|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
Thread ▼ Details |
Member (Idle past 5940 days) Posts: 563 From: Brisbane, Australia Joined: |
|
Thread Info
|
|
|
Author | Topic: Most convincing evidence for evolutionary theory | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Percy Member Posts: 22508 From: New Hampshire Joined: Member Rating: 5.4 |
I think you should take these issues to a thread where they'd be on-topic.
--Percy
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
AdminBuzsaw Inactive Member |
Rob, what members Nosy and Percy are trying to convey to you, I see the need to enforce as creationist moderator so as to keep our creationist noses clean here, so to speak. What you need to note in particular is the topic title which is not evidence against evolution perse, but evidence for evolution. Sometimes this topic line can be a bit puzzling, but when in doubt, please hold your peace by refraining from response. So long as your response is directly related to messages pertaining to specific evidence you're ok in assessment of that claimed evidence cited. Otherwise you're off topic.
In a nut shell, either post evidence for or refute claimed such evidence related to the specified evidence to which you are responding in a manner that does not drift from it. Follow this advice of myself, Nosy and Admin at all times in your activity here and you'll get along fine. Otherwise it's going to be the sameole. NOTE: If you wish to comment on this admin action, please do so in the proper moderation forum. Thanks. Edited by Buzsaw, : rephrase for clarity Edited by AdminBuzsaw, : No reason given. For ideological balance on the EvC admin team as a Biblical creationist.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
anastasia Member (Idle past 5984 days) Posts: 1857 From: Bucks County, PA Joined: |
jar writes: I think you do need to attack Biblical Literalism, but to be successful, that needs to be done from within the Christian communion.It will not work if the attack comes from someone who does not accept the Bible as a Holy Book, and may not work even if the attacker accepts the Bible as a Holy Book , but that is IMHO the only possible way it might succeed. Well, I'll be, I was trying to say the same elsewhere before I sratched it. Some Christians see evolutionists as the devil incarnate. The problem is, the see other denoms in the same way. You can get two scientists to discuss facts, it happens here all the time. There is a teaching/mentoring thing, and the person in the wrong will usually acknowledge that in the science threads when confronted with a rebuttal. The problem with Bible study is that there are no facts. Try to argue an interpretation, and you are cast as a 'devil' just as an evolutionionist. Yet, I agree, that the only way to beat it, is to meet it. Let people know that there is more than one view out there. Let them know that it is Christians who oppose them, as well as the 'enemy'.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
IamJoseph Member (Idle past 3699 days) Posts: 2822 Joined: |
quote: What if there is a legitimate qualification preposed, that the species classifications of Darwin does not cater to a pivotal factor in humans as a category of its own? Does this infringe the thread subject? I refer to the fact that humans are distinquished from all other life forms, primarily and exclusively, by speech, a constant which has prevailed over all of time. The categorising of life forms by skeletal and biological imprints, as per Darwin's species, does not acknowledge this pivotal factor - which makes the conclusions based on generic factors, common to all life, as wanting. Its like nominating a million 'red' marbles by their shades of 'red' - while disregarding that one marble is 'blue' - and never seen anywhere else. It is feasable that this factor can be the most legitimate path to the premise of manifest 'differentials' debated within the evolutionary menu: if one factor stands out, and is the most powerful one - all the biological imprints have to cater to that stand out feature, and explain why it is not generic, as per all other generic differentials?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Dr Adequate Member (Idle past 315 days) Posts: 16113 Joined: |
What if there is a legitimate qualification preposed, that the species classifications of Darwin does not cater to a pivotal factor in humans as a category of its own? Does this infringe the thread subject? I refer to the fact that humans are distinquished from all other life forms, primarily and exclusively, by speech, a constant which has prevailed over all of time. The categorising of life forms by skeletal and biological imprints, as per Darwin's species, does not acknowledge this pivotal factor - which makes the conclusions based on generic factors, common to all life, as wanting. What if there is a legitimate qualification preposed, that the species classifications of Darwin does not cater to a pivotal factor in elephants as a category of its own? Does this infringe the thread subject? I refer to the fact that elephants are distinquished from all other life forms, primarily and exclusively, by prehensile noses, a constant which has prevailed over all of time. The categorising of life forms by skeletal and biological imprints, as per Darwin's species, does not acknowledge this pivotal factor - which makes the conclusions based on generic factors, common to all life, as wanting. Its like nominating a million 'red' marbles by their shades of 'red' - while disregarding that one marble is 'blue' - and never seen anywhere else. It is feasable that this factor can be the most legitimate path to the premise of manifest 'differentials' debated within the evolutionary menu: if one factor stands out, and is the most powerful one - all the biological imprints have to cater to that stand out feature, and explain why it is not generic, as per all other generic differentials?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
IamJoseph Member (Idle past 3699 days) Posts: 2822 Joined: |
quote: Tooth size variations - equatable with speech? Well - one more opine will make this Q conclusive for this thread!
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Dr Adequate Member (Idle past 315 days) Posts: 16113 Joined: |
I knew that you were ignorant of biology, but I wouldn't have suspected that even you could confuse teeth and noses.
They're two different things. Spend some time with a mirror and a dictionary, and I'm sure you'll figure it out eventually. Edited by Dr Adequate, : No reason given.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Vacate Member (Idle past 4631 days) Posts: 565 Joined: |
What if there is a legitimate qualification preposed, that the species classifications of Darwin does not cater to a pivotal factor in humans as a category of its own? Humans do have a category of their own! Homo Sapien, does this satisfy you? Take note of the fact that in latin this means wise man, I am sure this will bring you satisfaction in that science even elevates humans (even if just in name).
I refer to the fact that humans are distinquished from all other life forms, primarily and exclusively, by speech Not so. You are minimilizing our differences. Not only are we different because of speech, but also our DNA, Bones, Brain, organs, and even trivial things such as our appearance - all these set us apart from all other animals! I can tell you apart from a whale even when you don't speak. ABE - In message 171 you attributed the quote to me when it was Dr.Adequate that should have been credited. Edited by Vacate, : No reason given.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
IamJoseph Member (Idle past 3699 days) Posts: 2822 Joined: |
quote: I disagree - absolutely; variations are not intrinsic or pivotal differences. But I won't take up this issue here. Edited by IamJoseph, : No reason given.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Vacate Member (Idle past 4631 days) Posts: 565 Joined: |
I disagree - absolutely; variations are not intrinsic or pivotal differences. This is just absurd. Are you going to wait for the drop of blood to speak before calling it a murder scene?
But I won't take up this issue here. Yes you will and you already have. In Message 101:
IamJoseph writes: Disregard the term, species, at least in the method of categorising life forms, and replace it with the broader margins of 'kind' as per genesis. This allows a far greater grouping of life forms, namely speech endowed humans are seen as one 'kind' And again here in Message 105 Speech, more than skeletal or dna imprints is what differentiates modern humans. Again in Message 110 that speech should be highlighted for humans - I'd prefer you acknowledged this, as opposed to inferring this is too naive - it is not. Another here in Message 145 Genesis identifies this difference with speech - a fulcrum, unique factor No suprise in Message 152 Its abscence in the equation makes it deficient in illustrating the difference and connectivity between species. same post, but adding yet another issue:
Simple: none of the birds have speech; birds are distinquished from animals and fish by their special air-borne attribute. A few more in that post, but I hardly see the need for quote boxes.
Message 154 Message 169 Message 171 You have done nothing but take up this issue here, and with this final post you still make the claim that the only important difference is speech! Congratulations on making such a unique observation, but could you please make a new thread that outlines how in the world this could be of any use to science? If you are going to insist that speach is the only important feature I feel that I am justified in some clarity before you have the right to keep declaring "victory" over biologists. All you have right now is a fallback on "kinds" that shifts so broadly, and so often that any attempt at a solid understanding is impossible. Your method of organizing life is meaningless. You keep claiming science is wrong because it is not organizing correctly - then be clear on your proposal for a correct method. I would be glad to question you on various life forms and how you decide what "kind" they are.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Straggler Member (Idle past 96 days) Posts: 10333 From: London England Joined: |
I refer to the fact that humans are distinquished from all other life forms, primarily and exclusively, by speech
Are humans who cannot speak for whatever reason any less human? Could we not define any particular characteristic of any animal and say that said characteristic makes it unique and special. Surely the only reason we would think speech is so special is because it is our speciality? Do other animals not communicate verbally? At what point does that become speech? (dolphins, whales, chimps etc. etc.)
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
IamJoseph Member (Idle past 3699 days) Posts: 2822 Joined: |
quote: If you mean a mute human, this is an exception to the rule, and not catering to the issue.
quote: Communication is common to all life forms, and a varied attribute from speech. I don't see dolphins or elephant noses being the right TICK-OFF what sets humans apart from all other life forms. Basically, I have accepted this thread's majority view, but not by agreeing in any manner whatsoever: in fact I see the reluctance to a blatant logic as a lacking, but this thread appears not inclined in a variant view of what has been accepted of darwin's classifications by skeletal and biological imprints only, and where speech is not a consideration. We must agree to disagree.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
RAZD Member (Idle past 1436 days) Posts: 20714 From: the other end of the sidewalk Joined: |
Evolution, namely the chronological emergence of different life form species, was inroduced in Genesis; this agreement of species is not pursuent to Darwin. Mircoevolution is not the issue - the conclusion made of it, is the issue, and this debate is inclined with genesis being correct. Yes, the issue is not really evolution per se but common descent -- and the agreement of evidence with the numbers of common ancestors as you go back through the evidence. The main problem for the "genesis model" is the disappearance of human then ape then primate then mammal etc etc as you go back in time. Enjoy. compare Fiocruz Genome and fight Muscular Dystrophy with Team EvC! (click) we are limited in our ability to understand by our ability to understand RebelAAmericanOZen[Deist ... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ... to share.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
RAZD Member (Idle past 1436 days) Posts: 20714 From: the other end of the sidewalk Joined: |
Communication is common to all life forms, and a varied attribute from speech. I don't see dolphins or elephant noses being the right TICK-OFF what sets humans apart from all other life forms. Communication is what speech accomplishes - this is just a difference of degree and not of kind, and your personal incredulity and denial have nothing to do with it. Enjoy. compare Fiocruz Genome and fight Muscular Dystrophy with Team EvC! (click) we are limited in our ability to understand by our ability to understand RebelAAmericanOZen[Deist ... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ... to share.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Straggler Member (Idle past 96 days) Posts: 10333 From: London England Joined: |
Communication is common to all life forms, and a varied attribute from speech
How exactly? At what point in infant development does this transition from communication to speech occur (for example)? I still have issue with you arbitarily deciding that speech is the most important attribute that seperates us from all other living things but until the difference between communication and speech is defined this is fairly meaningless anyway. Edited by Straggler, : Dopey spelling
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024