If Human Evolution Was False We Would Expect To See Human Evolution

[mike the wiz 1,210]

Yes, you read the title of this topic correctly. If evolution is false we might still expect to find evidence for human evolution. Which may seem extraordinary but in fact it isn't really.

 

What I really mean is that when two anatomical designs are so close by design and there can be variation within a kind then because of that variation you can get such close similarities whereas with a disparate anatomy such as a horse's forelimb and a bat's forelimb, you will not be able to get similarities easily.

 

If we look at the below picture of a triangle and a hexagon, you can see that if we imagine that some similar changes could happen to the hexagon and triangle, because those two shapes are pretty dissimilar, logically those small changes will not make the hexagon look like a triangle:

 

 

Of course a hexagon and a triangle are not so similar, but if we now compare two shapes that are similar such as a rectangle and a square, you will notice how EASY it is to make them identical or almost identical just by making small changes to them:

 

 

What does this prove, logically? It proves that if you already have two very similar structures it is easy to show that their shapes can be slightly altered and if one shape goes more "towards" the other shape, it is not difficult to make them look almost the same because they are already most of the way there but obviously it is a superficial similarity of skeletal anatomy.

 

An analogy is this, if you are going to climb Everest or K2, since they are both close to the same height, if you started to climb Everest at the height of K2, it wouldn't take long to scale Everest, but if you compared Everest to Moel Famau, then if you started at the height of Moel Famau then you would have to climb Everest pretty much, to reach the top of Everest.

 

In this analogy, because K2 and Everest are ALREADY so close in height, most of the climb is done if you scale K2, and it doesn't takes a small percentage to reach Everest.

 

It is the same with the skeletal anatomy of apes and humans, it does not take much to make them even more similar since they are already a very close match by design. The reason for this design similarity is pretty obvious given the arboreal advantages it offers.

 

Conclusion: We might expect to see a false-evolution given the similarities. An, "appearance of evolution", but just because something appears to be X doesn't mean it is X.

[mike the wiz 1,210]

I'd now like to elaborate my point.

 

Let's say we found in Afarensis or some species of pithecine, a slightly "less" curved foot bone, or "less" divergent large toe, which IS POSSIBLE by micro-evolution, because that is not such a big change.

 

Well, can you now see this is similar to what happened with the rectangle and square. Because human feet and ape feet  ALREADY ARE somewhat similar by design, then a slightly more gracile "ape foot" might LOOK like it is evolving into a human foot.

 

In fact it may well never have happened, it might just be that there was a variety of apes that had small changes happen by natural selection, according to their environment, and these small changes were the full extent of their evolution, but obviously the very same evidence could be used to say that apes were travelling a path towards humanity.

[mrchopper 6]

Mike, an "appearence of evolution" might as well be interpreted as "evolution", for all intent and purposes. Especially since we see that organisms do indeed change, that there is no limit to change, and that new species arise from pre-existing ones. What you are suggesting makes no sense. 

 

Darwin, not on this subject, but on the independent creation of species:

 

"To admit this view is, as it seems to me, to reject a real for an unreal, or at least for an unknown, cause. It makes the work of god a mere mockery and deception....." in origin, laws of variation. 

 

This is basically what you are saying. You have no reason to suppose anything about how god would do things, you are interpreting the evidence based on a religious belief that he did do something, (and therefore he designed things to have "common design").

 

In addition, the more parsimonious explanation is evolution, there is no reason to have "all the evidence of evolution we might reasonably expect" but that "actually evolution didn't happen, god did it". God could have happily created each species independently with nothing in common, because he is god. He has apparently created an infinite universe with countless unique galaxies and stars and planets, which is extraordinarily profligate, but when he comes to life on earth he is limited in the same way a human would be?

 

its double-think

[mike the wiz 1,210]

 

MrC:In addition, the more parsimonious explanation is evolution, there is no reason to have "all the evidence of evolution we might reasonably expect"

 

That is a HILARIOUS comment. Am I saying we have, "all of the evidence we might reasonably expect"? Lol - does that mean you have found all of the transitionals for angiosperms, all of the thousands of missing-in-action transitionals for the cambrian crown forms, all transitionals for seahorses, Ichthyosaurs, dolphins, manatees, dugongs, bats, turtles, sea-slugs, snails, jellyfish, apes, etc....

 

You do realize that what evolution would be expected to provide is 99% missing in action? Otherwise, simply show me those transitionals. So then, you use the term, "parsimonious", but then if you have to BELIEVE BY FAITH all of those transitionals existed, just how is that, "parsimonious".

 

Lol!

 

 

 

Mike, an "appearence of evolution" might as well be interpreted as "evolution", for all intent and purposes. Especially since we see that organisms do indeed change, that there is no limit to change

 

SAYING, "there is no limit to change" does not mean there is no limit to change. For those who believe that superifical changes such as the slight curve of a bone changing shape EQUATES logically to molecules becoming men and everything else, from grass, fleas, peas cheese and hairy knees, well - the burden of proof is upon them to show that such superficial change leads to omnipotence and the most intelligent design-genius, miracle-levle designs.

 

The burden-of-proof is not logically upon me to prove evolution has limits, the burden of proof is upon you to show that it is an omnipotent, ominiscient force, that can create the eyeball to solve chromatic aberration and spherical aberration, and create all of the elephant-in-the-room GENIUS that exists, such as a spherical blastocyst with no bones or brains, turning into an oblong giraffe with brains, bones and every contingency plan it needs to survive.

 

You arguments are bare-assertion sophistry as per usual. Do not try and derail this thread any further.

 

 

 

Mike, an "appearence of evolution" might as well be interpreted as "evolution

 

So tell me how you can know that what actually happened was a variety of pithecines and a variety of humans, and not evolution? How can you differentiate? It seems to me the parsimonious explanation is that the superficial changes you describe HAPPENED, after a polyphyletic, de-novo, special creation of baramins.

 

Nothing you have said changes anything I have said - it is still provable that it only takes one superficial change to make a square look like a rectangle. Are you disputing this? Because if you are to disprove my claims, calling them "silly" or giving a nunch of empty statements, won't disprove them.

 

What will disprove them is showing me that a rectangle can NOT be made to look like a square given a small change.

 

What you need to do is AGREE that it is unavoidably logically true, that if a pithecine superficially adapts a more gracile skeletal anatomy, this would make it look like evolution even if it was not evolution.

 

There is no getting around that simple fact.

 

No more off-topic claims. You have to show how a simple change will NOT make an ape foot possibly look like it is evolving into a human foot. You have to show how a slight change to a rectangle will NOT make it look more square.

 

I await here, fascinated as to how you will prove that something blatantly true is false.

 

Lol

[mrchopper 6]

 

 

"That is a HILARIOUS comment. Am I saying we have, "all of the evidence we might reasonably expect"? Lol - does that mean you have found all of the transitionals for angiosperms, all of the thousands of missing-in-action transitionals for the cambrian crown forms, all transitionals for seahorses, Ichthyosaurs, dolphins, manatees, dugongs, bats, turtles, sea-slugs, snails, jellyfish, apes, etc....

 

You do realize that what evolution would be expected to provide is 99% missing in action? Otherwise, simply show me those transitionals. So then, you use the term, "parsimonious", but then if you have to BELIEVE BY FAITH all of those transitionals existed, just how is that, "parsimonious".

 

Lol!"

 

If we did have a complete record of these things you want to see, you still wouldn't count this as positive evidence, as demonstrated by this thread (nothwithstanding the examples of transitional forms which are well documented). No evidence can actually disprove what you are suggesting, because god can always "do it" a certain way that perfectly explains everything. 

 

Evolution, with its gaps in the fossil record, is still a more parsimonious explanation, meaning it is sparing in its explanations. It's explanations are based on natural phenomena. Since there is apparently no limit to which kind of species can evolve, invoking god, for anything in biology, is completely unnecessary.

 

This is also a chief difference between "science" and "religion".

 

"SAYING, "there is no limit to change" does not mean there is no limit to change. For those who believe that superifical changes such as the slight curve of a bone changing shape EQUATES logically to molecules becoming men and everything else, from grass, fleas, peas cheese and hairy knees, well - the burden of proof is upon them to show that such superficial change leads to omnipotence and the most intelligent design-genius, miracle-levle designs."

 

Well do you know of a limit to change? Because that would be nobel-prize worthy. Despite your rather crude depiction of evolution, genomic data well attests to large-scale evolution. As we have discussed previously, things can look similar, share the same niche, and even the same diet, but they may differ hugely genetically. This does not tally with "common design" at any level.

 

"The burden-of-proof is not logically upon me to prove evolution has limits, the burden of proof is upon you to show that it is an omnipotent, ominiscient force, that can create the eyeball to solve chromatic aberration and spherical aberration, and create all of the elephant-in-the-room GENIUS that exists, such as a spherical blastocyst with no bones or brains, turning into an oblong giraffe with brains, bones and every contingency plan it needs to survive.

 

You arguments are bare-assertion sophistry as per usual. Do not try and derail this thread any further."   

 

and yet mike some people require glasses from childhood, where as some people do not. i.e. some eyes are better biological structures than other eyes are. 

 

"So tell me how you can know that what actually happened was a variety of pithecines and a variety of humans, and not evolution? How can you differentiate? It seems to me the parsimonious explanation is that the superficial changes you describe HAPPENED, after a polyphyletic, de-novo, special creation of baramins.

 

Nothing you have said changes anything I have said - it is still provable that it only takes one superficial change to make a square look like a rectangle. Are you disputing this? Because if you are to disprove my claims, calling them "silly" or giving a nunch of empty statements, won't disprove them.

 

What will disprove them is showing me that a rectangle can NOT be made to look like a square given a small change.

 

What you need to do is AGREE that it is unavoidably logically true, that if a pithecine superficially adapts a more gracile skeletal anatomy, this would make it look like evolution even if it was not evolution.

 

There is no getting around that simple fact.

 

No more off-topic claims. You have to show how a simple change will NOT make an ape foot possibly look like it is evolving into a human foot. You have to show how a slight change to a rectangle will NOT make it look more square.

 

I await here, fascinated as to how you will prove that something blatantly true is false.

 

Lol"

 

Because new species do not just appear from acts of special creation Mike, they appear through reproductive isolation (you can call this process whatever you want). Hence why science has a problem with you just inventing a new unobserved method of speciation (that of "creation"). Do you have a reason to suggest historical species (any) did not arise through the same process? (and 10 points if you can guess what logical inferences can we make if past species did indeed arise through the same process).

 

Its really quite simple Mike.

 

 

 

 

 

[mike the wiz 1,210]

 

 

MrC: Well do you know of a limit to change?

 

Can't you read english? Asking me it twice isn't going to make me accept the burden of proof. I have placed it back on you.

 

I said the burden of proof is upon you to prove that natural selection and mutations are omniscient, all-powerful designers, the burden of proof is upon you to show that an ape's foot with a slightly less splayed large toe, or slightly gracile skull, equates to molecules becoming microbiologists.

 

In case you still don't understand english - this means that if you want to support your claims that evolution is an omniscient, all-powerful intelligent-designer, then you will have to take those claims and create your own thread where you support those claims by giving us some brilliant arguments that gets our heads spinning, instead of derailing this thread like you do all my thread with your TROLLING rants.

 

 

 

MrC: If we did have a complete record of these things you want to see, you still wouldn't count this as positive evidence

 

Of course I would, how couldn't I? It would be so striking, just imagine how a bat would have had to evolve that pentadactyl frame for it's wings, the transitionals would be like a sore thumb because it is such an odd design.

 

 

 

as demonstrated by this thread

 

No, this thread demonstrates something that even a five year old could understand but a fully mature atheist can't - that if you slightly change the shape of two similar shapes they can look close to identical as though one is evolving into the other.

[nnjamerson 12]

 

If we look at the below picture of a triangle and a hexagon, you can see that if we imagine that some similar changes could happen to the hexagon and triangle, because those two shapes are pretty dissimilar, logically those small changes will not make the hexagon look like a triangle:

 

compare2.jpg

 

 

"logically those small changes will not make a hexagon look like a triangle .."

 

Hmm. I give you (as evolution does)...large shape changes that might to the incredulous seem impossible,

by ...

simple

intermediates

(oh, and those in colour changes too)

 

 

What does this prove, logically? 

 

It proves that like shown above, but claimed to be true only for similar shapes, dissimilar shapes (or external anatomy of very different animals) can ALSO become the same as each other (or equally remarkably different from their initial appearance), simply by gradual accumulation of several small changes, with intermediates.

[Mike Summers 454]

Have you eve observed a square volcano?

[mike the wiz 1,210]

NNJ,,

 

You haven't quite understood what I was getting at. In the example I gave of the square and rectangle, it only took one change for them to look similar.

 

So then the point I am making is that because a square and rectangle are already closely matched, then it doesn't take much to make them look very similar.

 

So logically it does not take much change to make an ape's arm look more human, but it would take a lot more changes logically, to make a horses forelimb more similar to a bats forelimb.

 

Or are you saying that you disagree?

 

Do you disagree that changing a blade of grass to make it look more like a human limb is going to take more changes than changing an ape's arm to become more like a human limb?

 

I must take it that you disagree with me, and you believe dissimilar shapes are just as easy to make similar as shapes that are already somewhat similar?

 

 

 

NNJ: It proves that like shown above, but claimed to be true only for similar shapes, dissimilar shapes (or external anatomy of very different animals) can ALSO become the same as each other 

 

And can you quote where I made that claim?

 

My claim was that similar shapes are made even more similar, very easily. 

 

"if two shapes are already similar, small changes might make them even more similar"

 

"If they are not already similar then small changes will not make them more similar" - Denial-of-antecedent fallacy. 

 

Nope. That was not my argument friend, I am not suggesting that more dissimilar shapes can't become more similar, I was only arguing to prove that already similar shapes can become more similar, very easily, certainly more easily than dissimilar shapes, after all to make a rectangle a square, it would only require one of the steps you shown on your diagram, but to make the triangle a hexagon would take more steps BECAUSE they are more dissimilar.

 

 

You need to understand that my point is provable. Let us both assume that apes were created at creation, 100% ape, and humans 100% human, if micro-evolution now occurs as we both agree that micro-evolution exists, then a slightly more divergent human large toe as a change of natural selection pressures in a human group, and a slightly less divergent large toe in an ape group, would definitely give you the impression that an ape evolved into a human ENTIRELY or vice versa.

 

It is an unavoidable problem that makes alleged transitionals of human evolution, only count as tenuous evidence of evolution.

[Schera Do 74]

"logically those small changes will not make a hexagon look like a triangle .."

 

Hmm. I give you (as evolution does)...large shape changes that might to the incredulous seem impossible,

by ...

simple

intermediates

(oh, and those in colour changes too)

 

 

What does this prove, logically?

 

It proves that like shown above, but claimed to be true only for similar shapes, dissimilar shapes (or external anatomy of very different animals) can ALSO become the same as each other (or equally remarkably different from their initial appearance), simply by gradual accumulation of several small changes, with intermediates.

.

My BS-detector is in high-dungeon over this line of developments. I must be insane! Have a look:

 

 

The hexegon is really a bunch of triangles incognito!!!! I don't think either diagram proves anything with respect to origins or anything else unrelated.

 

I think the Greeks handled this many millenia ago.

 

I do understand the issue regarding external APPEARANCE and the implications of internal differences when the external APPEARANCE shows little or none, so don't even go there.

[Schera Do 74]

Does anyone know that these so-called shapes (they are polygons) can not be observed, apparently (pun intended), and have not ever been observed? It's MORE preposterous to rely on the line of "logic" in the above posts than whatever is represented by "2 + 2" in the real world because polygons can't be observed, they being defined by the 0-dimensional entity called point: Triangle is a polygon, a polygon is comprised of line-segments, a line-segment is a line having ends at two points and comprised of all the points between and a point has 0-dimensions--and you know what that means...no thing.

 

It has become very common around here for people to argue something from nothing--kind of reminds me of that theoretical "singularity" preceding that Bang thing.

 

W-w-w-wait a minute there. Aren't there a ton of applications (real world) that use the very Geometry that is based on the non-existent point?

 

Do you mean all the man-made objects?

 

N-n-never mind...

 

...

Just when you thought it was safe to go back to the water

Those problems seem to arise the ones you never really thought of

The feeling you get is similar to something like drowning

Out of your mind, you're out of your depth, you should have taken soundings

Clutching at straws, we're clutching at straws, we're clutching at straws...

 

(Marillion, Clutching At Straws, 1987)

 

Yes, and still drowning.

 

The more time I spend here the more I believe that the ToE is UNDECIDABLE.

[gilbo12345 860]

Conclusion: We might expect to see a false-evolution given the similarities. An, "appearance of evolution", but just because something appears to be X doesn't mean it is X.

 

Exactly! Evolutionists should stop assuming "evolution did it" and rather attempt to test their assumptions via the scientific method.

[mike the wiz 1,210]

Gilbo, why would they test their assumptions when they already have the free ride that the "science" name-tag gives them, via the epithetical value of the word, "science".

 

Why would I rob a bank with guns and the borrowing of Enoch's powder-kegs, if everyone thought I was the bank manager? Instead I would just walk in and say; "Good morning Geoffrey, we have to transfer 2 million to a neutral account, because provasic has taken a turn for the worse"

 

 

 

WIKI: Provasic: A "miracle drug" developed by Devlin-MacGregor Pharmaceuticals. Provasic produces drug-induced hepatitis, but Dr. Charles Nichols alters the test results to get FDA approval. This side effect and the cover-up are discovered by doctor Richard Kimble.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_fictional_medicines_and_drugs