|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
Thread ▼ Details |
Member (Idle past 5185 days) Posts: 961 From: A wheatfield in Kansas Joined: |
|
Thread Info
|
|
|
Author | Topic: Macroevolution: Its all around us... | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||
eclipse Inactive Member |
It doesn't. It's not supposed to. Simplicity is the common denominator between us all. quote: By saying 'Simplicity is the common denominator between us all' I was referring to common sense. In order to understand the complex you must first understand the simple. To understand the simple you need commmon sense. Uderstanding the complex is what takes intelligence. In other words what this "system of simplicity" does is to help show us the simple leading up to the complex.
quote: So you're weren't aware that relatedness could state but you're aware that it could certainly imply. Of course, wanting to keep on the subject, I agree. I never said I didn't.
quote: What is so useful about that
quote: Same genus? I wouldn't be surprised, but we're not the same species. That is the whole point. Though we have similarities we're not the same. Yes we are more closely related to monkeys than algae. But we are still man kind and monkeys are still monkey kind.
quote: And you read national geographic? The people that said a theory is'nt really a theory but a fact accepted over time? Just to get people to believe their so called "science"?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
eclipse Inactive Member |
quote: Have you ever seen a Homo erectus besides in the text books and in magazines and plaster exhibits in Smithsonian? How do you know they ever existed. No one ever even found a comlete skeleton. As for Australopithicines they could possibly still be alive in Africa. I've never seen them but I do study Cryptozoology and it is a possibility. That is if they ever existed at all.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
EZscience Member (Idle past 5185 days) Posts: 961 From: A wheatfield in Kansas Joined: |
Mick :
Thanks for straightening me out. I'm not good with vertebrates
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
nator Member (Idle past 2200 days) Posts: 12961 From: Ann Arbor Joined: |
Well, if it has no predictive value or a basis in anything other than a simplistic, child's notion of what 'kinds' of things are related, then is is simply a fun thing to believe, but nothing more than that. quote: Great. So what does this have to do with Biology?
It's a story you tell but is otherwise not useful. quote: Science does not proceed through the use of methaphor and simplistic explanations. Science deals in predictions, evidence, testing, and very, very detailed-oriented, meticulous work.
So, should we stop using Chimps and other primates in medical testing because we have no way of determining how closely related various species are? quote: Yes, you most definitely did when you said in message 13 of this thread:
quote: If you are denying the reality of macro evolution, and you declare that Humans and chimps are separate "kinds" and I am guessing you also claim they are not closely related, then you are most definitely suggesting that using chimps and other primates in medical research is useless. If humans and chimps aren't the same "kind", then the research should be useless. At least, using primates shouldn't be regarded as being the next closest thing to testing humans. Right?
quote: Well, no, of course we aren't the same species, but remember, you are the one who said that there was no such thing as macroevolution. If there's no such thing as macroevolution, then you need to reject the entire field of genetics, because it certainly does point to macroevolution having happened. Anyway, maybe you should provide a definition of the following; "kind", "macroevolution", and "microevolution". For good measure, why not throw in a definition of "descent with modification", too.
quote: ...which the ToE never, ever predicts.
quote: ...which the ToE never, ever predicts. Where on earth did you ever get the idea that this is how evolution works? You have some rather major misconceptions that a little information should rectify. Please, read this basic overview of how evolution actually works. BTW, I suspect that you are thinking of hyracotherium, the oldest known ancestor of the horse. The hyrax is not closely related to the horse lineage, but to elephants.
quote: You clearly have a very distorted idea of what evolution actually is. Perhaps, before you handwave away the underpinning Theory of most of modern life science, including Biology, Paleontology, Genetics (including Population Genetics), and much of the science that modern medicine, Agriculture and Animal Husbandry is based upon, perhaps you might consider making an effort to understand what it is you are rejecting. You know, just to be safe.
quote: The oldest document is not the Bible.
link Sumerian, the oldest known written language in human history, was spoken in Mesopotamia (modern Iraq and peripheral regions) throughout the third millennium BC. The Code of Hammourabi is probably the oldest known document. quote: 1) Columbus didn't "figure out" that the Earth was a sphere. This was known by the Greeks through Pythagoras, Aristotle, and Ptolemy. Unfortunately, once the anti-intellectual, Church-led Dark Ages settled into Europe, the strides in science and learning the Greeks had made were discarded in favor of superstition. (This thankfully did not happen in the Arab world, which is where Europe rediscovered the Greek texts during the Age of Enlightenment which followed the Dark Ages. Sadly, it seems that much of the Arab world is now repeating the same mistakes of anti-intellectualism and religious extremism that the Europeans made 1000 years ago.) 2) The Bible clearly says that the Earth is round, yes, but like a disc, with a dome-shaped firmament over it into which the stars are permenantly "set". Indeed, this Biblical view is exactly why it was thought that one would be in danger of sailing "off the edge of the Earth" if one ventured too far out to sea. Finally, I notice that you didn't answer one of my questions, so perhaps you missed it. Do you accept that DNA paternity tests are reliable and accurate? Why or why not?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
nator Member (Idle past 2200 days) Posts: 12961 From: Ann Arbor Joined: |
quote: OK, here is my problem with the above. You say that my housecats and a Siberian tiger are both "feline kind", correct? You also say that humans and chimpanzees are NOT the same "kind" but "human kind" and "monkey kind". The problem is that even though my housecats and a Siberian tiger have much more dissimilar genetic codes compared to humans and chimpanzees, you lump the first two together in the same "kind" and separate the second two into seperate "kinds". This doesn't seem to make much sense as a classification system, because it isn't consistent. This is why I asked if we were to discard genetic similarities when deciding what animals belong in what "kind" group. If it is simply arbitrary, then it is useless. (BTW, scientists consider both humans and chimps "apes", not monkeys. Monkeys have tails and apes do not, among other major differences such as intelligence, social structure, use of tools, and the presence of a culture)
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
eclipse Inactive Member |
quote: Some theories state that evolution happened quickly like in the case of reptiles and birds. Such on and such onI haven't gotten to all your questions yet. If you haven't noticed I already have about a zillion questions to go through from the second page. I don't have 6 hrs to spare going through all these questions you probably already know the answer to.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
eclipse Inactive Member |
quote: incorrect. I never said that either. I'm not sure where you got that idea. Apes, monkeys, I thought about specifying the difference but I didn't think we were getting that technical.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
EZscience Member (Idle past 5185 days) Posts: 961 From: A wheatfield in Kansas Joined: |
schrafinator writes: Unfortunately, once the anti-intellectual, Church-led Dark Ages settled into Europe, the strides in science and learning the Greeks had made were discarded in favor of superstition. (This thankfully did not happen in the Arab world, which is where Europe rediscovered the Greek texts during the Age of Enlightenment which followed the Dark Ages. Sadly, it seems that much of the Arab world is now repeating the same mistakes of anti-intellectualism and religious extremism that the Europeans made 1000 years ago.) Schrafinator, I honestly hope you get to teach political science.I couldn't have said it better.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
NosyNed Member Posts: 9004 From: Canada Joined: |
Some theories state that evolution happened quickly like in the case of reptiles and birds You should not phrase this as a firm statement. When you are unsure of the subject you are discussing and someone with, perhaps, more knowledge suggests you have misconceptions you should respond with something like: I read, in such and such a place, that evolution happened quickly in the case of reptiles and birds. or I thought that this was supposed to have happened quickly. This gives the idea that you aren't so sure of your "facts" and are ready to be corrected. In each case it would make sense for you to fill in a few more details such as were you read it. As for "quickly" you might want to be sure that you have a number on the time scale involved so others can understand what you mean by quickly. What you have posted simply suggests that you have reached a conclusion without having,really, any facts on which to base a conclusion. This is neither good decision making or a very good base for learning new things.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
nator Member (Idle past 2200 days) Posts: 12961 From: Ann Arbor Joined: |
quote: Have you ever seen an electron except in the txtbooks and in magazines and exhibits in museums?
quote: How do you know electrons exist?
quote: No one has ever seen an electron. OTOH, here is a nearly complete skeleton of Homo erectus.
quote: And how would this be a problem for the Theory of Evolution, exactly?
quote: You know, I am going to direct you to a pretty extensive compilation of the scientific evidence for fossil hominids and human evolution. You just need way more info than I am able to tell you here. This message has been edited by schrafinator, 05-04-2005 11:07 PM
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
eclipse Inactive Member |
Columbus didn't "figure out" that the Earth was a sphere. This was known by the Greeks through Pythagoras, Aristotle, and Ptolemy.
the Bible was still around back in the time of the philosophers or whatever you prefer to call them. There are too many questions flying around. Let me make my point clearMacroevolution-Evolutionary change involving large and complex steps resulting in a different KIND of animal Microevolution- a change within a single species resulting a different species or subspecies. kind- if it looks like a housecat it's a house cat. If it looks like a tiger it's a tiger if it looks like an ape its an ape if it looks specifically like a human it's a human What I'm saying is that you are talking about micro evolution not macro.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
jar Member (Idle past 425 days) Posts: 34026 From: Texas!! Joined: |
You still have not defined what 'kind' is.
How can I tell when things are the same kind? Aslan is not a Tame Lion
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
nator Member (Idle past 2200 days) Posts: 12961 From: Ann Arbor Joined: |
quote: "Quickly" in evolutionary terms involve many, many tens, even hundreds of thousands of years, intead of many millions of years. Nowhere, ever, does the ToE posit that an individual of one species will give birth to a completely different species with many very dissimilar behavioral and physical differences, which is exactly what you said it did posit.
quote: I certainly have noticed. There is no requirement that you anwer every single person, particularly when we are all asking very similar questions. There is also no rush. Just indicate when it is that you expect to be able to reply.
quote: I know how I would answer the questions, but given what you have told me so far, I'd like to know how you would answer the questions. After all, this is a discussion forum.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
nator Member (Idle past 2200 days) Posts: 12961 From: Ann Arbor Joined: |
Ah, my mistake.
So, what "kind" are my housecats and what "kind" are Siberian tigers, and why do you put them in the "kind" category that you do?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
nator Member (Idle past 2200 days) Posts: 12961 From: Ann Arbor Joined: |
quote: My goodness, thank you very much!
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024