forsight if you are going to build a watch or who knows what you will throw together? A watchmaker sets out to build a watch. Once again Dawkins analogy is false! Evolution did not, according to evo scientists, set out evolve a bird from a reptile, it just happened.

Evolution is only blind in the sense that it does not plan ahead, which is a common misconception some creationists have.

I do not share that ignorance of what evolutionsts alleges. I know it is not claimed to think or plan. That's why it is so magical sounding to me. Presto chango! an evolution has accomplished the most complex of feats that even humans can
t do.

You seem to be implying that tree-climbing hands evolved from a structure which lacked muscles and nerves. This would not have been the case. An animal living on the ground would probably have feet resembling paws, which means that motor pathways and muscles were already in place. Mutations would only need to fine-tune these pathways, and to me that’s not an unfathomable idea.

Within your own lifetime, you have developed motor pathways you were not born with. You learned to write, type, draw, and possibly how to play musical instruments and sports. Some people with deformed/amputated hands have learned to write with their feet. All of these require a “re-wiring” of your brain, so to speak. I’m not suggesting that learned motor skills can be passed on to future offspring (that would be Lamarckism), but my point is that hand use does not necessarily depend on dramatic physical changes in your nerves or muscles.

View Post

I did not imply that anything evolved. I think that is your position. You focused the argument as if the only purpose for hands “evolving” was to swing through trees. There are many uses for hands as you said in your current post.

I like your idea of fine tuning which indicates that “mutations” must be precision and specific to cause the subtle changes that allow the hand to be more multi-purpose than a paw. I don’t suggest you cut your fingers off to prove the point but tape them up and see how effective having them is. The point is many animals survive without hands. Lions, tigers and bears etc.

Over my and your lifetime we have learned much because we are way more intelligent than apes and chimps. Over the lifetime of an ape he has never learned how to play a piano or develop pathways to do such. I am sure your excuse would be that he has not evolved far enough. Why would he or any of the other animals have to evolve they seem to do quite well right now as they are.

Dogs seem to have stopped evolving at dog status. chimps at chimp status and all other animals seem frozen where they are or they wouldn't be called by their names. Where is their evolution?

#24 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 14 January 2011 - 11:57 AM

A watch maker even if he is blind is still intelligent making this abalogy false. I admitt that life has selective qyalities and as far as I can see that is what is making adaptive choices not imaginary evolution. Selection is a function of choices--a life charateristic, You better have some forsight if you are going to build a watch or who knows what you will throw together? A watchmaker sets out to build a watch. Once again Dawkins analogy is false! Evolution did not, according to evo scientists, set out evolve a bird from a reptile, it just happened.

View Post

I think you’re reading too much into the analogy. Dawkins is actually referencing William Paley’s watchmaker analogy, which supports intelligent design. The point Dawkins is trying to make is that unlike a watchmaker, evolution has no foresight and in that sense is “blind”. So Dawkins is actually trying to point out how evolution is different from an intelligent watchmaker rather than trying to illustrate their similarities.

I did not imply that anything evolved. I think that is your position. You focused the argument as if the only purpose for hands “evolving” was to swing through trees. There are many uses for hands as you said in your current post.

View Post

I never said that swinging through trees was the only purpose for hands. However, we were talking specifically about the evolution of human intelligence and tool use. The evolutionary viewpoint is that human ancestors had hands because they were adapted to an arboreal lifestyle.

I like your idea of fine tuning which indicates that “mutations” must be precision and specific to cause the subtle changes that allow the hand to be more multi-purpose than a paw. I don’t suggest you cut your fingers off to prove the point but tape them up and see how effective having them is. The point is many animals survive without hands. Lions, tigers and bears etc.

View Post

I’m not sure what point you’re trying to make. Yes, there are plenty of animals which lack human-like hands. If an animal does have hands, it’s probably for a good reason such as climbing trees or gathering food.

Over my and your lifetime we have learned much because we are way more intelligent than apes and chimps. Over the lifetime of an ape he has never learned how to play a piano or develop pathways to do such. I am sure your excuse would be that he has not evolved far enough. Why would he or any of the other animals have to evolve they seem to do quite well right now as they are.

View Post

My point was not that humans are able to learn. You said that swinging through a tree and peeling a banana are two very different uses of a hand, and I’m arguing that they’re really not—they just require the development of different motor pathways.

Also, I would never argue that chimps have not “evolved far enough”, because that would imply evolution can plan ahead or is moving towards an ultimate goal... both of which are false.
Evolution happens in response to environmental change. If an animal is doing well in a stable habitat, chances are it won’t be faced with much selective pressure.

Dogs seem to have stopped evolving at dog status. chimps at chimp status and all other animals seem frozen where they are or they wouldn't be called by their names. Where is their evolution?

View Post

What exactly is dog status? Are wolves dogs? I think we can both agree that they are. What about coyotes and foxes? Racoon dogs? Hyenas?

I don’t see any clear line where “dog status” begins and ends. Do you? And if so, where would you put it and for what reasons?

#25 Mike Summers

Mike Summers

    Veteran Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 3,205 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Interests:Information theory, electronics, videography, writing, human psychology, psychotherapy
  • Age: 61
  • Christian
  • Creationist
  • Detroit Michigan area

Posted 15 January 2011 - 01:14 AM

Hi Isabella

I think you’re reading too much into the analogy. Dawkins is actually referencing William Paley’s watchmaker analogy, which supports intelligent design. The point Dawkins is trying to make is that unlike a watchmaker, evolution has no foresight and in that sense is “blind”. So Dawkins is actually trying to point out how evolution is different from an intelligent watchmaker rather than trying to illustrate their similarities.

Obviously Dawkins posits the idea that complexity can come from randomness. It is a false analogy comparing it to Pauley’s analogy. We have not observed evolution creating complexity—remember it’s to slow to observe.

I never said that swinging through trees was the only purpose for hands. However, we were talking specifically about the evolution of human intelligence and tool use. The evolutionary viewpoint is that human ancestors had hands because they were adapted to an arboreal lifestyle.

And my argument is that hands are great for playing the piano, beating the drums sculpting etc. There is no connection that there evolution was “caused” by a “need” to survive by swinging through trees. Mike Summers @ Jan 13 2011, 05:17 PM)

I’m not sure what point you’re trying to make. Yes, there are plenty of animals which lack human-like hands. If an animal does have hands, it’s probably for a good reason such as climbing trees or gathering food.


The point is you have no way of knowing what environmental factors were in the past that would influence for a prolonged time to cause food problems enough for an advantage for hands mutating into existence-- evolving. That is pure speculation. The evidence is that plenty of animals still exist with paws and they survive in similar environments. Today we observe animals migratin from areas when food gets scarce. That makes more sense than waiting who knows how many years for hands to evolve.

My point was not that humans are able to learn. You said that swinging through a tree and peeling a banana are two very different uses of a hand, and I’m arguing that they’re really not—they just require the development of different motor pathways. 

It’s decidedly more than that simplistic answer.

Also, I would never argue that chimps have not “evolved far enough”, because that would imply evolution can plan ahead or is moving towards an ultimate goal... both of which are false.
Evolution happens in response to environmental change. If an animal is doing well in a stable habitat, chances are it won’t be faced with much selective pressure.

Apparently we are “further’ along than they are. In fact we left them in the dust! They are stuck as chimps and we have evolved on. Isn't that how evo works?

What exactly is dog status? Are wolves dogs? I think we can both agree that they are. What about coyotes and foxes? Racoon dogs? Hyenas? I don’t see any clear line where “dog status” begins and ends. Do you? And if so, where would you put it and for what reasons?

Hmmmm1. Let me think... How about Elephant and giraffe. Is that far apart enough?

#26 MamaElephant

MamaElephant

    former JW

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 1,564 posts
  • Gender:Female
  • Interests:Bible, Home-schooling, Education, Fitness, Young Earth Science, Evolution, Natural Medicine, Board Games, Video Games, Study of cult mind control and Counseling for those coming out of cult mind control.
  • Age: 35
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • I am His! 1/29/12

Posted 16 January 2011 - 01:44 PM

What exactly is dog status? Are wolves dogs? I think we can both agree that they are. What about coyotes and foxes? Racoon dogs? Hyenas?

I don’t see any clear line where “dog status” begins and ends. Do you? And if so, where would you put it and for what reasons?

View Post

The average idea is that the divider is usually in families, but you would be better off asking someone working in that field or looking at what they have written. I suggest Todd Wood. He is a very reasonable scientist working in Baraminology.

#27 Mike Summers

Mike Summers

    Veteran Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 3,205 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Interests:Information theory, electronics, videography, writing, human psychology, psychotherapy
  • Age: 61
  • Christian
  • Creationist
  • Detroit Michigan area

Posted 16 January 2011 - 06:02 PM

The average idea is that the divider is usually in families, but you would be better off asking someone working in that field or looking at what they have written. I suggest Todd Wood. He is a very reasonable scientist working in Baraminology.

View Post

What exactly is dog status? Are wolves dogs? I think we can both agree that they are. What about coyotes and foxes? Racoon dogs? Hyenas?

I don’t see any clear line where “dog status” begins and ends. Do you? And if so, where would you put it and for what reasons?


Hi MamaElephant
A news ll the above questions are rhetorical
What he is doing with this comment is a suterfuge. He has a clear definition in mind of what a species is but wants to play a game to see if we agree with his definition.in exact detail. As no human exactly will, he can then appeal to an authority figure and "be right." I don't think he realizes he is doing this though. It's more of a conformist desperate act--evplution is true regardless as to what anyone or even evidence shows differently.

#28 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 16 January 2011 - 06:09 PM

The point is you have no way of knowing what environmental factors were in the past that would influence for a prolonged time to cause food problems enough for an advantage for hands mutating into existence-- evolving. That is pure speculation. The evidence is that plenty of animals still exist with paws and they survive in similar environments.

View Post

This is obviously not a point we’re going to agree on, and I feel that we’re getting somewhat off topic. From your point of view, the hands and feet of arboreal primates were designed to facilitate life in trees. From the viewpoint of an evolutionist, these structures are adaptations in response to that particular lifestyle. Skeletal morphology and genetic analysis support the hypothesis that humans and other primates shared a common ancestor. With this in mind, the most logical (evolutionary) explanation for the structure of our hands is an adaptation for living in trees. I understand that you disagree with this, but hopefully you can see the logic behind it when viewed in an evolutionary context. It would be much less logical for evolutionists to claim that hands are an adaptation for tool use, considering monkeys and lemurs have hands much like our own.
This was the point I was originally trying to make: evolution does not suggest that hands are an adaptation for using tools, but rather that tool use was facilitated by our previously-developed hands.

Today we observe animals migratin from areas when food gets scarce. That makes more sense than waiting who knows how many years for hands to evolve.

View Post

Not always. We also observe changes in behaviour and physical appearance in response to resource shortages or environmental changes. Migration is not always an option.

Apparently we are “further’ along than they are. In fact we left them in the dust! They are stuck as chimps and we have evolved on. Isn't that how evo works?

View Post

No, that’s not how evolution works at all. All organisms that are alive today are at the same evolutionary “level”. The only time you could say an animal is further along would be when comparing it to its extinct ancestor. An earthworm and an elephant, since both are alive today, are equal in terms of “how evolved” they are. That being said, earthworms have structures which are more primitive than the elephant. But the number of primitive structures is in no way a measure of how evolved an animal is. The two terms mean completely different things: one has to do with physical characteristics, the other is a measure of time.

Hmmmm1. Let me think... How about Elephant and giraffe. Is that far apart enough?

View Post

I was hoping you’d give me a serious answer. It wasn’t a trick question. When I look at dogs, I don’t see any clear-cut line between “dogs” and “not dogs”. I see a gradual progression from animals that perfectly fit our current definition of what a dog is, and animals that look sort of like dogs... but not quite.

The average idea is that the divider is usually in families, but you would be better off asking someone working in that field or looking at what they have written. I suggest Todd Wood. He is a very reasonable scientist working in Baraminology.

View Post

Thanks, I will look into that. I try to represent creationism accurately in debates, but baraminology has always confused me. I never seem to get clear answer when I ask about which animals belong where, and for what reasons.

Hi MamaElephant

What he is doing with this comment is is a suterfuge. He has a clear definition in mind of wha a species is but wants to play a game to see if we agree with his definition. He can then appeal to an authority figure and "be right.'" I don't think he realizes he is doing this though. It's more of a conformist desperate act--evplution is true regardless as to what anyone says differently.

View Post

I’m confused... is the “he” referring to me? I didn’t realize Isabella came across as a gender-neutral name, but just to clarify I’m definitely female.
Anyways, I’m not trying to play a game at all. Of all the animals I listed, I’m not exactly sure where I’d put the dividing line and that’s my whole point. To me, there’s no clear answer because dogs are not a isolated group.

#29 Mike Summers

Mike Summers

    Veteran Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 3,205 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Interests:Information theory, electronics, videography, writing, human psychology, psychotherapy
  • Age: 61
  • Christian
  • Creationist
  • Detroit Michigan area

Posted 16 January 2011 - 06:26 PM

This is obviously not a point we’re going to agree on, and I feel that we’re getting somewhat off topic. From your point of view, the hands and feet of arboreal primates were designed to facilitate life in trees. From the viewpoint of an evolutionist, these structures are adaptations in response to that particular lifestyle. Skeletal morphology and genetic analysis support the hypothesis that humans and other primates shared a common ancestor. With this in mind, the most logical (evolutionary) explanation for the structure of our hands is an adaptation for living in trees. I understand that you disagree with this, but hopefully you can see the logic behind it when viewed in an evolutionary context. It would be much less logical for evolutionists to claim that hands are an adaptation for tool use, considering monkeys and lemurs have hands much like our own.
This was the point I was originally trying to make: evolution does not suggest that hands are an adaptation for using tools, but rather that tool use was facilitated by our previously-developed hands.

Not always. We also observe changes in behaviour and physical appearance in response to resource shortages or environmental changes. Migration is not always an option.

No, that’s not how evolution works at all. All organisms that are alive today are at the same evolutionary “level”. The only time you could say an animal is further along would be when comparing it to its extinct ancestor. An earthworm and an elephant, since both are alive today, are equal in terms of “how evolved” they are. That being said, earthworms have structures which are more primitive than the elephant. But the number of primitive structures is in no way a measure of how evolved an animal is. The two terms mean completely different things: one has to do with physical characteristics, the other is a measure of time.

I was hoping you’d give me a serious answer. It wasn’t a trick question. When I look at dogs, I don’t see any clear-cut line between “dogs” and “not dogs”. I see a gradual progression from animals that perfectly fit our current definition of what a dog is, and animals that look sort of like dogs... but not quite.

Thanks, I will look into that. I try to represent creationism accurately in debates, but baraminology has always confused me. I never seem to get clear answer when I ask about which animals belong where, and for what reasons.

I’m confused... is the “he” referring to me? I didn’t realize Isabella came across as a gender-neutral name, but just to clarify I’m definitely female.
Anyways, I’m not trying to play a game at all. Of all the animals I listed, I’m not exactly sure where I’d put the dividing line and that’s my whole point. To me, there’s no clear answer because dogs are not a isolated group.

View Post

My bad Isabella. My brain mis-informed me! I guess I thought of your name as a last name and assumed you were male. Do evos ever make mistakes like that? :) I think my brain also was telling me you were probably Italian/ Is that wrong too?

I will tackle your other comments later. I am hungy and am going to make myself some dinner.

All the best
Mike

#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 16 January 2011 - 06:48 PM

Mu bad Isabella. My brain mis-informed me! I guess I thought of your name as a last name and assumed you were male. Do evos ever make mistakes like that?  :) I think my brain also was telling me you were probably Italian/ Is that wrong too?

I will tackle your other comments  later. I am hungy and am going to make myself some dinner.

All the  best
Mike

View Post


Don’t worry about it, that’s happened to me many times before. And nope, not Italian. I was actually named after my grandmother Isabel, and her parents came here from Ukraine.

#31 Mike Summers

Mike Summers

    Veteran Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 3,205 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Interests:Information theory, electronics, videography, writing, human psychology, psychotherapy
  • Age: 61
  • Christian
  • Creationist
  • Detroit Michigan area

Posted 16 January 2011 - 08:58 PM

Don’t worry about it, that’s happened to me many times before. And nope, not Italian. I was actually named after my grandmother Isabel, and her parents came here from Ukraine.

View Post

i used to have some Ukranian friends in college--quite a community. That was in Omaha, NE

My name is Mishelle in French :)

#32 Mike Summers

Mike Summers

    Veteran Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 3,205 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Interests:Information theory, electronics, videography, writing, human psychology, psychotherapy
  • Age: 61
  • Christian
  • Creationist
  • Detroit Michigan area

Posted 17 January 2011 - 03:10 AM

This is obviously not a point we’re going to agree on, and I feel that we’re getting somewhat off topic.


You make a 100 correct assessment here. Obviously as a creationist I was lost at “We evolved.” Everything after that is fiction to me or conjecture.

From your point of view, the hands and feet of arboreal primates were designed to facilitate life in trees. From the viewpoint of an evolutionist, these structures are adaptations in response to that particular lifestyle.


Lamaracks theory of use and disuse has been falsified and is no way considered valid by even a rudimentary evolutionist.

Skeletal morphology and genetic analysis support the hypothesis that humans and other primates shared a common ancestor.


Or they shared a common designer. In a significant area of comparison, the output of the human mind compared to the primate, the difference is like night and day.

With this in mind, the most logical (evolutionary) explanation for the structure of our hands is an adaptation for living in trees. I understand that you disagree with this, but hopefully you can see the logic behind it when viewed in an evolutionary context.


I would say lack of logic but…I guess it is hard for me to give up intelligence because if I were doing it I would just design the animals to live in tress arbitrarily if I so desired. Who would stop me? And it’s so easy to armchair design with my mouth. I just open my mouth and out it comes.

It would be much less logical for evolutionists to claim that hands are an adaptation for tool use, considering monkeys and lemurs have hands much like our own.
This was the point I was originally trying to make: evolution does not suggest that hands are an adaptation for using tools, but rather that tool use was facilitated by our previously-developed hands.


You are an intelligent being designing some animals the way you see fit. Evolution can not talk. If I were designing them I would have designed them the way I decided to also. I hope you can “see” what you are doing. Evolutopn has nothing to do with design. It’s mind over matter. If I design a car and it does not do what I want it to, I would keep working on it and not stop until it did what I wanted it to do. Hey its ok to design with your mouth that’s the way lots of designs start out. Trouble is you are not describing evolution you are telling how you would design the plants and animals. It’s called creativity!

Not always. We also observe changes in behaviour and physical appearance in response to resource shortages or environmental changes. Migration is not always an option.

No, that’s not how evolution works at all. All organisms that are alive today are at the same evolutionary “level”. The only time you could say an animal is further along would be when comparing it to its extinct ancestor.


I guess you have thrown the evolutionary tree out the window. Ok I thought the thing was to go from simple to complex on mount improbable. There is no evidence to propose an hierarchy without a human mind making a conjecture. It is not something you observe as all animals and plants exist side by side along side us. Look out your window and see!

An earthworm and an elephant, since both are alive today, are equal in terms of “how evolved” they are. That being said, earthworms have structures which are more primitive than the elephant. But the number of primitive structures is in no way a measure of how evolved an animal is. The two terms mean completely different things: one has to do with physical characteristics, the other is a measure of time.


It will be whatever you decide it to be because you are the one writing the story. It may not be such a good idea to believe your own PR.

I was hoping you’d give me a serious answer. It wasn’t a trick question. When I look at dogs, I don’t see any clear-cut line between “dogs” and “not dogs”. I see a gradual progression from animals that perfectly fit our current definition of what a dog is, and animals that look sort of like dogs... but not quite.


That’s it. Confuse yourself by your own rhetoric and then diagnose my answer as not serious. I apologize for imputing motive. I can’t read your mind. By the same token you can’t read mine. I was serious.

Anyways, I’m not trying to play a game at all. Of all the animals I listed, I’m not exactly sure where I’d put the dividing line and that’s my whole point. To me, there’s no clear answer because dogs are not a isolated group.


Put it anywhere you want. It’s your story-- your creation. I really have no problem with a dog, wolf, fox, horse, alligator whatever. I can tell them all apart. I can see how you made yourself confused by trying to set some arbitrary line but that’s not something I choose to do.

#33 MamaElephant

MamaElephant

    former JW

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 1,564 posts
  • Gender:Female
  • Interests:Bible, Home-schooling, Education, Fitness, Young Earth Science, Evolution, Natural Medicine, Board Games, Video Games, Study of cult mind control and Counseling for those coming out of cult mind control.
  • Age: 35
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • I am His! 1/29/12

Posted 17 January 2011 - 05:21 PM

Isabella, here is a blog entry by Todd Wood that I think you will appreciate: http://toddcwood.blo...-evolution.html

I also have a lot of questions about where raccoons etc, would be placed. I did find out that there are 4 different horse baramin and that humans have only one baramin, but several different species.

If Isabella is indeed wanting to know what the science is behind baraminology then she will be well served by reading some things by Todd Wood and his associates.

If Isabella is trying to win debates by pointing out that people belonging to this forum aren't real sure about the science behind baraminology then she is mistaken. If one wants a good representation of creation science then one needs to look at more than a few posts by laymen who may not be all that well informed on the particular topic. It is not honest to conclude that baraminology is unscientific when you haven't looked at anything written by those working in the field.

#34 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 19 January 2011 - 11:51 AM

Lamaracks theory of use and disuse has been falsified and is no way considered valid by even a rudimentary evolutionist.

View Post

I said nothing to imply Lamarckism. If there’s a reproductive advantage to living in trees, behaviours and traits which are conducive to this lifestyle will be selected for in the population. Would you disagree with this?

You are an intelligent being designing some animals the way you see fit. Evolution can not talk. If I were designing them I would have designed them the way I decided to also. I hope you can “see” what you are doing. Evolutopn has nothing to do with design. It’s mind over matter. If I design a car and it does not do what I want it to, I would keep working on it and not stop until it did what I wanted it to do. Hey its ok to design with your mouth that’s the way lots of designs start out. Trouble is you are not describing evolution you are telling how you would design the plants and animals. It’s called creativity!

View Post

I hope you’re not under the impression that these are my own personal theories and I’m making them up on the spot. Common ancestry is an inference, but the evidence behind it is real. Genetically, humans are much closer to tree-dwelling primates than they are to animals with hooves, paws, or fins—hence the evolutionary hypothesis that human hands were originally an adaptation for living in trees. I know your argument here would be that genetic similarity could also indicate similar design, which is a fair enough. But it is equally true that sometimes genetic similarity is the result of ancestry. You and your father would have more genetic similarity than you and your great grandfather. Furthermore, this similarity occurs in regions of the genome that don’t code for proteins, RNAs, or transcription regulation sequences. In other words, they’re not contributing to the design at all. And genetic evidence is only one piece of the puzzle; common ancestry was hypothesized before inheritance was understood.

I guess you have thrown the evolutionary tree out the window. Ok I thought the thing was to go from simple to complex on mount improbable. There is no evidence to propose an hierarchy without a human mind making a conjecture. It is not something you observe as all animals and plants exist side by side along side us. Look out your window and see!

View Post

No, evolution is not an overall trend from simple to complex. It does happen that way in many cases, but not all. I can think of several evolutionary cases in which a complex structure was replaced by a more simplistic one. For example, horses have only one digit on each limb but are descended from an ancestor with five.
And evolution says nothing about hierarchies.

Put it anywhere you want. It’s your story-- your creation. I really have no problem with a dog, wolf, fox, horse, alligator whatever. I can tell them all apart. I can see how you made yourself confused by trying to set some arbitrary line but that’s not something I choose to do.

View Post

I’ll try to clarify what I meant with the dog example. This isn’t the first time I’ve seen the creationist argument that while dogs may have descended from wolves, we have yet to see a dog become anything other than a dog. I was trying to illustrate that this is not how evolution works. There will never be a definitive point at which a dog is suddenly something other than a dog because it’s a continuous gradient of change.

Imagine a color gradient, where one end is blue and the other is green. There’s an obvious difference between the two colors, but it’s only apparent when you’re looking at both ends. If you could look at the gradient one frame at a time it would be pretty much impossible to say, “Ok, here’s where blue stops and green begins.” It’s the same with evolution. In the case of dogs, we can see one end of the spectrum but not the other.

#35 Mike Summers

Mike Summers

    Veteran Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 3,205 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Interests:Information theory, electronics, videography, writing, human psychology, psychotherapy
  • Age: 61
  • Christian
  • Creationist
  • Detroit Michigan area

Posted 19 January 2011 - 02:12 PM

I said nothing to imply Lamarckism. If there’s a reproductive advantage to living in trees, behaviours and traits which are conducive to this lifestyle will be selected for in the population. Would you disagree with this?


I jumped to a conclusion as I seemed to get the impression that because I can swing through trees I therefore would adapt “evolve” into doing it better (use and disuse). No offense. But here is another point; The ability to reproduce is a function of any animal whether in trees, on the ground or swimming in the ocean. Although I am not 100 percent sure I would imagine apes would have s@x on the ground to take advantage of gravity. Having s@x in tress would be fairly precarious I would imagine. All the animals that don’t swing through trees seem to reproduce quite well. The advantage achieved to reproducing while swinging might be more imagined than "real." Swinging through trees when one cimaxes could concievably cause an ape let go of a branch and fall to its deah. I'd say the diasadvantages out weigh the adavantages--but who is to say? Rather thin logic isn't it?

I hope you’re not under the impression that these are my own personal theories and I’m making them up on the spot. Common ancestry is an inference, but the evidence behind it is real. Genetically, humans are much closer to tree-dwelling primates than they are to animals with hooves, paws, or fins—hence the evolutionary hypothesis that human hands were originally an adaptation for living in trees. I know your argument here would be that genetic similarity could also indicate similar design, which is a fair enough. But it is equally true that sometimes genetic similarity is the result of ancestry. You and your father would have more genetic similarity than you and your great grandfather. Furthermore, this similarity occurs in regions of the genome that don’t code for proteins, RNAs, or transcription regulation sequences. In other words, they’re not contributing to the design at all. And genetic evidence is only one piece of the puzzle; common ancestry was hypothesized before inheritance was understood.


Yes I am under the impression that that these are your own personal theories. I own what I say. You are no different. So that is what you are doing—because that’s what I do and I would dare say everyone else does. That’s the essence of who we are as beings--owners of our definitions.

Many animals have arms as birds and insects have wings even though evo science would probably say they do not have common ancestors. You have accepted by faith that we (all creatures that exist) have common ancestors. When it comes to common decent I would argue that the real difference between chimps and apes is accomplished by comparing the output of the human mind vs the output of the chimps or apes minds. In that realm the difference is like night and day now isn’t it? As they say, the proof of the pudding is in the eating. Similarities between apes and humans mentally? Bosh! Slim and none!


No, evolution is not an overall trend from simple to complex. It does happen that way in many cases, but not all. I can think of several evolutionary cases in which a complex structure was replaced by a more simplistic one. For example, horses have only one digit on each limb but are descended from an ancestor with five. And evolution says nothing about hierarchies.


Now I must say that’s a new one to me because as I understood the theory “complexity” was achieved by a series of small incremental increases in an information base.

Corect! There is no hierarch as viewed observed, all animals exist at the same ttime and side by side!

Your horse comparison exists as possible, if evolution happened. I don’t agree that it did.


I’ll try to clarify what I meant with the dog example. This isn’t the first time I’ve seen the creationist argument that while dogs may have descended from wolves, we have yet to see a dog become anything other than a dog. I was trying to illustrate that this is not how evolution works. There will never be a definitive point at which a dog is suddenly something other than a dog because it’s a continuous gradient of change.

Imagine a color gradient, where one end is blue and the other is green. There’s an obvious difference between the two colors, but it’s only apparent when you’re looking at both ends. If you could look at the gradient one frame at a time it would be pretty much impossible to say, “Ok, here’s where blue stops and green begins.” It’s the same with evolution. In the case of dogs, we can see one end of the spectrum but not the other.


First of all I did not say a dog descended from a wolf. I agree with your color analogy somewhat but that does not mean (at least to me) that colors evolved. My mind categorizes (regardless as to what science, you or others say) a wolf as different enough to put it in a separate category (file in my personal mind)) for future purposes of identification and refrence. In my personalized experiences a dog is quite usually friendlier to me as a human than a “wild” wolf. I appreciate knowing that for obvious reasons.

#36 MamaElephant

MamaElephant

    former JW

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 1,564 posts
  • Gender:Female
  • Interests:Bible, Home-schooling, Education, Fitness, Young Earth Science, Evolution, Natural Medicine, Board Games, Video Games, Study of cult mind control and Counseling for those coming out of cult mind control.
  • Age: 35
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • I am His! 1/29/12

Posted 20 January 2011 - 08:56 AM

Oh my, Brother Mike I just have to say: :) :) ;) :)

#37 Mike Summers

Mike Summers

    Veteran Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 3,205 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Interests:Information theory, electronics, videography, writing, human psychology, psychotherapy
  • Age: 61
  • Christian
  • Creationist
  • Detroit Michigan area

Posted 20 January 2011 - 09:51 AM

Oh my, Brother Mike I just have to say:  :o   :)  ;)  :)

View Post

Guess ypu figured out I said some of it kind of tongue in cheek? Sometimes sarcasm can be an effective teacher. Glad you got a chuckle Sis! :) Nothing like a little paradoxical intention. As God said, "Therefore will I mock when your fear comes."

#38 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 20 January 2011 - 10:53 PM

I jumped to a conclusion as I seemed to get the impression that because I can swing through trees I therefore would adapt “evolve” into doing it better (use and disuse). No offense. But here is another point; The ability to reproduce is a function of any animal whether in trees, on the ground or swimming in the ocean. Although I am not 100 percent sure I would imagine apes would have s@x on the ground to take advantage of gravity. Having s@x in tress would be fairly precarious I would imagine. All the animals that don’t swing through trees seem to reproduce quite well. The advantage achieved to reproducing while swinging might be more imagined than "real." Swinging through trees when one cimaxes could concievably cause an ape let go of a branch and fall to its deah. I'd say the diasadvantages out weigh the adavantages--but who is to say? Rather thin logic isn't it?

View Post

I can’t say I’m an expert of how monkeys mate... and that’s one Google search I think I’ll avoid for now ;) .

When I used the term “reproductive advantage”, I was referring to a lot more than the actual act of mating. The animal in question must survive to reproductive maturity, which means avoiding predation and other dangerous factors. They must have access to an adequate diet, both for themselves and for their offspring. And they must be able to attract a mate, which in many species requires time and energy that could otherwise be used for survival.

Yes I am under the impression that that these are your own personal theories. I own what I say. You are no different. So that is what you are doing—because that’s what I do and I would dare say everyone else does. That’s the essence of who we are as beings--owners of our definitions.

View Post

The theories I share on these forums are based on journal articles, textbooks, and courses I’ve taken. I don’t cite them because they are widely accepted in evolutionary science, and are considered to be common knowledge within the field. I would never come up with an evolutionary mechanism off the top of my head and try to pass if off as something backed up by evidence.

Many animals have arms as birds and insects have wings even though evo science would probably say they do not have common ancestors.

View Post

Convergent evolution.

You have accepted by faith that we (all creatures that exist) have common ancestors. When it comes to common decent I would argue that the real difference between chimps and apes is accomplished by comparing the output of the human mind vs the output of the chimps or apes minds. In that realm the difference is like night and day now isn’t it? As they say, the proof of the pudding is in the eating. Similarities between apes and humans mentally? Bosh! Slim and none!

View Post

True, humans and chimps differ greatly in their mental capacity and when taken on its own this is not the best example to illustrate common descent. But when you examine the diversity of all the life on our planet, it becomes apparent that physical variation among certain species is limited, and sometimes virtually undetectable (it’s there, of course... but to the untrained eye it’s not always apparent). Furthermore, the vast majority of biodiversity comes in the form of insects and other invertebrates. In my opinion, this is not consistent with design but rather is indicative of a stochastic process such as evolution. When something is designed, every aspect of is has a functional or aesthetic purpose. I don’t see that when I look at the majority of life on this planet.

Now I must say that’s a new one to me because as I understood the theory “complexity” was achieved by a series of small incremental increases in an information base.

View Post

“Increased information” is a creationist phrase, and not one that is used in evolution unless “information” is has a very specific definition. Complexity is achieved through genetic changes.

First of all I did not say a dog descended from a wolf. I agree with your color analogy somewhat but that does not mean (at least to me) that colors evolved. My mind categorizes (regardless as to what science, you or others say) a wolf as different enough to put it in a separate category (file in my personal mind)) for future purposes of identification and refrence. In my personalized experiences a dog is quite usually friendlier to me as a human than a “wild” wolf. I appreciate knowing that for obvious reasons.

View Post

Sorry, that was an assumption on my part. I though most creationists accepted that dogs and wolves shared an ancestor, since they can interbreed. My cousin even has a dog that’s half coyote. Wolves aside, do you accept that all domestic dogs shared an ancestor?

#39 Mike Summers

Mike Summers

    Veteran Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 3,205 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Interests:Information theory, electronics, videography, writing, human psychology, psychotherapy
  • Age: 61
  • Christian
  • Creationist
  • Detroit Michigan area

Posted 21 January 2011 - 03:11 AM

I can’t say I’m an expert of how monkeys mate... and that’s one Google search I think I’ll avoid for now  .

I am glad I got a smile out of you for the quip. Can’t you just see a beast with two backs falling out of tree in the jungle accompanied by the music, Bump, bump, bump and another one bites the dust… ;) :P

When I used the term “reproductive advantage”, I was referring to a lot more than the actual act of mating. The animal in question must survive to reproductive maturity, which means avoiding predation and other dangerous factors. They must have access to an adequate diet, both for themselves and for their offspring. And they must be able to attract a mate, which in many species requires time and energy that could otherwise be used for survival.


All the animals that exist do that quite well.

The theories I share on these forums are based on journal articles, textbooks, and courses I’ve taken. I don’t cite them because they are widely accepted in evolutionary science, and are considered to be common knowledge within the field. I would never come up with an evolutionary mechanism off the top of my head and try to pass if off as something backed up by evidence.

Actually I would rather know what you think. On the other hand I understand what you reference is credible to you.


Convergent evolution.

But very much a stretch for me. The odds of mutations causing similar features in separate species not linked by common ancestors stretches my imagination to the breaking point. “It” speaks more of design than evolution.

True, humans and chimps differ greatly in their mental capacity and when taken on its own this is not the best example to illustrate common descent. But when you examine the diversity of all the life on our planet, it becomes apparent that physical variation among certain species is limited, and sometimes virtually undetectable (it’s there, of course... but to the untrained eye it’s not always apparent). Furthermore, the vast majority of biodiversity comes in the form of insects and other invertebrates. In my opinion, this is not consistent with design but rather is indicative of a stochastic process such as evolution. When something is designed, every aspect of is has a functional or aesthetic purpose. I don’t see that when I look at the majority of life on this planet.


But is a valid point as you agree and one that evos tend to demphasise choosing to play up the physical as if the mental does not matter. That is one of my major objections to evo science and its very un holistic approach.

“Increased information” is a creationist phrase, and not one that is used in evolution unless “information” is has a very specific definition. Complexity is achieved through genetic changes.


A quibble. But in the sense of a paw to a hand lots of small precision mutations all aimed but according to evo science not so, on evolving a paw into a perfectly functioning hand. Dare anyone question the grandeur and prowess of the great and wonderful wizzard of evolution? :)

Creativity is unpredictable or as consistent as the creator chooses to be. Your last statement about creativity is moot.

Sorry, that was an assumption on my part. I though most creationists accepted that dogs and wolves shared an ancestor, since they can interbreed. My cousin even has a dog that’s half coyote. Wolves aside, do you accept that all domestic dogs shared an ancestor?


Nope

#40 MamaElephant

MamaElephant

    former JW

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 1,564 posts
  • Gender:Female
  • Interests:Bible, Home-schooling, Education, Fitness, Young Earth Science, Evolution, Natural Medicine, Board Games, Video Games, Study of cult mind control and Counseling for those coming out of cult mind control.
  • Age: 35
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • I am His! 1/29/12

Posted 21 January 2011 - 06:36 AM

I don’t cite them because they are widely accepted in evolutionary science, and are considered to be common knowledge within the field.

I don't understand what you are saying here.

“Increased information” is a creationist phrase, and not one that is used in evolution unless “information” is has a very specific definition. Complexity is achieved through genetic changes.

So the evolutionists ignore the fact that for a sea squirt to become a fish, then a reptile, then a man, the genome would have to increase? Can you prove that this is not the case? Did all animals that are assumed human ancestors have more genetic information than man? All the way back to the single celled organism? Even if that is the case then how on earth did that "simple" organism end up with all of that genetic code?




0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users