Epicman

You forgot E None of the above

You have got to be kidding?!?!?!?!?!? You mean I get three mispoints because I disagree with you hiding this thread? "======================================= Evasion by implaction of abuse of mod powers =======================================" This forum is something else! Do the other moderators or the head moderator get copies of these threads and your responses to them? Your reaction is way off base when the topic is considered. I am not evading anything but it is apparent you are. No disrespect intended of course.

I have to admit that the "Science Forums and Debate" label at the top of my browser is misleading - if your reaction is common among moderators here. If you cannot defend your views in the open - as I do mine - I see no point in submitting to your demand of debating in a thread hidden from where it belongs: "This thread has been moved to psuedoscience, were it belongs, and where it shall remain..." I would think that if one did not agree with another they would either challenge them or not participate. Your "challenge" is to hide this thread. Censorship is all this is. The evidence/support for that is irrelevant is it not? You just push that button and ::poof:: it's gone/locked/deleted.

Swansont: The proposal begins with the breeding pair - I do not know nor can science answer the question where they came from. That is the current dividing line between the argument for and against a Divine act. If I say God created them that isn't science now is it? If I simply start with a breeding pair then you or anyone else can either choose to address the question or leave it to the future when it may be figured out. I could ask the same question about the common ancestor/puddle of snot/primordial slime that others claim. Where did it come from? Bascule: Sorry - I took your 'it isn't science' comment to be about the comment on my proposal. But for answers to your latest post: 1) I agree there are similarities - immense physical and genetic similarities - between man and apes. Again they are similarites and only similarities. The existence of similarities in and of themselves do not prove anything. You may make assumptions based upon these similarities but they are no more valid than my assumptions based upon the differences. 2) "How can all species on earth have evolved from a common ancestor except man, when all the properties of man lead you to inevitably conclude that man descended from the same common ancestor?" I was addressing only man but to get into the subject of other species I don't believe EVERY species evolved from a common ancestor. I propose that there were breeding pairs of many species from which the current population evolved. For example there may have been several original breeding pairs of different types of marine life such as fish, whales, crabs, etc. that evolved into the many species we have today. 3) I'll defer to Zyncod or someone else for the time being on this one. I'm not being evasive, I'm admitting that I need to investigate the matters of Y chromosomes and mitochondrial RNA further before I can answer this question. I admit my ignorance here - for the moment. 4)Hominids and ape-like hominids again - as I pointed out in #1 above - may have shared certain similarities with humans. And again they are only similarities. The remarks made at the end of your post need addressed with this one. Why is it assumed that retards would be the result of the in-breeding of the second generation? If the assumption is made that the original breeding pair were genetically perfect - or nearly so - there would be no reason for mental retardation to enter the picture at all. Further the subsequent generations would be breeding further and further across the descendents AWAY from the single point of origin. Any mutations should be the result of adaptive reactions to the environment. Then, just as you said, any negative mutations would not be selected for. The beneficial ones would be selected making for a 'stronger' variety over many generations. To me it is clear that the continued survival of the species supports the idea that there were no periods of 'weakness' genetically that were not overcome - competing species or not. The retard remarks again come from the limited studies that we do have on the REVERSE of what I propose. Bottle necking - or funnelling as I prefer to call it. Hapsburg Jaw and Hemophilia are both examples of funnelling IN FROM VARIETY to a narrowed point is proven to increase and concentrate negative effects. Moving OUT from a narrowed point to an infinite variety would produce the REVERSE or a decrease of negative effects. Also add in the assumption of a genetically perfect original breeding pair and you don't even have any negative effects to reduce in the first place.

Bascule: Your 1-4 points post is making the assumption that I can be lumped into this group you're referring to. I do not present any false dilemmas finding anything wrong with evolution. As I've stated before: I do not disagree with evolution. Evoloution is a valid and vital part of my proposal. I also do not simply discount science. On several forums that I post on the arguments of "cannot account for current diversity" and the detrimental effects of inbreeding are always brought up. Every time they are I mention the frequency with which these arguments are presented and ask for the support for them. It is always "This has been known for some time idiot" which leads me to believe they are baseless statements/assumptions. When pressed some mention the Hapsburg Jaw or Hemophilia in the royal family and even provide links to extensive family trees and articles. The issue here is that these illustrations SUPPORT my proposal. All human studies on in-breeding show the effect of starting with a broad variety at the top with few carriers that is intentionally narrowed (or funnelled into) an amplified expression of the defect through enforced in-breeding. My proposal is the reverse: simply turn the tree over and illustrate how the expression of the defect gradually disappears as the variety increases - enforced random selection of breeding pairs. One step further would show no defect at all at the top narrowed part where it starts. Any defects that did show up later in the tree would not be selected for and would eventually disappear due to the variety becoming more diverse with each exponential increase in the population. Again - if it is science to show a family tree narrowing to show an increase in a defect why is it not science to show a tree widening to show a decrease in a defect? Why is it not science to assume that at this narrowing, if there are no defects, why would they suddenly appear and show an increase in density when the evidence - of the inverse - shows they would not? The problem here, in my opinion, is that you are 'reading in' an assumption of ID or Creation here. I am simply proposing a human evolution that began with a single breeding pair. I am not introducing anything supernatural or intelligently designed here or even something that could not be scientifically supported.

Not just another Creationist and not just another evolutionist but a Crevolutionist - NOT to be confused with Creavolutionist - Leave the "a" out. My basic proposals are these: The Abrahamic religions (Christian, Muslim, and Judaism) comprise the majority. They all ascribe to some degree of belief in the Biblical account of Creation. There are the literalists, the not so literalists, the parabalists, and even some who think it is all a myth still within the group. In a recent Gallup poll a clear majority of Americans favored teaching Creationism (not to be confused with ID) alongside evolution in public schools. I propose that the majority of the majority refuse to even consider ANY of Darwin's theory because of the 'man from apes' misconception. If it could be dispelled and they could be educated on the merit and validity of geologic and evolution theory we would have made a giant leap. I can reconcile evolution and geologic theory without a compromise in faith and without twisting science either. I KNOW that many of you feel no need to reconcile faith with science and that is wonderful. I address the majority who do have this need. As a Christian and a scientist I had that need, struggled with it for years, and formulated my theory. The ONLY issue left is one of Human Creation followed by evolution vs. Human evolution from other species. The most common arguments against the entire human population coming from a single breeding pair are the current variation and the detrimental effects of in-breeding. I answer both with two analogies: the tree and the funnel. Beginning with the funnel the current body of research on in-breeding such as the Hapsburg Jaw and the Royal Curse hemophilia studies involve in-breeding from a large end of the funnel to the small end. In other words in-breeding enforced to narrow the lines. I propose that in-breeding that would occur early on with a single breeding pair but funnel out as the population grows exponentially. Further these people would have observed that any undesirable effects of in-breeding occured more frequently in brother-sister couplings and would have enforced more random selection of mates. On the tree analogy if you imagine the original breeding pair as the trunk, the second generation creating a "Y" with one side of the Y being descendants of one brother-sister coupling and the other of another brother-sister coupling. If this generation - the third or any of the subsequent generations - then coupled with one from the other side of the tree they would have started a new tree. Since it is physically impossible for two sides of a tree to grow back together - an upside down "Y" - this couple forms the trunk of an entirely new tree. With the population growing exponentially you would soon have an orchard and then you also have to consider all the new trees formed by tree to tree couplings. The variety would quickly - and exponentially - grow. At the same time we have this exponentially growing population spreading out geographically exposing them to differing environments causing differing adaptations. Add to that the effects of natural selection and you have an extremely diverse gene pool after many generations. Also consider the possibility that the original breeding pair were genetically perfect. This would futher work against any negative mutations being passed on through in-breeding. Also I do not state, in a curricular adaptation of my work, that God created anything. God cannot be addressed by science and God cannot be addressed in our public schools. My theory has a starting point and it is a single breeding pair. Where they may have come from is not addressed. While you may read in to the statement Adam and Eve another may read Hagar and Blondie or leave them unnamed as I have done. Reading in names or the existence of a creator is solely up to the individual reading the statements. To fulfill the requirements of the Consititution no religious views are introduced, alluded to, or promoted.

I do not deny evolution - I support it. I do not deny the Biblical Creation events - I support them also. I have read Darwin's "Origin of Species" and nowhere does he mention anything about common ancestry in regard to humans. He does mention quite a bit - it is over 600 pages. Are you sure you want me to go over everything he says? Why don't you read it? And I do not try to convince people that common ancestry is a lie. I convince them that Darwin never proposed it and he has a very valid body of theory - what the heck is wrong with that? I am not trying to upset your apple cart - I'm trying to get people to look at it. I am a scientist trying a new approach to address the majority that keep giving science a hard time. If anything I'm one of you - I don't understand the hostility here.

OK... It started out good - thanks. To answer some of the questions: First I'll restate that I am a scientist who is also a Christian so call me a 'Crevolutionist' and do not confuse me with Creavolution. Also, as far as ID is concerned, you have to throw out the preconcieved notion about getting God in the side door of the public schools. EVERYTHING that I propose related to Design Theory is SCIENTIFICALLY BASED and SUPPORTED. I DO NOT attempt to apply science to anything supernatural. In my book "Come Together: Creation and Evolution Joined" I present support based upon the CURRENT body of scientific knowledge (thanks for the list of outdated books - 3 from the 1800's and 1 from the early 80's) that shows Biblical support for evolution Theory and scientific support for certain Creation events based upon science-based geologic and evolution Theories. I then propose what I have named "The Scientific Theory of Intentional and Intelligent Design" and "The Theory of Human Evolution" and scince they are within the same book I maintain my dual support analysis utilizing the scientific method and the Bible. A statement of my Theories independent of a Biblical analysis and based solely upon scientific support is in the editing stage and will be appropriate as a supplement to the public school science curriculum. Remember - NO PART of ANY of my statements of Theory in the curricular adaptation will mention, promote, advocate, or support anything related to any religion as they are solely science-based and supported. Since science cannot address the supernatural the supernatural has no place in science. No I do not attempt to mix ID and Creation. I first debunk misconceptions that stop a lot of folks from even considering vast parts of scientific theory that do agree both literally and not so literally with the Bible. For example, many will not consider anything Darwin proposes because the vast majority (87% according to my survey on a college campus) believe that Darwin said "man came from apes." Darwin never proposed that and what he did propose is completely agreeable with and even supported, in part, by what the Bible proposes. My attempt with the main portion of my book is to debunk misconceptions and get more people to look at some basic evolution and geologic science. Some have already asked, directly and indirectly, what the Theories and ideas in the book are. Simply stated I have provided the gist, if you will, of my intent and methodology. Remember that content is meaningless without context and simply posting 1, 2, 3, ... lists of my statements would be meaningless without the accompanying context and background on formulation. A simple tossing out of Theory without the support and context would create a mess of mistranslation, misconception, and controversy - the very thing that i am attempting to address in my book.

Bascule: I did not "gloss over" anything... If you look at the times on our posts I was typing mine while you were posting yours. I had to run and I'm on a short break - I will consider your post and post a reply soon. swansont: I am not trying to make scientists of the entire population just to inform a large part of the population on some basic science. I could write an entire book on Natural Selection but that is not the point. Mokele: As I pointed out above - I'll reply soon - I'm not evading.

"The argument is that chimps and man share a common ancestor." The picture in the link of human and chimp chromosomes proves only one thing: The chromosomes are similar. Similarity in and of itself proves or supports nothing. Apples and oranges are round - did they have a common ancestor? I know that's weak but its essentially the same argument. There may be one million similarities for each difference (I pulled that outta my behind) between human and chimp DNA - It is that one difference that makes them different. The fact that there may be one million similarities proves or supports nothing beyond the fact that the similarities exist. Based upon your statement I would first of all ask who or what is the common ancestor? Would this common ancestor's DNA not be more similar to a human's and at the same time more similar to a chimps making it an intermediate between the two? Why did one descendant de-evolve while the other evolved when comparing the two now? swansont: If you chose to click on the link at the bottom of my post that is great. You are however not required to do so. Essential elements of an advertisement for a book would include a price and where to purchase it neither of which were included in any of my posts. Futher we are in a "News" forum are we not? Additionally we are in a thread entitled "Intelligent Design vs. Evolution". If an author/scientist published scientifically supported theories of ID I believe that appropriate placement would be under "news" and under "ID vs. Evolution." As far as 'scant' details I believe I have presented the full details of what I was looking for comment on: "I only asked for your opinion on what results you may think such an approach may have." Which is: (from my first post) "I am a scientist, an author, and a Christian. After many years of study and research I have released "The Scientific Theory of Intentional and Intelligent Design" and "The Theory of Human Evolution." I renamed the standard ID to set my science-based theories apart from it. These theories support the majority of evolution theory and present new ideas that are supported by the statement: "These are reasonable explanations based upon the current body of scientific knowledge." My concept surrounds the idea that the division in this debate exists because of misconceptions that come from the mistranslation of the work of scientists by the media. People have shut their ears to any evolution theory because they cannot get past the "man from apes" idea that is incorrecty attributed to Darwin. The nature of the title of my work: "Come Together: Creation and Evolution Joined" dictates that I address the issues from both Biblical and scientific perspectives. The book is merely an introduction to my theories and an attempt to gain the broadest support base possible. The statement of my theories from a solely scientific perspective that will be appropriate as a science text supplement in public schools is now in the editing stage. A small example shows - in scientific terms - how the current variety of races could have been descended from a single breeding pair of humans. I also apply the Use and Disuse Theory to humans as well to show the origin of differences in the physical features of the races. Since it is directed at the masses it is written in the language of the masses without the use of the difficult scientific jargon that only scientists and scientifically minded people are capable of understanding. It is not an attack on evolution or Creation but a way for Creationists to tie in evolution with their faith and become more informed about what evolution theory really is." I am asking only for an opinion on the above - not my book or the theories within. Review copies of my book itself have already been sent to appropriate peer review organizations as well as standard book review organizations. While you are free to purchase a copy for your own review that is entirely up to the individual. The direct appeal that I would make to some of you - based upon your posts - is that if you are truly scientifically minded then you should know that science is ever-changing and always open to new ideas and hypotheses. Some of you sound like what I call the 'closed-minded evolution fundamentalists' that think that a particular theory somehow gains some kind of protection that makes it irrefutable. That is not science. Science once supported that the angry gods did not cause communicable disease germs did. The progress of science then showed that simple hand washing would prevent the spread of some diseases. Science further progressed to showing how antibiotics and innoculations could prevent even more of these diseases. Science will always progress and is always subject to criticism, improvement, and change. So get off your high horses and think in scientific terms - if you want to be taken seriously. Just a scientific observation from a scientist...

Bascule: After reviewing the link you provided it does reinforce what science supports - they are SIMILAR. I don't even argue that. A similarity does not in and of itself prove anything other than a similarity. I could take the same representation and argue that chimps are descended from man - it doesn't make the arguement any more valid than the reverse does it?

Thanks John. Since i am not poking holes and I have evidence then what I have is not unsubstantiated garbage - While I hope the evangelicals will be a small part of my audience they are not the intended one.

Firstly I am not advertising my book - I never stated a price or where to order it. Secondly I have not asked for a review of my work. What I did do is ask for opinions about the approach I used in my book which I did provide along with enough context to accomplish that.

Use and disuse has been accepted and it is confirmed scientifically in my Theory of Human Evolution. Homo Sapien meaning thinking or judicious man then yes I agree that we are such. Mankind being taxonomically listed as a descendant of apes is something that my research has shown to be a theory that is no longer supported by the vast body of current scientific knowledge. I present a theory - scientifically supported - that provides an alternate origin of mankind that is the most reasonable and plausable explanation based upon the current body of scientific knowledge. What is my theory then? Firstly, content has no meaning without context which is all provided in "Come Together: Creation and Evolution Joined." Secondly, my new concept of presenting scientific findings in layperson terminology with the background of formulation included to avoid mistranslation, misconception, and controversy would be compromised by simply tossing out my theories without the necessary context. Thirdly, I am an author and while I wish I was in a position to provide what has taken many years to formulate freely that is not conducive to earning a living. You have your job and I know you expect to be paid for your work - I am no different. I am not simply advertising a book - I only asked for your opinion on what results you may think such an approach may have.

Deities have no place in a scientifically supported theory since a Deity cannot be proven in scientific terms. Again I have renamed my theory to set it aside from what people currently think of ID. I support the vast majority of evolution theory and find Biblical support for it too. I maintain only that "a force" of some sort may have had a hand in creation but that is outside the actual statement of my theories as it is not scientifically based. Ponder this: If it were possible to bring the one side of this debate into a position of agreeing with 90% of evolution theory AND have them approaching from an informed position how far will we scientists have progressed? This is my intent with "Come Together: Creation and Evolution Joined."