Moontanman Posted February 12, 2013 Posted February 12, 2013 Did a carnivore willfully choose to be a predator and a herbivore willfully choose to get hunted down? No, no one with any knowledge of evolution would suggest this, why do you? Mainly because animals don't move and evolve without predation and/or pressures. The predators had to be created with the plant eaters for the purpose of weeding out the weak; natural selection and ultimately evolution. Again, no, you display a disturbing lack of knowledge even about what evolution is much less how it works. The universe is a closed-loop system and so is everything about nature except human civilization. Your point would be? Thousands of virgins. I strongly believe anyone who has never had sex; should not talk about evolution. How is this comment relevant to the issue at hand? How did a penis and a vagina come to fit perfectly together? Umm... fit perfectly together? Can you confirm this? This is relevant how? I don't believe in an unobservable creator because there is the question of who created the creator. My only hypothesis is that the Sun and the planets are doing their dance and out of this dance... create organisms through a fusion process when organisms are needed to fit in the closed-loop system or after a mass extinction. Please elaborate, this appears to be nonsensical from the perspective of science and evolution... thought = assumption(hypothesis without evidence) = a guess. So you do know the definition of creationism... Maybe the hipbones in whales serve another purpose than in land mammals or they serve the exact same purpose as in humans. Since whales are bigger than small fish.. the hipbone could serve as stabilizer for swimming. Since we aren't whales.. we don't know its true purpose. Where did they get the hip bones? Why would whales have hip bones? Think this through... Before or after the land mammals drowned? When did they drown? Who says they did? 1
Consistency Posted February 13, 2013 Author Posted February 13, 2013 (edited) No, no one with any knowledge of evolution would suggest this, why do you?Why are you replying to messages which aren't addressed to you? There's a limit to how sceptic one can be. Sure, question everything. But if you are provided with strong evidence of something, denying it for no good reason isn't being a sceptic. It's being willfully ignorant. Real sceptics like me are rare. Being sceptic is not about rejecting evidence outright like the majority of so called sceptics. Evolution evidence isn't strong evidence. Its OUTRIGHT assumptions.. "an animal has a hip bone.. so they were a land mammal" without first seeing if there is a purpose of the hip bone in the first place. As a true sceptic.. many reasons come to mind.. stabilizer for swimming and stabilizer for sex. His description dishonestly suggested that a whale directly evolved from a fish, that is a lie, he knows it, but he said it anyway. in reality a whale is a mammal which evolved from a reptile which evolved from an amphibian which evolved from a fish (very simplified version) so he tried to ridicule evolution by saying something that seemed to be true, the average person who has knowledge of evolution(man-written) probably understands the line of decent in a simple way, but it is not a direct line of decent from a fish to a whale, he knows it but his main goal is to obfuscate the situation, not lend any real understanding of it... Let me get this straight.. a fish decided to go on land.. grew legs and evoled in an amphibian(frog?)... then through evolution, lets say.. higher sun temperature.. this amphibian evolved into a reptile... then through many years of evolution said.. "screw this.. I prefer the water!"... and hops back into the water to grow a blow hole? Does it sound right? Sounds like the bible. Edited February 13, 2013 by Consistency -4
Ringer Posted February 13, 2013 Posted February 13, 2013 (edited) http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/faq-intro-to-biology.html http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/faq-misconceptions.html#proof http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/evolution-fact.html http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/comdesc/section1.html#pred4 http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/faq-misconceptions.html#observe http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/faq-speciation.html Read up on evolution and what it is and you may be able to have valid criticisms. [edit] spelling [/edit] Edited February 13, 2013 by Ringer
menageriemanor Posted February 13, 2013 Posted February 13, 2013 Consistency: when you post an open question on a members' forum, by definition, you are addressing all readers. Anyone is entitled to answer, whether or not you are happy with the answers. If you want to argue with one person, either send them personal messages, or address the reply as I have. I understand, tho, that my comments can be addressed, shot down, or applauded by any reader, as well. You say you cannot believe how creatures can evolve from herbivore to meat eaters, that fish can evolve into land mammals and a small percentage of them return to a water life, but the facts are there, IF you actually read them AND understand them. You cannot say, because YOU can't understand something, it has to be faulty. I can say that I cannot fathom how I get a picture on my tv, when I plug it in, and once tuned in, I can watch my favorite shows. It doesn't mean I pour scorn on tv repairmen and tell them only I and a few others know the real reason, that lots of mini animals, including people, live in my tv and all rush around doing quick costume changes, to act out everything from news bulletins to Lonely Planet, to costume dramas. Doesn't mean they aren't going to look at me, shake their heads, and charge me double for being a berk. For all my knowledge of little creatures, I can't FIX my tv, only watch it, having had an expert ignore my crackpot theories and fix the solders. The overwhelming feeling that swept over me, when I read your OP, was the same depressed feeling I had when I saw a young woman peering into a tv camera and sincerely, and CLEARLY deeply felt, announced she had THE question to silence all atheists. If God doesn't exist, WHO wrote the bible? The difference between you. is your attitude of superior intellect and the ability to quote extremely simplified lines of evolution, but every time your knowledge of animals and evolution fails, or YOU don't comprehend the line, instead of learning more, you reject it and embroider your own bits to get you to a rejection. I have pet sheep - well established Herbivores, who have at times, stolen cooked steak and eaten it - and clearly loved it. They also love cheese and will steal it. A hard and fast herbivore eats the occasional cooked meat, now. Give it access to meat daily for a thousand years, and it will reclass as omnivore and perhaps the first changes in stomach acid production will have started, a few more thousand years, teeth may show changes. raw meat may excite them, they will start scavenging dead creatures. The line of logic can trail in many directions. It is far from an unbelevable theory. (I think they liked the salt). Your sureness of your generalisations are worrying.. In actuality, a lot of human penises DON'T fit perfectly into average vaginas. Again, your generalisations leave your arguments just gaping. A lot of women climax from clitoral stimulation, Women DON'T as a rule, show disappointment. Tends to have the males splenetically enraged/curl into a ball of humiliation, or go home immediately, and avoid a woman so hurtfully honest.. Have you ever heard the term 'fake it?' If many, many women go with that, and let me tell you, as a woman, (those conversations only happen between close friends OR in the anonymity of big groups, where the understanding is NOT specifically referring to current partner, often acknowledged as a doctor acknowledges that 'you are asking for a friend...' ). your assumption that your sex is a perfect fit for female vaginas is breathtaking. In your head, maybe. Why is the raised little finger of a woman with a pointed glance, understood by women, certainly across the western world? I also know of the opposite problem. Every triumphant generalisation and opinion you splenetically announce just makes a lot of really intelligent, really well educated people, (and me), feel depressed, (not another one), and many are being SO polite and actually trying to make you consider what you are saying, Giving you pointers of where you might find explanations. I may well be thrown off for this post. I'm really only trying to demonstrate your ignorance in basic human biology, let alone elsewhere, and VERY male assumptions. Truly, be grateful you have the anonymity of your user name, go away, read and learn a lot more, get a new user name and come back and say hello. As to herbivores/carnivores WILFULLY deciding to be so? Does that pass as even a scientifically valid question? Did I WILFULLY decide to be female? Did I WILFULLY decide to be infuriatingly short? I WILFULLY chose to research WW2 bomber crew, but as no one objected or cared, I dropped the wilfull bit. 6
Essay Posted February 13, 2013 Posted February 13, 2013 (edited) Everything about nature is in symbiosis and in constant equilibrium except human civilization and whatever else is made-up from the same type of mentality of a civilized human. ...even civilization is one of the forces contributing to the overall equilibration process. And.... As Arete pointed out, "Succession and disturbance are natural forces. The assertion that nature is in "constant equilibrium is trivially proven false...." I didn't read the links, but hopefully there is a mention of non-equilibrium thermodynamics, which describes processes operating in the real world. The concept of balance or equilibrium or homeostasis or a perfected symbiosis is useful to help understand the forces involved, but those concepts do not describe a "real" static state. Balance may be achieved, but only fleetingly as the "non-equilibrium" forces battle it out--in reality--in much the same way that walking is basically a "constantly corrected" fall. Science is just a tool for helping us to understand reality. If religion (as well as science) was understood to be nothing more than that, maybe there wouldn't be so much conflict generated by attempts to reify either; but it is easy to confuse concepts with reality. ~ Edited February 13, 2013 by Essay
pwagen Posted February 13, 2013 Posted February 13, 2013 Real sceptics like me are rare. Being sceptic is not about rejecting evidence outright like the majority of so called sceptics. The irony.
Consistency Posted February 13, 2013 Author Posted February 13, 2013 (edited) Consistency: when you post an open question on a members' forum, by definition, you are addressing all readers. Anyone is entitled to answer, whether or not you are happy with the answers. If you want to argue with one person, either send them personal messages, or address the reply as I have. I understand, tho, that my comments can be addressed, shot down, or applauded by any reader, as well. My answer above was a specific reply to another user. People shouldn't interrupt because they have a need to break everyone down. You say you cannot believe how creatures can evolve from herbivore to meat eaters, that fish can evolve into land mammals and a small percentage of them return to a water life, but the facts are there, IF you actually read them AND understand them. You cannot say, because YOU can't understand something, it has to be faulty. I read them and understand the bolony they project. "If you tell a lie big enough and keep repeating it, people will eventually come to believe it." Biochemistry doesn't line up. Let me know when humans acquire the urate oxidase enzyme to break down uric acid after eating large amounts of meat. I can say that I cannot fathom how I get a picture on my tv, when I plug it in, and once tuned in, I can watch my favorite shows. It doesn't mean I pour scorn on tv repairmen and tell them only I and a few others know the real reason, that lots of mini animals, including people, live in my tv and all rush around doing quick costume changes, to act out everything from news bulletins to Lonely Planet, to costume dramas. Doesn't mean they aren't going to look at me, shake their heads, and charge me double for being a berk. For all my knowledge of little creatures, I can't FIX my tv, only watch it, having had an expert ignore my crackpot theories and fix the solders. TV is man-made like evolution theory is man-written.. like the bible is man-written. All made up to stroke egos. None are real like you and me. The overwhelming feeling that swept over me, when I read your OP, was the same depressed feeling I had when I saw a young woman peering into a tv camera and sincerely, and CLEARLY deeply felt, announced she had THE question to silence all atheists. If God doesn't exist, WHO wrote the bible? Men wrote the bible to control and relax the masses. The difference between you. is your attitude of superior intellect and the ability to quote extremely simplified lines of evolution, but every time your knowledge of animals and evolution fails, or YOU don't comprehend the line, instead of learning more, you reject it and embroider your own bits to get you to a rejection. There is no such thing as superior intellect. You either have intellect or not. I have pet sheep - well established Herbivores, who have at times, stolen cooked steak and eaten it - and clearly loved it. They also love cheese and will steal it. A hard and fast herbivore eats the occasional cooked meat, now. Give it access to meat daily for a thousand years, and it will reclass as omnivore and perhaps the first changes in stomach acid production will have started, a few more thousand years, teeth may show changes. raw meat may excite them, they will start scavenging dead creatures. The line of logic can trail in many directions. It is far from an unbelevable theory. (I think they liked the salt). Of course the sheep would steal it. The sheep's nose is getting stimulated by the odors of cooked meat. Even I don't eat animal products and my nose gets stimulated by cooked meat. Your sureness of your generalisations are worrying.. I know how humans co-produce Vitamin B12 with bacteria.. so the generalisations of the so called experts thinking we are omnivores are just as bad as the generalisations that we evolved from a common ancestor. In actuality, a lot of human penises DON'T fit perfectly into average vaginas. Again, your generalisations leave your arguments just gaping. A lot of women climax from clitoral stimulation, Women DON'T as a rule, show disappointment. Tends to have the males splenetically enraged/curl into a ball of humiliation, or go home immediately, and avoid a woman so hurtfully honest.. Have you ever heard the term 'fake it?' If many, many women go with that, and let me tell you, as a woman, (those conversations only happen between close friends OR in the anonymity of big groups, where the understanding is NOT specifically referring to current partner, often acknowledged as a doctor acknowledges that 'you are asking for a friend...' ). your assumption that your sex is a perfect fit for female vaginas is breathtaking. In your head, maybe. Why is the raised little finger of a woman with a pointed glance, understood by women, certainly across the western world? I also know of the opposite problem. Clitoral stimulation only goes so far... intercourse is a need. Its called natural selection. Like I said before.. everyone gets a distorted view of nature. Nature doesn't include human civilization. Nature is for the strong and contains predators which hunt down and eat those men with small penises and the weak women that indulge in foods. Every triumphant generalisation and opinion you splenetically announce just makes a lot of really intelligent, really well educated people, (and me), feel depressed, (not another one), and many are being SO polite and actually trying to make you consider what you are saying, Giving you pointers of where you might find explanations. I may well be thrown off for this post. I'm really only trying to demonstrate your ignorance in basic human biology, let alone elsewhere, and VERY male assumptions. Education is basically copy and paste information in the brain. A PHD just shows a person can regurgitate information without thinking for themselves. I'm really only trying to demonstrate your ignorance in basic human biology..... Truly, be grateful you have the anonymity of your user name, go away, read and learn a lot more, get a new user name and come back and say hello. As to herbivores/carnivores WILFULLY deciding to be so? Does that pass as even a scientifically valid question? Did I WILFULLY decide to be female? Did I WILFULLY decide to be infuriatingly short? I WILFULLY chose to research WW2 bomber crew, but as no one objected or cared, I dropped the wilfull bit. Your first sentence basically states that I should not think for myself. I have to think like you and everyone else. Yes it does pass as a scientifically valid question. You only believe it doesn't because you can't answer it... Willfully making a man-made choice of civilization such as studying has nothing to do with real evolution. ...even civilization is one of the forces contributing to the overall equilibration process. And.... As Arete pointed out, "Succession and disturbance are natural forces. The assertion that nature is in "constant equilibrium is trivially proven false...." I didn't read the links, but hopefully there is a mention of non-equilibrium thermodynamics, which describes processes operating in the real world. The concept of balance or equilibrium or homeostasis or a perfected symbiosis is useful to help understand the forces involved, but those concepts do not describe a "real" static state. Balance may be achieved, but only fleetingly as the "non-equilibrium" forces battle it out--in reality--in much the same way that walking is basically a "constantly corrected" fall. Succession and disturbance are natural forces = constant equilibrium = balance. There is no major disturbance in human civilization; its mostly egotistic succession. Science is just a tool for helping us to understand reality. If religion (as well as science) was understood to be nothing more than that, maybe there wouldn't be so much conflict generated by attempts to reify either; but it is easy to confuse concepts with reality. You'll need to elaborate on how science is just a "tool" for helping us to understand "reality".... Saying so doesn't make it so. Intellect is a tool. Information for its own sake is useless. Religion isn't a tool. It was written by wise men like me and then a bunch of people collected the quotes and placed them in a book for those who lack wisdom and ultimately virtues. Edited February 13, 2013 by Consistency
Ophiolite Posted February 13, 2013 Posted February 13, 2013 The only reason I can see for not consigning this thread to the Trash Can are the many excellent rebuttal posts, of which post #29 by menagerimanor is head and shoulders above the rest. Welcome to the forum, menagerie. Nice work. @ Consistency. Since you've decried every element of evolution that has been mentioned, yet you still seem to say that some form of evolution takes place, will you share with us what form this takes? 1
Consistency Posted February 13, 2013 Author Posted February 13, 2013 (edited) Read up on evolution and what it is and you may be able to have valid criticisms. First, we should clarify what "evolution" means. Like so many other words, it has more than one meaning. Its strict biological definition is "a change in allele frequencies over time." By that definition, evolution is an indisputable fact. Most people seem to associate the word "evolution" mainly with common descent, the theory that all life arose from one common ancestor. Many people believe that there is enough evidence to call this a fact, too. However, common descent is still not the theory of evolution, but just a fraction of it (and a part of several quite different theories as well). The theory of evolution not only says that life evolved, it also includes mechanisms, like mutations, natural selection, and genetic drift, which go a long way towards explaining how life evolved. The biggest problem with evolutionary theory is when the basis of its theory is indirectly based on a "common descent". I agree.. life evolved and mutations happened but like I stated.. the theory falls apart when a group of people state that a specie can evolve into another totally different specie. Its bolony when a person has knowledge of biochemistry and bacteriology. The more and better evidence we have for something, the more certainty we assign to it; when there is enough evidence, we label the something a fact, even though it still isn't 100% certain. The most contradictory sentence I've ever read! What evolution has is what any good scientific claim has--evidence, and lots of it. Evolution is supported by a wide range of observations throughout the fields of genetics, anatomy, ecology, animal behavior, paleontology, and others. If you wish to challenge the theory of evolution, you must address that evidence. You must show that the evidence is either wrong or irrelevant or that it fits another theory better. Of course, to do this, you must know both the theory and the evidence. Willful egotism. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chicken_or_the_egg#Science The theory of evolution states that species change over time via mutation and sexual reproduction. Since DNA (deoxyribonucleic acid) can be modified only before birth, it can be argued that a mutation must have taken place at conception or within an egg such that a creature similar to a chicken, but not a chicken, laid the first chicken eggs. These eggs then hatched into chickens that inbred to produce a living population.[13][14] Hence, in this light, both the chicken and the structure of its egg evolved simultaneously from birds that, while not of the same exact species, gradually became more and more like present-day chickens over time. I hate when people tip-toe around it while NEVER ADDRESSING THE QUESTION. If a creature similar to a chicken laid the first eggs... where did this first creature come from? An egg? ...and who created the egg of the similar chicken creature? Edited February 13, 2013 by Consistency
swansont Posted February 13, 2013 Posted February 13, 2013 ! Moderator Note Moved to speculations, based on the course this conversation has taken
Moontanman Posted February 13, 2013 Posted February 13, 2013 (edited) First, we should clarify what "evolution" means. Like so many other words, it has more than one meaning. Its strict biological definition is "a change in allele frequencies over time." By that definition, evolution is an indisputable fact. Most people seem to associate the word "evolution" mainly with common descent, the theory that all life arose from one common ancestor. Many people believe that there is enough evidence to call this a fact, too. However, common descent is still not the theory of evolution, but just a fraction of it (and a part of several quite different theories as well). The theory of evolution not only says that life evolved, it also includes mechanisms, like mutations, natural selection, and genetic drift, which go a long way towards explaining how life evolved. The biggest problem with evolutionary theory is when the basis of its theory is indirectly based on a "common descent". I agree.. life evolved and mutations happened but like I stated.. the theory falls apart when a group of people state that a specie can evolve into another totally different specie. Its bolony when a person has knowledge of biochemistry and bacteriology. The more and better evidence we have for something, the more certainty we assign to it; when there is enough evidence, we label the something a fact, even though it still isn't 100% certain. The most contradictory sentence I've ever read! What evolution has is what any good scientific claim has--evidence, and lots of it. Evolution is supported by a wide range of observations throughout the fields of genetics, anatomy, ecology, animal behavior, paleontology, and others. If you wish to challenge the theory of evolution, you must address that evidence. You must show that the evidence is either wrong or irrelevant or that it fits another theory better. Of course, to do this, you must know both the theory and the evidence. Willful egotism. I hate when people tip-toe around it while NEVER ADDRESSING THE QUESTION. If a creature similar to a chicken laid the first eggs... where did this first creature come from? An egg? ...and who created the egg of the similar chicken creature? chickens came from jungle fowl, if you were able to trace any one chicken and trace it's origin from each chicken to the last chicken generation before you would at no time be able to point to a particular chicken and say this is where the chicken became a chicken. Even though you could look back as far as you liked there would be a complete spectrum of chicken all way back to a lizard or if you wanted you could trace it back to a single eukaryotic cell but at no time could you pick out an egg and say yes that's the egg the first chicken came from, yet again you show the dishonest creationist tactic of ridiculing science with no real knowledge of science your self. you could trace your own linage the same way and all you would get is a spectrum of individuals that slowly over time have more and more monkey like traits but at no time would you be able to point to an individual and say "yes that's the first human" BTW, every human is born with mutations, the average is something like 120 mutations per zygote but older fathers pass down more mutations than younger ones... http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v488/n7412/full/nature11396.html?WT.ec_id=NATURE-20120823 Seriously dude, your lack of understanding does not falsify the thing you know nothing about... Edited February 13, 2013 by Moontanman 1
swansont Posted February 13, 2013 Posted February 13, 2013 Thousands of virgins. I strongly believe anyone who has never had sex; should not talk about evolution. ! Moderator Note Here's your recipe for being allowed to stick around: No more veiled slurs, like above. A lot less trolling. No thread hijacking, such as responding to this modnote in the thread. 1
Consistency Posted February 13, 2013 Author Posted February 13, 2013 chickens came from jungle fowl, if you were able to trace any one chicken and trace it's origin from each chicken to the last chicken generation before you would at no time be able to point to a particular chicken and say this is where the chicken became a chicken. Even though you could look back as far as you liked there would be a complete spectrum of chicken all way back to a lizard or if you wanted you could trace it back to a single eukaryotic cell but at no time could you pick out an egg and say yes that's the egg the first chicken came from, yet again you show the dishonest creationist tactic of ridiculing science with no real knowledge of science your self. you could trace your own linage the same way and all you would get is a spectrum of individuals that slowly of time have more and more monkey like traits but at no time would you be able to point to an individual and say "yes that's the first human" It was a rhetorical question. How did the first single eukaryotic cell come to be? (I'm really interested) BTW, every human is born with mutations, the average is something like 120 mutations per zygote but older fathers pass down more mutations than younger ones... http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v488/n7412/full/nature11396.html?WT.ec_id=NATURE-20120823 Seriously dude, your lack of understanding does not falsify the thing you know nothing about... Mutations are normal and part of real evolution. Sperm DNA changes all the time when new sperm is produced... so Its obvious older fathers would pass down more mutations than younger fathers... nothing new. This does not explain a complete divergence of DNA into another specie. Addressing the link: Where does diet and environment fit into the data? Folic Acid? Can I mate with another ape and produce offsprings? (Seriously)
Moontanman Posted February 13, 2013 Posted February 13, 2013 It was a rhetorical question. How did the first single eukaryotic cell come to be? (I'm really interested) I'll treat this as an honest question and give you an honest answer, no one is really sure, all we know for sure is that there are (afaik) three basic linage's of organisms that seem to have emerged after a very long time in which DNA was freely exchanged between all organisms and the idea of common decent as we know it is inapplicable. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eukaryote http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bacteria http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Archaea Eukaryotes have further diverged by the inclusion of bacteria as part of their cells, mitochondria and chloroplasts are two examples of this. There is a hypothesis that Eukaryotes are a fusion of bacteria and archaea but I'm not sure if this is mainstream science or not. Mutations are normal and part of real evolution. Sperm DNA changes all the time when new sperm is produced... so Its obvious older fathers would pass down more mutations than younger fathers... nothing new. This does not explain a complete divergence of DNA into another specie. Actually it does, you seem to be expecting an ape to give birth to a non ape, this is not what happens, evolution occurs in populations not individuals... As i said earlier, if you could somehow look outside time and see all of your ancestors (or mine for that matter) there would never be a individual that you could point to and say that is the first human. Each and every generation would be predominantly the same as it's parents with tiny differences the same way your children are similar to you but not identical, the further back you go the bigger the differences would be but at no time would a parent look down and wonder if their child was not the same species as themselves... Addressing the link: Where does diet and environment fit into the data? Folic Acid? I'm not sure how this is relevant, perhaps you should elaborate... Can I mate with another ape and produce offsprings? (Seriously) Actually we do interbreed animals that are further apart biologically than a human and say a Bonobo chimp, genetically there is a problem due to one of chromosomes having to do with reproduction being radically different but I doubt the experiment has ever been done, a chimp might object to mating with a human (considering how strong chimps are that could be a very bad thing for the man) but it has been proposed that with a little technological intervention it could be done... the resulting off spring would probably be a sterile "mule" but it is not impossible by any means...
pwagen Posted February 13, 2013 Posted February 13, 2013 if you were able to trace any one chicken and trace it's origin from each chicken to the last chicken generation before you would at no time be able to point to a particular chicken and say this is where the chicken became a chicken. Actually it does, you seem to be expecting an ape to give birth to a non ape, this is not what happens, evolution occurs in populations not individuals... As i said earlier, if you could somehow look outside time and see all of your ancestors (or mine for that matter) there would never be a individual that you could point to and say that is the first human. Each and every generation would be predominantly the same as it's parents with tiny differences the same way your children are similar to you but not identical, the further back you go the bigger the differences would be but at no time would a parent look down and wonder if their child was not the same species as themselves... This had me thinking of this, which illustrates the idea pretty clearly: http://i.imgur.com/xWpvw.jpg 1
Moontanman Posted February 13, 2013 Posted February 13, 2013 This had me thinking of this, which illustrates the idea pretty clearly: http://i.imgur.com/xWpvw.jpg Great illustration of the concept... 1
John Cuthber Posted February 13, 2013 Posted February 13, 2013 Can I mate with another ape and produce offsprings? (Seriously) Yes. The only animal you can successfully mate with would be an ape. Not just any ape, obviously: it needs to be one of the apes designated as homo sapiens. The fact that you didn't realise that, is testament to your monumental ignorance of the subject on which you are pontificating. Perhaps you should stop. 1
Consistency Posted February 13, 2013 Author Posted February 13, 2013 I'll treat this as an honest question and give you an honest answer, no one is really sure, all we know for sure is that there are (afaik) three basic linage's of organisms that seem to have emerged after a very long time in which DNA was freely exchanged between all organisms and the idea of common decent as we know it is inapplicable. Eukaryotes have further diverged by the inclusion of bacteria as part of their cells, mitochondria and chloroplasts are two examples of this. When no one is really sure.. they aren't facts.. they are assumptions. Now.. Lets say a creator(s) exist, I'm not saying one does or more do, I'm being skeptical. "What if?" Lets say a creator or creators created one ape, not in the way architects create a blue-print of a building and then hire people to build the building but in a spontaneous creative process create 1 ape; then modify the DNA during a new creative process and by doing this create a different yet similar ape.. and by continuing the same DNA modifying process.. these creators create 50+ different ape species. Would you really be able to tell million years after the creative act if a creator(s) created DIVERSITY between species by a spontaneous altering DNA creative process? Actually it does, you seem to be expecting an ape to give birth to a non ape, this is not what happens, evolution occurs in populations not individuals... As i said earlier, if you could somehow look outside time and see all of your ancestors (or mine for that matter) there would never be a individual that you could point to and say that is the first human. Each and every generation would be predominantly the same as it's parents with tiny differences the same way your children are similar to you but not identical, the further back you go the bigger the differences would be but at no time would a parent look down and wonder if their child was not the same species as themselves... I am not expecting an ape to give birth to a non ape. I understand you perferctly but you seem to not understand what I am saying. I don't believe in a specie evolving into another specie and there is no direct evidence other than man-written assumptions. Actually we do interbreed animals that are further apart biologically than a human and say a Bonobo chimp, genetically there is a problem due to one of chromosomes having to do with reproduction being radically different but I doubt the experiment has ever been done, a chimp might object to mating with a human (considering how strong chimps are that could be a very bad thing for the man) but it has been proposed that with a little technological intervention it could be done... the resulting off spring would probably be a sterile "mule" but it is not impossible by any means... A chimp with 48 chromosomes can mate with a human with 46 chromosomes and produce a sterile offspring? Consistency, on 13 Feb 2013 - 18:38, said: Can I mate with another ape and produce offsprings? (Seriously)Yes. The only animal you can successfully mate with would be an ape.Not just any ape, obviously: it needs to be one of the apes designated as homo sapiens. The fact that you didn't realise that, is testament to your monumental ignorance of the subject on which you are pontificating. Perhaps you should stop. You assume I didn't know. another.. as in not homo sapiens.
John Cuthber Posted February 13, 2013 Posted February 13, 2013 Feel free to go and mate with yourself (rather than another ape). 1
Moontanman Posted February 13, 2013 Posted February 13, 2013 When no one is really sure.. they aren't facts.. they are assumptions. No, they are evidently true, evidence points very strongly in the direction of common descent and in no other direction... In a court of law the evidence for evolution is similar to deductive reasoning, such evidence is commonly used to solve murders where there is no eye witnesses... http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Deductive_reasoning Now.. Lets say a creator(s) exist, I'm not saying one does or more do, I'm being skeptical. "What if?" Lets say a creator or creators created one ape, not in the way architects create a blue-print of a building and then hire people to build the building but in a spontaneous creative process create 1 ape; then modify the DNA during a new creative process and by doing this create a different yet similar ape.. and by continuing the same DNA modifying process.. these creators create 50+ different ape species. Would you really be able to tell million years after the creative act if a creator(s) created DIVERSITY between species by a spontaneous altering DNA creative process? At one time it would be difficult to refute your assertions with complete certainty but now with genetics we can indeed say that all life on earth is evidently not only related but descended from earlier life forms. I have to ask, what evidence do you have that various life forms were specially created? The fossil record certainly doesn't show any evidence for this and the genes do not give us any indication of this, in fact the genes say that all life is related. I am not expecting an ape to give birth to a non ape. I understand you perferctly but you seem to not understand what I am saying. I don't believe in a specie evolving into another specie and there is no direct evidence other than man-written assumptions. Again not true, the fossil evidence indicates common descent and so do the genes... Can you provide any evidence of special creation? A chimp with 48 chromosomes can mate with a human with 46 chromosomes and produce a sterile offspring? Yup, Horses and donkeys can mate and have viable off spring and they differ genetically by 2 chromosomes... http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mule Mules and hinnies have 63 chromosomes, a mixture of the horse's 64 and the donkey's 62. The different structure and number usually prevents the chromosomes from pairing up properly and creating successful embryos, rendering most mules infertile. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hybrid_(biology) You assume I didn't know. another.. as in not homo sapiens. It is not impossible... 1
Consistency Posted February 13, 2013 Author Posted February 13, 2013 No, they are evidently true, evidence points very strongly in the direction of common descent and in no other direction... In a court of law the evidence for evolution is similar to deductive reasoning, such evidence is commonly used to solve murders where there is no eye witnesses... At one time it would be difficult to refute your assertions with complete certainty but now with genetics we can indeed say that all life on earth is evidently not only related but descended from earlier life forms. I have to ask, what evidence do you have that various life forms were specially created? The fossil record certainly doesn't show any evidence for this and the genes do not give us any indication of this, in fact the genes say that all life is related. Again not true, the fossil evidence indicates common descent and so do the genes... Can you provide any evidence of special creation? I didn't make any claims or assertions. I suggested a view point. Of course all life is related on paper since the DNA is the blueprint of every organisms body.. we all have a liver, a heart, muscles, kidneys etc.. SO.. all species will certainly without a shred of doubt have similar genes. Hence what you said doesn't refute my suggestions. I don't have any evidence that various life forms were spontaneously created and you don't have any evidence on creating DNA yourself in a lab from non-biological molecules. Do you see the fallacy in both religion and man-written evolution? Yup, Horses and donkeys can mate and have viable off spring and they differ genetically by 2 chromosomes... http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mule http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hybrid_(biology) It is not impossible... Why hasn't a mad scientist tested it out? You know.. a chimp with a human. See the result...
Moontanman Posted February 13, 2013 Posted February 13, 2013 I didn't make any claims or assertions. I suggested a view point. Of course all life is related on paper since the DNA is the blueprint of every organisms body.. we all have a liver, a heart, muscles, kidneys etc.. SO.. all species will certainly without a shred of doubt have similar genes. Hence what you said doesn't refute my suggestions. Yes it does, the fossil record is replete with specimens that are transitory between various groups but the one you picked is quite complete, Humans can be followed by fossils all the way to apes to monkeys and beyond, there is no evidence that would indicate that apes or any other form of life just magically appeared fully formed as we see them now... I don't have any evidence that various life forms were spontaneously created and you don't have any evidence on creating DNA yourself in a lab from non-biological molecules. since this does nothing to refute evolution or common descent I see no reason to strike out on a new course that has nothing to do with evolution... Do you see the fallacy in both religion and man-written evolution? No, I do not and you have failed to indicate any reason i or anyone else should see it Why hasn't a mad scientist tested it out? You know.. a chimp with a human. See the result... This, i think, points to a major disconnect between what you think science is and what science really is... 1
Consistency Posted February 13, 2013 Author Posted February 13, 2013 Yes it does, the fossil record is replete with specimens that are transitory between various groups but the one you picked is quite complete, Humans can be followed by fossils all the way to apes to monkeys and beyond, there is no evidence that would indicate that apes or any other form of life just magically appeared fully formed as we see them now... You don't understand what DNA is. Let alone who made it. This, i think, points to a major disconnect between what you think science is and what science really is... So this is ethically OK then... http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2010/05/20/artificial-life-boots-up_n_583805.html ? Science is manipulation of the evidence and the world. No need to hide it.
Moontanman Posted February 13, 2013 Posted February 13, 2013 You don't understand what DNA is. Let alone who made it. So this is ethically OK then... http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2010/05/20/artificial-life-boots-up_n_583805.html ? Science is manipulation of the evidence and the world. No need to hide it. So you are not part of the plan? calling black helicoters
Recommended Posts