Jump to content


Photo

The macroevolution equivocation


  • Please log in to reply
101 replies to this topic

#1 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 28 May 2010 - 04:15 PM

Well then we agree on something. I'm tired of the entire list of things that are presented forth as my being related to from times long past.

View Post

We’re related to chimps. We didn’t come from them.

You didn't even read the entire list did you ?????

View Post

Which list? You mean the list you made of animals? (Apes, orangutans, chimps... although ape is not a species)

#2 Guest_Eocene_*

Guest_Eocene_*
  • Guests

Posted 29 May 2010 - 04:59 AM

We’re related to chimps. We didn’t come from them.


No, let's get one thing straight. YOU & YOUR ancestors are related to chimps. YOU and YOURS came from Ape-like creatures. If you wish to live in this vulgar fantasy worldview, then you have every freewilled right to do so. :o

ME and MY family came from other human beings. :)

Which list? You mean the list you made of animals? (Apes, orangutans, chimps... although ape is not a species)

View Post


So now it's word games and meanings of terms that are or are not politically correct ????? ;)

#3 Ron

Ron

    Advanced Member

  • Member
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 6530 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Age: 50
  • Christian
  • Creationist
  • Johnstown, PA

Posted 29 May 2010 - 05:07 AM

We’re related to chimps. We didn’t come from them.

View Post

This is a presupposed hypothesis with no empirical basis in reality. But, if you wish to participate in the faith commitments it takes to believe such things, that is your right. ;)

#4 jason777

jason777

    Moderator

  • Moderator Team
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 2670 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Interests:Machining, Engine Building, Geology, Paleontology, Fishing
  • Age: 40
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • Springdale,AR.

Posted 29 May 2010 - 07:03 AM

We’re related to chimps. We didn’t come from them.


How did you conclude that? The prediction of matching ERV's due to common descent has been proven wrong.

In this light it is interesting to note that over 30,000 different ERVs are known within human genome. The range of the total human genome occupied by ERV sequences is anywhere from 1% to 8% - depending upon the reference (with more recent references favoring 8% or greater). The same range is true for the chimp genome as well.41 In fact, more recent work suggests a 45% ERV origin for the human genome at large (Mindell and Meyer 2001) and 50% for mammalian species in general . In any case, of these tens of thousands of recognizable ERVs, only seven are currently known to infect both humans and chimps at identical locations within the separate genomes . Isn't it interesting that out of 30,000 ERVs only 7 of them are known to have inserted at the same site in humans and chimps? - What are the odds given the known preference of many ERVs for fairly specific hot spot insertions? Yet, this is the argument for ERVs being evidence of common descent as per Talk.Origins:


http://www.evolution...indpost&p=52899

The fossil record is conclusive that our primate ancestors are aligned with orangutans and gorillas.

http://www.pnas.org/...04/16/6568.full

http://www.eurekaler...p-hrt061709.php

Although, I do agree that humans and chimps are both primates, there is no evidence to bridge the gap of them being any more than different created kinds. The known mutation rates of nuclear DNA is 10 times faster than predicted by evolution, which makes an extrapolation of differences in the genome impossible if they diverged 5-7 million years ago; And MtDNA mutates 100 times faster than the theory predicts, which puts a MRCA in line with the prediction of a flood bottleneck.

http://www.evolution...indpost&p=52826




Thanks.

#5 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 29 May 2010 - 04:01 PM

No, let's get one thing straight. YOU & YOUR ancestors are related to chimps. YOU and YOURS came from Ape-like creatures. If you wish to live in this vulgar fantasy worldview, then you have every freewilled right to do so.

View Post

Humans still are ape-like creatures, and most scientists would classify us as apes. We’re more intelligent than the other apes, we’re hairless and we’re bipedal... but other than that we have all the ape-like chrematistics.

So now it's word games and meanings of terms that are or are not politically correct ?????

View Post

It’s not a word game, and I think “scientifically correct” would be more accurate than “politically correct”. You listed the three as though they’re all separate animals, but “apes” is a classification which includes chimps and orangutans. It would be like saying “I enjoy fishing for fish, trout and salmon” or “My favourite foods are fruit, apples and oranges.” See how those lists don’t really make sense, because the first item includes the other two?

How did you conclude that? The prediction of matching ERV's due to common descent has been proven wrong.

View Post

I don’t really want to get into a debate about the genetic evidence for ancestry right now. I just wanted to make it clear that the consensus in evolution is that we shared an ancestor with—but did not come from—chimps. When I talk about creationism, I try my best to represent it accurately even though I do not agree with it. I’m just asking that creationists try to do the same for evolution.

#6 Ron

Ron

    Advanced Member

  • Member
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 6530 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Age: 50
  • Christian
  • Creationist
  • Johnstown, PA

Posted 29 May 2010 - 07:05 PM

Humans still are ape-like creatures, and most scientists would classify us as apes. We’re more intelligent than the other apes, we’re hairless and we’re bipedal... but other than that we have all the ape-like chrematistics.

View Post


Again, this is nothing more than a presupposed hypothesis with no empirical basis in reality. But, if you wish to participate in the faith commitments it takes to believe such things, this is your right.

This is also the weak argument of the fallacious type in the Argumentum Ad Populum forum. Or, more precisely, the argument of the band wagon, or the majority rules mentality.

#7 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 29 May 2010 - 08:21 PM

Edit of my previous post: “chrematistics” is supposed to say “characteristics”... spell check must’ve done that without my noticing.

Again, this is nothing more than a presupposed hypothesis with no empirical basis in reality. But, if you wish to participate in the faith commitments it takes to believe such things, this is your right.

View Post

According to the definition of what an ape is, humans are apes. That’s not a hypothesis, that’s just how classification works.

#8 Guest_Eocene_*

Guest_Eocene_*
  • Guests

Posted 30 May 2010 - 03:05 AM

Humans still are ape-like creatures, and most scientists would classify us as apes. We’re more intelligent than the other apes, we’re hairless and we’re bipedal... but other than that we have all the ape-like chrematistics.



I'm not an Ape-like creature and neither are my family or friends. If you want to be evolved from Apes, then by all means believe in that. Most scientists have invented words/terminologies to fit their warped worldview. Again, it's none of my business if they want to create some bizarre mythology that fits their personal precieved past morphings. They have the freewilled right to do so. The facts are that nature itself could care less about an evolutionist worldviews regarding taxonomical classifications. It is sad however that when such purposeful cataloging of humankind was started back in the 19th century because of Imperialist European territorial worldpower carving up, the result for many races outside of Europe was a disasterous , but according to the dogma invented also a justified one.

On your last point, if you want to consider yourself a far more superior intelligent Ape compared to all the other Apes , then that is your business as well. B)



It’s not a word game, and I think “scientifically correct” would be more accurate than “politically correct”. You listed the three as though they’re all separate animals, but “apes” is a classification which includes chimps and orangutans. It would be like saying “I enjoy fishing for fish, trout and salmon” or “My favourite foods are fruit, apples and oranges.” See how those lists don’t really make sense, because the first item includes the other two?

View Post



Sure it's political. Science and Politics go well in bed together just as easily as Religion and Politics have done for centuries and I find both historical positions discusting. The sad result is that both have contaminated each other by such actions and any benefits of a clean unbiased purity of belief gets flushed down the proverbial toilette as a consequence.

I listed three basic species along with abreviation ETC to cover the bases. Atheism/Evolutionism is as equally different and varied as any other religion is with it's numerous denominations, be it Christendom, Buddhism, Hinduism, Islam, animisitc Tribal, whatever. Atheists/Evolutionists are NOT on the same page with everything as many would loved to propagandize around the Net. Their childish adulescent infighting amongst themselves at every turn proves this.

#9 Ron

Ron

    Advanced Member

  • Member
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 6530 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Age: 50
  • Christian
  • Creationist
  • Johnstown, PA

Posted 30 May 2010 - 04:23 AM

According to the definition of what an ape is, humans are apes. That’s not a hypothesis, that’s just how classification works.

View Post


Only according to the opinion of some, and without empirical evidence. Therefore, it is a hypothesis. It doesn't matter how some choose to classify. But, if you can provide the empirical evidence, please provide it.

Until that point, if you wish to participate in the faith commitments it takes to believe such things, this is your right.

#10 Ron

Ron

    Advanced Member

  • Member
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 6530 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Age: 50
  • Christian
  • Creationist
  • Johnstown, PA

Posted 30 May 2010 - 04:27 AM

Rules of engagement:
If you want a reply to a post of mine you have responded to, please follow these simple requirements:
- Show some maturity, although there is nothing wrong with a bit of humour
- Stick to the topic
- Any derogatory remarks or name calling and you will not get a response
- It's only a discussion, don't take things so personally, everyone has the right to view things differently


I agree with the above photo. If we are going to engage in logical and rational debate on subjects, we need to remember the above. Along with the forum rules.

#11 Javabean

Javabean

    Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPip
  • 950 posts
  • Location:Harrisburg Pa
  • Age: 33
  • no affiliation
  • Atheist
  • Harrisburg

Posted 30 May 2010 - 07:54 AM

I agree with the above photo. If we are going to engage in logical and rational debate on subjects, we need to remember the above. Along with the forum rules.

View Post


B) No I must ignore the forum rules at on every post!!!!!!!! oh wait I don't never mind this obviously off topic post.

Actually If people keep that in mind its hard not to follow the forum rules.

#12 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 31 May 2010 - 08:34 AM

On your last point, if you want to consider yourself a far more superior intelligent Ape compared to all the other Apes , then that is your business as well.

View Post

I never used the word superior, but humans are certainly more intelligent than the other primates.

Sure it's political. Science and Politics go well in bed together just as easily as Religion and Politics have done for centuries and I find both historical positions discusting. The sad result is that both have contaminated each other by such actions and any benefits of a clean unbiased purity of belief gets flushed down the proverbial toilette as a consequence.

View Post

Of course science and politics go together, but I just corrected your use of the word ape based on the definition of what an ape is. Nothing political about that.

Only according to the opinion of some, and without empirical evidence. Therefore, it is a hypothesis. It doesn't matter how some choose to classify. But, if you can provide the empirical evidence, please provide it.

View Post

The only evidence required for classification is a set of characteristics. Going a step further and making predictions about evolutionary relationships would require empirical evidence, but I’m putting that aside for the moment. An ape is just a relatively large primate lacking a tail. We are primates, we are larger than monkeys, and we lack tails. That means according to the definition of what an ape is, humans are apes.

I find a big problem with this forum is that a lot of the threads get side tracked and the topic ends up turning from a civil, compliant discussion into a knit-picking, petty discussion and it comes from both sides of the spectrum.

View Post

I agree. My micro & macro evolution thread got so sidetracked I just left. I would much rather go back to the discussion about vestigial organs, however my last question regarding the purpose of goose bumps was ignored.

#13 Ron

Ron

    Advanced Member

  • Member
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 6530 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Age: 50
  • Christian
  • Creationist
  • Johnstown, PA

Posted 31 May 2010 - 11:27 AM

The only evidence required for classification is a set of characteristics.

View Post

Once again, that is opinion based upon presupposition. And further, that presupposition insinuates an ancestral relationship without empirical scientific, logical or rational evidence. Therefore, this entire house of cards is predicated on mere opinion, and promulgated as fact.

Now, you posit your insinuations with out any foundational evidence. If you are going to continue to propagandize your model, that’s all well and good. But you’ll have to cease pretending it’s anything but that.


Going a step further and making predictions about evolutionary relationships would require empirical evidence, but I’m putting that aside for the moment.

View Post

You can predict all you wish, but you haven’t posited a shred of evidence to support your case yet. You can do so (if you actually can) any time now, but that would be a change.

An ape is just a relatively large primate lacking a tail. We are primates, we are larger than monkeys, and we lack tails. That means according to the definition of what an ape is, humans are apes.

View Post


Where did the word “primate” come from (i.e. who coined it, and when was that accomplished)?

Also, 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.

P.S. I will use the word "superior" because there is no other suitable word to use.

#14 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 31 May 2010 - 02:52 PM

Once again, that is opinion based upon presupposition. And further, that presupposition insinuates an ancestral relationship without empirical scientific, logical or rational evidence. Therefore, this entire house of cards is predicated on mere opinion, and promulgated as fact.

View Post

So you disagree with my definition of what an ape is? Perhaps you would like to share your definition so I know exactly where our views differ.

You can predict all you wish, but you haven’t posited a shred of evidence to support your case yet. You can do so (if you actually can) any time now, but that would be a change.

View Post

There is plenty of evidence behind the predicted phylogenetic relationships, and I have no doubt that past threads have been devoted to that subject. But to get back on topic, let’s talk about vestigial traits as evidence for common ancestry. I think goose bumps are left behind from the days that we were covered in hair, and I really don’t see another purpose for them. What do you think?

Where did the word “primate” come from (i.e. who coined it, and when was that accomplished)?

View Post

I have no idea. Are you curious or are you testing me?

Also, 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

All of those things are due to our intelligence: the physical size, shape, and inner workings of our brain. So you could say that we are superior in that particular trait. But we are physically unable to swim as fast as a sailfish, fly as fast as a peregrine falcon, or run as fast as a cheetah. We can’t hold our breath as long as a whale and we can’t navigate through the dark like a bat can. So yes, we have one physical trait that may be superior but that in no way means we are a superior species.

#15 Ron

Ron

    Advanced Member

  • Member
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 6530 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Age: 50
  • Christian
  • Creationist
  • Johnstown, PA

Posted 01 June 2010 - 04:47 AM

All of those things are due to our intelligence: the physical size, shape, and inner workings of our brain. So you could say that we are superior in that particular trait.

View Post

Which goes to prove my point… Superior!


But we are physically unable to swim as fast as a sailfish,

View Post

Incorrect, I can get in a boat that cruises faster than any fish can swim. Superior!

fly as fast as a peregrine falcon,

View Post

Incorrect, I can get in a plane that cruises faster than any bird can fly. Superior!

or run as fast as a cheetah.

View Post

Incorrect once again, I can get on my motorcycle, or in my car cruises faster than any cheetah can run. Superior!

We can’t hold our breath as long as a whale

View Post

Incorrect, I can get in a submarine that holds it breath longer than any whale can. Superior!


and we can’t navigate through the dark like a bat can.

View Post

Incorrect again, I’ve been involved with the testing and development of night vision devices allow me to navigate in the dark better than a bat due to the versatility and application of software and hardware design. Superior!


So yes, we have one physical trait that may be superior but that in no way means we are a superior species.

View Post


Once again… Incorrect (please see above rebuttals)!

#16 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 01 June 2010 - 02:06 PM

Which goes to prove my point… Superior!
Incorrect, I can get in a boat that cruises faster than any fish can swim. Superior!
Incorrect, I can get in a plane that cruises faster than any bird can fly. Superior!
Incorrect once again, I can get on my motorcycle, or in my car cruises faster than any cheetah can run. Superior!
Incorrect, I can get in a submarine that holds it breath longer than any whale can. Superior!
Incorrect again, I’ve been involved with the testing and development of night vision devices allow me to navigate in the dark better than a bat due to the versatility and application of software and hardware design. Superior!
Once again… Incorrect (please see above rebuttals)!

View Post



None of those are physical abilities. They are all the direct result of our intelligence. My point still stands that we are in many ways physically inferior to other animals, and only one trait is superior.

#17 Ron

Ron

    Advanced Member

  • Member
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 6530 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Age: 50
  • Christian
  • Creationist
  • Johnstown, PA

Posted 02 June 2010 - 03:32 AM

None of those are physical abilities. They are all the direct result of our intelligence. My point still stands that we are in many ways physically inferior to other animals, and only one trait is superior.

View Post


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.

Which, of course, logically, rationally and scientifically leads us back to:

“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.”

#18 Mr.Razorblades

Mr.Razorblades

    Banned Troll from a troll forum

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

Posted 02 June 2010 - 06:00 AM

Can design and manufacture and automobile/airplane/submarine?

Before anything can be invented the simplest of tools need to be in place before hand. As a consequence of being the first animals to achieve such mastery over tools we become complacent in observing the same tool making patterns arising in nature.

Rooks making tools

Chimp took kits

Write a sonnet/book/music?

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.

Have the capability to wipe out all other life forms on this planet?

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.

Invent a language including all the laws and rules that govern that language?

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

#19 Advent

Advent

    Troll from a troll forum.

  • Banned
  • PipPip
  • 14 posts
  • Age: 20
  • no affiliation
  • Atheist
  • Somewhere in the cosmos

Posted 02 June 2010 - 06:36 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.

Which, of course, logically, rationally and scientifically leads us back to:

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



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

#20 Ron

Ron

    Advanced Member

  • Member
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 6530 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Age: 50
  • Christian
  • Creationist
  • Johnstown, PA

Posted 02 June 2010 - 06:48 AM

Some atheist will always trot out this tired argument as an attempt at refutation:

Before anything can be invented the simplest of tools need to be in place before hand. 

View Post

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.

As a consequence of being the first animals to achieve such mastery over tools we become complacent in observing the same tool making patterns arising in nature.

View Post

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?

Rooks making tools

View Post

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.

Chimp took kits

View Post


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.




0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users