|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
Thread ▼ Details |
Member (Idle past 4732 days) Posts: 283 From: Weed, California, USA Joined: |
Thread Info
|
|
|
Author | Topic: The Common Ancestor? | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Admin Director Posts: 13038 From: EvC Forum Joined: Member Rating: 2.1 |
This topic is about the last common ancestor between man and ape. Diversions onto other topics such as intelligent design should be taken to other threads, or propose a new one over at Proposed New Topics.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Tangle Member Posts: 9510 From: UK Joined: Member Rating: 4.8 |
JBR writes: You have your opinion and I have mine. I guess we'll leave it at that Except that it's not my opinion. It's science's explanation supported by the evidence versus your opinion. Edited by Admin, : Fix quote.Life, don't talk to me about life - Marvin the Paranoid Android
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Just being real Member (Idle past 3963 days) Posts: 369 Joined: |
RE--Except that it's not my opinion. It's science's explanation supported by the evidence versus your opinion.--
Regarding the last common ancestor premise and creation, don't you agree that what you personally believe about what creationists predict or don't predict is only your opininon? Your claim is that creation doesn't predict that the "last common ancestor" premise, could also be the result of a common creator. That is your opinion isn't it? I have been involved in the debate for almost nine years now and all the creationists I have ever spoken with and most of the creationist websites I have veiwed do explain the similarities this way.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Tangle Member Posts: 9510 From: UK Joined: Member Rating: 4.8
|
JBR writes:
Regarding the last common ancestor premise and creation, don't you agree that what you personally believe about what creationists predict or don't predict is only your opininon? Your claim is that creation doesn't predict that the "last common ancestor" premise, could also be the result of a common creator. That is your opinion isn't it? I have been involved in the debate for almost nine years now and all the creationists I have ever spoken with and most of the creationist websites I have veiwed do explain the similarities this way. Creationists do not explain anything, they simply assert that god made things the way they are. That is not an explanation, it's a belief - or if you prefer - an opinion. Science offers an explanation supported by evidence. Handily, as well as providing evidence for its own position, it also disproves the creationist position by also pointing out the problems with it - dates, bad design, nested hierarchy, lack of floods, lack of genetic bottlenecks caused by floods and so on. It's game over I'm afraid - all that's left are those that are not interested in facts.Life, don't talk to me about life - Marvin the Paranoid Android
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Dr Adequate Member (Idle past 311 days) Posts: 16113 Joined:
|
Regarding the last common ancestor premise and creation, don't you agree that what you personally believe about what creationists predict or don't predict is only your opininon? Your claim is that creation doesn't predict that the "last common ancestor" premise, could also be the result of a common creator. That is your opinion isn't it? I have been involved in the debate for almost nine years now and all the creationists I have ever spoken with and most of the creationist websites I have veiwed do explain the similarities this way. But creationists do not predict the pattern of similarities. They "explain" them, as you say, by saying goddidit that way (and even then that's using the term "explain" rather loosely) --- but there is nothing whatsoever in creationism that would predict them.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
NoNukes Inactive Member
|
NoNukes writes: ... Genesis claims some things about what God actually did, and those things are not consistent with what we see. JBR writes: By all means feel free to give me an example please. You don't need me come up with examples, but the entire fossil record, including for example, the lack of rabbits or lizards in the pre-Cambrian period is entirely inconsistent with the idea that all animals except humans were created in a one day period. However a time-sequenced appearance and disappearance of life forms is entirely what we would expect if animal life evolved from a common ancestor or ancestors. Under a government which imprisons any unjustly, the true place for a just man is also in prison. Thoreau: Civil Disobedience (1846) The apathy of the people is enough to make every statue leap from its pedestal and hasten the resurrection of the dead. William Lloyd Garrison. If there is no struggle, there is no progress. Those who profess to favor freedom, and deprecate agitation, are men who want crops without plowing up the ground, they want rain without thunder and lightning. Frederick Douglass
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Just being real Member (Idle past 3963 days) Posts: 369 Joined: |
RE--Science offers an explanation supported by evidence. --
Yes, supported by the same similarity "evidence" that creationists say supports a common creator. RE--Handily, as well as providing evidence for its own position, it also disproves the creationist position by also pointing out the problems with it - dates, bad design, nested hierarchy, lack of floods, lack of genetic bottlenecks caused by floods and so on.-- And I have seen all the arguments on the reverse side of the spectrum. Neither really propell this debate forward, but rather leave it spinning its wheels in the mud throwing. So here is where we can move forward. --->Provide an example of evidence for common ancestory that doesn't rely at all on the similarity arguments. Period!
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Just being real Member (Idle past 3963 days) Posts: 369 Joined: |
RE--But creationists do not predict the pattern of similarities. They "explain" them, as you say, by saying goddidit that way (and even then that's using the term "explain" rather loosely) --- but there is nothing whatsoever in creationism that would predict them.--
Again Doc. you are welcome to believe what you want. That's not what I see though. I see creationists saying as you said "goddidit" and then predicting you could support that claim by the fact that many organisms appear to have a common creator as opposed to a common ancestor. But in the end its only a different interpretation of the exact same evidence. What I think is needed here to propell common ancestory out of this stale tie, and up into first place, is evidence to support it that doesn't rely at all on a similarity argument.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Just being real Member (Idle past 3963 days) Posts: 369 Joined: |
RE--You don't need me come up with examples, but the entire fossil record, including for example, the lack of rabbits or lizards in the pre-Cambrian period is entirely inconsistent with the idea that all animals except humans were created in a one day period.--
Oh real-hhill-ly? When the fossils don't support it why can't creationists just claim "imperfection of the fossil record," like so many evolutionists love to do? Seems like a good a case of "whats good for the goose"... to me.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Admin Director Posts: 13038 From: EvC Forum Joined: Member Rating: 2.1 |
Again, this topic is about the last common ancestor between man and ape. Diversions onto other topics such as intelligent design should be taken to other threads, or propose a new one over at Proposed New Topics.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Coyote Member (Idle past 2133 days) Posts: 6117 Joined: |
At the risk of being on topic, I offer the following from Wiki:
The chimpanzee-human last common ancestor (CHLCA, CLCA, or C/H LCA) is the last species that humans, bonobos and chimpanzees share as a common ancestor. Chimpanzee—human last common ancestor - WikipediaReligious belief does not constitute scientific evidence, nor does it convey scientific knowledge. Belief gets in the way of learning--Robert A. Heinlein How can I possibly put a new idea into your heads, if I do not first remove your delusions?--Robert A. Heinlein It's not what we don't know that hurts, it's what we know that ain't so--Will Rogers
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Dr Adequate Member (Idle past 311 days) Posts: 16113 Joined: |
Alas, it appears that if you want to go on being wrong about this subject, you will have to do so in another thread. Or you could apply five seconds' thought to the matters on which you discourse so glibly; whichever you find less fatiguing.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
NoNukes Inactive Member
|
When the fossils don't support it why can't creationists just claim "imperfection of the fossil record," like so many evolutionists love to do? Seems like a good a case of "whats good for the goose"... to me. Well you can surely try to make that case. The problem with doing that with regards to the pre-Cambrian is that the 'imperfection' is not just gaps in establishing some fossil evidence of common descent; essentially all of the higher order mordern life forms are missing from the pre-Cambrian strata. Yet there are enough lower order forms and primitive forms present to let us know life did exist at the time. In short there is both too much and too little there for the creationist. But yeah, you can equivocate and pretend that the 'imperfect fossil record' you need to explain the missing life forms in the pre-Cambrian is the same thing that evolution proponents point to. Edited by NoNukes, : No reason given.Under a government which imprisons any unjustly, the true place for a just man is also in prison. Thoreau: Civil Disobedience (1846) The apathy of the people is enough to make every statue leap from its pedestal and hasten the resurrection of the dead. William Lloyd Garrison. If there is no struggle, there is no progress. Those who profess to favor freedom, and deprecate agitation, are men who want crops without plowing up the ground, they want rain without thunder and lightning. Frederick Douglass
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Just being real Member (Idle past 3963 days) Posts: 369 Joined: |
RE--Again, this topic is about the last common ancestor between man and ape. Diversions onto other topics such as intelligent design should be taken to other threads--
Are you implying that my discussions are not on topic? Because if you are I am not understanding why not considering the context of how this thread was framed. The comments by Tram Law (the author) were:"If there is a common ancestor to both humans and apes, has it been found? If not, doesn't that call into question the existence of common ancestors?" He seems to be calling into doubt the existence of a common ancestor to me, which is to the point I have been making here. I'm questioning the evidence presented for a common ancestor. The usual evidence presented is based on the similarity argument which creationists claim could merely be the result of a common creator. Therefore to truly propel common ancestry premises to the forefront we would need to see evidence that does...not...rely on similarity arguments. So I'm basically asking the same question as Tram Law but with the additional need for that evidence to be supported by something other than similarities. I'm not seeing how this is deviating from topic at all?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Just being real Member (Idle past 3963 days) Posts: 369 Joined: |
RE--because the two species of the genus Pan, the bonobos and the chimpanzee, are the species most genetically similar to Homo sapiens.--
This is a similarity argument. Creationists claim that this is merely a result of a common creator.
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024