Topic awaiting preservation: The Pseudoscience of Intelligent Design (Page 4 of 6)

Well its seems to me: Intelligence Design/Creationist/Evolutionist theorist could all be lumped together as one package all working together as one. Why does it have to be either or? Are we a product of intelligent design created by something or someone to evolutionize into whatever we are or are to become? What's wrong with that theory? It involves all three beliefs. That way everybody is happy. This, I am right and you are wrong mentality is not leaving the mind open to other possibilities in regard to why we are here. Not one scholar or studied person on this planet has solved the mystery or found the scientific truth. If we haven't found the missing link yet, chances are it will never be found. Scientist do not have all the answers. They are not intelligent enough to figure it out. If we are to believe in intelligent design, why are we not made all perfectly intelligent already, without going thru the process of evolution? Why do we have to evolutionize into intelligence? Doesn't make sense. What would be the purpose? And if science has determined the origins of our physical evolutionary development thru the past ages, why have they not determined our physical evolutionary stages in the ages to come thur scientific experimentation. Can we see a picture or drawing of what we will look like as a species 5000 years from now? Will we experience retro evolutionary stages and revert back to tadpoles? Who has all the answers?

jade:

quote:

---

What's wrong with that theory? It involves all three beliefs. That way everybody is happy.

---

What's wrong, is that you call evolutionism a "belief" while we know it's a fact and witness it everyday. Let's say it one more time with feelings : Evolutionism is a fact, contrary to ID and Creationism. That way, not everybody ( far from it ) is happy.

I hope you know that mankind, and more precisely the homo sapiens sapiens, has almost not changed since its apparition ~130,000 years ago so your 5,000 years projection is a little short. Anyway if you want a picture of a human some 5,000 years in the future, wrap some sheets of aluminum around your head, put a tea spoon in your mouth and look in a mirror. More seriously, determinig the shape of our ancestor is rather easy since all we have to do is to dig and rebuild their skeletons. On the other hand envisioning the shape of our grand-grand-grand-children is a radically different task. Nonetheless if we follow the "pattern" of evolution leading the pre-humans to us, the overall size of the genus homo and the size of its skull should continue to grow slowly. That's a subtle change, and will probably not consitute a new species.

I don't see what you mean by "retro evolutionary stages". Evolution is evolution. It is exent of the notion of forward or backward. It is the accumulation of many subtle changes ( due to genetic mutations/crossing emphasized by environmental pressure ) that make new species. To answer you question, it's likely that mankind will extint and tadpoles spread. But I seriously doubt mankind as it is will undergo the many subtle changes leading us to reach the state of tadpole. I don't see neither what kind of environmental pressure could lead us in that direction. The homo sapiens sapiens have been able to colonize many environments and resist to many predators for more than 100,000 years now, so the way it is seems quite viable. In that it's not unique. Several other species have remain almost the same for millions of years.


NB: I don't remember if you believe in Creationism, so 5,000 may be like forever for you, since it'd be almost the age of the earth.



(Edited by poi on 06-15-2005 01:50)

You like to spit out the "science doesn't have all the answer" crap whenever possible Jade.

Let me remind you, yet again, that science does not claim to have all the answers.

Science is a process. It is not a holy book or a guru sitting in a desert cave.

Nobody has all the answers. Plenty of religious people think they do, and think they should push those 'answers' into science classes.

Evolution is science. Evolution is known to occur - we've observed it.

Everything else you talk about in your post is gibberish...

quote:

---

I hope you know that mankind, and more precisely the homo sapiens sapiens, has almost not changed since its apparition ~130,000 years ago so your 5,000 years projection is a little short.

---

Well...that is not exactly true. The new find, the "hobbits" (as they are being called) seem to represent evolutionary changes in Homo sapiens sapiens responding to the environment (and that within the 130,000 years projection).

Nice post, DL. I agree with it 100%.

^ sure. As you say, the "hobbits" were stuck on an island, thus a strong environmental stress eased the expression of new genetic alterations.
Today it's hardly possible to be stuck anywhere on the globe, unless you decide to.

Ah Poi, THAT would explan Texas!

Never let your sense of morals get in the way of doing what's right.
Isaac Asimov
US science fiction novelist & scholar (1920 - 1992)

Are you acrediting me with the design of life on Earth D-man?

"For reason is a property of God's...moreover, there is nothing He does not wish to be investigated and understood by reason." ~Tertullian de paenitentia Carthaginian Historian 2nd century AD

quote:

---

Ah Poi, THAT would explan Texas!

---

Huh?

Okay Poi, I would like to clear one thing up, there are two thoughts to Evolution. I believe you are entertaining one, and Jade is another.

quote:

---

poi said:

Let's say it one more time with feelings : Evolutionism is a fact, contrary to
ID and Creationism.

---

Either way, this statement is wrong.
If you take the statement from the point I hope you were trying to argue that since evolution happens and has been recorded, it is a fact. That is a sound statement, but that statement does not in itself discredit ID or Creation which both allow plenty of time for Evolution (just not on a grand scale in Creation's case).
If you are taking the statement from what I hope Jade's view is, then the second part of the statement is correct. Evolution is the Atheistic approach to life evolving randomly over a long period of time. That contradicts Creation with the long periods of time, and that also contradicts ID with the Atheistic approach. Unfortunately, the first part of the statement is wrong in this case. Extrapolating Evolution into the past and adding Atheism is a belief, and it furthermore cannot be proven (or disproven). Thus in this instance Evolution is not a fact.
[Just wanted to clear that up, because I have ran into this trap in arguments before, and it becomes very confusing. I don't mean to be rude, I just didn't want this to turn into a shouting contest, again.]

"For reason is a property of God's...moreover, there is nothing He does not wish to be investigated and understood by reason." ~Tertullian de paenitentia Carthaginian Historian 2nd century AD

quote:

---

Either way, this statement is wrong.

---

Nope, sorry. It is completely accurate.

quote:

---

but that statement does not in itself discredit ID or Creation which both allow plenty of time for Evolution

---

Which has nothing to do with anything.

You can beleive whatever you want about unprovable reasons for evolution. But those beliefs are not facts. Period. There are no two ways about it. There is no hint of evidence to support those belief systems scientifically. No amount of "yeah, but it could have happened" will change that.

quote:

---

Evolution is the Atheistic approach....

---

Whoah! Backup there.....
Evolution has nothing whatsoever to do with theism/atheism. It is not an 'atheistic' approach - it is the explanation that is supported by science to explain the way that organisms grow and change. Any religious or anti-religious dogma you choose to attach is seperate and irrelevant.

quote:

---

Extrapolating Evolution into the past and adding Atheism is a belief, and it furthermore cannot be proven (or disproven). Thus in this instance Evolution is not a fact.

---

I am certain that you think this somehow makes sense.

It doesn't.

As stated above, evolution has nothing to do with theism on any level.

It is this simple (yeah, what the hell...i'll say it one more time ): evolution as a scientific principle is completely seperate from the notion of god. Any involvment you feel that you god may have in the process is completely unsupported by evidence. This does not prove that god is not there. We are forced to exclude god from consideration due to lack of evidence.

Once scientific evidence of god is found, then we can include it in our science class.

Until then - no.

For the sake of clarity, the condensed version:

evolution: fact. it happens. we've seen it, and we've documented it throughout the prehistory of our world.

biblical creationism: story. we have a text from thousands of years ago, sounding much like all the other creation myths in the world, which is somehow supposed to be considered as true simply becuase it is written. There is no evidence of any kind to support the idea that it is true.

intelligent design: simple concept that somehow has turned into a movement to call belief science. there is no shred of evidence whatsoever to support it.

ID is the Evolution of Creationism.

The problem Gid has, DL, is that Evolution contradicts the YEC standpoint, which he believes in.

And because it is belief, no amount of factual reasoning with him will work, as uncountable threads of yore and this one shows.

He must attempt to refute Evolution, and do everything he can to continue doing so, to keep and hold his belief in YEC. That is why he cannot accept Evolution as fact - despite the huge amount of evidence that has been paraded under his nose by members of this board.

He is irrational.

It is a waste of time trying to make that horse drink. He has been led to water so many times before, but still complains about being thirsty and having nothing to drink.

Don't water the troll!

Gideon: I'll just waste 2 more minute to comment this quote:

quote:

---

Extrapolating Evolution into the past and adding Atheism is a belief,

---

Please bear in mind that when I'm talking about Evolution, I'm not adding Atheism or removing Deism or who knows what. I'm talking about Science, and just Science.

WebShaman:

quote:

---

Don't water the troll!

---

Some times I wish we could flush him



(Edited by poi on 06-24-2005 00:39)

Whoa, whoa, whoa, WS.
AHH! PUN! AHH!
Where did I try and refute Evolution? I said that Evolution is a fact:

quote:

---

Gideon said:

it is a fact. That is a sound statement...

---

quote:

---

WebShaman said:

The problem Gid has, DL, is that Evolution contradicts the YEC standpoint, which
he believes in. And because it is belief, no amount of factual reasoning
with him will work...

---

I have no problems with those who believe in Evolutionism. I used to believe in it. Evolutionism is the creation story of the Atheist, simple as that. Sure that is not limited to Atheists, but you cannot deny that the majority are Atheistic.
I listen to all factual reasoning, but from over here, there are questions and gaps and miscalculations and lies. I will be frank and say that there is the same thing on the Creation side of things, but I chose which belief I would believe. I would really like you to respect that.

WS, you keep saying over and over how I am an evil troll who is irrational and conceited. I think you really should take a look at what you just wrote, in addition to several other posts I have read. I will agree that I have been rash, irrational, self-righteous, and close-minded at times. But if you call me those things, I am a firm believer that you are only calling out the parts of me you understand best because you identify with them. That happens a ton in name calling and insulting. I really hope that someday you can see that name calling does hurt others, and they cause rifts between people that are hard to repair. In arguments like that, the defeated walks away crushed and broken, while the victor walks away bitter. There is no winner when name calling starts. Please WS, don't do it anymore.

Okay, DL, I think you took this way too wrong. Evolution is a fact, as I have noted. Extrapolating Evolution into the past is not a fact, but a guess. Educated guess, but still a guess. That guess is centered on the belief that God did not intervene to create anything. It is centered on randomness and gradualness. You can label it what you want, but I label it Atheistic, because there is no God in the equation.

My condensed point of that DL, is that Evolution is a scientific observation, like photosynthesis. We know it happens because it has been documented. The problem is when people lump that point and try to pass it on to the belief that the Earth is billions of years old, and that people took millions of years to evolve from apes, without the help of God.

I agree that Evolution is science, but when Evolution is viewed throught Atheistic eyes you get one version of the Creation, and when it is viewed through Theistic you get a totally different one.

Please don't confuse Evolution and OE-Darwinian-Atheistic Evolutionism.

"For reason is a property of God's...moreover, there is nothing He does not wish to be investigated and understood by reason." ~Tertullian de paenitentia Carthaginian Historian 2nd century AD

quote:

---

poi said:

I'm talking about Science, and just Science.

---

Is it science with God - Deism
or science without God - Atheism?

There are only two answers. You cannot be in the middle, unless you want to pronounce ID or the "God of the Gaps," or something like that.

"For reason is a property of God's...moreover, there is nothing He does not wish to be investigated and understood by reason." ~Tertullian de paenitentia Carthaginian Historian 2nd century AD

How many times shall we say it ?

Science and religion are two different/separated things.

If it helps you rest in peace, you may consider that Science is agnostic.



(Edited by poi on 06-24-2005 01:06)

quote:

---

That guess is centered on the belief that God did not intervene to create anything. It is centered on randomness and gradualness.

---

No. This is where you are totally, completely, indisputably WRONG.

It is not centered on any belief that has anything to do with god - for or against.

It is based on what we KNOW from EVIDENCE.

quote:

---

Is it science with God - Deism
or science without God - Atheism?

There are only two answers.

---

This is logic doomed to fail.

Get this one simple fact through your head: Science is not with or without god. Science is science, pure and simple. Until god can be quantified scientifically, god is not part of science.

You can 'believe' whatever you want. You can put god as the foreman, driving these scientific principles, if that makes you feel better.

But there is no such thing as 'science with god' because science has no evidence of god. 'science with god' is Religion.

Religion != Science

And for the record: evolution is most certainly not a 'creation theory'. It does not explain the creation. It explains the evolution. Thus the name. Convenient, huh?

quote:

---

I said that Evolution is a fact: -Gid

---

quote:

---

We know it happens because it has been documented. The problem is when people lump that point and try to pass it on to the belief that the Earth is billions of years old, and that people took millions of years to evolve from apes, without the help of God. -Gid

---

You don't even know what Evolution is!

Humans DID NOT evolve from Apes, to start with. Evolution says that Man and Apes had a COMMON ANCESTOR!!

quote:

---

And for the record: evolution is most certainly not a 'creation theory'. It does not explain the creation. It explains the evolution. Thus the name. Convenient, huh? -DL

---

Since this explanation has been presented to the troll so many times, in so many different flavors, and the troll still does not wish to accept it, I name it for what it is :

Troll.

quote:

---

That guess is centered on the belief that God did not intervene to create anything. It is centered on randomness and gradualness. -Gid

---

Evolution says nothing about how things came into existence originally, nor does it in any form attempt to "disprove god".

Troll.

quote:

---

WS, you keep saying over and over how I am an evil troll who is irrational and conceited. I think you really should take a look at what you just wrote, in addition to several other posts I have read. I will agree that I have been rash, irrational, self-righteous, and close-minded at times. But if you call me those things, I am a firm believer that you are only calling out the parts of me you understand best because you identify with them. That happens a ton in name calling and insulting. I really hope that someday you can see that name calling does hurt others, and they cause rifts between people that are hard to repair. In arguments like that, the defeated walks away crushed and broken, while the victor walks away bitter. There is no winner when name calling starts. Please WS, don't do it anymore.

---

Blocks are mine.

First of all, since I don't believe in the concepts of good and evil (and have stated that before, and the troll is aware of this), I certainly wouldn't label someone as "good" or "evil".

Second, I never, ever suggested that the Troll was evil.

Third, I never suggested that the Troll was concieted.

Obviously I understand the Troll much better, than the Troll understands either us, or itself. And though at times I may be guilty of trolling, I am certainly not a Troll.

I will not stop calling things what they truly are.

Troll.

(Edited by WebShaman on 06-24-2005 07:16)

Good, evil, conceited....nope, just plain, downright, unadorned, butt-ugly stupid.

Never let your sense of morals get in the way of doing what's right.
Isaac Asimov
US science fiction novelist & scholar (1920 - 1992)

I have to backtrack a little here to answer this quote with my opinion:

Jade said:

quote:

---

Well its seems to me: Intelligence Design/Creationist/Evolutionist theorist could all be lumped together as one package all working together as one. Why does it have to be either or?

---

These three "systems" can't be lumped together because they don't fit together. It's either "creationism" or "evolutionism". ID, in my mind isn't even really a choice-- it's a cop-out. It's a wishy-washy theory developed by wishy-washy people who in truth just can't make up their mind which road they want to take. Look, if you believe in creationism, then you can NOT believe in evolution. Because to believe in creationism, then you must place 100% faith in the exact words of the Bible, (as it IS a biblical and religeous belief) and there is no evolution in the Bible or any other creation story. Period. If you believe in evolution, then you can NOT believe in creationism. This whole concept of Itelligent Design is crap, it should NOT be taught in school or anywhere else other than home--for those who choose to "not choose" instead of stand up for what they really believe, or in most cases even KNOW what they believe. Teach the creation at home, teach evolution in science class, and let each child make up their own mind. Of course, all that is only my humble opinion.

What do I believe? I believe in creationism. I said elsewhere that the bible is a history book, with a few moral truths mixed in. And I stick by that. But I also think that Genesis is one of the few books of the Bible that has not been fundamentally changed or influenced by other sources--in other words, that the HISTORY in Genesis is correct. I'm not going to get into the argument here of why I believe that, because it's pointless--most of you probably won't care why I believe that. And that's cool with me. If any of you do, then I'd be happy to discuss it with you off the message boards. All that being said, I don't scoff at those who believe evolution, it's a free country and your opinion is just as valid as mine and I respect it. What I don't respect is the decision not to decide. It becomes a pattern of behavior. Keep Itelligent Design OUT of schools.

*****
In the web that is my own, I begin again...

Well, I would be intersted in hearing your explaination in why you believe the story of Genesis as opposed to other books of the bible? Do you take it literally? If so, what is your concept of the seven days of creation?

I think the thought of intelligent design should be explored further.. If there is a course one would want to take in school to discuss or discover as opposed to darwin's evolution theory which still lacks the key scientific discovery of mans link to the ape, I thinks it ok. Research and development is always the best avenue.

(Edited by jade on 06-24-2005 15:22)

ID is creationism just dressed up.
"Wolf in sheeps'..." A skunk-cabbage by any other name would smell just as foul.

Jade - did you read the article that started this thread?

It is a pretty good summation of the 'further exploration' of ID, and demonstrates why it is such a flawed concept.

On a side note:
http://www.ucomics.com/nonsequitur/2005/06/23/

I've been to Wales, and it's not that bad!

Jade, that's too much to go into here, and is way off topic for this thread

If your'e really interested, is there a way I can cantact you off the boards? e-mail? Instant Messenger?

*****
In the web that is my own, I begin again...

WebShaman said

quote:

---

You don't even know what Evolution is!

Humans DID NOT evolve from Apes, to start with. Evolution says that Man and Apes had a COMMON ANCESTOR!!

---

I find this statement very confusing. If man did not evolve from apes, which did not happen, then how can apes and man have a common ancestor? You are basically saying that one species split into two different species, and I'm sorry, but there is no iota of proof from fossil records that show any evolution from one species into another different one, much less into two. (That I can find, anyway, and I have searched extensively--please show me or point me in the right direction if I have missed anything) If apes and man had a common ancestor, that ancester would have to be an Ape-Man, with the characteristics of both a man and an ape. So if this ape-man split into two species--one becoming man and the other becoming apes--wouldn't that mean that evolution actually went backward for the ape while going forward for the human? Or in the case of a common ancestor that was more primitive than either an ape or a man, that evolution was greatly speeded in the case of man and/or greatly slowed for the ape? In which case given millions of years (from now) the ape would then evolve into man also? Which you already agree in your statement did not happen in the past, so why should it in the future? I can find no logical explanation for man and ape having a common ancestor--other than aliens coming down and splicing genes into an ape long ago. A theory many believe, but I find as rediculous as man evolving from ape in the first place, or from a common ancestor.

Also, if man and ape had a common ancestor, what did that ancestor evolve from? To say that that two species split off from one, then that one had to split off from something else. Which brings us back to Macroevolution which is shown through fossil records NOT to have happened. A frog will remain a frog no matter if his size, color, or texture of skin changes over time to adapt to an environment. In order to believe that macroevolution does happen, then you also would believe that all life forms evolved from one small source of a simple life form millions of years ago. And that would go against the statement that has been made that evolution does not try to explain creation, that it just explains evolution.

Microevolution and Macroevolution are NOT the same thing, and one does not lead to the other. If that were the case, then we should technically have some apes that are looking more human these days, or some geckos that have feathers and beaks....but we don't. In other words, if one says that man and ape do have a common ancestor (macroevolution) and then states that evolution does not prove origins, only evolution (microevolution) then that person is contradictiong themselves.

Microevolution happens. It is small scale--and is easily observed in all living things. It is directed by dominant genes and survival of the fittest.

Macroevolution does not happen. It never has and never will. A rose by any other name is still a rose.
(and don't throw hybrids at me, such as the mule or the Liger, or even in plants--hybrids are sterile and don't occur naturally. If they do ever occur naturally, it's so rare or infrequent that it would still not explain the large variance of life forms today--even in a trillion years)

Im sorry, this is kind of off topic for the thread, as it was not intended to question origins at all, but to discuss what should be taught in a science class.... but the statement I quoted was made and I'm just looking for an answer to some confusing beliefs stated on this board.

I could direct it back to it's topic by asking: Which do you believe? Microevolution or Macroevolution, and which of these should be taught in a science class? Should Macroevolution be taught at all, since it is not proven, and in fact is DISproven--yet is being taught, (I remember it from school anyway--only it was just called "evolution"). And if it (mAcroevolution) should be taught, should it be taught in science or in philosophy, since it is a theory?

*****
In the web that is my own, I begin again...

(Edited by Belladonna on 06-25-2005 22:08)

quote:

---

If apes and man had a common ancestor, that ancester would have to be an Ape-Man, with the characteristics of both a man and an ape. So if this ape-man split into two species--one becoming man and the other becoming apes--wouldn't that mean that evolution actually went backward for the ape while going forward for the human?

---

You are very confused.

Humans and apes come from a common ancestor.

This means that a primitive species of primate spawned a variety of descendent species, which continued to branch off in different directions. One branch became us. Other branches became various species of ape.

It's not like there was an 'ape-man' who one day split into his component parts, creating man and ape in one fell swoop.

To say that a previous ancestor must have had traits of all species that descend from show a huge lack of understanding of the process. It is not difficult to see why you say it never happened....when you don't understand what the process being described even is.

quote:

---

If that were the case, then we should technically have some apes that are looking more human these days

---

Why the hell would we have that? This again shows a severe lack of understanding. Just becuase one species evolved a certain way means that all similar species must also evolve that way? That makes no sense at all. We gone along our path, and apes down there's. Evolution does not have an ultimate goal.

It is also important to note that evolution does not have anything to do with the subjective concept of improvement. It is about adaptation to the environment and conditions, and it doesn't always work out; thus there is no "forward" or "backward". There can be no direction when there is no destination.

I would be very interested in knowing what it is you think has disproven macroevolution?

quote:

---

In order to believe that macroevolution does happen, then you also would believe that all life forms evolved from one small source of a simple life form millions of years ago. And that would go against the statement that has been made that evolution does not try to explain creation, that it just explains evolution.

---

No. It still does not attempt to explain the creation. Taking it back as far as is possible to theorize still does not attempt to explain (nor can it at this point) what started life. It deals with what happened after that point.

As for it being a theory - it is a theory with a great deal of evidence to support it. Something being a theory does not mean that it is just an idea that someone randomly imagined, and called it science. It is a theory with 150 years of research by the global scientific community to back it up.

Evolution is a process that we can (and have) observe in lesser organisms - viruses, bacteria, and some insects.

It is very sound science, and belongs in science class.

Belladona: Gosh, it seems jade is not the only one to not understand Evolution.

As DL-44 just said, and myself before, the concept of forward and backward ( or upgrade and downgrade if we take a computer program analogy ) makes no sense in Evolution, and nature in general. The term evolution may be misleading to some people, because you're not the first one to misunderstand it and take it for it's daily meaning while it must be taken in the sense of changement/differentiation. Well, the same goes for the term scientific theory that many zealot fail, or refuse, to understand.

quote:

---

Also, if man and ape had a common ancestor, what did that ancestor evolve from? To say that that two species split off from one, then that one had to split off from something else. Which brings us back to Macroevolution which is shown through fossil records NOT to have happened. A frog will remain a frog no matter if his size, color, or texture of skin changes over time to adapt to an environment. In order to believe that macroevolution does happen, then you also would believe that all life forms evolved from one small source of a simple life form millions of years ago. And that would go against the statement that has been made that evolution does not try to explain creation, that it just explains evolution.

---

Since you consider that Evolution does not work on macroscopic scale, how do you explain the mutations of some insects ? More importantly, do you think the thousands of skeletons of hominid species have no relation among them and to us ?

Back to macroscopic evolution, is it that hard to consider that a species can evolve thanks to microsopic evolution affecting the way some cells, organs, limbs work ?

If you consider that life spawned by a bearded man living in the heavens, then I get why Evolution hurts you and that you can't accept the origin of the species as explained by Evolution. Yet Evolution does not explain ( no wonder since it's not its purpose ) the origin of the first bricks of life. For that you'll have to look at biology, physic and cosmology.


NB: Before roaming in the Asylum, I had never heard of Creationism, nor that some people question Evolution. It simply is beyond me. Among the co-workers I work with daily, there is a jewish, a budhist and a fervant chatolic ( that even took some unpaid vacation to assist the funerals of John Paul II ), and guess what ... they all raised an eyebrow when I told them about Creationism.



(Edited by poi on 06-25-2005 23:24)

quote:

---

To say that a previous ancestor must have had traits of all species that descend from show a huge lack of understanding of the process. It is not difficult to see why you say it never happened....when you don't understand what the process being described even is.

---

So are you saying that genes aren't passed on? That genes just create themselves? If a common ancestor split into various branches, why are we the only one to advance as far as we have mentally? Mutations alone can explain this?

And you still did not answer the second part of my question: If man and apes had a more primitive ancestor, why then are apes so far behind us? Don't say that they are not, that they are just different species and develped that way. If that kind of evolution happened in the past, then it should be happening today, and continue to happen. You can't have your cake and eat it too.

quote:

---

Why the hell would we have that? This again shows a severe lack of understanding. Just becuase one species evolved a certain way means that all similar species must also evolve that way? That makes no sense at all. We gone along our path, and apes down there's. Evolution does not have an ultimate goal.

---

Because. If evolution happened in the past, it is happening today. True, that kind of evolution would not happen over night. But there would be some evidence of animals in the transitional phase of evolving from one species to another. We don't have that anywhere on this planet that I am aware of. A bird is a bird, a reptile is a reptile, a mammal is a mammal. An ape is an ape, a man is a man. I would love to be able to travel into the future, and watch people dig up our skeletons and the skeletons of Gorillas. They would say the same thing about us and apes that we are saying now. Again, this is only my opinion, and it could be wrong. But please don't say I don't understand what I'm talking about. I may see it from a different view than you, but I understand it very well.

quote:

---

It is also important to note that evolution does not have anything to do with the subjective concept of improvement. It is about adaptation to the environment and conditions, and it doesn't always work out; thus there is no "forward" or "backward". There can be no direction when there is no destination.

---

I agree with this statement 100% That is why apes are still apes and man is still man. And will be a trillion years from now, barring destruction of the earth. For example: Man did not have to develop morals in order to adapt to his environment. On the contrary, in view of all of history, and in watching the evening news, it would seem that morals would have been the worst trait we could develop when it comes to adaptation. However, as distructive as it has been in ways, we are still around and our numbers are growing. Adaptation of a species is microevolution.

quote:

---

I would be very interested in knowing what it is you think has disproven macroevolution?

---

A number of reasons. For one, Living Fossils. There are still animals and organisms around today that are the same structure as they were long long ago. Clams, turtles, even alligators and crocodiles. There is fossil eveidence of those things changeing in size, or color or whatever, but again, these are microevolution--adaptations within the species. And no fossil records of these animals having evolved from something else, or of evolving into something else. A clam is still a clam, a turtle is still a turtle, a croc is still a croc. What? did they just "stop evolving"? If macroevolution happened, it is still happening. And it can't be said that they are "recent evolutions" either because clams, for instance, (or very clam like animals, having two shells that are hinged) have been found in what is supposed to be the oldest layer of earth with fossils in them.

For another, the layers that fossils have been found in. Fossil remains of homo sapiens have been found in the same layer as some of the more primitive types *we are supposed to have evolved from*. How could a more primitive form evolve into something that was already there? Did we kill off other human type evolutions? To say that says that homo sapiens were already there too.

quote:

---

Evolution is a process that we can (and have) observe in lesser organisms - viruses, bacteria, and some insects.

---

Viruses and bacteria are a very good example of why macroevolution does not happen. We do observe the extremely fast mutations of these organisms. We have for a very long time. And in all that time, a virus is still a virus and bacteria is still bacteria. And it's safe to say that they have been mutating just as long as all other life, only much much faster. They adapt, become more resistant to our medicines, for sure. But for all their mutations, they are still just viruses and bacteria. Nothing more. Nothing less. And there is no reason to think that they ever will be.

*****
In the web that is my own, I begin again...

You seem to have skipped over the important piece of all of the above refutations.

There was a common ancestor.

That common ancestor split, into many different species. We have records of a huge variety of apes, a couple of different varieties more human like creatures.

They are all very different. And they all probably came from a common ancestor or more than one common ancestor.

You say that there are no links between the species and where you see no link, I see many. You have turtles and tortises. You have clams and oysters. You have a huge number of different kinds of horses.

You say that you see no link between them, and there is no great fossil record for the link. You first have to stop and remember that there are no gaint leaps. It happens so slow you would hardly notice. These slight differences would be the difference between the bone structure of a very fat tall person, compared to the bone structure of a really skinny short person. These people would still be considered part of the same species. But if the short skinny person went of to have 20 kids, and the fat man didn't have any, we are going to have a lot more short people around who are going to be reproducing. It is common for someone to say that if you have two short parents, you are most likely going to be short. There are exceptions, and this might be called a mutation.

If you want to talk about fossils, we might find a whole a ton of fossils, but in the grand scale, we have found what would be statistically so close to 0 as to be called 0. Lets just look at the number of humans who die in a year. The total numbr of fossils that we have recorded of really prehistoric creatures might come close this number give or take a magnitude of 10. So, when we look at things we might find big jumps and really close things, but when we look at these differences, it might be significant, but we wouldn't know if it were that different, to be another species, or just the difference between a tall fat person or the short skinny person.

There is not enough data.

There is much more to say, and maybe I will say it later, or maybe someone else can pick up on this trail. But it boils down to you are just glossing over the important aspects of this theory, and are looking critically at things that are not really a part of the theory.

Dan @ Code Town

quote:

---

why then are apes so far behind us?

---

You obviously either did not read, or did not understand my post.

Evolution has nothing to do with 'ahead' or 'behind'.

quote:

---

Because. If evolution happened in the past, it is happening today.

---

Which has nothing to do with anything whatsoever.

As stated: there is no ultimate goal in evolution. Apes are not on their way to becoming us, any more than chickens are.

(Edited by DL-44 on 06-26-2005 02:39)

Poi--the idea of evolution does not hurt me in any way whatsoever. Believe it or not, I'm actually looking for answers that will prove the evolutions of species in the magnitude you suggest. It would be a lot easier to prove that than to prove there is a God. Yes, I believe in God and have lots of faith and pray and all that jazz, but believe me when I say that it is not a blind faith in that I seek answers to hard questions. I do struggle with it a lot and and question the existance of God more often than I question the "facts" of science. Science, at this point in time, is much easier to believe than in God. There is no doubt about that. My career is in the field of medicine, for Christ's sake. I live, breathe, and do science every day. I understand about heredity, genes, mutations, and cellular structure. But I also understand that miracles do happen. I have seen them in my work. I can't explain them, and neither can anyone else who I work with who has seen the very same cases. I realize that that doesn't make me an expert in evalution, but I am not someone who does not "understand" it's workings. I understand it very well, in my view.

quote:

---

Since you consider that Evolution does not work on macroscopic scale, how do you explain the mutations of some insects ? More importantly, do you think the thousands of skeletons of hominid species have no relation among them and to us ?

Back to macroscopic evolution, is it that hard to consider that a species can evolve thanks to microsopic evolution affecting the way some cells, organs, limbs work ?

If you consider that life spawned by a bearded man living in the heavens, then I get why Evolution hurts you and that you can't accept the origin of the species as explained by Evolution. Yet Evolution does not explain ( no wonder since it's not its purpose ) the origin of the first bricks of life. For that you'll have to look at biology, physic and cosmology.

---

Please go back and read this statement carefully. It is a contradiction unto itself. Especially the last paragraph.

And let me clarify myself. I did not say that the human species has not evolved at all. But again, this is MICROEVOLUTION. Yes, we've found fossils of what we call more primitive man with stone tools and living in caves. But we were not there, we don't know that they were not as SMART as we are now. People just the LAST CENTURY didn't have planes, computers, cars. And would have laughed you off the face of the earth if you went back and told them they would. Do we say that they were more primitive than we are? No, we say they didn't have the knowledge yet. Size of brain then? Primitive man had smaller skulls, so they must have had smaller brains, so they must have been more primitive in their thinking. Not true. Just a guess. That cannot be proved. Neanderthal man actually had larger brains, but it seems that mitochondrial DNA has proved we DID NOT evolve from them, not even related really. Yet they MUST have been smarter, having larger brains and all. So where are they? Extinct, at least that's the word from the science world. But these fossils, these more primitive men, are NOT apes. They are by all accounts, men. We don't know that they could not have built an airplane if not given the technology. We don't know that at all. We DO know, however, that they COULD think and reason. They thought to sharpen stones. They thought to control fire. They thought to protect themselves from the cold with the skins of animals that they had to cut and sew and fit together. They LEARNED to use different materials, and that knowledge coupled with curiosity and the desire for better ways to do a thing led to more knowledge, and we are still learning and leading to more advanced technology for the very same reasons today that they advanced from stone to metal back then!

Mankind has indeed evolved, but from other mankind--in environmentally adaptational ways. And in very small ways at that. Like fur. Man lost his "fur" to adapt to warmer climates, right?. Nope. Gorillas that still live in the tropical rainforest still have fur. Oh, they developed wider nostrils to cool off better. Africans have wider nostrils than caucasions, supposedly they "evolved" this feature to cool off better. But they don't have fur. And those who migrated north to colder climates? They didn't "evolve" fur again. They've had plenty of time, but haven't done it. They are no more hairy than the rest of us. Why is this? Easy. Mankind NEVER had fur. Think about it. That's all I ask.

Believe it or not, I am an open minded person. And I realize that discoveries are being made all the time. But there has been no true definitive "no questions" evidence that man and ape has a common ancestor yet. I think I have some very valid questions to the theory. In my opinion, there never will be. But that doesn't mean I don't respect the continued search for one. I agree that mankind should continue the search.

As for the mutations in insects, give me a little more detail. Not quite sure which mutations you are talking about.

*****
In the web that is my own, I begin again...

quote:

---

Mankind NEVER had fur. Think about it. That's all I ask.

---

For starters, our bodies are covered with hair. There is a pretty clear trend that those wose ancestors are from cold climates have a great deal more body hair than those from warm climates. I have seen a great number of men that I would describe as furry, too

You have a great deal of flawed logic going on here. All three of your last posts throw out a lot of questions based on very flawed assumptions. I've pointed some of them out, but I urge you to re-read them, as you seem to have brushed them off pretty quickly.

Also, when we speak of evolution on the scale that we are, we are not talking about the state of primitive man 15 - 20,000 years ago. We had pretty much reached the stage we are at now by that point. You need to go back a *whole* lot further than that


As for the insects - I will see if I can dig up the article I had in mind. We have observed exactly the type of mutations that we talk about in evolution in certain species of insect (I don't recall which), as well as in bacteria and viruses *all* the time.



(Edited by DL-44 on 06-26-2005 02:54)

And let me add a little more here. About Africa. There are tribes in Africa today that still live in little more than huts, that still make their own tools, that still paint their faces with pigments made by hand. That still go around naked from the heat or wear some clothes made from grasses. Are you going to tell me that they are a more primitive form of human than you or me? We know that they are not. They are just as capable as we are. Especially since all life evolved from Africa? Can you not see that a million years from now, that if someone dug up all the fossils from this era, that they could come to the same conclusion that we are now?

*****
In the web that is my own, I begin again...

quote:

---

There are tribes in Africa today that still live in little more than huts, that still make their own tools, that still paint their faces with pigments made by hand. That still go around naked from the heat or wear some clothes made from grasses. Are you going to tell me that they are a more primitive form of human than you or me?

---

Which, again, has *nothing* to do with *anything*

(Edited by DL-44 on 06-26-2005 02:56)

Sorry, I'm trying to cook dinner, carry on a conversation with company, and post all at the same time, so I can't keep up.

I guess we have to agree to disagree. I don't think my logic is any more flawed than anyone else thinks theirs is. I do understand scientfic theory. But macroevolution has really not been proven, and ALL theories are still being researched. If you say macroevolution has been proven, please show me the proof. That's all I ask.

And thanks for looking up the articles. I'm really interested to see them.

*****
In the web that is my own, I begin again...

quote:

---

quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
There are tribes in Africa today that still live in little more than huts, that still make their own tools, that still paint their faces with pigments made by hand. That still go around naked from the heat or wear some clothes made from grasses. Are you going to tell me that they are a more primitive form of human than you or me?
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------



Which, again, has *nothing* to do with *anything*

---

<------shakes head and walks away from this discussion (for now)

I must say that I admire your stance. Unshakable. I respect that totally.

*****
In the web that is my own, I begin again...

Whew, what a lot of reading...got some of it...I think.

Just don't have the credentials to get nose-to-nose on a scientific level.

However, I suggest Bella you don't see "miracles" happening every day, but that your religious training cause you to interpret them that way, you merely see reality occuring as it has since the begining of time.

As for research into insects, I seem to recall Mayflies are the basis for many genetic and evolutionary studies.

Never let your sense of morals get in the way of doing what's right.
Isaac Asimov
US science fiction novelist & scholar (1920 - 1992)

Oh, and I know some men that could be called almost furry too. Very cuddly they are.

But explain the women? No woman anywhere could be called furry. But female apes are just as furry as their male companions.

Sorry, I had to come back and throw that in for thought.

*****
In the web that is my own, I begin again...

Belladonna - please explain to me what african tribes how dress and live in ways that some would call primitive has to do with a process going back millions of years?

Time frames like a few thousand years are relatively insiginificant with what we're talking about.

My stance is not 'unshakable', you are simply talking about things that have nothing to do with evolution, and using them as some sort of evidence against evolution...