Jump to content


Photo

The macroevolution equivocation


  • Please log in to reply
101 replies to this topic

#61 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 09 June 2010 - 05:34 PM

"Bears are well adapted to their environments, and a slight increase in intelligence wouldn’t be enough to cause any significant change."

If this is the case then how did humans "evolve" higher intelligence, since evolution is a slow process, with "slight" changes over time..

View Post

No matter how smart a bear became, it still wouldn’t be able to make tools because it lacks free hands and opposable thumbs. Primates are ideal candidates for developing intelligence, because they already have dexterous hands and feet from climbing trees and eating fruit. And many primates, like chimpanzees, live in groups of up to 50 individuals. Social interaction and brain development go hand in hand.

Also if humans are able to "evolve" intelligence then why not animals by the same evolutionary mechanism. Why in the whole world are we FAR more superior in intelligence to any other organism on Earth.. Perhaps it is asthe Bible says that God set Man apart from the animals

View Post

When you look at our society today, it certainly seems like we’re far more superior. But in a hunter-gatherer society with a simple language and basic tools, the intelligence gap isn’t quite as wide. In fact, the neurological differences between humans and apes are actually quite subtle... or at least they would be, if we had retained our primitive lifestyles. But humans began to live in groups, hunt rather than scavenge, and travel long distances in search of food. By doing so, we were exposed to different selective pressures than other animals. With the later development of agriculture, people were able to stay in one place and form communities, towns and eventually cities. As our culture grew increasingly complex, so did our ability to plan and invent.

#62 gilbo12345

gilbo12345

    Veteran Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 7,000 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Interests:Completed BBiotech (Honours)

    Currently studying Masters of Teaching.

    Enjoys games of tactics and strategy.
  • Age: 25
  • (private)
  • Creationist
  • Australia

Posted 11 June 2010 - 09:27 PM

When you look at our society today, it certainly seems like we’re far more superior. But in a hunter-gatherer society with a simple language and basic tools, the intelligence gap isn’t quite as wide. In fact, the neurological differences between humans and apes are actually quite subtle... or at least they would be, if we had retained our primitive lifestyles.

View Post


;) Doesn't that seem to sugest that there is something "more than meets the eye"... (lol transformers lol).. with the human brain. If in physiology there are subtle changes then why such a large gap?

I have always thought it facinating HOW the brain works. I asked my physiology lectuer and he wouldn't answer me... :lol:

In reality the brain is just a mass of millions / trillions of connections... Thats it... How do these connections bring about rational thought, creativity etc??? IF I made a massive computer with billions of circuits connections will my computer think for itself? It has connections just like the brain?... What is missing? A soul perhaps? :lol:

Yes we can find which areas are associated to which function, but that explains nothing about the process.

#63 Ron

Ron

    Advanced Member

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

Posted 13 June 2010 - 10:52 AM

No matter how smart a bear became, it still wouldn’t be able to make tools because it lacks free hands and opposable thumbs.

View Post


And, this is an anathema to evolution, because the bear should be able to "evolve" opposable appendages as needful things. I mean, after all, with all of this "presupposed" time involved, the "thumbs" should have come. But they have not. If the evolution story were correct, the monkeys thumbs weren't always there either! Which, in-and-of-itself blows a hole big enough for you to walk through, in your hypothesis.

And, here again; there is absolutely no evidence that monkeys were ever without thumbs. Just like there is absolutely no evidence that monkeys are any smarter now, than they ever were.

#64 Guest_Tommy_*

Guest_Tommy_*
  • Guests

Posted 13 June 2010 - 11:28 AM

And, this is an anathema to evolution, because the bear should be able to "evolve" opposable appendages as needful things. I mean, after all, with all of this "presupposed" time involved, the "thumbs" should have come. But they have not.

View Post


The emergence and fixing of any given trait is by no means inevitable regardless as to how much time has elapsed. Evolution by natural selection amounts to a bias towards what works; bears have been sufficiently adapted for their species to last up to the present.

#65 Ron

Ron

    Advanced Member

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

Posted 13 June 2010 - 11:42 AM

The emergence and fixing of any given trait is by no means inevitable regardless as to how much time has elapsed.  Evolution by natural selection amounts to a bias towards what works; bears have been sufficiently adapted for their species to last up to the present.

View Post


Based upon the question that my reply was directed, the context of your post was grossly incorrect. Howbeit, the inevitability remains that there is absolutely no evidence that monkeys were ever without thumbs. Just like there is absolutely no evidence that monkeys are any smarter now, than they ever were.

#66 falcone

falcone

    Member

  • Banned
  • PipPipPip
  • 497 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Age: 36
  • no affiliation
  • Agnostic
  • Scotland

Posted 13 June 2010 - 03:26 PM

Howbeit, the inevitability remains that there is absolutely no evidence that monkeys were ever without thumbs.

View Post

The animal without thumbs that monkeys evolved from wasn't a monkey. You are therefore correct to say that thre is no evidence monkeys were ever without thumbs.

#67 Guest_Tommy_*

Guest_Tommy_*
  • Guests

Posted 13 June 2010 - 07:04 PM

Pandas and koalas have adaptations equivalent to opposable digits (according to Wiki).

#68 Cassiterides

Cassiterides

    Banned

  • Banned
  • PipPipPip
  • 631 posts
  • Age: 20
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • uk

Posted 13 June 2010 - 08:21 PM

When you look at our society today, it certainly seems like we’re far more superior. But in a hunter-gatherer society with a simple language and basic tools, the intelligence gap isn’t quite as wide. In fact, the neurological differences between humans and apes are actually quite subtle... or at least they would be, if we had retained our primitive lifestyles. But humans began to live in groups, hunt rather than scavenge, and travel long distances in search of food. By doing so, we were exposed to different selective pressures than other animals. With the later development of agriculture, people were able to stay in one place and form communities, towns and eventually cities. As our culture grew increasingly complex, so did our ability to plan and invent.

View Post


Your beliefs stem from an (evolutionist) interpretation of history. If you study ancient writings you would come across something very different, not that man and society has progressed or got better but that it has got worse. The philosopher Evola wrote of this, of the ''Golden Age'' of Human history:

''Although modern man until recently has viewed and celebrated the meaning of the history known to him as epitomizing progress and 'evolution', the truth as professed by traditional (ancient) man is quite the opposite. In all ancient testimonies of traditional humanity it is possible to find, in various forms, the idea of a fall; from originally higher states.''

“To uphold with Tradition that in the beginning there were no animal like cavemen, but rather ‘more-than-human’ beings, and that in ancient prehistory there was no civilization but an ‘era of gods’, this too many people - who in one way of the other believe in the gospel of Darwinism – amounts to pure and simple ‘mythology’. Since I have not invented the mythology myself, however, critics still have to explain its existence, that is, the fact that according to the most ancient testimonies and writings there is no evidence to support ‘evolutionism’, what is found in them instead is the opposite, in other words, the recurrent idea of a better…superhuman (‘divine’) past.”

This 'Golden Age'' is foundable in all Human cultures (myth, tradition & historical writings). What we therefore see is the degradation of the humans not evolution or progression.

#69 ikester7579

ikester7579

    Member

  • Member
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 12,500 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Florida
  • Interests:God, creation, etc...
  • Age: 48
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • I'm non-denominational

Posted 14 June 2010 - 12:47 AM

No matter how smart a bear became, it still wouldn’t be able to make tools because it lacks free hands and opposable thumbs. Primates are ideal candidates for developing intelligence, because they already have dexterous hands and feet from climbing trees and eating fruit. And many primates, like chimpanzees, live in groups of up to 50 individuals. Social interaction and brain development go hand in hand.
When you look at our society today, it certainly seems like we’re far more superior. But in a hunter-gatherer society with a simple language and basic tools, the intelligence gap isn’t quite as wide. In fact, the neurological differences between humans and apes are actually quite subtle... or at least they would be, if we had retained our primitive lifestyles. But humans began to live in groups, hunt rather than scavenge, and travel long distances in search of food. By doing so, we were exposed to different selective pressures than other animals. With the later development of agriculture, people were able to stay in one place and form communities, towns and eventually cities. As our culture grew increasingly complex, so did our ability to plan and invent.


Birds make tools.

<object width="480" height="385"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/TtmLVP0HvDg&hl=en_US&fs=1&%22></param><param name="allowFullScreen" value="true"></param><param name="allowscriptaccess" value="always"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/TtmLVP0HvDg&hl=en_US&fs=1& type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowscriptaccess="always" allowfullscreen="true" width="480" height="385"></embed></object>

<object width="480" height="385"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/xwVhrrDvwPM&hl=en_US&fs=1&%22></param><param name="allowFullScreen" value="true"></param><param name="allowscriptaccess" value="always"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/xwVhrrDvwPM&hl=en_US&fs=1& type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowscriptaccess="always" allowfullscreen="true" width="480" height="385"></embed></object>

More animals using tools.

<object width="480" height="385"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/2En6zyJPs3I&hl=en_US&fs=1&%22></param><param name="allowFullScreen" value="true"></param><param name="allowscriptaccess" value="always"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/2En6zyJPs3I&hl=en_US&fs=1& type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowscriptaccess="always" allowfullscreen="true" width="480" height="385"></embed></object>

#70 Geode

Geode

    Member

  • Banned
  • PipPipPip
  • 612 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Age: 60
  • Mormon
  • Theistic Evolutionist
  • Bangkok, Thailand

Posted 14 June 2010 - 03:47 AM

Your beliefs stem from an (evolutionist) interpretation of history. If you study ancient writings you would come across something very different, not that man and society has progressed or got better but that it has got worse. The philosopher Evola wrote of this, of the ''Golden Age'' of Human history:

''Although modern man until recently has viewed and celebrated the meaning of the history known to him as epitomizing progress and 'evolution', the truth as professed by traditional (ancient) man is quite the opposite. In all ancient testimonies of traditional humanity it is possible to find, in various forms, the idea of a fall; from originally higher states.''

“To uphold with Tradition that in the beginning there were no animal like cavemen, but rather ‘more-than-human’ beings, and that in ancient prehistory there was no civilization but an ‘era of gods’, this too many people - who in one way of the other believe in the gospel of Darwinism – amounts to pure and simple ‘mythology’. Since I have not invented the mythology myself, however, critics still have to explain its existence, that is, the fact that according to the most ancient testimonies and writings there is no evidence to support ‘evolutionism’, what is found in them instead is the opposite, in other words, the recurrent idea of a better…superhuman (‘divine’) past.”

This 'Golden Age'' is foundable in all Human cultures (myth, tradition & historical writings). What we therefore see is the degradation of the humans not evolution or progression.

View Post


Thank you for pointing out another reason I should dislike Evola in addition to his anti-semantism, racism and facist tendencies.

Social Darwinism always was a pathetic concept in my opinion, and of course really has nothing to do with Darwin and his scientific theories, but Evola appears to have been able to attack the notion and embrace it at the same time.

#71 Ron

Ron

    Advanced Member

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

Posted 14 June 2010 - 04:31 AM

The animal without thumbs that monkeys evolved from wasn't a monkey. You are therefore correct to say that thre is no evidence monkeys were ever without thumbs.

View Post


That is an a-priori statement Falcone. Who's to empirically say (provided the model of evolution is true):

1- there is empirical evidence that a monkey "evolved" from another creature?

2- a monkey must have thumbs to be a monkey?


The logic of your post does not follow, because you are pre-supposing that monkeys evolved from wasn't a monkey and monkeys have to have thumbs. If the model of evolution were true, monkeys had to be thumb-less at one point in their journey. So, it begs the question, at what point does a monkey become a monkey? And, you have to presuppose the answer.

#72 Ron

Ron

    Advanced Member

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

Posted 14 June 2010 - 04:35 AM

Pandas and koalas have adaptations equivalent to opposable digits (according to Wiki).

View Post


There is absolutely no evidence that Pandas and koalas have been any different than they are today. Therefore any "adaption" verbiage is presupposition and therefore fantasy.

#73 PhilC

PhilC

    Member

  • Banned
  • PipPipPip
  • 632 posts
  • Age: 42
  • no affiliation
  • Atheist
  • UK

Posted 14 June 2010 - 05:10 AM

There is absolutely no evidence that Pandas and koalas have been any different than they are today. Therefore any "adaption" verbiage is presupposition and therefore fantasy.


Where is your evidence that they have always been the same?

The existence of 'the Panda's thumb' is something that requires an explanation. Do you think that the Panda was created in that particular way? That has particular implications, as I'm sure you will already be aware.

#74 falcone

falcone

    Member

  • Banned
  • PipPipPip
  • 497 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Age: 36
  • no affiliation
  • Agnostic
  • Scotland

Posted 14 June 2010 - 05:40 AM

That is an a-priori statement Falcone. Who's to empirically say (provided the model of evolution is true):

1- there is empirical evidence that a monkey "evolved" from another creature?

2- a monkey must have thumbs to be a monkey?
The logic of your post does not follow, because you are pre-supposing that monkeys evolved from wasn't a monkey  and monkeys have to have thumbs. If the model of evolution were true, monkeys had to be thumb-less at one point in their journey.

View Post

I was trying to do was clarify your statement for the benefit of other readers and to help ensure you didn't accidentally misrepresent the ToE.

You seemed to suggest that according to evolution, there were once monkeys much as they are today, but without thumbs. All I'm saying is that those 'monkeys' without thumbs would have been very different from modern monkeys in many ways, not just a lack of thumbs. So different in fact, that they wouldn't be considered monkeys at all.

So, it begs the question, at what point does a monkey become a monkey? And, you have to presuppose the answer.

If your talking how monkeys are defined as a species, then I'm no expert don't know. I'm sure Google could help. Or you could use your definition of 'created kinds' if you like.

But I think you're talking about at what point in the evolutionary process, or how long ago, did an animal that could be defined as a monkey arise. Again, being a layman in the sciences I couldn't tell you. According to This site, "primate-like mammals (Plesiadapiformes ) will remain rather shadowy creatures for us until more fossil data become available."

Here's an analogy:
Posted Image
At what point does red become orange?

#75 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 June 2010 - 11:24 AM

Doesn't that seem to sugest that there is something "more than meets the eye"... (lol transformers lol).. with the human brain. If in physiology there are subtle changes then why such a large gap?

View Post

We see gaps like this in other animals too. The small dog I own is much smarter than many animals the same size or larger than him. Dogs have developed brains which can process information (ie. human emotions, commands, ect.) in ways that other animals cannot. But according Christianity, animals lack souls.

And, this is an anathema to evolution, because the bear should be able to "evolve" opposable appendages as needful things. I mean, after all, with all of this "presupposed" time involved, the "thumbs" should have come. But they have not. If the evolution story were correct, the monkeys thumbs weren't always there either! Which, in-and-of-itself blows a hole big enough for you to walk through, in your hypothesis.

View Post

Monkeys didn’t evolve thumbs in advance because evolution somehow predicted that they would be making tools thousands of years later. That’s not how evolution works.
Monkeys have thumbs because they live in trees (which requires them to grasp branches) and eat fruit (which requires them to pick and peel). But thumbs aren’t the only way to accomplish this. Birds also live in trees, and have developed grasping feet and large beaks to eat fruit.

Your beliefs stem from an (evolutionist) interpretation of history. If you study ancient writings you would come across something very different, not that man and society has progressed or got better but that it has got worse. The philosopher Evola wrote of this, of the ''Golden Age'' of Human history

View Post

Philosophers are not scientists; I personally find that when their work is quoted during a debate about science, it makes for a weak argument. However this is just my biased opinion. I’ve never liked philosophy.

Birds make tools.

View Post

I never said primates are the only animals that make tools. But in order to make tools, an animal must have
1) a reason to do so, and
2) physical features that make this possible.
The reason for tool use would most likely be in order to access a food source that the animal is otherwise not adapted to eat, for example a nut with a thick shell. Humans were not adapted to hunt large animals with our bare hands. We lack claws, teeth, and the physical strength necessary to do so. Bears are adapted to hunting, and would not require any additional tools.

#76 Ron

Ron

    Advanced Member

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

Posted 14 June 2010 - 02:02 PM

Where is your evidence that they have always been the same?

View Post


It's right under your very nose. All the Pandas and koalas we have evidence for, have ALL the same qualities... Pretty simple really.

The existence of 'the Panda's thumb' is something that requires an explanation.  Do you think that the Panda was created in that particular way?  That has particular implications, as I'm sure you will already be aware.

View Post


The fabricated implications have already been discussed at this forum, and refuted. But, if you'd like to discuss those implications (with out derailing the thread), have at it.

#77 PhilC

PhilC

    Member

  • Banned
  • PipPipPip
  • 632 posts
  • Age: 42
  • no affiliation
  • Atheist
  • UK

Posted 14 June 2010 - 02:23 PM

B) My bad! Silly thing of me to post to a creationist :D .

Please ignore that post until we have more common ground.

#78 Ron

Ron

    Advanced Member

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

Posted 15 June 2010 - 03:29 AM

;) My bad!  Silly thing of me to post to a creationist :D .

View Post


Could this be a form of the Argumentum ad Hominem (the fallacy of attacking the character or circumstances of an individual who is advancing a statement or an argument instead of trying to disprove the truth of the statement or the soundness of the argument)? I suppose, in your way of thinking then (based upon your posting), that I wouldn't understand what you were talking about simply because I'm a "creationist"?


Please ignore that post until we have more common ground.

View Post


Okay, but I'm not really sure what you're insinuating, intimating, or suggesting. Could you be more specific?

#79 PhilC

PhilC

    Member

  • Banned
  • PipPipPip
  • 632 posts
  • Age: 42
  • no affiliation
  • Atheist
  • UK

Posted 15 June 2010 - 03:39 AM

No, it is definitely not ad hominem. My first post on this thread could be called that more than this one because I was (without intent, I hasten to add!) insulting your intelligence and beliefs by posting such a trite reply.

Your position is that evolution can only have occurred in small amounts over observed time. For me to answer that with what I wrote was just crass because it was just stating the obvious and I got exactly the response I deserved.

Really, just ignore this part of the thread, it isn’t going anywhere. The debate on this topic will not prosper from this starting point.

My sincere apologies for wasting your time.

#80 gilbo12345

gilbo12345

    Veteran Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 7,000 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Interests:Completed BBiotech (Honours)

    Currently studying Masters of Teaching.

    Enjoys games of tactics and strategy.
  • Age: 25
  • (private)
  • Creationist
  • Australia

Posted 15 June 2010 - 01:46 PM

We see gaps like this in other animals too. The small dog I own is much smarter than many animals the same size or larger than him. Dogs have developed brains which can process information (ie. human emotions, commands, ect.) in ways that other animals cannot. But according Christianity, animals lack souls.

Monkeys didn’t evolve thumbs in advance because evolution somehow predicted that they would be making tools thousands of years later. That’s not how evolution works.
Monkeys have thumbs because they live in trees (which requires them to grasp branches) and eat fruit (which requires them to pick and peel). But thumbs aren’t the only way to accomplish this. Birds also live in trees, and have developed grasping feet and large beaks to eat fruit.

Philosophers are not scientists; I personally find that when their work is quoted during a debate about science, it makes for a weak argument. However this is just my biased opinion. I’ve never liked philosophy.

The reason for tool use would most likely be in order to access a food source that the animal is otherwise not adapted to eat, for example a nut with a thick shell. Humans were not adapted to hunt large animals with our bare hands. We lack claws, teeth, and the physical strength necessary to do so. Bears are adapted to hunting, and would not require any additional tools.

View Post


So you are saying evolution is brought about via necessity, monkeys needed thumbs to climb into trees...

That leads me to what I was asking before, if we evolve just to survive and create tools to get food, etc.... Then why "evolve" beyond that and bother about learning about the world, arts etc.... If evolution is brought about via necessity of survival...

Where did the monkeys live BEFORE they had thumbs? Why did they feel the need to "evolve"? If it was to climb trees to get away from predators then during the millions of years it would have taken then wouldn't they have died out from the predators... (this line of thought can be extended to almost all "adaptations")...

My favourite is, why would a fish bother to "evolve" to get out of the ocean?? (not to mention how lungs can form whilst underwater :blink: )... There are still fish in the seas today so there mustn't have been a massively urgent need to leave the ocean... I ask why, what was the necessity of that "evolution"?

@ Phil C
Dude, so when you are proven wrong you ask to ignore the topic?? :huh: :(




0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users