Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
7 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,815 Year: 3,072/9,624 Month: 917/1,588 Week: 100/223 Day: 11/17 Hour: 0/7


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Why are there no human apes alive today?
traste
Member (Idle past 5142 days)
Posts: 173
Joined: 02-09-2009


Message 121 of 1075 (526174)
09-26-2009 1:55 AM
Reply to: Message 117 by Dr Adequate
09-26-2009 1:35 AM


Dr Adequate wrote:
He is writing what the Moonies are saying. There's a difference
Are,the moonies all biologist? How in your opinion, can someone without solid credentials in biolgy can cause so much trouble?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 117 by Dr Adequate, posted 09-26-2009 1:35 AM Dr Adequate has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 125 by Dr Adequate, posted 09-26-2009 2:10 AM traste has replied

Huntard
Member (Idle past 2295 days)
Posts: 2870
From: Limburg, The Netherlands
Joined: 09-02-2008


(1)
Message 122 of 1075 (526175)
09-26-2009 2:03 AM
Reply to: Message 111 by traste
09-26-2009 12:24 AM


traste writes:
No,he is telling the truth.
Yes, let's assert all around. You studied biology and therefore know that wells is telling the truth? I'd like some evidence for that claim.
If I were the one you task, I will not because you will simply said they are lying.
So, there aren't any. Lying is frowned upon, you know. Or, if you're not lying, provide the names of the many biologists who disagree. I'm hardly in a position to deny a list of say...10.000 biologists who agree with Wells (yes, that would constitute many. Not 100, not 200, not 500. Do you have any idea how many biologists there are, anyway?)

I hunt for the truth
I am the one Orgasmatron
The outstretched grasping hand
My image is of agony
My servants rape the land
Obsequious and arrogant
Clandestine and vain
Two thousand years of misery
Of torture in my name
Hypocrisy made paramount
Paranoia the law
My name is called religion
Sadistic, sacred whore.
-Lyrics by Lemmy Kilmister of Motorhead

This message is a reply to:
 Message 111 by traste, posted 09-26-2009 12:24 AM traste has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 126 by traste, posted 09-26-2009 2:11 AM Huntard has replied

traste
Member (Idle past 5142 days)
Posts: 173
Joined: 02-09-2009


Message 123 of 1075 (526176)
09-26-2009 2:03 AM
Reply to: Message 120 by DrJones*
09-26-2009 1:49 AM


DrJones writes:
Advanced is relative, this was pointed out to you with the whale example up thread
Would you mine stating those relativity factors? If so advancement is not universal. So, how does an organism survived in this instance,while it cannot surived in the next instance?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 120 by DrJones*, posted 09-26-2009 1:49 AM DrJones* has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 124 by DrJones*, posted 09-26-2009 2:09 AM traste has replied

DrJones*
Member
Posts: 2284
From: Edmonton, Alberta, Canada
Joined: 08-19-2004
Member Rating: 6.8


(1)
Message 124 of 1075 (526177)
09-26-2009 2:09 AM
Reply to: Message 123 by traste
09-26-2009 2:03 AM


Would you mine stating those relativity factors?
I stated 2 of them, enviroment and other species.
So, how does an organism survived in this instance,while it cannot surived in the next instance?
you mind rewriting this to make sense?

It's not enough to bash in heads, you've got to bash in minds
soon I discovered that this rock thing was true
Jerry Lee Lewis was the devil
Jesus was an architect previous to his career as a prophet
All of a sudden i found myself in love with the world
And so there was only one thing I could do
Was ding a ding dang my dang along ling long - Jesus Built my Hotrod Ministry

Live every week like it's Shark Week! - Tracey Jordan
Just a monkey in a long line of kings. - Matthew Good
If "elitist" just means "not the dumbest motherfucker in the room", I'll be an elitist! - Get Your War On
*not an actual doctor

This message is a reply to:
 Message 123 by traste, posted 09-26-2009 2:03 AM traste has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 137 by traste, posted 10-28-2009 1:06 AM DrJones* has replied

Dr Adequate
Member (Idle past 284 days)
Posts: 16113
Joined: 07-20-2006


(1)
Message 125 of 1075 (526178)
09-26-2009 2:10 AM
Reply to: Message 121 by traste
09-26-2009 1:55 AM


Are,the moonies all biologist?
No. Indeed, part of their faith involves rejecting the most fundamental truths of biology.
How in your opinion, can someone without solid credentials in biolgy can cause so much trouble?
You don't need solid credentials in a subject to be wrong about it. "Father" Sun Myung Moon may know bugger-all about biology, but he can still persuade his followers to talk nonsense about it --- after all, he's got them convinced that he's the Second Coming of Jesus, and, as the actual Jesus said, who swallows a camel and strains at a gnat?
---
My point, in case you missed it, was that one can hardly cite Wells as representative of a shift in biological thought. He first became a cult member, then, because the cult leader ordered him to, he got a PhD in biology the better to serve the propagandizing mission of the cult.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 121 by traste, posted 09-26-2009 1:55 AM traste has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 129 by traste, posted 09-26-2009 2:24 AM Dr Adequate has replied

traste
Member (Idle past 5142 days)
Posts: 173
Joined: 02-09-2009


Message 126 of 1075 (526179)
09-26-2009 2:11 AM
Reply to: Message 122 by Huntard
09-26-2009 2:03 AM


Huntard writes:
Yes, let's assert all around. You studied biology and therefore know that wells is telling the truth? I'd like some evidence for that claim.
Yeah I know some biology, like for example the DNA, folding the folding is very precise because if not it cease to function properly. He is telling the truth on the ground that he implied, there is no way for blind material to bring up those precision, those precision according to our common sense was design.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 122 by Huntard, posted 09-26-2009 2:03 AM Huntard has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 127 by Huntard, posted 09-26-2009 2:18 AM traste has not replied

Huntard
Member (Idle past 2295 days)
Posts: 2870
From: Limburg, The Netherlands
Joined: 09-02-2008


(1)
Message 127 of 1075 (526181)
09-26-2009 2:18 AM
Reply to: Message 126 by traste
09-26-2009 2:11 AM


More assertions
traste writes:
Yeah I know some biology
I asked if you had studied it. That doesn't mean you know some biology. That means you have spent several years really studying the subject. Your other comments here make me think that was not the case.
like for example the DNA, folding the folding is very precise because if not it cease to function properly.
I appreciate English is not your first language, but what are you talking about here?
He is telling the truth on the ground that he implied, there is no way for blind material to bring up those precision
There is no way for simple water molecules to ever form a nice ordered and precise snowflake, it's just blind material. God must make every little snowflake himself.
those precision according to our common sense was design.
"Common sense" eh? So, the literal hundreds of thousands of studies into the subject are wrong, yet your "common sense" has cleared the matter in mere minutes. I'm sorry if I don't nominate you for the nobel price yet.

I hunt for the truth
I am the one Orgasmatron, the outstretched grasping hand
My image is of agony, ,y servants rape the land
Obsequious and arrogant, clandestine and vain
Two thousand years of misery, of torture in my name
Hypocrisy made paramount, paranoia the law
My name is called religion, sadistic, sacred whore.
-Lyrics by Lemmy Kilmister of Motorhead

This message is a reply to:
 Message 126 by traste, posted 09-26-2009 2:11 AM traste has not replied

Dr Adequate
Member (Idle past 284 days)
Posts: 16113
Joined: 07-20-2006


(1)
Message 128 of 1075 (526183)
09-26-2009 2:24 AM
Reply to: Message 109 by traste
09-26-2009 12:09 AM


That is 100%, that is the real reason why we cannot see intermidiate forms today.
Intermediate forms are abundant in the fossil record.
Even honest paleontologist noticed the sudden apperance of organism.
Honest paleontologists think that creationism is crap.
Just give me an example of a dog with out an eye and then gradually have it through blind naturalistic process.
I presume you intended that sentence to be written in the English language. But your meaning is somewhat obscure.
Edited by Dr Adequate, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 109 by traste, posted 09-26-2009 12:09 AM traste has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 136 by traste, posted 10-28-2009 1:00 AM Dr Adequate has not replied

traste
Member (Idle past 5142 days)
Posts: 173
Joined: 02-09-2009


Message 129 of 1075 (526184)
09-26-2009 2:24 AM
Reply to: Message 125 by Dr Adequate
09-26-2009 2:10 AM


Dr Adequate writes:
No. Indeed, part of their faith involves rejecting the most fundamental truths of biology
Therefore they dont believe that dogs are animals? Or you mean something about that rejecting "the most fundamental truhts in biology". Maybe you mean rejecting the most fundamental truth of evolution?
You don't need solid credentials in a subject to be wrong about it. "Father" Sun Myung Moon may know bugger-all about biology, but he can still persuade his followers to talk nonsense about it --- after all, he's got them convinced that he's the Second Coming of Jesus, and, as the actual Jesus said, who swallows a camel and strains at a gnat?
Let's dont talk about his status, in fact I dont agree much of his religious beliefs.,Evaluating the status of someone is no help to refute his argument. Have you ever think about that?
My point, in case you missed it, was that one can hardly cite Wells as representative of a shift in biological thought. He first became a cult member, then, because the cult leader ordered him to, he got a PhD in biology the better to serve the propagandizing mission of the cult.
In this regards the National Academy Of Science , very wrong for appointing him as a fellow.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 125 by Dr Adequate, posted 09-26-2009 2:10 AM Dr Adequate has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 130 by Dr Adequate, posted 09-26-2009 2:38 AM traste has replied
 Message 131 by Dr Adequate, posted 09-26-2009 2:47 AM traste has not replied
 Message 133 by Coragyps, posted 09-26-2009 10:39 AM traste has not replied

Dr Adequate
Member (Idle past 284 days)
Posts: 16113
Joined: 07-20-2006


(1)
Message 130 of 1075 (526185)
09-26-2009 2:38 AM
Reply to: Message 129 by traste
09-26-2009 2:24 AM


Wells
Evaluating the status of someone is no help to refute his argument.
It is very relevant when the pertinence of your argument hinges on his status. You wrote:
biologist Jonathan Wells writes: At the level of kingdoms, phyla, and classes, descent with modification from common ancestors is obviously not an observed fact. To judge from the fossil and molecular evidence, it’s not even a well-supported theory.
many within the field are seeing it for themselves.
Obviously Wells' words would have been of no particular interest if he was, for example, a professional pastry chef. Your whole point was: "Look, look, here's someone with status who's saying what I want to hear". The entire relevance of the quotation rested on his status.
Therefore, it is worthwhile examining his status. The fact that he has a PhD in biology does, in fact, make his words more relevant than those of a pastry chef. But the fact that he only got his PhD because his cult leader ordered him to get it so that he could more effectively propagandize against evolution somewhat undercuts that: for his views on evolution do not result from any biological research, but from joining a cult in which the cult leader and self-proclaimed Messiah told him what his views ought to be.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 129 by traste, posted 09-26-2009 2:24 AM traste has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 141 by traste, posted 10-28-2009 1:36 AM Dr Adequate has not replied

Dr Adequate
Member (Idle past 284 days)
Posts: 16113
Joined: 07-20-2006


(1)
Message 131 of 1075 (526188)
09-26-2009 2:47 AM
Reply to: Message 129 by traste
09-26-2009 2:24 AM


Wells and the NAS
In this regards the National Academy Of Science , very wrong for appointing him as a fellow.
Oh look, you're talking about his status again.
Do you have any sources for this claim? Only it doesn't mention this in Wells's Wikipedia biography; the NAS does not have "fellows", it has "members"; and although membership, once elected, is for life, I can't find his name using the search engine provided by the NAS to search their list of members.
Also, they only elect scientists with considerable scientific achievements under their belts.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 129 by traste, posted 09-26-2009 2:24 AM traste has not replied

Percy
Member
Posts: 22391
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 5.2


(1)
Message 132 of 1075 (526214)
09-26-2009 8:19 AM
Reply to: Message 114 by traste
09-26-2009 1:16 AM


Hi Traste,
First, I have a request. When you resume posting to a thread, please don't post eight responses to eight different messages. No thread should be spread out across so many subtopics that it can support eight different conversations. The main topic in this thread is the classification of humans as one species of Hominidae, or more informally, apes.
traste writes:
Those statements, are saying that the evidences are inconflict with there evolutioanary beliefs.
No, they're not. They're using the literary device of first posing a conundrum for which they then provide a solution, except that:
Yes, but they are posting negative comments.
No, they're not posting negative comments. They're not posting anything at all. Creationist websites posted those comments, and they posted only a portion of what was said in order to give the false appearance that they both believe the evidence is not in concert with the theory.
If he is an advocate of punctuated equilibrium,he cannot be an advacate of gradualism.
Uh, yes, that's what he was getting at, that he's not an advocate of gradualism. That's okay, I understand English isn't your first language.
The main point to take from this is that punctuated equilibrium, the view accepted by Stanley and Eldredge, is compatible with evolution. Where they differ with advocates of gradualism is on the tempo and pace of evolution, not on whether it happened.
Look at this by way of example. Say scientists believed that toadstools could only grow gradually, and that one day a scientist came along who claimed that toadstools could spring up overnight. How much sense would it make to take this disagreement over the tempo and pace of toadstool growth to argue that it means this scientist believes the evidence is inconsistent with the existence of toadstools?
You're basically arguing the same thing, that a disagreement over the tempo and pace of evolution means the evidence is in conflict with evolution.
Returning to the topic, we're talking about a classification system, not story telling. Humans are in the same grouping as chimps and gorillas when it comes to Animalia. Do you have a problem with calling humans animals, along with chimps and gorillas?
And we're all in the same grouping when it comes to Chordata (vertebrates). Do you have a problem with calling humans vertebrates, along with chimps and gorillas.
And we're all in the same grouping when it comes to Mammalia (mammals). Do you have a problem with calling humans mammals, along with chimps and gorillas?
And we're all in the same grouping when it comes to Primates. Do you have a problem with calling humans Primates, along with chimps and gorillas?
And we're all in the same grouping when it comes to Hominidae. Do you have a problem with calling humans Hominidae, along with chimps and gorillas?
The informal name for Hominidae is apes.
--Percy

This message is a reply to:
 Message 114 by traste, posted 09-26-2009 1:16 AM traste has not replied

Coragyps
Member (Idle past 734 days)
Posts: 5553
From: Snyder, Texas, USA
Joined: 11-12-2002


(1)
Message 133 of 1075 (526233)
09-26-2009 10:39 AM
Reply to: Message 129 by traste
09-26-2009 2:24 AM


In this regards the National Academy Of Science , very wrong for appointing him as a fellow.
OT anecdote: at the Texas Board of Education hearings on biology textbooks in 2003, one of the anti-science board members referred to the creationist/ID luminary William Dembski's credentials: "He's a member of the American Association for the Advancement of Science!" The fifty or so of us there who had also paid our $129 for a year's subscription to Science and a membership in AAAS got a giggle out of that.
Wells ain't an NAS member.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 129 by traste, posted 09-26-2009 2:24 AM traste has not replied

Granny Magda
Member
Posts: 2462
From: UK
Joined: 11-12-2007
Member Rating: 4.0


(1)
Message 134 of 1075 (526251)
09-26-2009 12:03 PM
Reply to: Message 108 by traste
09-25-2009 11:54 PM


Re: Evolution is Not Advancement
Traste, there is no need to be rude.
Im, very much afaid I cannot for the simple reason that if I present those source you just simply said they are lying, Idont like to waste my effort.
You seem to be accusing me of a dishonest response before I have even responded. That is extremely poor form.
The fact remains that evolution is not defined by "advancement".
Different in what sense?
Different in that they display morphological and genetic differences from their parents and other ancestors.
Yeah, I know that they are much more complex and more advanced in the same time, like the many machine we observe today, the complex one is more advanced than the other.
Wrong. Imagine that I have a wheelbarrow. Now imagine that I make it more complex, by adding some gears, levers, flashing lights, pulleys, pistons, and a little machine that goes *ping!*.
Is my wheelbarrow more advanced? It isn't going to be any better at moving soil around my garden. In fact, it is going to be worse, since it's bogged down with useless gadgetry.
It has been made more complex, but not more advanced in any meaningful sense.
Advancement is a human conceit. To advance, there must a clear line from worse to better. These are purely subjective judgements. You may think that a human is a big improvement on a jellyfish and I would be inclined to agree with you insofar as it goes. Nature however has no such opinions. Nature does not differentiate between good and bad, advanced or primitive. All that matters in nature is whether an organism can survive long enough to reproduce or not. That's it, the bottom line.
Your faith in evolution is showing..Hasty generalization.
Three winking smilies? Are you having some kind of seizure?
Nothing else you have to say seems relevant to me, so I think I'll leave it there. The take-home message is that evolution is not dependant on any human notion of advancement.
Mutate and Survive

"A curious aspect of the theory of evolution is that everybody thinks he understands it." - Jacques Monod

This message is a reply to:
 Message 108 by traste, posted 09-25-2009 11:54 PM traste has not replied

traste
Member (Idle past 5142 days)
Posts: 173
Joined: 02-09-2009


Message 135 of 1075 (532998)
10-28-2009 12:51 AM
Reply to: Message 76 by Huntard
08-20-2009 7:26 AM


Huntard wrote:
Because those apes were adapted to their (ever changing) environment, yet those apemen weren't. It's really that simple
The question remains. What made the better adapted? the obvious answer is because they are more complex. So, it follows that the more complex the more itis better adapted. So bacause apemen is more complex, the question is: Why there are no apemen alive today?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 76 by Huntard, posted 08-20-2009 7:26 AM Huntard has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 139 by Coyote, posted 10-28-2009 1:21 AM traste has not replied
 Message 140 by anglagard, posted 10-28-2009 1:28 AM traste has replied
 Message 147 by Huntard, posted 10-29-2009 2:51 AM traste has not replied

Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024