or Connect
AppleInsider › Forums › General › General Discussion › Human common descent ancestor discovered
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

Human common descent ancestor discovered - Page 6

post #201 of 411
benzene, you might have answered this earlier, but please do so again. How old do you think the universe is?
post #202 of 411
Well, there go your 'You Never Read My Posts' vouchers. And I won't be lending you any of mine.

Quote:
Originally posted by benzene
BTW, how do you say the marine shells got into the cave? I mean, they had to get there somehow..

As I explained, in two different posts, these sea shells have been pierced to allow them to be worn on a thread.

Using my powers of lower basic cognitive function I would like to suggest that they were carried into the Chauvet-Pont d'Arc cave around the neck of a man or a woman.

Perhaps on the neck of one of the painters of the extraordinarily beautiful and fragile rock paintings that cover the cave walls.



Note the extensive Flood damage on this fragile painting dated to nearly 40,000 years. This Flood (which miraculously left no traces of aquatic life other than tool-pierced shells, eroded nothing and left no sediment of any kind) fortunately left the paintings on the walls of this cave, made in delicate plant pigments and minerals such as haemetite, absolutely untouched.

This Flood also positioned three European cave bear skulls very carefully on what we must call an 'altar' and then drained from the cave leaving, undisturbed, 20,000 years worth of calcium and silica deposits that were found to be absolutely pristine when the cave was discovered in 1994.

These mineral deposits, which form at a predictable rate, have helped us to date the cave's sealing to the end of the last European interglacial (which apparently occurred some time within the last seventeen days if we are to believe the fanatical young earth extremists who helped me write this.)

Now. You tell me how those sea shells got there.
post #203 of 411
edit: format-unfriendly mammoth jpeg sniiipped


More Flood damage.

But for a flood that can sort creatures by anatomical complexity and prevent flora and fauna from different environmental conditions all getting mashed up together it's probably not too much to expect water that doesn't dissolve water-soluble pigments.
post #204 of 411
You are assuming the flood consisted of water. You should know by now that the flood was made from the tears of baby Jesus, which, as you well know(!), has entirely different properties.
proud resident of a failed state
Reply
proud resident of a failed state
Reply
post #205 of 411
But Groverat, we can test liquid babyjesustears! In icecores and whatnot!

And look what I found on the Internets. This might help us a bit. What's the minimum age of the planet according to the overlapping, cross-corroborating, biological and geological evidence?

Quote:
8,000 years by annual tree rings from Bristlecone pine in California.
10,000 years by annual tree rings from Oaks in Europe (different environment and location)
45,000 years by annual varve layers of diatoms in Lake Suigetsu, Japan (different biology and location)
110,000 years by annual layers of ice in Greenland (different process altogether)
422,776 years by annual layers of ice in Antarctica (different location altogether)
567,700 years by annual layers of calcite in Devil's Hole (another different process and location altogether)

I'd really like to hear a young earther's eye-view on why we can dismiss the evidence of ice cores, tree rings, coral growth and mineral desposits.

One by one, benzene. Take your time.
post #206 of 411
Quote:
Originally posted by benzene
Quit reading out of Hassan i Sabbah's playbook and go read my posts on how there is no magic in the thermodynamics of life. It's really funny I have to be the one stating this.

What's funnier is your diversionary tactics. I spoke about life and thermo with you earlier in this thread, but the issues I had with your position are not as you stated them above, and even if they were, that's not what I brought up in the post you were responding to. Try to respond to the point at hand instead of playing victim to some imagined slight.

Note that these are two different words: evolution and life.

Yes, they are related, but they are different words. One even has a bunch more letters and syllables. I'll add a third word: biogenesis (note the cute nod to the Bible in that word). Though you always wish to conflate the two, they are related but different areas of science.

You keep claiming (in your round-about way, so if it suits you can probably deny it) that both biogenesis and evolution are incompatible with thermodynamics.

To do this, you try to attach to the well-proven theory of thermodynamics your own creationist-defined meanings of words like "information" and "complexity", as if they go hand-in-hand and carry the full scientific weight of thermodynamics.

Your dressed-up version of the watchmaker's argument does not succeed at showing any incompatibility with thermodynamics. Life -- not just in relation its continued existence, but in relation to its spontaneous formation from lifeless matter, and in relation to genetic adaptation over time -- is, in terms of thermodynamics, nothing more than a particularly interesting process of organized energy and matter. Because the Earth is not a closed system, because an influx of energy can be used to create local order with greater disorder ultimately being dumped into space, there is no violation of thermodynamics from either biogenesis or evolution.

If you wish to prove otherwise, then do so. Trotting out lavish displays of your ability to retype impressive-sounding strings words borrowed from biochemistry and physics does not constitute proof. You have to show that the words come to more than "Gee, this just seems to complex to happen by chance!"
We were once so close to heaven
Peter came out and gave us medals
Declaring us the nicest of the damned -- They Might Be Giants          See the stars at skyviewcafe.com
Reply
We were once so close to heaven
Peter came out and gave us medals
Declaring us the nicest of the damned -- They Might Be Giants          See the stars at skyviewcafe.com
Reply
post #207 of 411
Quote:
Originally posted by hardeeharhar
Benzene,
So what you are saying is that every gene product seems have some explainable origin in another lifeform? That to a very large degree it seems reducible, and we have a system that allows for large scale changes over time.

No, you have a hypothesis that says the genetic ability of bacteria to adapt is proof that cows can turn to whales.

Quote:
I think everyone here who argues for the sake of evolutionary theory takes all of this as evidence that evolution can not only occur, but has occured.

Once again, you are using the definition of evolution to prove itself. Adaptation on a small scale has occured, (and since that means genetic material was changed, is defined as evolution) However, naturalists postulate that (these small adaptations) and only those are enough to explain all observed genetic variation.

Quote:
The great difference in viewpoint is that the complexity of the system seems insurmountable, but I feel you have to remember we have a great deal of evidence that our genes, our metabolism, the very scaffolds that perfuse nature are limited based upon the natural history of those very genes -- meaning in a nut shell, it isn't very easy to go from a cow to a whale (or from an elephant like creature to a whale) simply because on the way to those changes a great deal of mutations will occur that cause fatality, but it certainly isn't impossible -- natural selection plays within the rules of those proteins which already exist (well it did until we started doing genetic manipulation), changes are gradual, lifeforms which aren't perfect can and do still exist, the system is very heavily history biased.

I'm arguing that anything even resembling the massive amounts of changes needed has never been observed. The fossil record is full of perfectly fit animals, i.e. you don't see anything that would resemble a species in transit. You can try and explain it away (as has been done many times) with the puntuated equilibrium model, but at that point, the theory is bordering on incredible.

Quote:
My point with the chimpanzes is that there are very few proteins that actually differ greatly between related species that appear to the unobservant observer to be completely unrelated. (In the world view of creationist that I have had the pleasure of discussing this with, these species aren't related)...

I simply disagree with that statement. Everyone will admit that we look very similar to chimps. If that wasn't so, Darwin would have never gotten off the ground. I don't think anyone would say that chimps and humans appear "completely unrelated." Heck, I could have sworn I saw a chimp driving a car about a year ago.

Quote:
Originally posted by tonton
Imagine that the cow is made up of a million legos.

Actually, imagine that the cow is made of several trillion entire lego sets, and then you're getting a bit closer to the actual complexity of the thing. I was referring to a single protein being like a bunch of legos.
But ok, let's keep going with this.

Quote:
Now imagine that once a year, you could change a few of the legos. You could swap the color, you could move it to a different place, you could change the shape of the piece, you could eliminate one lego or add another. If the change is damaging, the cow/whale would either adapt to the change or die off. If the change is beneficial, the cow/whale will thrive. If the change is neutral, perhaps a later change will make the neutral change beneficial. Eventually, the positive changes will dominate the change cycle, the neutral changes will continue until they turn into a positive change, and the negative changes will not endure.

Really. How about a half-formed flipper? It's pathetic for swimming, and very cumbersome for walking on. Perhaps you're saying it developed all at once? Yeah...right. S.H.A.R.K.B.A.I.T.

Quote:
In a few million years, you could easily have a whale.

"And then a wing developed!". Uh huh.

Quote:
Your whole argument is that macroevolution cannot be possible because it's sooooo slow.

Correction: I never said macroevolution was possible in any case. I don't care how long you have. It's never been observed, it's only been postulated.

Quote:
Well, if you indeed believe the earth is 10,000 years old, you're damn straight there wouldn't be enough time to make the necessary changes. But try to imagine for once that the scientists are right -- with tens of thousands of pieces of evidence that they're right, and about 50 pieces of evidence that they're wrong -- that the earth is 4.5 BILLION years old. Hello whale.

Try to imagine this: Most scientists accept evolution as a paradigm. Also, all of this "evidence", whether it be patchy fossils, or genetic similarities is completely untestable. Additionally, in the testable areas, it's never been confirmed, or even observed.

Quote:
Originally posted by tonton
benzene, you might have answered this earlier, but please do so again. How old do you think the universe is?

I was asked how old the earth was (I don't know exactly), but not the universe.
A seemingly simple question, but one that has an exceptionally complex answer. I believe I was asked to explain the "starlight and time" theory, so here goes: (the ultra-concise version)

Gravity (an effect of mass) has an effect on time. This is well known by physicsts. i.e. the fabric of spacetime.
If the universe does not have equally distributed mass (which is actually being discovered to be true), then areas in spacetime where density is high, time will go very slowly. (This has already been postulated many times about the "singularity" in black holes, where time stops completely).
The universe is also very obviously expanding. (redshift of starlight, etc.)
If the earth is near the center of the universe, or near one of the aforementioned dense points, time will be slow for us compared to objects in areas of less density.
Therefore, while some stars may in all actuality be millions, billions, or even trillions of years old, the earth may actually be less than 10k. (How old the earth is, I don't really know).
This is actually one of the reasons I picked out the bible as being more accurate than any other holy book. In almost every other text, gods are talked about as existing in the same timeframe as humans. However, the bible talks about God being seperate from time. "A day is like a thousand years, and a thousand years are like a day." etc.

These phenomena have actually just been recently observed using the earth's "dent" in spacetime as a measuring point.

The book "starlight and time" was written by the physicist Russell Humphreys, and he goes into a lot more detail, a lot of which makes my head hurt.

Quote:
Originally posted by Hassan i Sabbah
Well, there go your 'You Never Read My Posts' vouchers. And I won't be lending you any of mine

LOL. No, I proved you didn't even read your own links, remember?

About the marine shells. I misunderstood you when you said that they were pierced. There are several parasites that feed off their hosts by drilling through their shells. That's what I thought you were talking about. If someone carried them in, we don't need any more of a complex explanation than that.
That said, I don't see how your caves "prove" evolution. They are just caves that people lived in, and in which they drew some very artistic pictures. At some point after that fact, the cave was sealed off by a glacier. How is that a problem?

Quote:
Originally posted by shetline
What's funnier is your diversionary tactics. I spoke about life and thermo with you earlier in this thread, but the issues I had with your position are not as you stated them above, and even if they were, that's not what I brought up in the post you were responding to. Try to respond to the point at hand instead of playing victim to some imagined slight.

I said that thermodynamics excluded the ability of complex macromolecues to randomly autoassemble. I have a sneaking suspicion you don't have a clue what you're talking about.

Quote:
You keep claiming (in your round-about way, so if it suits you can probably deny it) that both biogenesis and evolution are incompatible with thermodynamics.

Yes, and no. You really need to pay more attention.
As I've said countless times in this thread, thermodynamics provides no mechanism for which simple molecules will arrange themselves in any meaningful pattern with the addition of energy.
However, although life does have to obey the laws of thermodynamics, it has many mechanisms through which it can link very unfavorable reactions with favorable ones. (and hence propogate itself).
It is you, sir, who are the one clouding the waters here.

Hardeeharhar has done an admirable job of explaning how some of the complex objects seen in life might have come about by natural processes. However, there are just theories, and most of which have never been observed. Additionally, they still fall very short of what would be necessary for even the simplest cell to be formed.

Quote:
To do this, you try to attach to the well-proven theory of thermodynamics your own creationist-defined meanings of words like "information" and "complexity", as if they go hand-in-hand and carry the full scientific weight of thermodynamics.

I use those words as descriptive terms, but use the thermodynamic term "order" where appropriate. If you have issues with it, actually point out where I'm wrong, instead of these blanket statements about how I don't know anything and "make stuff up".
What is your background anyway?

Quote:
Your dressed-up version of the watchmaker's argument does not succeed at showing any incompatibility with thermodynamics. Life -- not just in relation its continued existence, but in relation to its spontaneous formation from lifeless matter, and in relation to genetic adaptation over time -- is, in terms of thermodynamics, nothing more than a particularly interesting process of organized energy and matter.

Wow. The conclusive proof of abiogenesis is that it's "a particularly interesting process of organized energy and matter". What a crock. That statement is meaningless. Life, and it's processes are interesting, of course, but getting from molecules to life is going to require a bit more than your vacuous "interesting process."

Quote:
Because the Earth is not a closed system, because an influx of energy can be used to create local order with greater disorder ultimately being dumped into space, there is no violation of thermodynamics from either biogenesis or evolution.

No no no. Go read my posts. You don't have a clue what you're talking about. Dumping energy into an uncoupled system provides no order. There is no "local order" provision in thermo. Energy coupling is the key to life. (Thank you Lehninger)

Quote:
If you wish to prove otherwise, then do so. Trotting out lavish displays of your ability to retype impressive-sounding strings words borrowed from biochemistry and physics does not constitute proof. You have to show that the words come to more than "Gee, this just seems to complex to happen by chance!"

They are not borrowed. I am a biophysicist, and I use the terms accordingly. You, on the other hand, most definitely do not know what you're talking about. Let bruce do the speaking, we were actually having some fun, since I don't have to reinvent the wheel each time I talk to you "the earth isn't a closed system which proves evolution" people.
The secret of life: Proteins fold up and bind things.
Reply
The secret of life: Proteins fold up and bind things.
Reply
post #208 of 411
Um... way to answer a post.

I wasn't trying to 'prove evolution' using a single painted cave as an example.

I was trying to get you to see that the evidence that the planet is very ancient indeed is ludicrously, ridiculously, there's-an-elephant-having-a-shit-in-my-living-room, preposterously, superabundantly obvious. So obvious that it takes a huge effort of will to ignore it. So obvious that you have to disregard the evidence of your own eyes and hold your own reason in the sink until it stops squirming.

There is no 'controversy'. There is no 'debate'. Only people who won't, or can't, understand what they see.

This is actually an inhuman failure of imagination, and I think that that's what pisses me off about creationists the most.

Anyway. Just that.

Shetline: don't let the guy's condescending, patronising shite cause you to lose your temper. He's very good at that. He's had practice.
post #209 of 411
Quote:
Originally posted by benzene
"starlight and time"... Russell Humphreys, and he goes into a lot more detail, a lot of which makes my head hurt.

Humphrey is a joke, so much so that some of his biggest critics are christian cosmologists. Next time cite something that hasn't been totally discredited and, please, take the time to look up why he's wrong. THe whole 'head hurt' tactic is the pseudoscientist's primary weapon.
Quote:
I am a biophysicist, and I use the terms accordingly. You [shetline], on the other hand, most definitely do not know what you're talking about.

What you call a 'biophysicist' I call a kid who just got a chemistry bachelors this year and has thoroughly demonstrated that he doesn't know either what a scientific law is or anything about what newton actually said about gravity. Come back down.
post #210 of 411
Quote:
Originally posted by benzene
No, you have a hypothesis that says the genetic ability of bacteria to adapt is proof that cows can turn to whales...

I said that thermodynamics excluded the ability of complex macromolecues to randomly autoassemble. I have a sneaking suspicion you don't have a clue what you're talking about...

I claim no expertise on biochemistry (I'm a software engineer, since you seem to care to know about that), but I've read Dembski's boot "Mere Creation", so I know the argument you're trying to make here. In his case, I'll give the man some credit for an attempt at good scholarship, and for at least having the decency to acknowledge that evolutionary theory has a lot going for it -- rather than taking the dismissive "What fools!" attitude toward evolution that so many creationists assume.

I'll just say in brief that I found his argument (and this applies to your case too, unless you have something beyond Dembski to add) nothing more than an elaborate "watchmaker" case. For one thing he forgets the statistical nature of thermodynamics -- a big mistake to make at the molecular level. I could go on, but that would be more tangential than I care to be right now.
Quote:
Hardeeharhar has done an admirable job of explaning how some of the complex objects seen in life might have come about by natural processes. However, there are just theories, and most of which have never been observed. Additionally, they still fall very short of what would be necessary for even the simplest cell to be formed...

Wow. The conclusive proof of abiogenesis is that it's "a particularly interesting process of organized energy and matter". What a crock. That statement is meaningless. Life, and it's processes are interesting, of course, but getting from molecules to life is going to require a bit more than your vacuous "interesting process."

What appears to be going on here is an elaborate ploy to shift the burden of proof.

I say there's nothing about evolution or biogenesis which is incompatible with thermodynamics. You say back that there's nothing in thermodynamics that proves that evolution or biogenesis are possible.

The evidence for evolution is so overwhelming that merely not running afoul of thermodynamics in any clear-cut way is more than good enough. How did complex living organic chemistry arise from pre-biotic matter? Good question. How does natural selection do such a good job of generating novel structures and adaptations? Another good question. Having answers for those questions would be great, but having those answers is not necessary for proving evolution, nor is having those answers necessary for proving compatibility with thermodynamics.

One of the guiding principles in science is Occam's Razor, often paraphrased as "Given a choice of explanations, the simplest is usually true". But something important is lost in that paraphrasing. Here's the original Latin:

   Entia non sunt multiplicanda praeter necessitatem.

This translates to "Entities should not be multiplied more than necessary". An example from
http://wombat.doc.ic.ac.uk/foldoc/fo...am's+Razor
Quote:
For example, some claim that God caused himself to exist and also caused the universe to exist - he was the "first cause" - whereas Occam's Razor suggests that if one accepts the possibility of something causing itself then it is better to assume that it was the universe that caused itself rather than God because this explanation involves fewer entities.

Which of these explanations better survives Occam's Razor?

(A) The origin, diversity, and complexity of life have arisen from the known phenomenon of evolution on a small scale (the so-called "microevolution" which by now even most creationists accept) expanding in scope, over a broader scale and larger time span, to produce large scale biological development and change?

(B) The origin, diversity, and complexity of life can only be explained by the prior existence of some intelligence -- a prior complex entity, an additional entity, the origin and complexity of which is beyond our ability to explain?

If you wish to assume that complexity and intelligence can arise out of nothingness, or simply "just have been there" all along, why not assume that the known physical universe is the thing itself capable of reaching complexity and intelligence, instead of adding a new entity outside of the physical universe to do the job?

If you wish to condemn evolutionists for not being able to explain each and every mechanism needed to turn non-living matter into complex life, should I not also, and more strongly, condemn you for having no explanation whatsoever for where your Intelligent Designer comes from, how It does what It does, and how It overcomes the problems you say evolution doesn't solve?
We were once so close to heaven
Peter came out and gave us medals
Declaring us the nicest of the damned -- They Might Be Giants          See the stars at skyviewcafe.com
Reply
We were once so close to heaven
Peter came out and gave us medals
Declaring us the nicest of the damned -- They Might Be Giants          See the stars at skyviewcafe.com
Reply
post #211 of 411
Hey, Hassan...

Could you replace those beautiful pictures of yours with links or smaller pictures, so I don't have to stretch my browser window to 2/3 the width of my 22" Cinema Display simply to avoid horizontal scrollbars?

I know this complaint may seem picky of me. Please, don't worry, I still love you.
We were once so close to heaven
Peter came out and gave us medals
Declaring us the nicest of the damned -- They Might Be Giants          See the stars at skyviewcafe.com
Reply
We were once so close to heaven
Peter came out and gave us medals
Declaring us the nicest of the damned -- They Might Be Giants          See the stars at skyviewcafe.com
Reply
post #212 of 411
Quote:
But Groverat, we can test liquid babyjesustears! In icecores and whatnot!

We have baby Jesus tears in ice? Awesome, first we get that drill they used in Jurassic Park to get dinosaur DNA from amber and then we'll clone baby Jesus!

And then he'll eat a lawyer who is cowering on a toilet.
proud resident of a failed state
Reply
proud resident of a failed state
Reply
post #213 of 411
Quote:
You are assuming the flood consisted of water.

Aren't they a massive parasitic collective, intent on devouring the galaxy?

Quote:
Let bruce do the speaking, we were actually having some fun, since I don't have to reinvent the wheel each time I talk to you "the earth isn't a closed system which proves evolution" people.

Fine, we get that you get the Second Law of thermodynamics.

Quote:
The fossil record is full of perfectly fit animals

If you're not an fit animal, you don't reproduce and you die. No more of your schema in the fossil record.
Stoo
Reply
Stoo
Reply
post #214 of 411
Quote:
Originally posted by benzene
Yes, they are. And no, I do not hold blindly to the fact that there "has to be a God." I just figure if I see fingerprints, there has to be fingers that made them. If instead I see enough evidence to convince me otherwise, I will do so with the amount of analysis befitting such a change in position. It's not really up to you to decide how much information is necessary to change my mind.
If I was in these discussions to change other people's minds, I would be a very unhappy person. I enjoy these arguments because they help me reach the absolute truth, which is what I'm more interested in than anything else.

Of course it is not up to me to decide how much evidence is necessary will change your mind. I am merely estimating it will take an infinite amount because religion is the ultimate fallback. It cannot be proven to be wrong.

If you really wanted to know the truth, I would recommend looking into comparative religion and read from the likes of Joseph Campbell. His relatively old works haven't been superceded yet and probably won't be superceded until "evolutionary psychology" matures.

As far as your scientific prowess, maybe you're not communicating well, but you haven't displayed any scientific prowess yet. You can talk the language of biophysicists, yet you don't even understand the rudiments of the scientific method. And as long as you have unfalsifiable a priori beliefs, essentially a belief in magic, the absolute truth will evade you.

Quote:
People once thought that classical mechanics was able to explain everything. Then technology developed to the point where we were able to observe discrepancies that classical physics couldn't explain. A new theory was then needed, and we're still hammering out the specifics, and will continue to do so for quite some time.

Yeah. That is the nature science. It adjusts to new data. The point of laboratory experiments on abiogenesis is to understand how it could happen. To generate some actual data to look at instead of thought experiments. Once there is a handle on how life can arise, predictions and hypotheses can be made of how it could come about billions of years ago, data will be gathered to support it, experiments will be performed to verify it. And refinements will be made ad infinitum.
post #215 of 411
Quote:
Originally posted by shetline
Hey, Hassan...

Could you replace those beautiful pictures of yours with links or smaller pictures, so I don't have to stretch my browser window to 2/3 the width of my 22" Cinema Display simply to avoid horizontal scrollbars?

I know this complaint may seem picky of me. Please, don't worry, I still love you.

THey were beginning to bug me too.
post #216 of 411
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally posted by benzene
No, you have a hypothesis that says the genetic ability of bacteria to adapt is proof that cows can turn to whales.

LIE no.1: I pointed out on page 1 that a known deception of Creationists is to claim such a thing. Evolution does not say that cows turn into whales. Another strawman. Evolution does not say that anything alive today will ever turn into something else living today. I suspect you know this.


Quote:

Once again, you are using the definition of evolution to prove itself. Adaptation on a small scale has occured, (and since that means genetic material was changed, is defined as evolution) However, naturalists postulate that (these small adaptations) and only those are enough to explain all observed genetic variation.

LIE no.2: If you had an understanding of the real theory and not your cows/whales/information strawman definition of it, you'd know that is all that is required as defined by the Scientific definition of Evolution. Hell, If I saw a Cow give birth to a whale, I'd start to believe in God pretty sharpish. I suspect you know this.

Tell me, if an animal goes through 1000 instances of microevolution over a million years, and at the last microevolution makes it reproductively isolated and it goes its seperate way and starts to adapt to its environment by microevolution seperately from the original organism, why is that not macro?

C'mon then define 'kinds'


Quote:

I'm arguing that anything even resembling the massive amounts of changes needed has never been observed. The fossil record is full of perfectly fit animals, i.e. you don't see anything that would resemble a species in transit. You can try and explain it away (as has been done many times) with the puntuated equilibrium model, but at that point, the theory is bordering on incredible.

Stupidity 1: Every fossil ever found is a species in transit. Or are you pretending that once a cow always the same cow? Oh yes, the Creation theory strawman "Why did a cow become a cow and then stop evolving?"

LIE no.3: So the theory says that it takes a +/-million years to produce macroevolution from thousands of instances of microevolution, and you claim that because we havn't seen macroE directly, is proof that the theory is wrong. Mmmmkay. I suspect you know this.

LIE no.4: As for the fossil record, largely we find exactly what is predicted by the theory. Lots of incremental small changes between perfectly fit animals. I suspect you know this.

Tell me, do you expect to find proof of a half whale, half cow that was really unfit for its environment?

AND, if cows did turn into whales, how would you recognise the fossil as a transitory one?

All these variations of the homo species, were they all specifically designed by God, and then discarded because he thought they were no good. Where is the explanation of that in the Book of Genesis? Oh wait, they were planted by Satan?

Quote:

Actually, imagine that the cow is made of several trillion entire lego sets, and then you're getting a bit closer to the actual complexity of the thing. I was referring to a single protein being like a bunch of legos.
But ok, let's keep going with this.

LIE no.5: Yes lets imagine this, and then come back to reality that the cow is actually only made from the same 4 single cubes of lego. I suspect you know this.


Quote:

Really. How about a half-formed flipper? It's pathetic for swimming, and very cumbersome for walking on. Perhaps you're saying it developed all at once? Yeah...right. S.H.A.R.K.B.A.I.T.



"And then a wing developed!". Uh huh.

I wonder if a Duck thinks its half formed flipper is pathetic for swimming or cumbersome for walking. I wonder if a flying squirrels think their half formed wings and arms are useless for flying and climbing at the same time? I wonder if a flamingo thinks its flightless wing is useless for running and pathetic for quick movement. I wonder if flatworms, clams, scallops, spiders, think their light sensive cells are useless eyes?

LIE no.6. Flippers, wings, antenaa, etc didn't just form from thin air according to the theory, they are modified legs, arms, that happened because the environment selected the adaption that best suited the environment. I suspect you know this.


Quote:

Correction: I never said macroevolution was possible in any case. I don't care how long you have. It's never been observed, it's only been postulated.

LIE no.7: according to the correct understanding of the theory, you accepted that what is postulated by the theory is no problem. What you are saying IS the problem is not in evolution theory. I suspect you know this.


Quote:

Try to imagine this: Most scientists accept evolution as a paradigm. Also, all of this "evidence", whether it be patchy fossils, or genetic similarities is completely untestable. Additionally, in the testable areas, it's never been confirmed, or even observed.

LIE no.8: Every scientific theory is a paradigm if you want to nit-pick. There is no absolute proof. Fact does not mean 100% true. Evolution has as much supporting evidence as any other scientific theory. Even I know that einsteins theories are not 100% true, same with Quantum Mechanics, same with fluid dynamics, but that doesn't mean they're wrong. Lack of 100% truth does not mean your God did it.

LIE no 9. In the directly testable area of microevolution it has been observed and confirmed. I suspect you know this.
TRUTH 1.: Creation Theory is completely untestable, so that makes it useless and irrelavent according to your very definition.

Quote:

I was asked how old the earth was (I don't know exactly), but not the universe.
A seemingly simple question, but one that has an exceptionally complex answer.

Dont you need to invoke Occams Razor about now?

Quote:

I believe I was asked to explain the "starlight and time" theory, so here goes: (the ultra-concise version)

Gravity (an effect of mass) has an effect on time. This is well known by physicsts. i.e. the fabric of spacetime.
If the universe does not have equally distributed mass (which is actually being discovered to be true), then areas in spacetime where density is high, time will go very slowly. (This has already been postulated many times about the "singularity" in black holes, where time stops completely).
The universe is also very obviously expanding. (redshift of starlight, etc.)
If the earth is near the center of the universe, or near one of the aforementioned dense points, time will be slow for us compared to objects in areas of less density.
Therefore, while some stars may in all actuality be millions, billions, or even trillions of years old, the earth may actually be less than 10k. (How old the earth is, I don't really know).
This is actually one of the reasons I picked out the bible as being more accurate than any other holy book. In almost every other text, gods are talked about as existing in the same timeframe as humans. However, the bible talks about God being seperate from time. "A day is like a thousand years, and a thousand years are like a day." etc.

These phenomena have actually just been recently observed using the earth's "dent" in spacetime as a measuring point.

The book "starlight and time" was written by the physicist Russell Humphreys, and he goes into a lot more detail, a lot of which makes my head hurt.

LIE no.10. Using Evidence of mass distribution density on the order of the 1000th decimal place to imply distribution fluctuations on the whole number. I suspect you know this.

LIE no.11. Implying the density and effects of Singularities is on the same magnitude to the density of the solar system. I suspect you know this.

LIE no.12. there is no center of the universe. I suspect you know this.

LIE no 13. There is no evidence to suggest the Earth is near a very dense part of the universe. I suspect you know this.

LIE no 14. Claiming you dont know how old the earth is, but previously stating you think it's less than 10k. Thats pretty specific when you're claiming some stars could be trillions of years old.

LIE no 15. "Earth dent" same as lie no 10. I suspect you know this.

LIE no 16. Everything you state as IF, is known not to be the case as supported by the evidence.



STUPIDITY NO 2. Your logic is drivel. If we were near a very dense part of the universe and time went really slowly for us, that doesn't mean that the universe was created at different times. It just means that we perceive it as slower, meaning that 14 billion years have still passed as we measure it in our frame of reference, regardless of wether 10000 years have passed in a very undense part of the universe as measured in that specific frame of reference using our frame as a benchmark. But if such an absolute frame of reference existed, the amount of time that passed in every part of the universe would be the same because all light and all mass has to be traceable back to the same point at the same time. In our frame of reference it is +/-14 billion years.


STUPIDITY NO 3. Using the Bible to claim "that days are like thousands of years and thousands of years are like days", when you are claiming that it all happened in accordance to literal 6x24hour periods.

Quote:

I said that thermodynamics excluded the ability of complex macromolecues to randomly autoassemble. I have a sneaking suspicion you don't have a clue what you're talking about.

STUPIDITY NO 4. claiming people are ignorant, when you've demonstrated beyond doubt that you do not know what the real theory of evolution actually postulates.


Quote:

Yes, and no. You really need to pay more attention.
As I've said countless times in this thread, thermodynamics provides no mechanism for which simple molecules will arrange themselves in any meaningful pattern with the addition of energy.

probable LIE no 17. I'll be honest, I know very little about thermodynamics, so I can't comment, Snowflakes spring to mind, but it sounds like a strawman to me. Does thermodynamics have a mechanism that prevents simple molecules from arranging themselves in any meaningful pattern with the addition of energy?

16 plus lies, 1 truth and 4 accounts of stupidity. Are you related to Henry Morris?
post #217 of 411
Theory: Finches on several close Islands seem to have been selected (as in dog breeding) for features that aid them in their local environments. On this I propose Evolutionary theory -- there are forces which will bias a population towards adaptations (both behaviorally and physiologically) that will aid them to survive more so than their ancestral state in their environments.

My theory suggests that if some of these adaptations occur through genetic changes, there will be an obvious bias towards the gene products that the ancestral species had. This means that when looking at species that appear related (through an independent analysis of rRNA sequences), their gene products should be more similar than those of two species that are distantly related (by rRNA analysis).

You get hypotheses from Theories, you can test those hypotheses. It turns out that the hypothesis that gene products don't change radically between related species (in other words species that have similar rRNA sequences) is true -- evidence that evolutionary theory accurately predicts this result.

This is NOT using evolutionary theory to prove evolutionary theory.
"In a republic, voters may vote for the leaders they want, but they get the leaders they deserve."
Reply
"In a republic, voters may vote for the leaders they want, but they get the leaders they deserve."
Reply
post #218 of 411
Micro. macro: evolution either way.

(Sexual Selection, anyone?)
"In a republic, voters may vote for the leaders they want, but they get the leaders they deserve."
Reply
"In a republic, voters may vote for the leaders they want, but they get the leaders they deserve."
Reply
post #219 of 411
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally posted by hardeeharhar
Micro. macro: evolution either way.

(Sexual Selection, anyone?)

And evidence of increasing 'information'
post #220 of 411
Quote:
Originally posted by MarcUK
And evidence of increasing 'information'

Actually, that is quite easy -- trisomy is increased info....
"In a republic, voters may vote for the leaders they want, but they get the leaders they deserve."
Reply
"In a republic, voters may vote for the leaders they want, but they get the leaders they deserve."
Reply
post #221 of 411
Thread Starter 
Right, I think its time. Im not going to discuss evolutionary theory any more. Its clear that we will all go round in circles for infinity with no outcome.

What we need now is proof of the following.

1) That the Bible was written under divine inspiration of God.
2) That the Author of Genesis actually existed and was chosen by God to scribe the events.
3) That the current translations of the Bible are the accurate word of God, and have not been tampered with in any way whatsoever.
4) precise Definitions of key words that appear in Genesis in the original language, such as Adam, Elohim, etc.
5) Evidence that the Christian God, is different from all other Gods in all religious texts, and proof that every other designed religious theory of creation is wrong.
6) Evidence that the Earth is <10000 years old.
7) Evidence that light has changed speed since creation by hundreds of magnitudes.
8.) Evidence that the universe has a center or we are in a very dense or very undense portion of it.
9) Evidence that Satan planted all other 'kinds' of humans in order to deceive us - or they were Gods prototypes.
10) Evidence of a biological mechanism that prevents 'information' being added to the Genome.
11) definitions of 'Kinds' 'information' and for my understanding, what was an unclean or clean beast?
12) Evidence that it was possible to build a boat from gopher wood to the dimensions stated.
13) Evidence that the whole Earth was flooded by one global flood a few thousand years ago.
14) Evidence that canopy theory is scientifically valid
15) Evidence that rushing water can uplift mountains and cause deep sea depressions in about a year.
16) Evidence that a wooden boat would be able to survive the journey over the forces of water that caused no.15
17) Evidence that such forces of water can sort fossils into very precise bands of increasing complexity, without smashing the fuck out of them.
17) Evidence that the Earth was significantlly flatter <10000k years ago.
18) Evidence that Genesis should be taken literally
19) Evidence that the serpent was Satan.
20) Evidence that an Apple can contain all the knowledge of the Gods.
21) Evidence that the punishment fitted the Crime
22) Evidence that it is possible to repopulate the world to 7 billion in a few thousand years.

just to start with.

Occams razor, opinions or 'if's' do not count. Put the evidence on the table.
post #222 of 411
Just to let you guys know (MarcUK, especially):

I've got a harsh set of finals coming up, as well as several projects that are reaching critical mass.
Since I want to research each inquiry thoroughly, it will be some time before I have complete answers for either the scientific or personal questions.

BBL
The secret of life: Proteins fold up and bind things.
Reply
The secret of life: Proteins fold up and bind things.
Reply
post #223 of 411
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally posted by benzene
Just to let you guys know (MarcUK, especially):

I've got a harsh set of finals coming up, as well as several projects that are reaching critical mass.
Since I want to research each inquiry thoroughly, it will be some time before I have complete answers for either the scientific or personal questions.

BBL

LIE no.18. Running away when you've been owned, a common creationist trait.

Don't forget to research both sides of the argument if you want to be honest and maintain integrity. There are no personal questions here, I am just asking for the evidence of your 'scientific' theory.

Cannot you at least define 'information' in Scientific terms before you go?
post #224 of 411
I hate to burst anyones bubble, but this "news" of a "missing link" has been done many times before. the Piltdown man in my old textbooks was made entirely from a pigs tooth. Anyone remember Lucy? it turned out that she was just a tree swinging monkey. there is not much evidence to suggest to much otherwise with this "news" on BBC.
post #225 of 411
Quote:
Originally posted by 9secondko
Anyone remember Lucy? it turned out that she was just a tree swinging monkey.

There's a quality set up for a mom joke there but I'll pass.

Your comment has already been addressed, I'll repeat it here just for you: no one is trying to prove that there is a "missing link" and haven't been since the 50's. The "link" is no longer "missing" and it has been proven beyond doubt that humans are related to, and descended from, apes.

The article plays up the "missing link" angle as it has become lodged in the public imagination but the real newsworthyness of the article is the finding of an old fossil and the scientific information that provides, not that it "proves" human descent from apes.
a flirt with mediocrity comes with heavy penalty
Reply
a flirt with mediocrity comes with heavy penalty
Reply
post #226 of 411
Quote:
Originally posted by 9secondko
I hate to burst anyones bubble, but this "news" of a "missing link" has been done many times before. the Piltdown man in my old textbooks was made entirely from a pigs tooth. Anyone remember Lucy? it turned out that she was just a tree swinging monkey. there is not much evidence to suggest to much otherwise with this "news" on BBC.

Hey, who brought the cool kid?
We were once so close to heaven
Peter came out and gave us medals
Declaring us the nicest of the damned -- They Might Be Giants          See the stars at skyviewcafe.com
Reply
We were once so close to heaven
Peter came out and gave us medals
Declaring us the nicest of the damned -- They Might Be Giants          See the stars at skyviewcafe.com
Reply
post #227 of 411
Unbelievable. Another tour de force of mutual respect and tolerance on the pages of Appleinciter.

I knew I should have taken that left turn at Albuquerque.


Folks, Evolution simply doesn't work at ANY level -- wake up and smell the complexity. Speciation works like the dickens, so does adaptation -- but the curtain is coming down on the concept of "Evolution" -- a 100 years of hemming and hawwing on the avialibility of evidences (and what constitutes them) is just too long.

Darwin had his turn, it's time to face up to reality.

Genisis could be literal, figurative, abstract impressionist, you name it -- the universe could be infinite -- there still isn't enough time.

In our desire to impose form on the world we have lost the capacity to see the form that is there;
and in that lies not liberation but alienation, the cutting off from things as they really are. --...

Reply

In our desire to impose form on the world we have lost the capacity to see the form that is there;
and in that lies not liberation but alienation, the cutting off from things as they really are. --...

Reply
post #228 of 411
Quote:
Originally posted by 9secondko
[B]the Piltdown man in my old textbooks was made entirely from a pigs tooth. /B]

IIRC the pig's tooth turned out to be Nebraska man.

In our desire to impose form on the world we have lost the capacity to see the form that is there;
and in that lies not liberation but alienation, the cutting off from things as they really are. --...

Reply

In our desire to impose form on the world we have lost the capacity to see the form that is there;
and in that lies not liberation but alienation, the cutting off from things as they really are. --...

Reply
post #229 of 411
Quote:
Originally posted by stupider...likeafox
There's a quality set up for a mom joke there but I'll pass.

Your comment has already been addressed, I'll repeat it here just for you: no one is trying to prove that there is a "missing link" and haven't been since the 50's. The "link" is no longer "missing" and it has been proven beyond doubt that humans are related to, and descended from, apes.

The article plays up the "missing link" angle as it has become lodged in the public imagination but the real newsworthyness of the article is the finding of an old fossil and the scientific information that provides, not that it "proves" human descent from apes.

The consensus is not that humans are descended from apes, but that humans and apes are both descended from the same extinct creature (which was probably "apelike", since humans are certainly apelike). Therefore, there is no "missing link". A human-ape common ancestor is not a link any more than a dinosaur is a link between a robin and a gecko.
post #230 of 411
Quote:
Originally posted by dmz
Folks, Evolution simply doesn't work at ANY level -- wake up and smell the complexity...
Darwin had his turn, it's time to face up to reality.

Another fine example of proof by vigorous assertion. Repeat until true.

PS: When you've got a good explanation for how saying "God did it!" solves your vexing complexity problem, rather than just adding a new entity and moving the same problem into a new box with a different label, do get back to us.
We were once so close to heaven
Peter came out and gave us medals
Declaring us the nicest of the damned -- They Might Be Giants          See the stars at skyviewcafe.com
Reply
We were once so close to heaven
Peter came out and gave us medals
Declaring us the nicest of the damned -- They Might Be Giants          See the stars at skyviewcafe.com
Reply
post #231 of 411
Pfft. Concerning the floods... I'm in hydrology. I might be a hydrologist. You make me laugh kid.

And as for calling marcUK a troll. Look at your post count. Look at his. He is bigger. Size matters. You lose!

Someone please prove God or Creationism or something. Stop boring me.
"Overpopulation and climate change are serious shit." Gilsch
"I was really curious how they had managed such fine granularity of alienation." addabox
Reply
"Overpopulation and climate change are serious shit." Gilsch
"I was really curious how they had managed such fine granularity of alienation." addabox
Reply
post #232 of 411
Quote:
Unbelievable. Another tour de force of mutual respect and tolerance on the pages of Appleinciter.

Tolerance from dmz (a Bushie) hahahaha!!!! So you're saying... "Why can't you be tolerant of my intolerance!"

Pfft. You don't have a grasp on...infinity either it seems.

Man you guys should go to high school, and college, and get back to us.

You seriously lack information.

I shudder to think about all the kids growing up in the South.
"Overpopulation and climate change are serious shit." Gilsch
"I was really curious how they had managed such fine granularity of alienation." addabox
Reply
"Overpopulation and climate change are serious shit." Gilsch
"I was really curious how they had managed such fine granularity of alienation." addabox
Reply
post #233 of 411
Quote:
Originally posted by dmz
Evolution simply doesn't work at ANY level

I don't have the smilie I need. This is, well, it's a lie, I think. It's contemptible, anyway.



Quote:
Originally posted by dmz
Speciation works like the dickens, so does adaptation -- but the curtain is coming down on the concept of "Evolution"

While this is just, well, contemptible. This is just wrong; it is not true, or right, or accurate (or 'correct', if you like). There's been no sudden controversy. Researchers in laboratories across the globe aren't stepping away from their computers shaking their heads, going 'something's just not... right.' The letters pages in peer-reviewed journals aren't filled with articles with new evidence causing people to reappraise their lives' work.

Its just not happening.

Sorry, and all.

Quote:
Originally posted by dmz
Genisis could be literal, figurative, abstract impressionist, you name it -- the universe could be infinite -- there still isn't enough time.

The Yoruba idea that the world was created when Obatala climbed down a white sheet with a five-toed chicken, a snail shell full of earth and some palm kernels could be literal, figurative, abstract impressionist, you name it -- and there's no more and no less evidence for it than Genesis Chapters One and Two (which I've been reading lately, and absolutely love.)

[edit: had a bad morning and dmz was in the firing line. Better now. Sorry.]
post #234 of 411
Quote:
Originally posted by tonton
The consensus is not that humans are descended from apes, but that humans and apes are both descended from the same extinct creature (which was probably "apelike", since humans are certainly apelike)

I thought that technically humans *are* apes (along with common & pygmy chimpanzees aka bonobos, gorillas, orang-utans and gibbons, the common factor being "primates with short tails or no tail at all") but I could be wrong.

Some more info: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ape
a flirt with mediocrity comes with heavy penalty
Reply
a flirt with mediocrity comes with heavy penalty
Reply
post #235 of 411
Quote:
Originally posted by stupider...likeafox
I thought that technically humans *are* apes (along with common & pygmy chimpanzees aka bonobos, gorillas, orang-utans and gibbons, the common factor being "primates with short tails or no tail at all") but I could be wrong.

You maniacs! You blew it up! (etc).
Stoo
Reply
Stoo
Reply
post #236 of 411
OK here is my favorite thing about Creationists. They are Christian. They have "Faith."

Why are YOUR ideas right, and EVERY other religion's ideas wrong? Why aren't the Sioux or Australian Aboriginal ideas about how we were created more right than yours? HUH? So that is why, no, I won't tolerate your intolerance. dmz I'm looking at you.
"Overpopulation and climate change are serious shit." Gilsch
"I was really curious how they had managed such fine granularity of alienation." addabox
Reply
"Overpopulation and climate change are serious shit." Gilsch
"I was really curious how they had managed such fine granularity of alienation." addabox
Reply
post #237 of 411
Quote:
Originally posted by dmz
Unbelievable. Another tour de force of mutual respect and tolerance on the pages of Appleinciter.

I knew I should have taken that left turn at Albuquerque.


Folks, Evolution simply doesn't work at ANY level -- wake up and smell the complexity. Speciation works like the dickens, so does adaptation -- but the curtain is coming down on the concept of "Evolution" -- a 100 years of hemming and hawwing on the avialibility of evidences (and what constitutes them) is just too long.

Darwin had his turn, it's time to face up to reality.

Genisis could be literal, figurative, abstract impressionist, you name it -- the universe could be infinite -- there still isn't enough time.

Comtemptible foolishness.
"In a republic, voters may vote for the leaders they want, but they get the leaders they deserve."
Reply
"In a republic, voters may vote for the leaders they want, but they get the leaders they deserve."
Reply
post #238 of 411
Quote:
Originally posted by Aquatic
OK here is my favorite thing about Creationists. They are Christian. They have "Faith."

Why are YOUR ideas right, and EVERY other religion's ideas wrong? Why aren't the Sioux or Australian Aboriginal ideas about how we were created more right than yours? HUH? So that is why, no, I won't tolerate your intolerance. dmz I'm looking at you.

I think their vehemence is in direct proportion to their wrongness - inside they know they are talking crap.

No other religion behaves like this, in fact most religions creation stories have a strong component which can be explained as referring to evolution rather than the creationist view. Some even explicitly state evolution occurs - Islam for example has certain key Qur'anic passages and Muslim thinkers stated a theory of evolution explicitly in the thirteenth century.
What is Faith? When your good deed pleases you and your evil deed grieves you, you are a believer. What is Sin? When a thing disturbs the peace of your heart, give it up - Prophet Muhammad
Reply
What is Faith? When your good deed pleases you and your evil deed grieves you, you are a believer. What is Sin? When a thing disturbs the peace of your heart, give it up - Prophet Muhammad
Reply
post #239 of 411
Quote:
Originally posted by stupider...likeafox
I thought that technically humans *are* apes (along with common & pygmy chimpanzees aka bonobos, gorillas, orang-utans and gibbons, the common factor being "primates with short tails or no tail at all") but I could be wrong.

Some more info: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ape

I heard two parrots discuss if they descended from the birds the other day...
Bill Bradley to comedian Bill Cosby: "Bill, you are a comic, tell us a joke!"
- "Senator, you are a politician, first tell us a lie!"
Reply
Bill Bradley to comedian Bill Cosby: "Bill, you are a comic, tell us a joke!"
- "Senator, you are a politician, first tell us a lie!"
Reply
post #240 of 411
Quote:
Originally posted by dmz
Unbelievable. Another tour de force of mutual respect and tolerance on the pages of Appleinciter.

I knew I should have taken that left turn at Albuquerque.


Folks, Evolution simply doesn't work at ANY level -- wake up and smell the complexity. Speciation works like the dickens, so does adaptation -- but the curtain is coming down on the concept of "Evolution" -- a 100 years of hemming and hawwing on the avialibility of evidences (and what constitutes them) is just too long.

Darwin had his turn, it's time to face up to reality.

Genisis could be literal, figurative, abstract impressionist, you name it -- the universe could be infinite -- there still isn't enough time.

DMZ is not intelligent enough to fathom the complexity of it all, so to him it's simply not possible. "It's too complex, so it can't be true."

Dumb Methodist Zealot
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: General Discussion
AppleInsider › Forums › General › General Discussion › Human common descent ancestor discovered