Jump to content
Evolution Fairytale Forum
Sign in to follow this  
Crous

That’s The Evolution Way.

Recommended Posts

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?

66847[/snapback]

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.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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.

66908[/snapback]

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.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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.

66862[/snapback]

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.

66862[/snapback]

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?

66862[/snapback]

No, that’s not how evolution works at all. All organisms that are alive today are at the same evolutionary “levelâ€ÂÂ. 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?

66862[/snapback]

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 dogsâ€ÂÂ. 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.

66908[/snapback]

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.

66913[/snapback]

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.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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 “levelâ€ÂÂ. 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 dogsâ€ÂÂ. 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.

66914[/snapback]

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

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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

66915[/snapback]

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.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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.

66916[/snapback]

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

 

My name is Mishelle in French :)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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 “levelâ€ÂÂ. 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 dogsâ€ÂÂ. 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.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Isabella, here is a blog entry by Todd Wood that I think you will appreciate: http://toddcwood.blogspot.com/2009/09/trut...-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.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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

66928[/snapback]

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!

66928[/snapback]

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 finsâ€â€Âhence 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!

66928[/snapback]

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.

66928[/snapback]

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.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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 finsâ€â€Âhence 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 doingâ€â€Âbecause 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.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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

67089[/snapback]

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."

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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?

67043[/snapback]

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 advantageâ€ÂÂ, 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 doingâ€â€Âbecause 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.

67043[/snapback]

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.

67043[/snapback]

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!

67043[/snapback]

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.

67043[/snapback]

“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.

67043[/snapback]

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?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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 advantageâ€ÂÂ, 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

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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.

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.

 

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? :P

 

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

 

Yes I agree. Very good points.

 

Nope

 

Isabella may see it as a bad thing that not all creationists agree on this. There is no creationist consensus on many matters. I saw that as a bad thing just recently. Then I realized that in order to get an agreement on these things we would have to do what the evos do... make conjecture into theory or fact. Creationists do not do this. There are a great many things that have more than one interpretation and presenting both interpretations is much more honest than presenting one as the correct one and discarding the others when the evidence does not clearly point to one above the other.

 

That is a very long sentence. I think I may need to go back to learning grammar. ;)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Yes I agree. Very good points.

 

Isabella may see it as a bad thing that not all creationists agree on this. There is no creationist consensus on many matters. I saw that as a bad thing just recently. Then I realized that in order to get an agreement on these things we would have to do what the evos do... make conjecture into theory or fact. Creationists do not do this. There are a great many things that have more than one interpretation and presenting both interpretations is much more honest than presenting one as the correct one and discarding the others when the evidence does not clearly point to one above the other.

 

That is a very long sentence. I think I may need to go back to learning grammar. :P

67128[/snapback]

My prof's used to tell me I made a lot of run ons. And never start a sentence with but or a conjunction or a gerund phrase. But this is not formal prose just a bunch of sod busters trying to thrash out their differences partner. ;):)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

All the animals that exist do that quite well.

67118[/snapback]

If that were true, we wouldn’t have such a long list of threatened, endangered, and recently extinct species.

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

67118[/snapback]

I formulate my own opinions selectively from the material I’ve read and the courses I’ve taken. When I reference an evolutionary hypothesis or theory, it’s always going to be one that I agree with unless I’ve specifically said otherwise. Since I’m not involved in evolutionary research, I really can’t make up a theory that is truly my own. I lack the resources.

 

Although you may disagree, the evidence used to support evolution is scientifically valid. It’s the conclusions we draw from the evidence that are subject to debate. No accepted theory in evolution is simply the result of armchair philosophy.

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.

67118[/snapback]

I was religious for quite a long time, and I felt the same way. The idea of mutations generating a complex organ or structure seemed unfathomable to me. It wasn’t until I began studying the mechanisms behind evolution and population genetics in depth that I changed my mind. There are many things which, when not fully understood, stretch the imagination. I personally cannot imagine how thousands of songs can be converted into a digital form and stored on my iPod, and then played as sound from my headphones. It’s something I’ve never studied, and if you asked me to propose a mechanism I wouldn’t know where to begin. If I had been put in charge of inventing the iPod based on a description of what its supposed to do, I probably would’ve said, “Nope, that’s impossible!†and walked away.

 

Please don’t interpret that as a personal attack on your intelligence, because that’s not my intention. I realize that most people on this forum, creationists and evolutionists alike, are very educated individuals. However for me, it took a few years of studying evolution before I was able to put things together and really understand it. Even now, I’m still a long way from understanding every aspect of it.

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.

67118[/snapback]

I think the mental aspect is important and evolutionists are aware of that, however it’s difficult to quantify. We know humans are smarter than chimps, but by how much? Is the difference larger or smaller than, say, a chimp and a squirrel? Or a squirrel and a frog? Within humans alone, there are so many ways to define intelligence it’s nearly impossible to rank people based on their mental capabilities.

 

There was a PBS series I really liked called The Human Spark, where they preformed various tests on humans and chimpanzees in an attempt to determine what differed between our thinking and social interactions. It’s available online if you’re interested. Just be warned that sometimes anthropologists get a little carried away when they talk about human evolution. Even I can’t help but roll my eyes when an overly ambitious artist shows their rendition of what our ancestors may have looked life, and goes on to talk about the thing like it’s their own grandpa.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

If that were true, we wouldn’t have such a long list of threatened, endangered, and recently extinct species.

How do they say it? It’s just pressures to evolve? The door swings both ways though. Isn’t it also a list of creatures being “pressured to adapt & or evolve†rather than go extinct? We'll just have to wait and see. Oops maybe our ancestorsr ancestors will have to do that.

 

And then there has to be a net increase otherwise we wouldn’t have up to 30 million species on the planet. Are we losing species faster than we are gaining them? Evolution certainly can’t keep that up for very long. Don’t you think the money would be on them adapting? Otherwise we might have to change the name to devolution. If they die out that will be some negative points for evo right?

I formulate my own opinions selectively from the material I’ve read and the courses I’ve taken. When I reference an evolutionary hypothesis or theory, it’s always going to be one that I agree with unless I’ve specifically said otherwise. Since I’m not involved in evolutionary research, I really can’t make up a theory that is truly my own. I lack the resources.

 

Although you may disagree, the evidence used to support evolution is scientifically valid. It’s the conclusions we draw from the evidence that are subject to debate. No accepted theory in evolution is simply the result of armchair philosophy.

Of course all evidence to support evolution is scientifically valid (from their point of view). However I do not see evo science as the “seal of approval†it seeks to enjoy (see my post on absolute truth status). Science like all of us is a work in progress and makes mistakes and draws wrong conclusions like all of us. Some good some bad.

 

Your comment about conclusions drawn from evidence says to me that you may want to consider your grasp of communication theory. Evidence, from what I have observed does have to be interpreted. It has been pointed out that Creationists often use the same evidence to prove creationism is true. You & I would probably expect the president of the For Motor Car Company to drive a Ford car. That would be the bias I would expect. Remember the old saying the fox guarding the hen house.

 

I was religious for quite a long time, and I felt the same way. The idea of mutations generating a complex organ or structure seemed unfathomable to me. It wasn’t until I began studying the mechanisms behind evolution and population genetics in depth that I changed my mind.

I do not consider myself religious. Rather I believe I am an individual. You might say I believe in the primacy of the individual. I don’t find many people that do believe what I believe even though many share my belief in God. On the other hand things are a little more simple for me and though I have studied evolution and creationism my choice is more personal and individual. As I have said in many other posts, I observe that I like others am creative (very much so). I have compared evolution to creativity and find the efficiency of creativity greater than evolution by any stretch of the imagination. If I want something in my lifetime I am going to create it or find a group of intelligent people that have already create what I want. I bet you do the same. You already told me you have an ipod.

 

There are many things which, when not fully understood, stretch the imagination. I personally cannot imagine how thousands of songs can be converted into a digital form and stored on my iPod, and then played as sound from my headphones. It’s something I’ve never studied, and if you asked me to propose a mechanism I wouldn’t know where to begin. If I had been put in charge of inventing the iPod based on a description of what its supposed to do, I probably would’ve said, “Nope, that’s impossible!†and walked away.

But you shoot your own foot here exposing your inconggruency. You do not need understanding or intelligence. From an evolutionary point of view no knowledge at all is necessary to cause things to exist that are overwhelmingly more complex than an ipod. Just do it! Mutations and natural selection will ensure your success.

 

I remember when a vinyl record about 12 inches across only held up to 60 minutes of songs. Because of intelligent engineering we have the ipod. And yet the storage capacity of DNA code is 65 times more efficient than the largest ( in terms of storage capacity) silicone chip we currently make. If we knew how to code DNA we could take all the information in all the libraries of the world and put it on 1/10 the surface of an ordinary straight pin.

 

 

Please don’t interpret that as a personal attack on your intelligence, because that’s not my intention. I realize that most people on this forum, creationists and evolutionists alike, are very educated individuals. However for me, it took a few years of studying evolution before I was able to put things together and really understand it. Even now, I’m still a long way from understanding every aspect of it.

Does this mean you are going to study creationism in like fashion? If I studied auto mechanics I guess I would expect to be an auto mechanic. If I studied medicine I would expect to be a doctor., And if I studied evolution I would expect to be an evolutionist?

I think the mental aspect is important and evolutionists are aware of that, however it’s difficult to quantify. We know humans are smarter than chimps, but by how much? Is the difference larger or smaller than, say, a chimp and a squirrel? Or a squirrel and a frog? Within humans alone, there are so many ways to define intelligence it’s nearly impossible to rank people based on their mental capabilities.

Sort of an I can’t see the forest for the trees huh? I’d say it’s difficult to believe evo too but…

There was a PBS series I really liked called The Human Spark, where they preformed various tests on humans and chimpanzees in an attempt to determine what differed between our thinking and social interactions. It’s available online if you’re interested. Just be warned that sometimes anthropologists get a little carried away when they talk about human evolution. Even I can’t help but roll my eyes when an overly ambitious artist shows their rendition of what our ancestors may have looked life, and goes on to talk about the thing like it’s their own grandpa.

I think I saw that. It was interestin But my all time favorite PBS documentary was “The Day the Universe Changed. They have exceros of it on youtube.com but to see the whole series you might have to rent it or buy it. It was rely enlightening and I usually don’t waste superlatives. I think it ought to be required viewing for every high school and/ or college student.

 

All the best

Mike

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I don't understand what you are saying here.

67127[/snapback]

When I make a statement like, “according to evolution, hands are the result of living in treesâ€ÂÂ, I’m not making up an explanation off the top of my head. This is considered to be the best evolutionary explanation for our hands based on the evidence available, and can be found in various articles and textbooks. Even though the idea is not my own, I can state it without providing a reference because it’s considered to be general knowledge in evolutionary science.

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?

67127[/snapback]

This is what I meant when I said that information must be carefully defined before we can talk about increases or decreases. First of all, there’s a big difference between the number of genes (which code for proteins), and the size of the genome (which includes both coding and non-coding regions). The largest genome belongs not to humans, but to the flower Paris japonica. And the organism with the most genes is a protozoan... a single cell. So it’s really not the amount of DNA, or even the number of genes, that leads to complexity: it’s what they do that matters. That’s why I’m always really confused when creationists talk about information.

Isabella may see it as a bad thing that not all creationists agree on this. There is no creationist consensus on many matters.

67128[/snapback]

Nope, not a bad thing. There’s plenty of disagreement within evolution as well, and it’s not a sign of weakness. It means people are thinking for themselves rather than conforming to popular opinion.

 

I was only asking Mike to clarify his views on dog evolution so that I wouldn’t make assumptions in the future.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

This is what I meant when I said that information must be carefully defined before we can talk about increases or decreases. First of all, there’s a big difference between the number of genes (which code for proteins), and the size of the genome (which includes both coding and non-coding regions). The largest genome belongs not to humans, but to the flower Paris japonica. And the organism with the most genes is a protozoan... a single cell. So it’s really not the amount of DNA, or even the number of genes, that leads to complexity: it’s what they do that matters. That’s why I’m always really confused when creationists talk about information.

 

Wow! Isabella

Thanks for that. I had it tucked away in my mind and then forgot it significance. When I read what you said, “it†came back to my consciousness. In similar fashion the whale brain is much bigger (by ten or so pounds) than ours and from what I remember studying is not much qualitatively different from our brains either. Certainly not enough to justify the difference in output.

 

One therefore cannot justify the difference between the species based solely on genetic code as you concur. You’ve made a good point about creationists blindness (and my own). Thanks!

 

I guess you put the burden for “doing†on evolution? I may be overusing the term but that is a stretch! Especially for something with no foresight, no ability to reason and is non sentient. I am forced to use another word and say that’s awfully magical.

 

I have postulated the idea that life is the culprit that does all the work but evo gets the credit. I suspect life reads the DNA code and thus directs the fabrication of each critter and also provides a software function to animate said creature once the body is constructed. I think Biology is more a function of life than biology is a cause of life. Science holds the latter view does it not?

Thanks again. :wacko:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Thanks for responding to my post. I can’t help to feel you all are missing my original point.

And now you are arguing about monkey hands. ;)

I originally wondered if man discriminated against their cousins (chimpanzee) when will it be OK for the “superhuman†(the next step in human evolution) to discriminate against to normal human.

 

 

 

 

Some time ago there was the common ancestor who gave birth to a daughter. This doter will be the great ancestor of the humans. Although she still looked like her cousins, she had a small mutating that will result in her being one of the missing links of mankind. Her cousin was the great ancestor of the chimpanzee. There was no discrimination between their children and their children. In time there fur colour change their facial features change and their culture change.  And somewhere in-between all these changes one became the superior animal.

 

Fast forward to today. Man sees the chimpanzee as a lesser animal. The chimpanzee is not allowed to vote or own land. Although the man know today that the chimpanzee is a distend cousin. Hi still treat him as a lesser animal.

Then he ponders, looking at the chimpanzee. When in the past have our forefather decide to discriminate against their cousins and way? Was it when they lost their fur? Was it when they changed their diet? Was it when there facial features changed?

 

If humans will over time evolve in to the next “superhuman†when will the superhuman discriminate against his lesser human cousin? And treat him as the next chimpanzee. How makes that decision? According to evolution the fittest will survive. The strongest lion make the decision. The one with authority makes the rules. If we look at the human history, haven’t some already attempted to make this decision? It may not have been the right time to discriminate against our human cousins. But it will happen in the future. Maybe next year or the year after that or the years after that, but it will happen. That’s the evolution way.

 

Some time ago nature decided if someone will or will not be borne. Today we as human decide our self when to end an unborn lesser human. We decided a fetus is a lesser human.  I mean it cannot feel, it’s not aware, it cannot suffer. I mean it cannot even vote. That’s the evolution way.

66711[/snapback]

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

How do they say it? It’s just pressures to evolve? The door swings both ways though. Isn’t it also a list of creatures being “pressured to adapt & or evolve†rather than go extinct? We'll just have to wait and see. Oops maybe our ancestorsr ancestors will have to do that.

 

And then there has to be a net increase otherwise we wouldn’t have up to 30 million species on the planet. Are we losing species faster than we are gaining them? Evolution certainly can’t keep that up for very long. Don’t you think the money would be on them adapting? Otherwise we might have to change the name to devolution. If they die out that will be some negative points for evo right?

67153[/snapback]

Animals are always under selective pressure of some form or another, regardless of whether they’re endangered or thriving. A lot of the threatened species on our planet have become that way due to human activity, such as hunting or forestry, which happen on such a short time scale that in most cases there simply isn’t time to adapt.

As for the extinction/speciation equilibrium, I honestly have no idea. The measurements are rates, and it’s difficult to accurately estimate the number of extinctions that occurred in the past based on the limited fossil evidence available.

I do not consider myself religious. Rather I believe I am an individual. You might say I believe in the primacy of the individual. I don’t find many people that do believe what I believe even though many share my belief in God.

67153[/snapback]

I’ve always considered Christianity to be a religion, when I was a Christian and now as an atheist. It’s says under your information that you’re a Christian, so I’m surprised that you choose not to call yourself religious. But each to their own, I can respect your choice for individuality.

On the other hand things are a little more simple for me and though I have studied evolution and creationism my choice is more personal and individual. As I have said in many other posts, I observe that I like others am creative (very much so). I have compared evolution to creativity and find the efficiency of creativity greater than evolution by any stretch of the imagination. If I want something in my lifetime I am going to create it or find a group of intelligent people that have already create what I want. I bet you do the same. You already told me you have an ipod.

67153[/snapback]

I’m not sure I understand the comparison. Evolution really has nothing to do with efficiency... that would imply it’s moving towards some sort of goal or product.

But you shoot your own foot here exposing your inconggruency. You do not need understanding or intelligence. From an evolutionary point of view no knowledge at all is necessary to cause things to exist that are overwhelmingly more complex than an ipod. Just do it! Mutations and natural selection will ensure your success.

67153[/snapback]

It seems like you’re suggesting that because evolution isn’t driven by intelligence, neither is our understanding of evolution. That doesn’t make any sense at all. Atomic reactions aren’t intelligent, but the physicists who study them are.

You need intelligence to study evolution, even at a basic level. Evolution as a process does not depend on intelligence.

Does this mean you are going to study creationism in like fashion? If I studied auto mechanics I guess I would expect to be an auto mechanic. If I studied medicine I would expect to be a doctor., And if I studied evolution I would expect to be an evolutionist?

67153[/snapback]

I think you’re mixing up definitions here. “Evolutionist†refers to someone who believes in evolution, not an expert in the field. You wouldn’t have to get a degree in political science to call yourself a Democrat or Conservative. These are examples of beliefs or ideologies.

 

A doctor, on the other hand, is not someone who believes in medicine. A doctor practices medicine, and there’s a big difference.

 

But you answer your question, I do try to educate myself in creationism as best I can. I’m already very quite familiar with Christianity in general, from 13 years of education at Catholic schools.

 

One therefore cannot justify the difference between the species based solely on genetic code as you concur. You’ve made a good point about creationists blindness (and my own). Thanks!

67174[/snapback]

I never said the genetic code was useless when comparing species; it can be an extremely useful tool. My point was that the size of the genome and the number of genes on there own tell you absolutely nothing. It’s the content that matters.

 

If I handed you two books, one with 100 pages and one with 1000, you would not be able to tell me which contains the most information unless you took the time to read them. The 1000 page book could a bunch of nonsense words, while the 100 page book might be a collection of mathematical theorems and proofs.

 

Similarly, geneticists gather information by “reading†genomes rather than just comparing their size.

I have postulated the idea that life is the culprit that does all the work but evo gets the credit. I suspect life reads the DNA code and thus directs the fabrication of each critter and also provides a software function to animate said creature once the body is constructed. I think Biology is more a function of life than biology is a cause of life. Science holds the latter view does it not?

67174[/snapback]

I’m very confused... biology is the study of life, not a function or cause of anything.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Thanks for responding to my post. I can’t help to feel you all are missing my original point.

And now you are arguing about monkey hands. :)

I originally wondered if man discriminated against their cousins (chimpanzee) when will it be OK for the “superhuman†(the next step in human evolution) to discriminate against to normal human.

67321[/snapback]

The question you’re asking deals with the ethics of a hypothetical scenario, so there really isn’t a clear answer.

 

If you want my personal opinion, no it would not be ok. A new human species would still be quite similar to us, and peaceful coexistence would be the best outcome.

 

I’m curious to know where you’re going with this. Are you attempting to disprove evolution, or demonstrate that evolutionists are unethical?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The question you’re asking deals with the ethics of a hypothetical scenario, so there really isn’t a clear answer.

 

If you want my personal opinion, no it would not be ok. A new human species would still be quite similar to us, and peaceful coexistence would be the best outcome.

 

I’m curious to know where you’re going with this. Are you attempting to disprove evolution, or demonstrate that evolutionists are unethical?

67438[/snapback]

It took some time but I think you are starting to get my point. Hypothetical, perhaps?

 

I did point out that it did happen (human vs. chimpanzee). Even that some people and groups in the recent years attempted this. Because of the physical and cultural differences between humans.

 

And because evolution will continue it will happen in the future. There is no indication that evolution of human will stop. Unless all human mutate in the same way at the same time evolution dictates that the human race will at some point in time divide.

 

At this point we can only hope that coexistence is possible. Keep in mind that we and chimpanzees do coexistence at this point.

 

Yes I think that most people like you and me will agree that discrimination is not ok. If I apply evolution as a world view, at some point in time discrimination is unavoidable. And if you look at human history this will not be positive.

 

I’m not attempting to disproof evolution. I’m attempting to formulate ethics using atheism and evolution as the basis for n world view.

 

Is discrimination not a natural thing?

 

How decide when is it OK to discriminate and when not?

 

And when is it OK to discriminate?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Sign in to follow this  

×

Important Information

Our Terms