Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
5 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,817 Year: 3,074/9,624 Month: 919/1,588 Week: 102/223 Day: 13/17 Hour: 0/1


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Is Ape/Human Common Ancestory Enough?
lucyman fake
Inactive Member


Message 61 of 74 (123266)
07-09-2004 8:13 AM
Reply to: Message 55 by lucyman fake
07-09-2004 5:51 AM


Re: Entire Path?
We expect to give Charles Darwin a chance for further study by the scientific community but when a scientist with a revolutionary idea that challengs evolution namely Velikovsky: changes in the structure of the solar system during hystorical times. Do you think the scientific community gave him a chance as we do with Charles Darwin? hell no. They shut him out saying if he is right then everyone else is crazy. They boycotted and ridiculed him all because he challenged a dogma. Ironically Velikovsky, a supposedly crazy doctor wasnt even a creationist. 1960's when space research began to give startling new data about the nature of the solar system, Velikosvky was many times proven correct. He inferred certain astronomical events which he claimed would be proven by scientific experimentation. IE: 1950, he said the cloud surface above venus universally known to be -25 degrees centigrade day and night yet he declared that the surface temperature would be much higher in the range of incandesence. When mariner2 flew past venus it recorded a surface temperature of 800 degrees f. (1961)--velikovsky was right. 1953 he predicted according to his deductions, Jupiter would be found to send out radio noises as do the sun and stars... this was totally unacceptable to the scientific community at the time including Albert Einstein(June 1954). Astromers at the Carnagie Institution witnessed for the first time radio noises pouring in from Venus... the predictions based from Velikovsky's deductions was right (early 1955). Ironically since not only was he proven right but after Einstein emphatically declared to test Velikovsky's theory he died 9 days later with Velikovsky's book open on his desk.
Worlds in collision - Velikovsky
Earth in upheaval

My speculations run beyond the bounds of true scienceIt is a mere rag of an hypothesis with as many flaw[s] and holes as sound parts.
Charles Darwin letter to Asa Gray, cited by Adrian Desmond and James Moore, Darwin, (New York: W.W. Norton and Company, 1991) p. 456, 475.
[b] "Why do we not find beneath this system great piles of strata stored with the remains of the progenitors of the Cambrian fossils? [b]
Charles Darwin, The Origin of Species, p. 617, 618.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 55 by lucyman fake, posted 07-09-2004 5:51 AM lucyman fake has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 62 by lucyman fake, posted 07-09-2004 8:17 AM lucyman fake has not replied
 Message 63 by arachnophilia, posted 07-09-2004 8:43 AM lucyman fake has not replied

  
lucyman fake
Inactive Member


Message 62 of 74 (123270)
07-09-2004 8:17 AM
Reply to: Message 61 by lucyman fake
07-09-2004 8:13 AM


Re: Entire Path?
this evidence to show valid proof of a theory is remarkable unlike darwinism which he himself has no faith in his claims

My speculations run beyond the bounds of true scienceIt is a mere rag of an hypothesis with as many flaw[s] and holes as sound parts.
Charles Darwin letter to Asa Gray, cited by Adrian Desmond and James Moore, Darwin, (New York: W.W. Norton and Company, 1991) p. 456, 475.
[b] "Why do we not find beneath this system great piles of strata stored with the remains of the progenitors of the Cambrian fossils? [b]
Charles Darwin, The Origin of Species, p. 617, 618.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 61 by lucyman fake, posted 07-09-2004 8:13 AM lucyman fake has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 64 by arachnophilia, posted 07-09-2004 8:44 AM lucyman fake has not replied

  
arachnophilia
Member (Idle past 1344 days)
Posts: 9069
From: god's waiting room
Joined: 05-21-2004


Message 63 of 74 (123279)
07-09-2004 8:43 AM
Reply to: Message 61 by lucyman fake
07-09-2004 8:13 AM


Re: Entire Path?
Do you think the scientific community gave him a chance as we do with Charles Darwin?
all major scientific revolutions have been met with great dogmatic objection. galileo almost got killed for it. the reception for darwin wasn't especially warm either.
creationists are the objectors to darwinism. they just refuse to go away even after 150 years.
and PLEASE use the reply button and stay on topic. this thread is about HUMAN ANCESTRY.
This message has been edited by Arachnophilia, 07-09-2004 07:43 AM

This message is a reply to:
 Message 61 by lucyman fake, posted 07-09-2004 8:13 AM lucyman fake has not replied

  
arachnophilia
Member (Idle past 1344 days)
Posts: 9069
From: god's waiting room
Joined: 05-21-2004


Message 64 of 74 (123280)
07-09-2004 8:44 AM
Reply to: Message 62 by lucyman fake
07-09-2004 8:17 AM


Re: Entire Path?
this evidence to show valid proof of a theory is remarkable unlike darwinism which he himself has no faith in his claims
that's just not true. someone posted a link on the quote. go look for it.
and even if it were true, darwin's opinion of his own theory has nothing to do with it's validity. take this to biological evolution forum.
This message has been edited by Arachnophilia, 07-09-2004 07:44 AM

This message is a reply to:
 Message 62 by lucyman fake, posted 07-09-2004 8:17 AM lucyman fake has not replied

  
lucyman fake
Inactive Member


Message 65 of 74 (123281)
07-09-2004 8:45 AM
Reply to: Message 60 by arachnophilia
07-09-2004 7:34 AM


Re: Entire Path?
i have no idea what you're talking about.
I agree, that is what it amounts to you
Far from confirming evolution as fact, the proven reality of adaptive change does not and cannot equate evolution. Adaptation: absolutely! Evolution producing an entirely new and different critter: never!
um. evolution is adaptive change, by means of natural selection. that's what it is. how do i make this clearer? you're debating maybe the theory of common descent?
uhmm evolution isnt stationary to adaptive change exclusively as presupposed by your colleagues since they confront the 'cause' issue.
the notion of natural selection does not lay proof for species turning into a total different kind of species based on outside stimuli.
Redundant clichs citing fruit fly and bacteria mutations confirm only the adaptation potential within a preexisting genetic code, never evolution to an entirely new life form. Thousands of generations later, fruit flies remain fruit-flies (albeit possibly crippled and deformed) never emerging as dragon flies or butterflies. And of course bacteria replicate prodigiously as bacteriaad infinitum.
actually, you seem to be the one full of redundant cliches. seriously, aig is more coherent than this, we've all heard this stuff before.
actually the original statment stands correct and we've heard evolutionist rhetoric all too often.
and so far, all we've ever done in evolving is change pre-existing genetic code. we don't for instance see something entirely new, like a new set of amino acids. just duplications, and transcription errors. and yet these two simple things are capable of producing endless varieties of things.
To allege the fiction of evolution is to turn nature upside down. The human mind uses inanimate matter as raw material to design, create and innovate. The reverse has never been demonstrated in the laboratory. Can it be argued seriously that non-intelligent inanimate matter actually produced intelligent life, on its own, by the luck of the draw?
yes, actually, quite convincingly. normally, it's the creationists who turn nature upside-down, as they try to fit it into their little bible-shaped hole.
again you do not have substantial proof to negate the original rebuttal. Trying to flip the coin does not equate proof to evolution.

My speculations run beyond the bounds of true scienceIt is a mere rag of an hypothesis with as many flaw[s] and holes as sound parts.
Charles Darwin letter to Asa Gray, cited by Adrian Desmond and James Moore, Darwin, (New York: W.W. Norton and Company, 1991) p. 456, 475.
[b] "Why do we not find beneath this system great piles of strata stored with the remains of the progenitors of the Cambrian fossils? [b]
Charles Darwin, The Origin of Species, p. 617, 618.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 60 by arachnophilia, posted 07-09-2004 7:34 AM arachnophilia has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 66 by lucyman fake, posted 07-09-2004 8:53 AM lucyman fake has not replied
 Message 67 by crashfrog, posted 07-09-2004 8:57 AM lucyman fake has not replied
 Message 68 by arachnophilia, posted 07-09-2004 8:59 AM lucyman fake has not replied
 Message 70 by Loudmouth, posted 07-09-2004 12:52 PM lucyman fake has not replied

  
lucyman fake
Inactive Member


Message 66 of 74 (123286)
07-09-2004 8:53 AM
Reply to: Message 65 by lucyman fake
07-09-2004 8:45 AM


Re: Entire Path?
if you can show valid proof of where the billions of skeletons are with real bones not fake ones then then and only then i will believe you but since 1858 you and all of the other evolutionist have failed to provide that evidence. Yes the BILLIONS of skeletons which should have been found by now. The phantom weapons of mass destruction in Iraq can now be added to the collection of phantom skeletons in evolution lol
This message has been edited by lucyman fake, 07-09-2004 07:54 AM

My speculations run beyond the bounds of true scienceIt is a mere rag of an hypothesis with as many flaw[s] and holes as sound parts.
Charles Darwin letter to Asa Gray, cited by Adrian Desmond and James Moore, Darwin, (New York: W.W. Norton and Company, 1991) p. 456, 475.
[b] "Why do we not find beneath this system great piles of strata stored with the remains of the progenitors of the Cambrian fossils? [b]
Charles Darwin, The Origin of Species, p. 617, 618.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 65 by lucyman fake, posted 07-09-2004 8:45 AM lucyman fake has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 71 by Darwin's Terrier, posted 07-09-2004 1:27 PM lucyman fake has not replied

  
crashfrog
Member (Idle past 1467 days)
Posts: 19762
From: Silver Spring, MD
Joined: 03-20-2003


Message 67 of 74 (123288)
07-09-2004 8:57 AM
Reply to: Message 65 by lucyman fake
07-09-2004 8:45 AM


Evolution producing an entirely new and different critter: never!
There are no "new and entirely different critters." Every "critter" is a variation on the theme of its ancestors.
The very fact that we can organize "critters" into a hierarcheal structure of classification (devised by your creationist guy, Linnaeus) is proof that there's never been such a thing as a "new and entirely different critter."
Redundant clichs citing fruit fly and bacteria mutations confirm only the adaptation potential within a preexisting genetic code,
Right, and just as the "adaptive potential" of the English alphabet is sufficient to give rise to every book ever written, the "adaptive potential" of a fruit fly, bacterium, or any other living thing is sufficient to give rise to literally any organism whatsoever.
Thousands of generations later, fruit flies remain fruit-flies (albeit possibly crippled and deformed) never emerging as dragon flies or butterflies. And of course bacteria replicate prodigiously as bacteriaad infinitum.
And life always gives rise to life. So what? You're still saying the same things you think are wrong - all life is decended from one "kind" of common ancestor.
The reverse has never been demonstrated in the laboratory.
Not true. Evolutionary algorhythms have given rise to electronics designs - better ones, in fact, than those devised by any human intelligence.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 65 by lucyman fake, posted 07-09-2004 8:45 AM lucyman fake has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 69 by arachnophilia, posted 07-09-2004 9:00 AM crashfrog has not replied

  
arachnophilia
Member (Idle past 1344 days)
Posts: 9069
From: god's waiting room
Joined: 05-21-2004


Message 68 of 74 (123293)
07-09-2004 8:59 AM
Reply to: Message 65 by lucyman fake
07-09-2004 8:45 AM


Re: Entire Path?
wow, ok, now we have to teach you to quote somehow.
uhmm evolution isnt stationary to adaptive change exclusively as presupposed by your colleagues since they confront the 'cause' issue.
the notion of natural selection does not lay proof for species turning into a total different kind of species based on outside stimuli.
speciation is easily observed. how do you debate that it? it happens, we record it, and we can even induce it. deal with it.
actually the original statment stands correct and we've heard evolutionist rhetoric all too often.
it's not rhetoric. the notion that there is a barrier the prevents changes from adding up is presumptious and illogical. go read the thread i linked, which asks what mechanism there is to prevent such an addition of changes. stop being off topic here.
again you do not have substantial proof to negate the original rebuttal. Trying to flip the coin does not equate proof to evolution.
nor does it equate to proof of creation. tell you what, go back the early posts in this thread, and address the pictures i posted. after you've sufficiently rebutted that evidence, please provide your proof of creation. for example, i will accept an interview with god, or you demonstrating special creation of an animal out of thin air in a lab setting.
deal?
i've posted evidence already, you have not.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 65 by lucyman fake, posted 07-09-2004 8:45 AM lucyman fake has not replied

  
arachnophilia
Member (Idle past 1344 days)
Posts: 9069
From: god's waiting room
Joined: 05-21-2004


Message 69 of 74 (123294)
07-09-2004 9:00 AM
Reply to: Message 67 by crashfrog
07-09-2004 8:57 AM


There are no "new and entirely different critters."
because that would be special creation. funny how creationists can't keep their own ideas straight.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 67 by crashfrog, posted 07-09-2004 8:57 AM crashfrog has not replied

  
Loudmouth
Inactive Member


Message 70 of 74 (123336)
07-09-2004 12:52 PM
Reply to: Message 65 by lucyman fake
07-09-2004 8:45 AM


Re: Entire Path?
quote:
Far from confirming evolution as fact, the proven reality of adaptive change does not and cannot equate evolution. Adaptation: absolutely! Evolution producing an entirely new and different critter: never!
Good, then you agree that humans and chimps shared a common ancestory. After all, humans are just primates adapted to better tool use and communication. Both chimps and humans are in the primate kind, so this is microevolution. Both chimps and humans are the same kind of critter, no macroevolution needed.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 65 by lucyman fake, posted 07-09-2004 8:45 AM lucyman fake has not replied

  
Darwin's Terrier
Inactive Member


Message 71 of 74 (123348)
07-09-2004 1:27 PM
Reply to: Message 66 by lucyman fake
07-09-2004 8:53 AM


Re: Entire Path?
if you can show valid proof
No such thing in science. Proof is for mathematics and alcohol. But we have plenty of valid evidence...
of where the billions of skeletons are
Try the cliffs of Dover.
with real bones not fake ones
Which ones do you think are fake? (As if I can't guess )
then then and only then
i will believe you but since 1858 you and all of the other evolutionist have failed to provide that evidence.
So mere 'lots' of evidence, and none that refutes evolution, is not enough...?
Yes the BILLIONS of skeletons which should have been found by now.
Please explain, using your understanding of taphonomy, why that should be.
The phantom weapons of mass destruction in Iraq can now be added to the collection of phantom skeletons in evolution lol
Nope. We have plenty of skeletons. Want to see?
Could you tell me, for instance, whether KNM-WT 15000, 'Turkana Boy', is ape or human please?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 66 by lucyman fake, posted 07-09-2004 8:53 AM lucyman fake has not replied

  
Lewissian
Member (Idle past 4726 days)
Posts: 18
From: USA
Joined: 04-21-2002


Message 72 of 74 (127623)
07-26-2004 2:16 AM


86.7% similarity?
Deleted.
Edited by Lewissian, : Outdated.

Replies to this message:
 Message 73 by NosyNed, posted 07-26-2004 4:04 AM Lewissian has not replied
 Message 74 by sfs, posted 07-26-2004 7:57 AM Lewissian has not replied

  
NosyNed
Member
Posts: 8996
From: Canada
Joined: 04-04-2003


Message 73 of 74 (127642)
07-26-2004 4:04 AM
Reply to: Message 72 by Lewissian
07-26-2004 2:16 AM


Re: 86.7% similarity?
I don't know enough about the details to know if the measurement method is sensible or not.
Can you supply anything on any arguments by the experts. That's usually a good way to learn something about it. And when you've heard the opinions of both then it is often possible to understand enough to make up your own mind.
LOL, I like the "only" 86.7%. It is a lot less than other numbers. But how restricted is the piece being examined. Somewhere in the human and chimp genome there must be some strechs of base pairs( even 100's or 1,000's long) where the similarity drops below this. So what?
This message has been edited by NosyNed, 07-26-2004 03:05 AM

This message is a reply to:
 Message 72 by Lewissian, posted 07-26-2004 2:16 AM Lewissian has not replied

  
sfs
Member (Idle past 2533 days)
Posts: 464
From: Cambridge, MA USA
Joined: 08-27-2003


Message 74 of 74 (127697)
07-26-2004 7:57 AM
Reply to: Message 72 by Lewissian
07-26-2004 2:16 AM


Re: 86.7% similarity?
n it MHC Class I genes are sequenced in both the human and chimp, and the similarity is equal to only 86.7% when indels (insertions/deletions) are included. Other similar studies have been published by Roy J Britten. Does anyone have thoughts as to whether or not indels should be considered in estimates?
It depends on what it is you want to estimate. If you are estimating the time that humans and chimps diverged, then no, they shouldn't be included, at least until we have a much better handle on how often insertions and deletions occur and how often they fix in a population. Indels are fairly rare events, but each can involve a much larger amount of DNA, so they have a disproportionate effect on the total difference in sequence.
A paper was just published last week in Science, by the way, identifying numerous indels that segregate in humans (i.e. some people have them and some don't).

This message is a reply to:
 Message 72 by Lewissian, posted 07-26-2004 2:16 AM Lewissian 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