Creation/Evolution/Intelligent Design

[bascule]

My whole point in all this argument is that, with a little imagination, Christians could relate scientific with religious dogma, if they were willing to state that the Bible was not a wholly accurate document.

 

Like the Catholics just did?

 

"Christians" as a whole seem to be far more sensible than the radical fundamental/evangelistic fringe groups who comprise the creationists/IDiots.

[Epicman]

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.

[swansont]

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.

 

So I ask again: from where did this breeding pair come?

[bascule]

Epicman, those comments weren't directed at you. However:

 

1. You're still yet to provide an answer to the immense genetic (and therefore physical) similarities between man and apes

 

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?

 

3. How do you reconcile the fact that the molecular clock for the Y chromosome (which is passed down the male -> male -> male lineage much like a surname) and mitochondrial RNA (which is passed down the female -> female -> female lineage) would place the respective male and female ancestors from which we inherited these things as living tens of thousands of years apart?

 

4. How do you explain all the other very human-like hominids (e.g. Neanderthals) living contemporaneously with early humans? Would these have been descended from your conjectured inital breeding pair, or would these have descended from apes? How about all the more ape-like hominids? Would these have descended from apes or not?

 

As Mokele suggested, the defects in the offspring of a single breeding pair would make them virtually defenseless against other hominids of the time. If you ascribe to natural selection then the retards which would be born to Adam and Eve would be... naturally selected out.

[Epicman]

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.

[Mokele]

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.

 

What you are stating here amounts to claiming that evolution can *ONLY* be brought in as an explanation is we *directly* witness it happening. This is flat out not so.

 

I don't know what you've convinced yourself, but the most parsimonious explanation, and the *only* one that doesn't involve logical convolutions and evasions so complex they resemble politics more than science, for these similarities and their pattern is evolution. There simply is *no* other explanation that fits. These differences, and their pattern is *precisely* what we expect to see. You cannot simply ignore them. As inconvenient as the facts are, they are still facts.

 

Claiming that such similarities can be discounted has *NO* basis in logic or science, and is merely a version of "Well maybe the world was created last tuesday, and all evidence of the past including our memories are fake".

 

This claim is fallacious, worthless, and is nothing more than willful ignorance of the evidence because it doesn't suit your pre-determined conclusions. Use it again, and you'll be the first recipient of the brand-spanking-new "Persistent Fallacious Arguements" warning.

 

I have given you the benefit of the doubt time and time again. That you resort to such cheap evasions of the massive body of evidence that contradicts you in order to perpetuate what is nothing more than an arguement from incredulity means you have officially used up your "benefit of the doubt" cards.

 

This thread has been moved to psuedoscience, were it belongs, and where it shall remain until arguements are put forth that do not boil down to "Well, if you ignore hundreds of years of accumulated evidence, my idea has a leg to stand on."

 

I do not know nor can science answer the question where they came from.

 

::points to a chimpanzee genome::

 

We can and did answer it. End of story.

 

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.

 

Care to address why every single one shares the same codon translation then? Or the further massive similarities? Remember, saying "Similarities don't count" or other such bullshit will get an instant warning, so try to actually adress the evidence this time, rather than just sweeping it under the rug and hoping nobody will notice the enormous pile under said rug.

 

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.

'

 

So why do whales have a pelvis, then? and leg bones?

 

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.

 

Which, as I pointed out would mean their superior genes would always be selected for, preventing the evolution of genetic diversity that you seek to explain.

 

And you still haven't explain why humans would just *happen* to evolve the exact same alleles as chimps. And even get *exactly* the same dead virus genomes stuck in *exactly* the same spot on their DNA.

 

In fact, I notice you haven't actually responded to any of my posts or points directly. Anxious to avoid finding out how quickly your theory crumbles under the weight of actual evidence, once no longer supported by arguements from incredulity?

 

Either show some damn backbone and actually deal with the evidence (rather than trying to dismiss it), or stop wasting our time.

 

Oh, and as for references:

http://www.blackwell-synergy.com/links/doi/10.1111/j.1523-1739.1990.tb00295.x?cookieSet=1

http://arjournals.annualreviews.org/doi/abs/10.1146/annurev.es.24.110193.001245?cookieSet=1

http://md1.csa.com/partners/viewrecord.php?requester=gs&collection=ENV&recid=4203521

 

That's just a quick sample of the literature availible. Read all 3, especially the last one, before replying. Further sources can easily be found on Google scholar.

 

Mokele

[Mokele]

Oh, and while we're here...

 

From your very first post:

I am an author/scientist who has written a book about the Creation/Evolution/ID debate.

 

I'd like to see proof of the latter, please. Where have you gotten your degrees from, in what, and, most importantly, what have you published and in what journals?

 

Mokele

[Epicman]

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.

[Mokele]

Stop your whining and actually read the post.

 

I actually *addressed* your points, and thoroughly countered them, while also providing technical journal articles supporting my POV.

 

I note that you chose to whine about imagined censorship rather than offering any substantial response. Gee, wonder why. And since you are unable to understand what "censorship" is, allow me to fill you in on somthing: Deleting the thread or your posts would be censorship. The thread has simply been relocated, and is still open for public viewing and response.

 

As for why it's in the psuedoscience area, perhaps you can tell me, since you *claim* to be a scientiest. I'll even make it multiple choice for you.

 

Which of the following is a trait that unites your posts with psuedoscience?

a) flat-out denial of and refusal to consider large amounts of evidence

b) evasiveness when asked *direct* questions about your claims

c) resorting to whining and imagined persecutuion rather than actually recifying the situation.

d) all of the above.

 

When you demonstrate that you are ready and willing to engage in proper debate (which does not involve dismissing evidence or evading questions), then the thread can be moved back to another (more respectable) forum. Whining about it will not alter that.

 

If you cannot deal with points being raised against your ideas, nor objections to your evasiveness and fallacious arguements, why did you post on a *debate* forum?

 

Mokele

[Epicman]

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.

[Epicman]

You forgot E None of the above

[Mokele]

Wrong answer. Bye.