|
||||||
 |
Recent Posts | Search by username | |
Contact Us | |
Login | |
Register |
 |
 |
|||||
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
|
24HourForums.com > The Top 10 Supported Forums > 24's Religion & Philosophy > The Official Evolution vs Creation thread for 24 and PMH. |
| Moderated by: 24HourNut | Page:   ... 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 ...   |
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| Author | Post | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
24HourNut Administrator  Body pillows rock!
|
  |
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Yes, cavemen, and the early hominids before them, are the result of lots of microevolutionary changes over time. These in-betweens are not primates, but do not stand up and operate, talk, or are much like modern humans. As for more evidence - just Google "evidence for evolution" or "did man evolve from primate" and so forth to start reading about the mountain load of it. I only presented 5 or 6 lines of evidence - just a speck on the surface of what is out there for you to research if you wish. Your 5% figure is off - try 1.23% with chimps: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Human_evolutionary_genetics The complete mapping of the common chimpanzee genome in the summer 2005 showed the genetic difference with humans to be 1.23% (i.e., 98.77% similarity). Nature, in September 2005, published a seminal paper on comparison studies by 67 prominent scientists. Almost half of that 1.23% change belongs to the human at 0.53%, whose genetic variance is slower than a chimp, and just over half to the chimp at 0.7%. If we also take into account that random "genetic drift" takes up the bulk of the 0.54% difference, then that percentage difference where genes have a potential positive impact on human abilities, is between 0.01% and 0.02%. The bonobo is a sibling species of common chimpanzee and is genetically about as different from humans as are common chimps. What a coincidence - all the scientific evidence points to humans being primates and having evolved/branched off from them - AND God loves primates so much, he make a mountain of evidence lead, after thousands of years, the entire world-wide scientific community to claiming this. Remove archaic text, your speculative and emotional based BS revolving around God writing books for people, and it is practically common sense that we did. Like I said, only religious fanatics "don't know" if dinosaurs were on the Ark, claim the Adam & Eve incestuous family with bonus talking snake is the start of people, and act like practically all of the evidence that modern science has for the evolution of humans from primates is invalid. Right, sure, whatever you say!
 The best human beings start good new topics and vote on the better posts. |
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Brian Grand Poobah of Moderation 
|
|
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
pmh1nic wrote: Brian I can certainly agree that the scope of living females narrows as you go back in time. That's just common sense. At some point in the past, there was one fully-human female and one fully-human male. In that sense, there was, at one time, obviously what you could call an "Adam" and an "Eve". But that's really not the crux of the issue. The issue is that the Bible says that God created Adam out of nothing and Eve out of Adam's rib (or that he created them both from mud, depending on which Genesis story you're dealing with). It's that part that is problematic, because everything we know about biology tells us that living organisms don't just poof into existence. The DNA and fossil evidence demonstrates a lineage that goes back before Mitochondrial Eve into earlier hominids. (I don't want to get into a discussion about Cromagnon man or Neanderthals at this point. The science points to Neanderthals co-existing with modern humans, but speciation between them is another question. There's some evidence of cross-breeding between Neanderthals and humans, but I have no idea how conclusive that is, or what it means in terms of them being distinct species. When I've read up on it more, I can return to that topic.) Now, I know you're not going to accept the idea of earlier hominids being related to humans genetically. Your argument seems to be (if I remember it right) that similarities don't mean they're related, or that one evolved from the other. However, you might ask yourself this: If such genetic similarities across time are not indicative of heredity, how do paternity (or any DNA ancestry) tests work reliably? One might liken it to frames in a movie. If you've got 30fps (frames per second), you can see the motion very cleanly, and you get a clear picture of causality. At 10fps, the video is jerky, but you can still make out movement, and how the movie flows logically. Right now, we're probably at the 5-10 frames per second level of genetics. The broad progression is visible, but a lot of the details aren't there. pmh1nic wrote: I'd also note the use of the term most likely in the statement regarding a bottleneck indicates a lack of conclusiveness regarding the statement. Very true. But there's a difference between a lack of conclusiveness and not having any idea at all. If I say, "It's most likely that I won't get hit by a bus when I go outside my apartment.", my lack of certitude doesn't mean that it's just as likely I'll get hit by a bus as not.
"It's been a long December, and there's reason to believe maybe this year will be better than the last." -- "A Long December", Counting Crows |
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
pmh1nic Pioneer100© Member 
|
|
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
JBF The universe and everything in it proclaims His majesty, glory, wisdom and power. "how unsearchable are His judgements and His ways passed finding out." Those that claim there is no God have to then accept the idea that from the rudimentary elements that existed in the early universe life with all of its vast complexity just happened by random chance events. In order to overcome the "random" aspect they will make the laws of physics "God" saying the universe is the way it is just because it is the way it is. But this ignors the fact that it requires more then just the laws of physics which dictate how elements bond to accomplish the exceeding complex ordering of the elements required to produce the materials for life. Evolutionary theory on the scale to get from star stuff to an ameba (abiogenesis) and then from amega to man still comes down to believing that life is the product of these rudimentary laws of physics and happenstance (random selection). This is not only unscientific but illogical if logic is based in our experience as intelligent observers. For over a century men of a naturalistic mindset have bent over backwards trying to make that argument fit. Unfortunately for them the more we learn about the complexity of life the more improbable the evolutionary explanation becomes.
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
pmh1nic Pioneer100© Member
|
|
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Brian "The issue is that the Bible says that God created Adam out of nothing and Eve out of Adam's rib (or that he created them both from mud, depending on which Genesis story you're dealing with). It's that part that is problematic, because everything we know about biology tells us that living organisms don't just poof into existence." I can understand the difficult of accepting the idea that life just poof, came into being. My problem is the alternative explanation doesn't make sense scientifically (at least based on the science as I understand it) or logically. "But there's a difference between a lack of conclusiveness and not having any idea at all." A difference? Yes. Much difference? Not necessarily.
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Brian Grand Poobah of Moderation
|
|
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
pmh1nic wrote: Brian I think I can understand your difficulty. Your religious faith conflicts with what mainstream science has to say about origins, and if it's a matter of choosing between your faith and a scientific principle, that's not really any choice at all, as far as you can tell. I can actually relate to that. As I've said in other threads, the kind of God presented in the Bible conflicts with what I see around me, and how I feel things should work. Without further evidence, it's not really a choice for me, either. In terms of evolution, the only thing I can say is that there's only one mechanism we know of for propogating life and allowing inheritance: DNA. Given that, there's only one way to get from Point A (a world without humans) to point B (a world with humans). There's never going to come a point when science can absolutely rule out the idea that God killed off earlier hominids, and started fresh with modern humans, using the same blueprint He used with earlier hominids. There's nothing to indicate that that happened, but there's no way to rule it out, either. (The same goes for life being seeded from spaceships.) Like a criminal investigation, all we can do is go with the physical evidence, and the story that paints. Anything that tries to go outside that, isn't science. There's also a problem with certain people with scientific backgrounds outside of the proper disiciplines (e.g., guys like Hoyle and Behe) muddying the waters with conclusions drawn on false premises of how evolution works (e.g., calculating the odds that a modern strand of DNA would spontaneously come together out of nothing). I think the best way to think about it, if you want to think about it, is to ask: What's the mechanism? If there's only one way of getting from point A to point B that makes any sense, then that's how it was done, even if the details of how the mechanism works need a lot more study. pmh1nic wrote: "But there's a difference between a lack of conclusiveness and not having any idea at all." The problem with the way the article was written is that it doesn't give you an idea of what the relative probabilities are for human populations starting out with a bottleneck vs. the probability that that's not how it started out.
"It's been a long December, and there's reason to believe maybe this year will be better than the last." -- "A Long December", Counting Crows |
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
pmh1nic Pioneer100© Member
|
|
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Brian "Your religious faith conflicts with what mainstream science has to say about origins," Actually that's not my problem. My problem is mainstream science seems to have departed from "real" science. "There's never going to come a point when science can absolutely rule out the idea that God..." This really isn't central to the argument I'm making. My argument is the process being proposed for getting from A to B isn't substantially supported (some would argue not support at all) by hard scientific investigation reguarding what can and cannot be accomplished via mutation and happenstance (natural selection). Variation yes, ameba to man, no. We do understand that differences in DNA result in differences in life forms. You seem to believe that by default those differences no matter how vast have to be the product of a microevolution process (mutations) and happenstance extend to the nth degree. I disagree with that default position based on the science regarding genetic mutations, a subject we have discussed at length. The fact that science might coincide with the Bible's description of the creation of man should cause others to discount the science.
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
24HourNut Administrator Body pillows rock!
|
|
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
pmh1nic wrote: For over a century men of a naturalistic mindset have bent over backwards trying to make that argument fit. There is no bending over backwards, it's just where all the evidence keeps pointing to.
The best human beings start good new topics and vote on the better posts. |
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
24HourNut Administrator Body pillows rock!
|
|
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
pmh1nic wrote: Brian We already know microevolution happens and can produce great variation and subsets within species. We know a new niche can be exploited and that variant have its own branch or bush of variations, now very different from the original pack. And so on and so on. That is what the evidence supports. You have ZERO evidence to negate that claim and evidence. There is no new information or genetic gap problem to get from primate to early hominid in a series of micro evolutions, over millions of years (if chimps have 1.23% difference with us, then the stages between primate and hominid would be a fraction of that). There is absolutely no reason whatsoever to doubt the scientific community's mountain of overlapping lines of evidence pointing to and supporting many stages from primates to man. There is absolutely no reason to believe the Bible as scientifically sound in regard to how species came about and are around today (The Ark BS, for example). We are, in effect, just another primate - closer to chimps than many other primates are to chimps!! What a coincidence, Pmh! That's something, isn't it? How God made is be closer to chimps genetically than many other primates? While at the same time, all the evidence supports us evolving from the same primate branch? Please ...
The best human beings start good new topics and vote on the better posts. |
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
pmh1nic Pioneer100© Member
|
|
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
"We know a new niche can be exploited and that variant have its own branch or bush of variations, now very different from the original pack. And so on and so on." You were doing well until you got to the "and so on and so on". You continue to ignor the genetic barriers to the millions of and so on's occurring over hundreds of millions of years to get from ameba to man. Slight variations caused by mutation errors that via happenstance result in the mutation having a positive selective value are very rare. They cannot be responsible for creating the bridge from ameba to man.
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
24HourNut Administrator Body pillows rock!
|
|
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
pmh1nic wrote: "We know a new niche can be exploited and that variant have its own branch or bush of variations, now very different from the original pack. And so on and so on." And so on and so on is just more microevolutionary activity. There is no magical barricade to a variant evolving to have its own variant, exploiting more niches, and so on. I mean, we know this happens. There is no scientific barrier for a primate to get to a hominid over millions of years by that process, as the evidence indicates. There just isn't. You can keep pretending there is a reason the scientific community and the evidence is wrong, but there is no reason to think the mountain of evidence for primates to hominids, then hominids to modern humans is invalid. Unless, of course, you try to take the Bible literally and start using that speculative literally work as "science." But all clear-thinking modern people know that is BS.
The best human beings start good new topics and vote on the better posts. |
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
pmh1nic Pioneer100© Member
|
|
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
"And so on and so on is just more microevolutionary activity. There is no magical barricade." The barricade isn't magical it's mathamatical and based on what we know about the nature of mutations, mutation rates, mutation survival and the genetic gap that exist between ameba and man. That gap could not have been bridge based on the facts regarding mutations. The vast amounts of new genetic information required to go from ameba to man could not have been generated through a process of random mutation errors and happenstance even given hundreds of millions of years.
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
24HourNut Administrator Body pillows rock!
|
|
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
pmh1nic wrote: "And so on and so on is just more microevolutionary activity. There is no magical barricade." That's right, there is no magical barricade to variants of variants continuing as they exploit niches, becoming very different from the original pack over millions of years. All the science on what we know about the "nature of mutations, mutation rates, mutations survival" supports and points to lots of microevolutionary steps between primate and hominid, hominid to human. We know microevolution happens. We know it continues as the variant exploits another niche, continuing a string of microevolutionary adaptations. String more and more and more over millions of years and you have what all the science supports - humans evolving from primates. No new info problem, no genetic barricade to this natural adaptation of another primate (humans). Remember, we are more like chimps genetically than many primates! You have ZERO evidence to negate the mountain of evidence from the world-wide scientific community regarding humans evolving from primates. None. Despite your emotional, speculative, and personal feelings, the Bible doesn't count - sorry.
The best human beings start good new topics and vote on the better posts. |
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Brian Grand Poobah of Moderation
|
|
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
pmh1nic wrote: Brian How are you defining "real" science? If you're defining "science" as only that which you can observe happen directly, then you eliminate a whole range of disciplines, such as geology, astronomy, etc. There are ways to examine data, test, and draw conclusions that don't involve direct observation. (In astronomy, in particular, there are lots of phenomena that can't be directly observed, but have to be inferred and tested with limited circumstantial data.) pmh1nic wrote: "There's never going to come a point when science can absolutely rule out the idea that God..." This is the problem: The only mechanism available for the creation of new lifeforms is mutation. There isn't any other way to get from point A to point B. It doesn't make any sense to say it can't happen that way, when life on Earth only has that way to be produced. And we know ho wlife reproduces itself, and how mutations occur, by direct observation. We see gradual changes in populations all the time (including changes that cause speciation). What's never been seen, in the history of mankind, is a complex (or even a simple) organism arising from nothing. Let's say you have a locked room, with only a door to the outside (i.e., no windows, no trap doors, or anything else to let you out). You put someone in that room, lock it, and leave, stationing a guard outside so that no one can give assistance. (Assume that the guard cannot, either.) You come back an hour later, and the guy is standing on the outside of the door. Now, you know the only way out of the room is through the door, and you know the person didn't get any help. The only logical conclusion is that the guy found a way to get through the door somehow. Would it make any sense to stand there and say, "We did tests, and our tests show that that door is impregnable"? That's essentially what's going on here: There's only one mechanism for heredity to work, and there's only one way for species to come about. pmh1nic wrote: We do understand that differences in DNA result in differences in life forms. You seem to believe that by default those differences no matter how vast have to be the product of a microevolution process (mutations) and happenstance extend to the nth degree. That's the only mechanism available. There simply isn't another way that variation happens within populations. If you're proposing another mechanism, you've got to show evidence for the mechanism (and not just calculations that show how it "couldn't" happen through the only known mechanism, because when the calculations butt up against what happens in real life, it's the calculations that are wrong, not the observations.) pmh1nic wrote: The fact that science might coincide with the Bible's description of the creation of man should cause others to discount the science. I'm not sure what you mean by this. Could you elaborate?
"It's been a long December, and there's reason to believe maybe this year will be better than the last." -- "A Long December", Counting Crows |
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
24HourNut Administrator Body pillows rock!
|
|
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Just found ... http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20080625/ap_on_sc/sci_fish_evolution WASHINGTON - Scientists unearthed a skull of the most primitive four-legged creature in Earth's history, which should help them better understand the evolution of fish to advanced animals that walk on land. 
The best human beings start good new topics and vote on the better posts. |
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
pmh1nic Pioneer100© Member
|
|
| ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
