RSS 2.0 Feed

» Welcome Guest Log In :: Register

Pages: (23) < [1] 2 3 4 5 6 ... >   
  Topic: AF Dave Has More Questions About Apes, Creation/Evolution Debate< Next Oldest | Next Newest >  
afdave



Posts: 1621
Joined: April 2006

(Permalink) Posted: May 08 2006,03:55   

DIFFICULT QUESTIONS REMAIN FOR APE/HUMAN ORIGINS

I appreciate the good information that was exchanged on my "Chimp Chromosome Thread."  I have learned some important information regarding the similarity of the genomes of apes and humans.  I agree that the similarities are quite striking indeed and cannot be dismissed as some Creationists attempt to do.

However, I believe there are a number of major issues which would have to be solved before a scientist could logically adopt the firm position that humans and apes DO IN FACT share a common ancestor.  Of course, I am becoming quite proficient at searching the "Index to Creationist Claims" and the Article DB at Talk Origins now BEFORE posting my questions here, so as not to waste your time.  I will summarize the points of agreement that I share with Neo-Darwinists, then pose my questions.  I have surveyed the various Creationist refutations of common descent for apes and humans and have found most of them to be inadequate.  These inadequacies are spelled out rather nicely by Todd Charles Wood (2006) of the Center for Origins Research at Bryan College in Dayton, Tennessee, who appears from this paper to be a fair-minded creationist.
Wood Article (2006)

Points of Agreement between myself (Wood also) and Common Descent Advocates
(1)  Nucleotide mismatches appear to be very small ~1.5%
(2)  Alignment gaps are also very small ~3-4%
(3)  Human Chromosome 2 does in fact appear to be a result of the fusion of 2 chimp chromosomes
(4)  The pseudogene for Vitamin C production does in fact appear to support common descent theory
(5)  Body similarities are indeed very striking and pose interesting questions
(6)  Many creationist arguments are inadequate.

Summary of Inadequacies of Creationist Responses (Wood)
(1) Similarity pointing to Common Design is inadequate.
Quote
A very popular argument is that similarity does not necessarily indicate common ancestry but could also imply common design (e.g. Batten 1996; Thompson and Harrub 2005; DeWitt 2005). While this is true, the mere fact of similarity is only a small part of the evolutionary argument. Far more important than the mere occurrence of similarity is the kind of similarity observed.(p.7)

(2) Possibility of higher % differences proves nothing.
Quote
More recently, creationists have begun to argue that the similarity between chimpanzees and humans is less – sometimes much less – than claimed by evolutionary biologists (DeWitt 2003, 2005; Criswell 2005; Thompson and Harrub 2005). These arguments are inspired in part by a study by Britten (2002) that concluded that the overall similarity of human and chimpanzee genomes is ~95%. Britten arrived at this greater dissimilarity by including in his calculations not only nucleotide mismatches but also alignment gaps. Creationists also tend to emphasize other important differences between the human and chimpanzee genomes, including the differing chromosome numbers (DeWitt 2003, 2005) and the differences in gene expression in the humans and chimpanzees (Rana 2001).Differences are certainly important, and there are many differences between the human and chimpanzee genomes, as detailed above. However, emphasizing these differences does not resolve the problem of similarity. Even if the chimpanzee genome were more than 5% or 10% different from the human genome, the differences are still vastly outnumbered by the similarities (at least 9 to 1). The major pattern that requires explanation is the surprising degree of genomic similarity, as King and Wilson (1975) noted thirty years ago. (p.9)

(3) There may be NO "Haldane's Dillema" at all.
Quote
Based on a 10% dissimilarity between the human and chimpanzee genomes, Criswell argued that humans and chimpanzees could not have evolved from a common ancestor. Criswell reasoned that if evolution were true, a 10% difference would mean that 300 million mutations had been fixed in the human and chimpanzee genomes, or roughly 150 million mutations in each species. Assuming that the human/chimpanzee last common ancestor lived 5 million years ago (Ma), he calculated that an average of 600 “beneficial mutations” must have been fixed in each generation. He concluded that Haldane’s dilemma prohibits such a large number of mutations fixed by selection.Even conceding his assertion of <90% identity between human and chimpanzee genomes, his argument suffers from some errors. (p.10)


Wood then goes on to propose an intriguing alternative ...
Quote
Despite these shortcomings[of the ReMine Message Theory], it is possible that ReMine’s message theory could be modified to explain biological similarity. Although ReMine (1993, p. 368) claimed that his message theory would be invalidated if the unique, nested hierarchy of organisms was falsified, other interpretations of the biotic message could be consistent with non-nested or non-hierarchical patterns. For example, a network pattern of similarity can also serve as a message because a network pattern has the attributes of language. In written language, a very limited number of letters can be rearranged to form a great number of words, which in turn can be rearranged (following rules of grammar and syntax) to express a virtually unlimited number of ideas. If organisms and their genomes are conveying a message (or messages) from the Creator, we should expect a high degree of repetition, both within and between genomes, because of the nature of language. It is therefore intriguing that the human and chimpanzee genomes contain a high fraction of repetitive DNA and that some of the more significant differences between the genomes are in their repetitive DNA (segmental duplication and transposable element) content. If correct, this line of reasoning would imply that a proper understanding of the similarity of humans and primates would depend on detecting rules of “syntax” and “grammar” in the biotic message and applying them.
Furthermore, a network pattern of similarity resulting from transposition could serve a non-naturalistic function since a network pattern is not expected from tree-like inheritance. ReMine (1993, pp. 342-343) argued that evolution “does not predict a nested hierarchy,” but that is only true if evolution is understood in the broadest possible way to include many different (and potentially contradictory) theories. Specific theories of evolution (like Darwin’s) do predict nested hierarchies. Other theories (e.g. Woese 1998) could be constructed to accommodate widespread transposition, but these arguments are not arguments for common descent. As a result, a network pattern of similarity resist simple explanation by naturalistic theories (although complicated theories of transposition might explain it), thus reinforcing its origin by design.(p.12)


and he asks an important question which serves as an excellent prelude to my own questions ...
Quote
What is a Genome? This might seem like a trivial and self-evident question, but its simplicity hides a deep challenge (Wood 2001). The Bible teaches that God created adult organisms and presumably even complete ecosystems by covering the land with plants. Thus, the Bible favors a holistic perspective of organisms. Modern molecular biology has favored the opposite perspective: that life is the complicated interaction of molecules and that DNA is the “code of life.” If the molecular viewpoint is correct, then the differences between organisms that really matter are indeed the differences in the DNA. If a holistic perspective is correct, then perhaps differences in the DNA are not paramount to understanding organismal differences.Complicating this reasoning is the fact that differences in DNA do indeed cause differences at the organismal level. There is a definite relationship between phenotype and genotype, even though the relationship is not as simple as Mendel might have imagined it. We could understand the genome as a repository of some of the information necessary for the physical composition of the organism (Wood 2001). In that case, far more important than the genome may be its cellular context, which interprets and applies the information stored in the genome. Since some of the cellular context is coded by the genome, we have something of a chicken/egg problem, which can only be resolved by a creation event.The similarity of the human and chimpanzee genomes offers evidence that the genome could primarily be a repository. If the fixed nucleotide mismatches between the chimpanzee and human genomes are 1.06%, then the original nucleotide identity could be as high as 99%. At that high level of similarity, perhaps it is not impossible to believe that God created humans and chimpanzees with identical genomes. The known differences between human and chimpanzee biochemistry (see Varki 2000; Varki and Atheide 2005) may well rule this out, but it is an intriguing possibility. Even at 99% identity, however, the biological and behavioral differences between chimpanzees and humans indicate that the source of these differences is not likely to be found entirely in the genome sequences. Theologically, the high similarity of humans and chimpanzees reinforces our spiritual – not physical (Ecc. 3:18-21) – distinctiveness from the animals. It is the image of God that makes us human not some intrinsically valuable genetic element.(p.12)


This paper by Wood is quite interesting to me and serves well as a prelude to my own questions which I shall now present to you ...

(1) How do we explain the complete lack of 'Hominid Civilizations' (for lack of a better term) today?  It seems to me that if Common Descent Theory is correct, that  we would expect to see numerous 'civilizations' of 'less evolved' humans.  I suppose a hopeful candidate for this type of civilization has been the remote tribes of jungle natives found throughout the world.  However, I have firsthand experience with one such tribe, the Wai-Wai indians of Southern Guyana/Northern Brazil (My father is a Bible Translator for this tribe), and we have observed no evidence of anything 'primitive' about their human characteristics.  To be sure, their civilization and technology was quite primitive (they were basically hunter/gatherers), but their language is every bit as complex as English or Spanish or many other languages (I speak the language some and have a copy of their grammar, which my dad produced).  Their behaviour is in no way 'primitive' for the purpose of determining if they are 'less evolved.'  They laugh, cry, make jokes, tell stories, get mad at one another, read, write, learn foreign languages, play guitars and keyboards, have political battles, and in short do everything that any human society also does.  The main difference is in technology, which of course is not advanced.  As far as I know, there are Apes and there are Humans.  And there are no existing 'in-betweens.'  How do you explain this?

(2) The fossil record of human evolution is unconvincing to me.  Here is the supposed evidence from Talk Origins ...
Quote
Intermediate fossils include
Australopithecus afarensis, from 3.9 to 3.0 million years ago (Mya). Its skull is similar to a chimpanzee's, but with more humanlike teeth. Most (possibly all) creationists would call this an ape, but it was bipedal.
Australopithecus africanus (3 to 2 Mya); its brain size, 420-500 cc, was slightly larger than A. afarensis, and its teeth yet more humanlike.
Homo habilis (2.4 to 1.5 Mya), which is similar to australopithecines, but which used tools and had a larger brain (650-cc average) and less projecting face.
Homo erectus (1.8 to 0.3 Mya); brain size averaged about 900 cc in early H. erectus and 1,100 cc in later ones. (Modern human brains average 1,350 cc.)
A Pleistocene Homo sapiens which was "morphologically and chronologically intermediate between archaic African fossils and later anatomically modern Late Pleistocene humans" (White et al. 2003, 742).
A hominid combining features of, and possibly ancestral to, Neanderthals and modern humans (Bermudez de Castro et al. 1997).
And there are fossils intermediate between these (Foley 1996-2004).
 Do we not have plenty of LIVING HUMANS which could correlate very nicely with some of these fossil finds, but which we now know are completely human?  i.e. Pygmies and 'Aborigines' ?  

(3) Some have claimed that for all practical purposes, we are apes and biologically speaking, I see what they are saying.  But does this not minimize the ENORMOUS non-biological differences?  Humans have highly complex symbolic languages.  Apes probably communicate some, but do they communicate in DIFFERENT LANGUAGES in different parts of the world?  Are there any apes that have learned how to write?  Do apes organize themselves into 'governments' and seek to conquer  other ape groups?  Is there any indication of abstract thinking among the apes?  Is there any evidence of any 'technology' developed by apes?  Even primitive technology?  And this is only the tip of the iceberg with such questions.

(4) Has anyone thought about the implications of an assertion by a government entity that "Apes are 98.5% human and therefore should be afforded certain 'human rights.'"  This would be a silly idea to me of course, but it appears to be a logical conclusion of some evolutionist thinking.

(5) Was not Adolf Hitler affected by current evolutionary thinking when he came up with his "Aryan Master Race" theory?  I believe he was, and why shouldn't he have been?  Isn't it logical to assume that some races might be 'less evolved' than others if human evolution is true?  How about slavery?  Did not many whites view themselves as 'more evolved' than blacks, thus justifying their ownership and ill treatment of slaves?  And if human evolution is true, why would Hitler and slave owners be wrong in their actions?  After all, we 'enslave' chimps in zoos and we do medical experiments resulting in the death of lab rats.  Why should we not do the same with 'less evolved' humans?

My conclusion then is that in spite of striking genome similarities, humans and the apes are VERY DIFFERENT in many important ways.  All the evidence that I have seen so far is explained in a much better way by the Biblical assertion that mankind was made "in the image of God."  It appears to me also that Neo-Darwininsts are not even close to being able to answer ANY of the above questions in a satisfactory manner.  But maybe you will prove me wrong.

OK.  That should do it for starters.  I welcome your comments.

--------------
A DILEMMA FOR THE COMMITTED NATURALIST
A Hi-tech alien spaceship lands on earth ... DESIGNED.
A Hi-tech alien rotary motor found in a cell ... NOT DESIGNED.
http://afdave.wordpress.com/....ess.com

  
stevestory



Posts: 10127
Joined: Oct. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: May 08 2006,04:00   

Quote
It appears to me also that Neo-Darwininsts are not even close to being able to answer ANY of the above questions in a satisfactory manner.  
When someone completely ignorant of biology, doesn't agree with the biology experts, it really suggests to us that the experts are wrong.

Oh wait, it doesn't.

   
Ved



Posts: 398
Joined: Oct. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: May 08 2006,04:08   

Quote
How do we explain the complete lack of 'Hominid Civilizations'

We killed them. Them as in Neanderthals.

  
Arden Chatfield



Posts: 6657
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: May 08 2006,04:15   

Quote
(5) Was not Adolf Hitler affected by current evolutionary thinking when he came up with his "Aryan Master Race" theory?  I believe he was, and why shouldn't he have been?  Isn't it logical to assume that some races might be 'less evolved' than others if human evolution is true?  How about slavery?  Did not many whites view themselves as 'more evolved' than blacks, thus justifying their ownership and ill treatment of slaves?  And if human evolution is true, why would Hitler and slave owners be wrong in their actions?  After all, we 'enslave' chimps in zoos and we do medical experiments resulting in the death of lab rats.  Why should we not do the same with 'less evolved' humans?


The 'Hitler = Darwin' equation has been tried out by every creationist for the last 60 years. It's bullshit. Start here:

http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CA/CA006_1.html

Please go back and try again. You don't want to make Christians look stupid, do you?

--------------
"Rich is just mad because he thought all titties had fur on them until last week when a shorn transvestite ruined his childhood dreams by jumping out of a spider man cake and man boobing him in the face lips." - Erasmus

  
Ved



Posts: 398
Joined: Oct. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: May 08 2006,04:17   

Oops, I should have read farther, I see the thread's already been Godwined. Sorry, you lose afdave!

  
thurdl01



Posts: 99
Joined: Mar. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: May 08 2006,04:20   

Quote (afdave @ May 08 2006,09:55)
I am becoming quite proficient at searching the "Index to Creationist Claims" and the Article DB at Talk Origins now BEFORE posting my questions here, so as not to waste your time.

And yet, you chose to trot out Hitler anyway?

  
Tom Ames



Posts: 238
Joined: Dec. 2002

(Permalink) Posted: May 08 2006,04:20   

Sorry, you lost me when this question:
Quote
What is a Genome?

was answered with
Quote
The Bible teaches...


"What is the Bernoulli effect? Well, the Bible teaches..."

Sounds kinda dumb, doesn't it?

--------------
-Tom Ames

  
ltracey



Posts: 4
Joined: May 2006

(Permalink) Posted: May 08 2006,04:26   

Do we not have plenty of LIVING HUMANS which could correlate very nicely with some of these fossil finds, but which we now know are completely human?  i.e. Pygmies and 'Aborigines' ?


Whoa, I seriously cannot believe we just saw another instance of "why are there still pygmies and dwarves?".

The mind wobbles...

  
normdoering



Posts: 287
Joined: July 2005

(Permalink) Posted: May 08 2006,04:29   

Quote (afdave @ May 08 2006,08:55)
Isn't it logical to assume that some races might be 'less evolved' than others if human evolution is true?

Not really.

The most evolved life forms on our planet are probably bacteria and virii. They go through more generations and mutations in shorter time periods.

There is no such thing as "less evolved" or "more evolved" in the context you want to use them. There is only more fit or less fit to the niche you find yourself living in.

  
normdoering



Posts: 287
Joined: July 2005

(Permalink) Posted: May 08 2006,04:39   

Quote (afdave @ May 08 2006,08:55)
Are there any apes that have learned how to write?

Just some notes  on primate language use:

http://www.koko.org/
http://www.koko.org/world/signlanguage.html
Koko has a sign language vocabulary of over 1000 words, which she uses in complex statements and questions. Most of these signs are standard American Sign Language (ASL), but some are either invented or slightly modified by Koko to form what we call Gorilla Sign Langue (GSL), or "Gorilla Speak."

http://www.usatoday.com/news/nation/2004-08-09-koko-gorilla_x.htm
More Koko news.

http://nationalzoo.si.edu/publica....eys.cfm
some researchers have suggested that primate "talk" may show evidence of "syntax" and/or "semantics" in a loose sense.

  
normdoering



Posts: 287
Joined: July 2005

(Permalink) Posted: May 08 2006,04:44   

http://www.hhmi.org/news/lahn4.html

Quote
Human Brain Is Still Evolving

Howard Hughes Medical Institute researchers who have analyzed sequence variations in two genes that regulate brain size in human populations have found evidence that the human brain is still evolving.

They speculate that if the human species continues to survive, the human brain may continue to evolve, driven by the pressures of natural selection. Their data suggest that major variants in these genes arose at roughly the same times as the origin of culture in human populations as well as the advent of agriculture and written language.

  
afdave



Posts: 1621
Joined: April 2006

(Permalink) Posted: May 08 2006,04:49   

Arden Chatfield said ...
Quote
The 'Hitler = Darwin' equation has been tried out by every creationist for the last 60 years. It's bullshit. Start here: http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CA/CA006_1.html

I did and it is extremely weak.

Then go look here for a much stronger case.

The Holocaust and Darwinism


Quote
Hitler was especially determined to prevent Aryans from breeding with non-Aryans, a concern that eventually resulted in the ‘final solution’. Once the inferior races were exterminated, Hitler believed that future generations would be eternally grateful for the improvement that his programs brought to humanity:

‘The Germans were the higher race, destined for a glorious evolutionary future. For this reason it was essential that the Jews should be segregated, otherwise mixed marriages would take place. Were this to happen, all nature’s efforts “to establish an evolutionary higher stage of being may thus be rendered futile” (Mein Kampf).’ 20

Individuals are not only far less important than the race, but the Nazis concluded that certain races were not human, but were animals:

‘The Jews, labelled subhumans, became nonbeings. It was both legal and right to exterminate them in the collectivist and evolutionist viewpoint. They were not considered … persons in the sight of the German government.’ 34

As a result, the Darwinist movement was ‘one of the most powerful forces in the nineteenth–twentieth centuries German intellectual history [and] may be fully understood as a prelude to the doctrine of national socialism [Nazism]’.35 Why did evolution catch hold in Germany faster, and take a firmer hold there than any other place in the world?


But OK.  You don't want to accept this?  What about the other questions?

Ltracey said ...
Quote
Whoa, I seriously cannot believe we just saw another instance of "why are there still pygmies and dwarves?".


That's not what I am saying.  I am saying if a pygmy or some LIVING HUMAN that is not the same size or shape as the mean average of all humans, could not the fossil it made be virtually indistinguishable from the supposed human ancestor fossils found at Talk Origins.

I'm saying that if certain LIVING HUMANS and LIVING APES died, we might easily have the same fossil situation that we currently do have.  Is this not correct?

Tom Ames said ...
Quote
"What is the Bernoulli effect? Well, the Bible teaches..."  Sounds kinda dumb, doesn't it?

Sure, THAT does.  But you are distorting what the paragraph says.  Read the context.  What Wood is saying is "What is a Genome?  It is something worth studying, no question.  But is the Genome going to explain the real differences?  No.  There are differences which have to be accounted for by means OTHER THAN Genome studies."

Remember, that I and apparently Wood view the Bible as a SOURCE FOR PLAUSIBLE HYPOTHESES.  I also believe in Biblical inerrancy.  But this is a separate issue which must be proven on its own merits.  Biblical inerrancy has nothing to do with the issue you just raised.

Norm said ...
Quote
The most evolved life forms on our planet are probably bacteria and virii. They go through more generations and mutations in shorter time periods.

There is no such thing as "less evolved" or "more evolved" in the context you want to use them. There is only more fit or less fit to the niche you find yourself living in.

This is an amazing statement to me.  Do most of you guys really believe this?

--------------
A DILEMMA FOR THE COMMITTED NATURALIST
A Hi-tech alien spaceship lands on earth ... DESIGNED.
A Hi-tech alien rotary motor found in a cell ... NOT DESIGNED.
http://afdave.wordpress.com/....ess.com

  
W. Kevin Vicklund



Posts: 68
Joined: Oct. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: May 08 2006,04:57   

(1) Elimination by competition.  Your concept of less-evolved is inaccurate - "primitive" tribes should be just as evolved as we are.  They may have evolved slightly differently, but not enough to be reproductively isolated in the elapsed time since divergence.  The fact that they are so similar is strong indication that the core aspects of what make us human had fully evolved before they split off.

(2) No.  The features are in fact quite different.

(3) The non-biological differences arise from two genetic traits basically unique to humans - the ability to efficiently move without using our arms and the capacity for extensive abstract thought.  Yes.  There is one ape (at least) that has learned to sign.  Yes.  Some, but not extensive.  Yes, but very primitive.

(4) That's a question for society at large to answer.

(5) No, and this is a violation of Godwin's Law.  Just because there are natural trends, does not mean that it is imperative that we follow those trends - part of our evolutionary advantage is the ability to change the environment and the selective pressures, and another part is our concept of ethics and morals.  No - again, you are entirely incorrect in your concept of evolution.  Every individual in a generation is just as evolved as the rest of its generation.  We are in fact less evolved than most apes, since they have a shorter generation period, and significantly less evolved than bacteria, speaking strictly from a evolutionary standpoint.  Evolutionary theory does not provide any support for the arguments you try to make.  These are issues for society, not science, to resolve.

  
normdoering



Posts: 287
Joined: July 2005

(Permalink) Posted: May 08 2006,04:59   

http://www.istc.cnr.it/showabstract.php?bibid=27
Evidence for primates' understanding of causality is presented and discussed.

http://arjournals.annualreviews.org/doi....7.1.301
Cultural primatology is hypothesized on the basis of social learning of group-specific behavior by nonhuman primates...

http://www.massey.ac.nz/~alock/hbook/section2.htm
Our near relatives, the chimpanzees and bonobos, have male-bonded societies in which females migrate between troops, and individuals leave and rejoin the group. This means an individual potentially has private information it could share or withhold. Vocalizations of monkeys, and probably apes, contain semantic detail about social relations as well as external threats. Chimpanzees give food-calls in the wild which attract others; in captivity they can lead others to hidden food, and convey its quality.

  
Russell



Posts: 1082
Joined: April 2005

(Permalink) Posted: May 08 2006,04:59   

Quote
There is no such thing as "less evolved" or "more evolved" in the context you want to use them. There is only more fit or less fit to the niche you find yourself living in.
Quote
This is an amazing statement to me.  Do most of you guys really believe this?
Is there some reason not to?

--------------
Must... not... scratch... mosquito bite.

  
Joe the Ordinary Guy



Posts: 18
Joined: April 2006

(Permalink) Posted: May 08 2006,05:01   

Dave, I am not a scientist, but I’ll offer my understanding of the answers to your questions:

Quote
(1) How do we explain the complete lack of 'Hominid Civilizations' (for lack of a better term) today?  It seems to me that if Common Descent Theory is correct, that  we would expect to see numerous 'civilizations' of 'less evolved' humans.

Why should Common Descent produce “Hominid Civilizations”? There’s no reason to assume that this would be the case. The other way of looking at it, of course, is that the ape groups that DO exist ARE the “Hominid Civilizations” you are speculating, but they aren’t quite as advanced as what you imagined.

Quote
(2) The fossil record of human evolution is unconvincing to me.

I’ll leave this one to those who are better qualified to comment on it. (See how that works?)

Quote
(3) Some have claimed that for all practical purposes, we are apes and biologically speaking, I see what they are saying.  But does this not minimize the ENORMOUS non-biological differences?

No, it does not. The biological differences are the biological differences and the NON-biological differences are the NON-biological differences. We categorize them differently so that they can be studied appropriately. No one here will argue that an ape is a human. Apes are apes. Humans are human. They are similar in some respects, but different in others. That's all.

Quote
(4) Has anyone thought about the implications of an assertion by a government entity that "Apes are 98.5% human and therefore should be afforded certain 'human rights.'"  This would be a silly idea to me of course, but it appears to be a logical conclusion of some evolutionist thinking.

This would be a silly idea to me, too. If someone arrived at this conclusion by extrapolating from evolution, I’d describe it as “wrong”.

Quote
(5) Was not Adolf Hitler affected by current evolutionary thinking when he came up with his "Aryan Master Race" theory?

Sure he was. But, as above, I think most people would describe him as “wrong”; he MISINTERPRETED evolutionary theory and arrived at bad conclusions. Wasn’t he also a Christian? Would you say he followed Christian precepts correctly?

Quote
Isn't it logical to assume that some races might be 'less evolved' than others if human evolution is true?

Not withstanding the fact that there is no "more" or "less" evolved, why yes, it WOULD be logical to assume that there might be some differences between races. What makes science nice is that it does not STOP there, but goes on to say: “Let’s investigate it further and do some research to see if it is, in fact, true.” Oh, look. The evidence shows that the differences between the various races are negligible, and that their abilities are essentially identical. Huh. I guess that makes it an instance of "Things are not always what you expect."

Quote
My conclusion then is that in spite of striking genome similarities, humans and the apes are VERY DIFFERENT in many important ways.

My, what a strikingly insightful conclusion that is. No one will disagree with that statement, Dave. It is self-evident. It is your next line…
Quote
All the evidence that I have seen so far is explained in a much better way by the Biblical assertion that mankind was made "in the image of God."

…that the reality-based people here will take issue with.

  
afdave



Posts: 1621
Joined: April 2006

(Permalink) Posted: May 08 2006,05:04   

I said ...
Quote
That's not what I am saying.  I am saying if a pygmy or some LIVING HUMAN that is not the same size or shape as the mean average of all humans, could not the fossil it made be virtually indistinguishable from the supposed human ancestor fossils found at Talk Origins.

I'm saying that if certain LIVING HUMANS and LIVING APES died, we might easily have the same fossil situation that we currently do have.  Is this not correct?


Oops.  Let's try that again ...

That's not what I am saying.  I am saying if a pygmy or some LIVING HUMAN that is not the same size or shape as the mean average of all humans DIED, could not the fossil it made be virtually indistinguishable from the supposed human ancestor fossils found at Talk Origins??

I'm saying that if certain LIVING HUMANS and LIVING APES died, we might easily have the same fossil situation that we currently do have.  Is this not correct?

--------------
A DILEMMA FOR THE COMMITTED NATURALIST
A Hi-tech alien spaceship lands on earth ... DESIGNED.
A Hi-tech alien rotary motor found in a cell ... NOT DESIGNED.
http://afdave.wordpress.com/....ess.com

  
W. Kevin Vicklund



Posts: 68
Joined: Oct. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: May 08 2006,05:08   

Quote
Norm said ...
[quote]
The most evolved life forms on our planet are probably bacteria and virii. They go through more generations and mutations in shorter time periods.

There is no such thing as "less evolved" or "more evolved" in the context you want to use them. There is only more fit or less fit to the niche you find yourself living in.


This is an amazing statement to me.  Do most of you guys really believe this?[/quote]

It doesn't matter whether or not we believe this.  It is an inescapable consequence of evolution.  Therefore, you can't invoke evolutionary theory to support your arguments in the context you are using.  Not with any honesty, at least.

  
Ved



Posts: 398
Joined: Oct. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: May 08 2006,05:12   

More on Koko:
Quote
Koko has a great sense of humour. When asked the colour of her white towel over and over again, she eventually got bored and signed the word ‘red’. When asked again, she replied ‘red’ twice more! Then she carefully picked a piece of red thread off the towel and laughed, saying ‘red’ again.

  
Russell



Posts: 1082
Joined: April 2005

(Permalink) Posted: May 08 2006,05:13   

Quote
No one here will argue that an ape is a human. Apes are apes. Humans are human. They are similar in some respects, but different in others. That's all.
Much as no one here will argue that mammals are humans. I, however, would argue that humans are one of the 5 surviving species of great apes.

--------------
Must... not... scratch... mosquito bite.

  
Paul Flocken



Posts: 290
Joined: Dec. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: May 08 2006,05:14   

Dave, this is not germaine to your post but I have to ask a creationist who takes himself seriously.  Creationists bandy about all the time about there being gaps in evolutionary theory.  They could be referring to places where our understanding is lacking or we have insufficient ideas to test but, of course, what they are really refering to are the gaps in the fossil evidence.  What I wanted to ask you was what are we suppose to make of the non-gaps(I don't know what else to call a non-gap, maybe evidence woudl be a good name, but if anyone has an idea please do tell) in the fossil evidence?  You know, the places that make all those gaps the creationists complain about possible.  All that evidence has to mean something.  Especially since the evidence between the gaps shows such flow(again a bad word but the only one I could think of) between features and anytime a new piece of evidence is found it fits into the flow just as we would expect it to.  Focusing only on the gaps gives the lopsided picture that the gaps are all that is important, but as I said above without the evidence there would be no gaps; or, rephrased, all of prehistory would would be one giant gap.  And if creationism was true(especially YEC) that is all we would expect.  One giant gap.  Why can't creationists get that?

--------------
"The great enemy of the truth is very often not the lie--deliberate, contrived, and dishonest, but the myth, persistent, persuasive, and unrealistic.  Belief in myths allows the comfort of opinion without the discomfort of thought."-John F. Kennedy

  
normdoering



Posts: 287
Joined: July 2005

(Permalink) Posted: May 08 2006,05:15   

Quote (afdave @ May 08 2006,09:49)
Norm said ...
Quote
The most evolved life forms on our planet are probably bacteria and virii. They go through more generations and mutations in shorter time periods.

There is no such thing as "less evolved" or "more evolved" in the context you want to use them. There is only more fit or less fit to the niche you find yourself living in.


This is an amazing statement to me.  Do most of you guys really believe this?

Yes. The fact that you don't indicates that you have a profound misunderstanding of what evolution is.

You seem to think that human intelligence is some sort of goal in evolution. It's not. There is no goal except for an organism's instinct to survive and reproduce itself. Brains won't be of use to all.

It's not the difference in genes that makes a primitive society primitive. It's the evolution of the society which is not genetic,  but memetic.

Take Newton and Einstein and transplant them as infants into a caveman society or an Amazon tribe and they would never have accomplished what they did. They might or might not have had an edge in chipping stones to make axe heads but calculus and relativity were built on knowledge that was evolving within society, not genes.

  
stevestory



Posts: 10127
Joined: Oct. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: May 08 2006,05:18   

Quote

This is an amazing statement to me.  Do most of you guys really believe this?
Anybody with at least a freshman understanding of biology knows this. That would not include you.

   
Flint



Posts: 478
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: May 08 2006,05:21   

Maybe someone should patiently explain that human social structures have always been heirarchies. Heirarchies mean someone is at the top of the heap. Those at the top of the heap are always seeking to justify their position somehow. Before Darwin, kings and nobles and lords and such were divinely appointed. In other words, religious justifications were used.

After Darwin, a new possibility was raised: that those at the top of the social pyramid deserved to be there for natural reasons rather than religious reasons. There has never been ANY doubt by those at the top that their position is deserved. So these "natural" justifications have been deployed both by nations (as in Germany) and by scientists (searching for natural explanations for why the French are superior to the Germans or vice versa (depending on who's doing the study), or why whites are superior to blacks (again depending on who's doing the study). In brief, it fell out of fashion for those born into privilege to say God put them there, and into fashion to say they are "more evolved" and rose to the top from sheer innate superiority.

Neither the religious nor the natural explanation has anything to do with Darwin or evolution, of course. It's all about *staying on top*.

  
Arden Chatfield



Posts: 6657
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: May 08 2006,05:34   

Ah yes, where would creationists be without comparisons of Hitler and Darwin? And where would they be without AIG?

Okay, Dave try answering this.

Adolf Hitler was a Christian. Catholic, in fact. The great majority of Nazis were Christians of some kind. Hitler frequently rationalized his attitudes towards 'racial purity' by appeals to Jesus and God. From this, one could conclude that a natural consequence of Christianity is murdering Jews. You presumably disagree. So do I. But why is this any less reasonable than your logic? It's FAR EASIER to find statements by the Nazis invoking Jesus for what they did than invoking Darwin.

Quote

This is an amazing statement to me.  Do most of you guys really believe this?


Yes. If you weren't ignorant of evolutionary biology and how the scientific process works, this wouldn't shock you. If you want to rationalize your ideas by appeals to more than Christian apologetics, you have to try harder.

--------------
"Rich is just mad because he thought all titties had fur on them until last week when a shorn transvestite ruined his childhood dreams by jumping out of a spider man cake and man boobing him in the face lips." - Erasmus

  
afdave



Posts: 1621
Joined: April 2006

(Permalink) Posted: May 08 2006,05:36   

Norm said ...
Quote
Human Brain Is Still Evolving

Howard Hughes Medical Institute researchers who have analyzed sequence variations in two genes that regulate brain size in human populations have found evidence that the human brain is still evolving.

They speculate that if the human species continues to survive, the human brain may continue to evolve, driven by the pressures of natural selection. Their data suggest that major variants in these genes arose at roughly the same times as the origin of culture in human populations as well as the advent of agriculture and written language.


and he also said this ...
Quote
You seem to think that human intelligence is some sort of goal in evolution. It's not. There is no goal except for an organism's instinct to survive and reproduce itself. Brains won't be of use to all. ... and ... The most evolved life forms on our planet are probably bacteria and virii. They go through more generations and mutations in shorter time periods.
There is no such thing as "less evolved" or "more evolved" in the context you want to use them. There is only more fit or less fit to the niche you find yourself living in.


These seem to be contradictory statements to me.  On the one hand you seem to be saying that the brain is evolving (I assume this means humans are getting smarter), then on the other hand you say that bacteria are the most 'evolved' ???

Let me just explain that MY conception is this:

MORE EVOLVED=More Intelligent and More Abilities.  For example, apes can walk, climb, eat, drink, sleep, communicate in a limited way, etc.  Humans can of course do all these things and much more including blow all the rest of life on Planet Earth to smithereens.  This is what I'M talking about.  

If you want me to use a new term so I don't confuse your minds, please suggest one.

--------------
A DILEMMA FOR THE COMMITTED NATURALIST
A Hi-tech alien spaceship lands on earth ... DESIGNED.
A Hi-tech alien rotary motor found in a cell ... NOT DESIGNED.
http://afdave.wordpress.com/....ess.com

  
stevestory



Posts: 10127
Joined: Oct. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: May 08 2006,05:42   

How about you go get a high-school biology textbook and shut up for a while.

   
Arden Chatfield



Posts: 6657
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: May 08 2006,05:50   

Quote
These seem to be contradictory statements to me.  On the one hand you seem to be saying that the brain is evolving (I assume this means humans are getting smarter), then on the other hand you say that bacteria are the most 'evolved'  


You really think this is a 'contradiction'? ? ?

PLEASE go get some education (not from Answers in Genesis) and come back in 6-12 months.

--------------
"Rich is just mad because he thought all titties had fur on them until last week when a shorn transvestite ruined his childhood dreams by jumping out of a spider man cake and man boobing him in the face lips." - Erasmus

  
afdave



Posts: 1621
Joined: April 2006

(Permalink) Posted: May 08 2006,05:59   

Quote
How about you go get a high-school biology textbook and shut up for a while.

PLEASE go get some education (not from Answers in Genesis) and come back in 6-12 months.


Out of answers and energy, perhaps?  I'm starting to make sense and you are frustrated?  Maybe evolutionary explanations are not so great as they once seemed to you?  But you still want to hang onto them because you have your life invested in them?

Hmmmm ....

--------------
A DILEMMA FOR THE COMMITTED NATURALIST
A Hi-tech alien spaceship lands on earth ... DESIGNED.
A Hi-tech alien rotary motor found in a cell ... NOT DESIGNED.
http://afdave.wordpress.com/....ess.com

  
improvius



Posts: 807
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: May 08 2006,06:00   

Yay!  Godwinned!

Which allows me to throw in this tidbit:

The anti-semitic attitudes that allowed for various attrocities - including the Holocaust - came directly from Christianity.  The notion that Hitler just came up with the idea of killing off jews all on his own is simply absurd.  Christians had been discriminating against and killing jews for well over a thousand years before Hitler was born.  Hitler was just continuing a popular tradition, and adding his own spin to the process.

Linking any theory of evolution to the Holocaust is a tremendous stretch, and ultimately a useless exercise.  If you are looking for an ideology to blame, you need look no further than Christianity.

--------------
Quote (afdave @ Oct. 02 2006,18:37)
Many Jews were in comfortable oblivion about Hitler ... until it was too late.
Many scientists will persist in comfortable oblivion about their Creator ... until it is too late.

  
Arden Chatfield



Posts: 6657
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: May 08 2006,06:11   

Quote (afdave @ May 08 2006,10:59)
Quote
How about you go get a high-school biology textbook and shut up for a while.

PLEASE go get some education (not from Answers in Genesis) and come back in 6-12 months.


Out of answers and energy, perhaps?  I'm starting to make sense and you are frustrated?  Maybe evolutionary explanations are not so great as they once seemed to you?  But you still want to hang onto them because you have your life invested in them?

Hmmmm ....

You're right, Dave. You've defeated us. We give up. You win. We secular liberals are so weakened by not going to church, pot smoking, voting Democrat, and advanced degrees that we had no defenses for a true Christian logic, a man who was willing to start with the Bible and to bravely and incisively go wherever the evidence leads, and who objectively is not tied to any particular view but who only seeks the truth. When we make fun of you, it's not that we think your arguments are inconsequential or ridiculous -- it's because we're AFRAID of you, and ASHAMED. No one who has come on to this site before has shown us what you've shown us -- that all our book larnin is for naught. That in fact, the LESS one knows about history and the development of man, the BETTER qualified one is to discuss it.

GOD, we're embarrassed, Dave. But I guess your experience in the military was what qualified you to defeat us secular humanists where GoP and Thordaddy always failed before.

Tell us what to do, now, Dave. Obviously we have to start from scratch. I mean, I assume I have to get one of those Jesus fish eating a Darwin fish for my car, and vote Republican this fall, but aside from that, I'm at a loss.

--------------
"Rich is just mad because he thought all titties had fur on them until last week when a shorn transvestite ruined his childhood dreams by jumping out of a spider man cake and man boobing him in the face lips." - Erasmus

  
normdoering



Posts: 287
Joined: July 2005

(Permalink) Posted: May 08 2006,06:23   

Quote (afdave @ May 08 2006,10:36)
Norm said ...
Quote
Human Brain Is Still Evolving

Howard Hughes Medical Institute researchers who have analyzed sequence variations in two genes that regulate brain size in human populations have found evidence that the human brain is still evolving.

They speculate that if the human species continues to survive, the human brain may continue to evolve, driven by the pressures of natural selection. Their data suggest that major variants in these genes arose at roughly the same times as the origin of culture in human populations as well as the advent of agriculture and written language.


and he also said this ...
Quote
You seem to think that human intelligence is some sort of goal in evolution. It's not. There is no goal except for an organism's instinct to survive and reproduce itself. Brains won't be of use to all. ... and ... The most evolved life forms on our planet are probably bacteria and virii. They go through more generations and mutations in shorter time periods.
There is no such thing as "less evolved" or "more evolved" in the context you want to use them. There is only more fit or less fit to the niche you find yourself living in.


These seem to be contradictory statements to me.  On the one hand you seem to be saying that the brain is evolving (I assume this means humans are getting smarter), then on the other hand you say that bacteria are the most 'evolved' ???

Let me just explain that MY conception is this:

MORE EVOLVED=More Intelligent and More Abilities.  For example, apes can walk, climb, eat, drink, sleep, communicate in a limited way, etc.  Humans can of course do all these things and much more including blow all the rest of life on Planet Earth to smithereens.  This is what I'M talking about.  

If you want me to use a new term so I don't confuse your minds, please suggest one.

No contradiction. Humans live in a very different niche than bacteria. Our social structures demand higher levels of intelligence as more knowledge accumulates. They do say "driven by the pressures of natural selection." And selection is obviously happening in our socities. Lots of men never  mate, they don't make it to where they have the economic means to raise a family. We have to figure out a social world that gets more and more complex, demands more and more scientific knowledge to find a place where one can have an income and reproduce.

Selection in bacteria demands different abilities and they are highly evolved for those abilities.

Each organism to its niche and what that niche requires to survive and reproduce.

From the moment those cave paintings began appearing on  cave walls (and probably before) our niche was social organization and intelligence. We primates don't have the tiger's speed and claws, the elephant's strength, the turtles protective shell... We have something else and you see it all around you: society. That's the niche we survive in, a kind of super organism.

Science requires a complex social structure -- societies of certain size. We war with other socities...

  
jstockwell



Posts: 10
Joined: May 2006

(Permalink) Posted: May 08 2006,06:29   

Quote (afdave @ May 08 2006,10:59)
Quote
How about you go get a high-school biology textbook and shut up for a while.

PLEASE go get some education (not from Answers in Genesis) and come back in 6-12 months.


Out of answers and energy, perhaps?  I'm starting to make sense and you are frustrated?  Maybe evolutionary explanations are not so great as they once seemed to you?  But you still want to hang onto them because you have your life invested in them?

Hmmmm ....

afdave,

The reason you're getting some short answers is because you're demonstrating that you're unwilling to attempt to understand basic elements of evolutionary theory.  How can you hope to find any flaws in something of which you have no understanding?  

Saying that humans are clearly 'more evolved' than anything else is ridiculous.  Evolutionary biology studies how life survives.  The only measure of any significance to evolution is survival.  Every organism alive on this world now is here because its ancestors stretching back billions of years survived.  So each one has had the same amount of time to evolve.

Humans have clearly had some measure of success, based on their huge population and climate range for an animal of their size.  But more success than bacteria?  Bacteria outnumber and outmass us, populate far more environments than we do, and will surely survive long after we blow ourselves into smithereens, as you say.  So which is more successful?  In terms of evolution, at the moment we're pretty much even, but I think it's far more likely that humans will go extinct than bacteria.

  
stevestory



Posts: 10127
Joined: Oct. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: May 08 2006,06:29   

Quote

Out of answers and energy, perhaps?  I'm starting to make sense and you are frustrated?


Out of patience. It's fine that you come in here with absolutely no understanding of science. We were all ignorant at one point. I didn't know what 5' and 3' meant with regard to DNA either, before 9th grade biology. But you come in with arrogance and attitude on top of that. You don't show any respect for the opinions of people who do know things. So yeah, you're going to get some hostile treatment after a while. Go read a beginner's biology textbook and shut up.

   
Russell



Posts: 1082
Joined: April 2005

(Permalink) Posted: May 08 2006,06:46   

Quote
Out of answers and energy, perhaps?
or patience, perhaps. If you think there's some new challenge here, you're deluding yourself.
Quote
I'm starting to make sense and you are frustrated?
I suspect there may be some frustration. But it's not because you're "starting to make sense". Quite the contrary.
Quote
Maybe evolutionary explanations are not so great as they once seemed to you?  But you still want to hang onto them because you have your life invested in them?
All I have invested in is what works. If creationism offered some explanations of the otherwise unexplained, if it made any predictions at all that worked, I still have my life and my work. It wouldn't cost me a thing to adopt it. If it worked. But it doesn't.

Now, let's talk about what you have invested in creationism. Suppose we were able to convince you that AiG is just as obviously, glaringly, unambiguously wrong about everything else as I hope you have come to realize they are about the chromosome fusion story. Suppose you had to accept what every scientist who's looked at the evidence objectively accepts: that the earth is billions of years old, and that humans are just one little twig on the tree of life, that has been on the scene for but an infinitesimal fraction of the planet's history. Would that make you reassess your thoughts on life and your alleged god?

--------------
Must... not... scratch... mosquito bite.

  
afdave



Posts: 1621
Joined: April 2006

(Permalink) Posted: May 08 2006,06:53   

Quote
More Koko news.

I acknowledged up front that apes have communication ability and even some of the other abilities mentioned here.  This does not overcome the ENORMOUS differences between Apes and Humans.  The BEST explanation remains, as it did before Darwin, that an Intelligent Designer made Humans to be Humans and Apes to be Apes.
Quote
Oh, look. The evidence shows that the differences between the various races are negligible, and that their abilities are essentially identical. Huh. I guess that makes it an instance of "Things are not always what you expect."

My point exactly.  Things ARE NOT as one would expect if evolution were true.
Quote
It is your next line ...that the reality-based people here will take issue with. 'All the evidence that I have seen so far is explained in a much better way by the Biblical assertion that mankind was made "in the image of God."'

Why?  What is wrong with proposing this as a hypothesis and testing it?  This is what am doing on my other thread (well into Point 1 already).  If the evidence fails to support it, then fine.  I will abandon the proposition.

You should not be calling people here 'reality based.' Because many of them refuse to consider the possibility of what may in fact be quite legitimate REALITIES -- God, angels, demons, afterlife, etc.  I will be showing excellent evidence for just these types of realities on my other thread.  I cannot prove them, but there is much evidence.  A better term for the people here might be 'naturalistic based.'  In other words, they only acknowledge things they can test with their meters and such.  They think that there is no 'God-meter' so to speak, so they reject the possibility out of hand. I will show that this is a mistake.
Quote
What I wanted to ask you was what are we suppose to make of the non-gaps(I don't know what else to call a non-gap, maybe evidence woudl be a good name, but if anyone has an idea please do tell) in the fossil evidence?  You know, the places that make all those gaps the creationists complain about possible.  All that evidence has to mean something.  Especially since the evidence between the gaps shows such flow(again a bad word but the only one I could think of) between features and anytime a new piece of evidence is found it fits into the flow just as we would expect it to.  Focusing only on the gaps gives the lopsided picture that the gaps are all that is important, but as I said above without the evidence there would be no gaps; or, rephrased, all of prehistory would would be one giant gap.  And if creationism was true(especially YEC) that is all we would expect.  One giant gap.  Why can't creationists get that?

I will cover this on my other thread.  Keep checking back.  Thanks for the question.
Quote
(Arden)Ah yes, where would creationists be without comparisons of Hitler and Darwin? And where would they be with AIG? (Didn't use AIG this time ... are you happy?) Okay, Dave try answering this.
Adolf Hitler was a Christian. Catholic, in fact. The great majority of Nazis were Christians of some kind. Hitler frequently rationalized his attitudes towards 'racial purity' by appeals to Jesus and God. From this, one could conclude that a natural consequence of Christianity is murdering Jews. You presumably disagree. So do I. But why is this any less reasonable than your logic? It's FAR EASIER to find statements by the Nazis invoking Jesus for what they did than invoking Darwin.
(Joe the Ordinary Guy) Sure he [Hitler] was. But, as above, I think most people would describe him as “wrong”; he MISINTERPRETED evolutionary theory and arrived at bad conclusions. Wasn’t he also a Christian? Would you say he followed Christian precepts correctly?

I might concede this point.  It is true that various twisted versions of Christianity has wreaked enormous havoc on the human race, the medieval Catholic Church being a case in point, in my opinion.  But history also has a very recent example of a nation which based its laws upon the general Protestant interpretation of Christianity (the USA)--there is a very strong case that this is true--it should be self-evident, but may not be now thanks to post-1950 (or so) revisionists of American history.  America (and the British Empire before it)  owes its success more than anything else to the Bible and to the teachings of Jesus of Nazareth.  And by "success", I mean equality, prosperity, culture, conveniences, art, music, good treatment of women and children, etc.  Note that people from all over the world want to come to America.  I cannot help but think that the story of Great Britain and America would have been quite different (maybe like the USSR?) had they been founded upon Darwinism instead of upon the Bible and the teachings of Jesus.  Do you disagree with this?

To me, basing society upon the Bible and the teachings of Jesus has been demonstrated to be a good idea, whether they happen to be true or not.  And basing a society upon Darwinism would be a bad idea, whether it is true or not.  But I believe I have a "double whammy" if you will.  Not only do I believe Darwinism is unsupported by adequate evidence AND has bad societal influences, but I also believe that Biblical Christianity and YEC is supported by overwhelming evidence AND is good for society.  

This explains my zeal in fighting AGAINST Darwinism and FOR Biblical Christianity and Creationism.

Quote
Evolutionary theory does not provide any support for the arguments you try to make.  These are issues for society, not science, to resolve.
True, and I am not an official member of the science community, but policy makers rely on what they think is good science many times to make good decisions.  I am a concerned citizen with a scientific mind who feels that a pseudo-science called Neo-Darwinism is being called science on a large scale.  This gives politicians scientific sounding reasons to implement potentially disastrous policies in our society.

Quote
Christians had been discriminating against and killing jews for well over a thousand years before Hitler was born.
Twisted Christianity had been.  You are correct.  It got so bad that a man named Martin Luther turned things upside down.  The result?  The translation of the Bible into the English language and the attendant success of the British Empire, followed by the founding of the United States squarely upon the Bible also, again with great results.  Note also the DECLINE of the British Empire coincident with the REJECTION of the validity and authority of the Bible.

Quote
Tell us what to do, now, Dave. Obviously we have to start from scratch. I mean, I assume I have to get one of those Jesus fish eating a Darwin fish for my car, and vote Republican this fall, but aside from that, I'm at a loss.
No one will make you do any of those things.  That's the beauty of America.  We let people be Atheist or Islamic or Buddhist or Nothing with no penalties.  And the reason for this is the Christian worldview which is unique in the world in that it allows maximum freedom.

What we DO want is to NOT have our Creationist views ridiculed in the public square, and we want school children to hear both sides of the evidence (whether in ID format or Creo format, I don't care).  I hear this is starting to happen in the UK and I think this is great!

--------------
A DILEMMA FOR THE COMMITTED NATURALIST
A Hi-tech alien spaceship lands on earth ... DESIGNED.
A Hi-tech alien rotary motor found in a cell ... NOT DESIGNED.
http://afdave.wordpress.com/....ess.com

  
Seven Popes



Posts: 190
Joined: Mar. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: May 08 2006,06:56   

AFDave,
Quote
These seem to be contradictory statements to me.  On the one hand you seem to be saying that the brain is evolving (I assume this means humans are getting smarter), then on the other hand you say that bacteria are the most 'evolved'  

The brain is changing. Bacteria have undergone more of a change.  Evolution predicts that the more reproductive cycles an organism undergoes, the greater the chances of a mutation linked to reproduction.  Add stress that tends to favor successful mutations, and you have a system that promotes change and rewards more successful creatures with more surviving offspring. Does this mean that bacteria are inferior because they do not have highly developed brains?  Of course not.  They are successful as bacteria, successful in changing enough to continually infect other organisms.

--------------
Cave ab homine unius libri - Beware of anyone who has just one book.

  
Paul Flocken



Posts: 290
Joined: Dec. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: May 08 2006,07:07   

Quote
(5) Was not Adolf Hitler affected by current evolutionary thinking when he came up with his "Aryan Master Race" theory?  I believe he was, and why shouldn't he have been?  Isn't it logical to assume that some races might be 'less evolved' than others if human evolution is true?  How about slavery?  Did not many whites view themselves as 'more evolved' than blacks, thus justifying their ownership and ill treatment of slaves?  And if human evolution is true, why would Hitler and slave owners be wrong in their actions?  After all, we 'enslave' chimps in zoos and we do medical experiments resulting in the death of lab rats.  Why should we not do the same with 'less evolved' humans?


What does this have to do with the biologically history of the planet Earth?  The fact that some people can corrupt knowledge to their own perverted ends does not mean the knowledge is factually incorrect.  It only means that some people can corrupt knowledge to their own perverted ends.  What I hear from you here is that since some people can corrupt knowledge that knowledge should never have been learned in the first place and should be abandonded(to be politic, banned to be impolitic).  What is it with christians and their obsession with forbidding knowledge.  Oh yeah, that's right, the garden.  Never mind.

Let's try it this way.
Quote
Do apes organize themselves into 'governments' and seek to conquer  other ape groups?

I don't know about 'governments' but chimpanzee tribes have been documented to practice organized warfare on other tribes for no better apparent reason than that they wanted to.  This ought to tell you that the latent human capacity to violence and cruelty is not unique to us (and conversely, an additional instance of how close chimps are to us).  But we also have compassion, as evident in, say, a mother's tenderness toward her child.  We DO have the ability to make our own ethical and moral rules for living with our fellow humanity and we DO have the ability to get a consensus with our fellow humanity on what those rules should be.  We don't have to have an imaginary sky daddy to provide us with that.  Just because there are Hitlers in our past(who, incidentally, relied on the religious beliefs of his fellow Germans in that same sky daddy to justify and support his crimes) does not invalidate humanity's ability to create and arrive at a consensus on ethical and moral codes.  Hitler was wrong because we have decided he was wrong.  More importantly Hitler was wrong because millions of people in dozens of countries around the world did decide he was wrong and did something about it.  And yes, some of them used that sky daddy's moral code to help them decide that he was wrong.  So I will ask you the reverse question:
(5) Was not Adolf Hitler affected by current religious thinking when he came up with his "Aryan Master Race" theory?  I believe he was, and why shouldn't he have been?  Isn't it logical to assume that some races might be 'less divine' than others if there is only one true religion?  How about slavery?  Did not many whites view themselves as 'more divine' than blacks, thus justifying their ownership and ill treatment of slaves?  And if there is only one true religion, why would Hitler and slave owners be wrong in their actions?
What good is religion if it can be worked both ways?

Why am I justified in asking these questions?  Because evolution theory absolutely does not support the assertian that any race is 'higher' or 'lower' than any other race.  Please tell me how Hitler used evolution theory to tell the difference between a lutheran, a jew, a catholic, an atheist, a gypsy, a moslem.  What physical differences separate these categories?  The only differences are religious(or lack thereof).  How can evolution theory tell them apart?  Hitler may very well have uttered the word evolution in a racist context(I can't say otherwise) but the source of the racism was religious, not biological.

Quote
Is there any evidence of any 'technology' developed by apes?  Even primitive technology?


Try Googling "chimpanzee warfare" and "chimpanzee tool use".  You might be surprised.

Sincerely,

--------------
"The great enemy of the truth is very often not the lie--deliberate, contrived, and dishonest, but the myth, persistent, persuasive, and unrealistic.  Belief in myths allows the comfort of opinion without the discomfort of thought."-John F. Kennedy

  
improvius



Posts: 807
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: May 08 2006,07:15   

Since you seem to have abandoned the previous thread, I'll repost my simple, unanswered question here:

Do you or do you not find the very idea that humans are evolved apes offensive?

--------------
Quote (afdave @ Oct. 02 2006,18:37)
Many Jews were in comfortable oblivion about Hitler ... until it was too late.
Many scientists will persist in comfortable oblivion about their Creator ... until it is too late.

  
Flint



Posts: 478
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: May 08 2006,07:31   

Quote
Do you or do you not find the very idea that humans are evolved apes offensive?

I find it misleading. Are you trying to imply that all the other apes are NOT evolved?

Dave lacks more than a rudimentary clue about biology, unfortunately. He also lacks any idea what a fact is, or what evidence means. We are seeing an example of what religion can do to a human brain if permitted to do so. Does anyone here think, if religion were entirely expunged from Dave's brain, there would be much left at all? Could he eat or walk?

  
afdave



Posts: 1621
Joined: April 2006

(Permalink) Posted: May 08 2006,07:35   

Quote
Since you seem to have abandoned the previous thread, I'll repost my simple, unanswered question here:

Do you or do you not find the very idea that humans are evolved apes offensive?


If it does indeed turn out to be false when I have finished my investigation into the claim, then YES, I would be offended at the idea of teaching it as if it were true.

I will resume posts on my other thread tomorrow morning.  I was not avoiding yours or anyone's questions over there.

--------------
A DILEMMA FOR THE COMMITTED NATURALIST
A Hi-tech alien spaceship lands on earth ... DESIGNED.
A Hi-tech alien rotary motor found in a cell ... NOT DESIGNED.
http://afdave.wordpress.com/....ess.com

  
jeannot



Posts: 1200
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: May 08 2006,07:41   

Quote

(1) Similarity pointing to Common Design is inadequate.
"A very popular argument is that similarity does not necessarily indicate common ancestry but could also imply common design …"

This argument isn’t falsifiable (as ID). The world surrounding you may not exist in reality or could have just been created one minute ago, with all your memories. Prove me wrong.
Quote

(2) Possibility of higher % differences proves nothing. "
… The major pattern that requires explanation is the surprising degree of genomic similarity, as King and Wilson (1975) noted thirty years ago. (p.9)"

Similarity level = 100% - level of difference, and reciprocally. What is your point here?
Quote

(3) There may be NO "Haldane's Dillema" at all.
"...Assuming that the human/chimpanzee last common ancestor lived 5 million years ago (Ma), he calculated that an average of 600 “beneficial mutations” must have been fixed in each generation. He concluded that Haldane’s dilemma prohibits such a large number of mutations fixed by selection. (p.10)..."
Several flaws here.
- Thanks to sexual reproduction and recombination, mutations don’t have to be ‘fixed’ at each generation (which is a nonsense), but can occur in different genomes.
- The divergence between chimps and human occurred 15 My ago, IIRC.
- Most mutations are neutral
Quote

… If organisms and their genomes are conveying a message (or messages) from the Creator, we should expect a high degree of repetition…
Pure speculation. Genomic evolution can explain this pattern as well.
Quote

… the biological and behavioral differences between chimpanzees and humans indicate that the source of these differences is not likely to be found entirely in the genome sequences.
So where can they be found? In different sun beams that transform a chimp egg into a human egg?
Quote

(1) How do we explain the complete lack of 'Hominid Civilizations' (for lack of a better term) today?  It seems to me that if Common Descent Theory is correct, that  we would expect to see numerous 'civilizations' of 'less evolved' humans.  
Sure, as we should expect civilizations of ‘less evolved’ apes, primates, mammals, vertebrates... Oh wait…
Quote

As far as I know, there are Apes and there are Humans.  And there are no existing 'in-betweens.'  How do you explain this?
Don’t know. Extinctions perhaps?
Quote



(2) The fossil record of human evolution is unconvincing to me.   Do we not have plenty of LIVING HUMANS which could correlate very nicely with some of these fossil finds, but which we now know are completely human?  i.e. Pygmies and 'Aborigines' ?  
So where do the fossils come from?
Quote

(3) Some have claimed that for all practical purposes, we are apes and biologically speaking, I see what they are saying.  But does this not minimize the ENORMOUS non-biological differences?  
15 million years of divergent evolution can produce some differences.
Quote

(4) Has anyone thought about the implications of an assertion by a government….
Fundamental science has nothing to do with moral, law or politics.
Quote

(5) Was not Adolf Hitler…
See above.
Quote

My conclusion then is…
based on nothing very convincing.

  
Mr_Christopher



Posts: 1238
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: May 08 2006,07:42   

so afdave, have you confronted AIG about the lies on their site as you said you were going to do yet?

Please give us details.

--------------
Uncommon Descent is a moral cesspool, a festering intellectual ghetto that intoxicates and degrades its inhabitants - Stephen Matheson

  
Paul Flocken



Posts: 290
Joined: Dec. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: May 08 2006,07:42   

Dave asks:
Quote
Is there any indication of abstract thinking among the apes?


Dave supplies an example of what he thinks abstract thinking is:
Quote
I have firsthand experience with one such tribe, the Wai-Wai indians of Southern Guyana/Northern Brazil... ...and we have observed no evidence of anything 'primitive' about their human characteristics.  To be sure, their civilization and technology was quite primitive (they were basically hunter/gatherers), but their language is every bit as complex as English or Spanish or many other languages.  Their behaviour is in no way 'primitive' for the purpose of determining if they are 'less evolved.'  They laugh, cry,

make jokes,

tell stories, get mad at one another, read, write, learn foreign languages, play guitars and keyboards, have political battles, and in short do everything that any human society also does.


To which Ved replied:
Quote
More on Koko:
Koko has a great sense of humour. When asked the colour of her white towel over and over again, she eventually got bored and signed the word ‘red’. When asked again, she replied ‘red’ twice more! Then she carefully picked a piece of red thread off the towel and laughed, saying ‘red’ again.


The problem is not that chimps, and the animal kingdom in general, is so far behind.  It is that you are so completely unknowing of just how capable chimps really are and that you are full of species superiority about how far advanced humans really are.

--------------
"The great enemy of the truth is very often not the lie--deliberate, contrived, and dishonest, but the myth, persistent, persuasive, and unrealistic.  Belief in myths allows the comfort of opinion without the discomfort of thought."-John F. Kennedy

  
ericmurphy



Posts: 2460
Joined: Oct. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: May 08 2006,07:54   

Quote (afdave @ May 08 2006,10:59)
Out of answers and energy, perhaps?  I'm starting to make sense and you are frustrated?  Maybe evolutionary explanations are not so great as they once seemed to you?  But you still want to hang onto them because you have your life invested in them?

Hmmmm ....

Dave, the reason people are becoming frustrated with you is because most of the questions you have, which you seem to view as huge problems for evolutionary biology, are in fact a result of your limited understanding of evolutionary biology. Many if not most of the questions you are asking are things that would be answered if you simply had a better understanding of the topic at hand.

Wouldn't you be a little frustrated teaching someone how to fly if they kept asking how it was possible for planes to fly when planes weigh more than air does? After a while, wouldn't you just tell them to go out and buy a few textbooks on physics, or a biography on Bournoulli?

--------------
2006 MVD award for most dogged defense of scientific sanity

"Atheism is a religion the same way NOT collecting stamps is a hobby." —Scott Adams

  
Flint



Posts: 478
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: May 08 2006,08:04   

Again, a quick summary. Evolution did not happen, and does not happen. This is not negotiable. Now, I want some coherent explanation for the evidence we see on the ground. DO NOT try to renegotiate the non-negotiable, this only wastes everyone's time.

(Hint: Until you realize that goddidit, you won't have the right answer.)

  
normdoering



Posts: 287
Joined: July 2005

(Permalink) Posted: May 08 2006,08:09   

Quote (afdave @ May 08 2006,11:53)
Things ARE NOT as one would expect if evolution were true.

How can you know what to expect from evolution if you don't understand what evolution is and what it means?

Quote

Why?  What is wrong with proposing this as a hypothesis and testing it?  This is what am doing on my other thread (well into Point 1 already).  If the evidence fails to support it, then fine.  I will abandon the proposition.


How do you test for God?

How can you know what to expect from God if you don't understand what God is?

Consider this -- not only do theologians of different religions disagree hugely about the nature of God, even in what are supposed to be people of the same faiths you have wildly different views.

But across this world, biologists understand the essential features of evolution in a way theology can never approach its understanding of God. When scientists argue - things get settled. Not so with religion.

All the different religions  look a lot like something you'd see in the evolutionary tree of life -- we even have fossil religions, like those of Egypt and Greece.

But science doesn't branch like that. It's nature is not divergening random mutations, but an accumulation of effective knowledge that actually has a real application to our technological world.

Or more simply -- there is only one science -- ever changing, but there are thousands of religions.

  
incorygible



Posts: 374
Joined: Feb. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: May 08 2006,08:18   

Dave, let's assume for the sake of argument that "guilt by association" is an effective, rational strategy upon which to base one's decisions (as opposed to pure fallacious rhetoric). Let's assume for the sake of argument that Hitler rooted much of his 'politics' in evolutionary theory (I don't agree with this, but I'm willing to stipulate it for this game). Let's assume Godwin didn't know what the #### he was talking about when it came to rational discourse.  To #### with it all -- let's play Hitler ping-pong!

If we accept that Hitler's ascendancy was based on an evolutionary argument (and the lay support of that argument), then you must concede that it was woefully in error.  As everyone with an ounce of understanding in evolutionary theory has pointed out to you (to your dumbfound surprise), there is no such thing as Darwin's Chosen Race (be it human civilization, species, genus, kingdom, whatever), though if the title had to be granted, I think it's a race between bacteria and beetles, with bacteria leading in the polls). It's been pointed out to you that there simply is no such thing as "less evolved".  So if Hitler "did it for evolution", he was wrong. Recently, you seem to have acknowledged this.

So let's play Hitler ping-pong, you versus me. I can show a recent, specific instance where you willingly accepted (positively trumpeted) an argument for a specific religious/political stance (can we call that propaganda, Dave?) that was BASED ON (i.e., did not just reference) an elementary "mistake" in evolutionary biology from which all arguments simply could not follow (they probably wouldn't have followed from even a correct understanding of microbiology, but that's beside the point). Furthermore, one merely has to read this thread to see that you believe in an "evolutionary ladder", where certain human cultures and species are "more evolved", and hence superior.  Everyone on the "evolution side" of this debate rejects this nonsense, and you seemed absolutely shocked to find out there are people who don't see life on this planet in such a straightforward hierarchical fashion. Dave, when evolutionary biologists use the term 'primitive' (if they use it at all), they mean only an identifiable trait that came first chronologically.  They do not attach the subjective baggage of superiority to it that you do.  This kind of miscommunication occurs often between those educated in evolutionary biology and those who think they understand it from the ladder-type early hominid drawings in museums, "good of the species" Animal Kingdom shows, and AiG screeds.

So on which side falls Hitler, Dave?  I think it'd be fair to say that the...ahem...ball is in your court.  Luckily, you seem willing to extract yourself from this assinine 'argument' in the most face-saving manner possible (i.e., by acknowledging that people do cruel things and justify it in whatever manner they can get away with, be it by appealing to a higher power or a greater goal).  If you do that, you just have a bit of egg on your face for bringing it up in the first place and breaking Godwin's Law.  For a second I was worried you would take the other route, and claim that evolution actually does say what you think Hitler thought it said, and that we evolutionary biologists who claim otherwise are actually part of some clandestine conspiracy or New World Order. Of course, such paranoia would be a bit of a whiff in Hitler ping-pong, now wouldn't it?

But note that the actual theory of evolution is absolutely mute when it comes to higher powers and greater goals, whereas religion is emphatically not. You and I can agree that "a society based on Darwinism" would be a bad thing (if only because I have no idea what that would actually look like -- we might as well argue about a society based on algebra or a society based on gravity). But if you mean "a society based on someone's idea of Darwinism", I shudder just as much as you.  Of course, I do disagree with you about a society purportedly based on Protestant Christianity, as I note that in proclaiming the freedom and tolerance of such a society, you managed to gloss over quite a few warts (e.g., it's been a while since I've met an American so enamoured with the good of British imperialism, and I would have to question your country's "tolerance" of atheism when a recent president mused that atheists might not properly be considered citizens). I'm not saying that I renounce the Christian influence in North America (I am Canadian, and things are a little different here, eh?).  Merely that I simply do not agree that it is the best way of doing things (though I concede it is certainly not the worst).  And it definitely beats a society "based" on Darwinism or gravity, though what that has to do with truth and knowledge in those concepts, I have absolutely no idea.

  
Paul Flocken



Posts: 290
Joined: Dec. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: May 08 2006,08:20   

Quote (afdave @ May 08 2006,11:53)
I will cover this on my other thread.  Keep checking back.  Thanks for the question.

Which thread?  You have several.

--------------
"The great enemy of the truth is very often not the lie--deliberate, contrived, and dishonest, but the myth, persistent, persuasive, and unrealistic.  Belief in myths allows the comfort of opinion without the discomfort of thought."-John F. Kennedy

  
Occam's Aftershave



Posts: 1773
Joined: Feb. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: May 08 2006,08:32   

All quotes from AFDave:

Quote
(5) Was not Adolf Hitler affected by current evolutionary thinking when he came up with his "Aryan Master Race" theory?  I believe he was, and why shouldn't he have been?  Isn't it logical to assume that some races might be 'less evolved' than others if human evolution is true?  How about slavery?  Did not many whites view themselves as 'more evolved' than blacks, thus justifying their ownership and ill treatment of slaves?  And if human evolution is true, why would Hitler and slave owners be wrong in their actions?  After all, we 'enslave' chimps in zoos and we do medical experiments resulting in the death of lab rats.  Why should we not do the same with 'less evolved' humans?


Let's use AFDave "logic", shall we?

Those evil Nazis used their knowledge of chemistry to produce high explosives and poisonous gas, so therefore the Atomic Theory of Chemistry must be scientifically wrong!

Worse than that, those evil Nazis used their knowledge of physics and gravity to aim and drop their bombs, so therefore Newtonian physics and the Theory of Gravity must be scientifically wrong!

How can we teach such blasphemy as chemistry and physics to our children???

Quote
MORE EVOLVED=More Intelligent and More Abilities.  For example, apes can walk, climb, eat, drink, sleep, communicate in a limited way, etc.  Humans can of course do all these things and much more including blow all the rest of life on Planet Earth to smithereens.  This is what I'M talking about.


Let's say someone drops AFDave into the middle of the Pacific with no raft, into a pack of sharks, to see which is "more evolved".  Any bets?

Quote
Out of answers and energy, perhaps?  I'm starting to make sense and you are frustrated?  Maybe evolutionary explanations are not so great as they once seemed to you?  But you still want to hang onto them because you have your life invested in them?


Dealing with willful ignorance and intellectual dishonesty is frustrating.  And yet Dave wonders why so many people have come to view him as a clueless but arrogant jerk.

BIG FAT HINT:  Personal incredulity based on woeful ignorance will never be considered evidence.

--------------
"Science is what got us to the humble place we’re at, and what hard-won progress we might realize comes from science, with ID completely flaccid, religious apologetics bitching from the sidelines." - Eigenstate at UD

  
afdave



Posts: 1621
Joined: April 2006

(Permalink) Posted: May 08 2006,08:36   

Quote
To #### with it all -- let's play Hitler ping-pong!


We are getting off on rabbit trails.  I said I would concede the Hitler point.

Let me put us back on the main track.

The BOTTOM, BOTTOM, BOTTOM line for me is this, guys.

None of this discussion here changes the simple FACT that ...

(a) WE REALLY DON'T KNOW FOR SURE IF HUMANS EVOLVED FROM APE-LIKE ANCESTORS, AND I'M NOT SURE WE EVER WILL.

and ...

(b) WE REALLY DON'T KNOW FOR SURE IF "GODDIDIT" AND WE CERTAINLY CAN'T "PROVE" THAT.


OK?  

Now ... my BIG problem is this ...

Why are we standing up in science classes and teaching kids that Ape to Human Evolution is a FACT?  This is dishonest and potentially damaging to society for any number of debatable reasons.  What we SHOULD be doing is telling them BOTH THEORIES--DESIGN and NO DESIGN and clearly let them know they are UNPROVEN THEORIES and it is up to YOU and YOUR PARENTS to decide.  My tax dollars are funding this education system just like yours are and I have a different opinion on something that is an unprovable fact in either direction.  Why is my opinion shut out and vilified?  Is this country supposed to be a representative democracy or is it not?  Last time I checked IT WAS.

And that ... my friends ... is the BOTTOM LINE on this thread.

--------------
A DILEMMA FOR THE COMMITTED NATURALIST
A Hi-tech alien spaceship lands on earth ... DESIGNED.
A Hi-tech alien rotary motor found in a cell ... NOT DESIGNED.
http://afdave.wordpress.com/....ess.com

  
thurdl01



Posts: 99
Joined: Mar. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: May 08 2006,08:38   

So, AFDave.  What of that promise you made, when I confronted you early on, that you would argue with intellectual honesty throughout your dealings.  Want to admit that you were being slightly less than truthful, or did you just forget your promise.

  
JonF



Posts: 632
Joined: Feb. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: May 08 2006,08:39   

Quote (afdave @ May 08 2006,10:36)
Norm said ...
Quote
Human Brain Is Still Evolving

Howard Hughes Medical Institute researchers who have analyzed sequence variations in two genes that regulate brain size in human populations have found evidence that the human brain is still evolving.

They speculate that if the human species continues to survive, the human brain may continue to evolve, driven by the pressures of natural selection. Their data suggest that major variants in these genes arose at roughly the same times as the origin of culture in human populations as well as the advent of agriculture and written language.


and he also said this ...
Quote
You seem to think that human intelligence is some sort of goal in evolution. It's not. There is no goal except for an organism's instinct to survive and reproduce itself. Brains won't be of use to all. ... and ... The most evolved life forms on our planet are probably bacteria and virii. They go through more generations and mutations in shorter time periods.
There is no such thing as "less evolved" or "more evolved" in the context you want to use them. There is only more fit or less fit to the niche you find yourself living in.


These seem to be contradictory statements to me.  On the one hand you seem to be saying that the brain is evolving (I assume this means humans are getting smarter), then on the other hand you say that bacteria are the most 'evolved' ???

Let me just explain that MY conception is this:

MORE EVOLVED=More Intelligent and More Abilities.  For example, apes can walk, climb, eat, drink, sleep, communicate in a limited way, etc.  Humans can of course do all these things and much more including blow all the rest of life on Planet Earth to smithereens.  This is what I'M talking about.  

Your asumption is wrong, and reveals your fundamental ignorance about evolutionary processes.  The human brain is evolving to be different, not necessarily more intelligent.  If the environment is such that stupid humans out-reproduce more intelligent humans, natural selection will select for stupider humans and the human brain will evolve to be less intelligent.

Your concept is also wrong.  More evolved = better fitting an environmental niche.  That may mean fewer abilities (many abilities come at a cost which isn't worth it unless it affects reproduction).  Oh, and when you are contemplating what some organisms can do and some can't, consider a weightlifting contest or an arboreal travel contest between an average human and an average orangutan.  The human loses.  Big time.  And it doesn't matter what you or I think are important abilities; natural selection tells us what's important.

  
thurdl01



Posts: 99
Joined: Mar. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: May 08 2006,08:44   

Quote
Why is my opinion shut out and vilified?


That's an easy one.  Because your ideas are not within the mainstream of scientific understanding today.  It's that simple.

Now, here's a question for you, since I was nice enough to answer yours: Under what pretense do you believe yourself to be more capable of rendering a decision on this subject than 150 years of biological science?  Why do you, Mr. former air force pilot and engineer, feel that you have answers that are correct, even though they contradict the findings of people who have spent their entire professional careers studying evolutionary biology?  How are you so utterly conceited that you think your answers are the correct ones in the face of all the evidence that they have compiled?  How big, exactly, are your cojones?

Bonus question: Why do you ignore the fact that the chimp/human DNA thing is a PRETTY DURN BIG piece of evidence in favor of evolution, especially since it is the proof of predictions made before people even knew there was such a thing as DNA?

  
stephenWells



Posts: 127
Joined: April 2006

(Permalink) Posted: May 08 2006,08:44   

Quote (afdave @ May 08 2006,10:36)
Let me just explain that MY conception is this:

MORE EVOLVED=More Intelligent and More Abilities.

That would be your problem right there- this is also why people are telling you to do a little learning yourself. Insofar as "more evolved" HAS a meaning at all, it means: better adapted to your niche in the environment.

There is no universal tendency driving towards greater intelligence. Bacteria have no intelligence whatsoever but they're staggeringly successful and highly evolved; in evolutionary terms they're doing very well. As humans, our niche depends on being intelligent, so we value that trait highly. You just shouldn't confuse a value system specific to human beings with some sort of universal.

  
jeannot



Posts: 1200
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: May 08 2006,08:50   

AFDave, since you refer to 'more evolved' humans, do you admit that we are the result of some evolution?  :0

  
Occam's Aftershave



Posts: 1773
Joined: Feb. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: May 08 2006,09:00   

AFDave says:
Quote
Why are we standing up in science classes and teaching kids that Ape to Human Evolution is a FACT?  


Because the idea is so overwhelmingly supported by all the available scientific evidence that it has been demonstrated beyond any reasonable doubt.  Your ignorance based tirades do not constitute "reasonable doubt".

Quote
This is dishonest and potentially damaging to society for any number of debatable reasons.  What we SHOULD be doing is telling them BOTH THEORIES--DESIGN and NO DESIGN and clearly let them know they are UNPROVEN THEORIES and it is up to YOU and YOUR PARENTS to decide.


Theories are taught based on the quantity and quality of positive evidence.  All theories are NOT equal in this respect.  Do you think we should teach the Geocentric Theory of the universe to kids as well as the Heliocentric one?  They’re both UNPROVEN THEORIES, so should we teach BOTH and let PARENTS and CHILDREN decide?

Quote
My tax dollars are funding this education system just like yours are and I have a different opinion on something that is an unprovable fact in either direction.  Why is my opinion shut out and vilified?  Is this country supposed to be a representative democracy or is it not?  Last time I checked IT WAS.


For the umpteenth time – science is NOT a democracy, and scientific truth is NOT decided by popular vote.  Your opinion based on ignorance  doesn’t mean jack sh*t to the scientific realities of the evidence.

Dave, for an otherwise intelligent guy, you’re sure doing a good impersonation of a cement-headed dumbf*ck.

--------------
"Science is what got us to the humble place we’re at, and what hard-won progress we might realize comes from science, with ID completely flaccid, religious apologetics bitching from the sidelines." - Eigenstate at UD

  
incorygible



Posts: 374
Joined: Feb. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: May 08 2006,09:00   

Quote (afdave @ May 08 2006,13:36)

Quote
We are getting off on rabbit trails.  I said I would concede the Hitler point.


"Follow me down the rabbit trail, folks!...Wait, what are you doing here?"

Quote
(a) WE REALLY DON'T KNOW FOR SURE IF HUMANS EVOLVED FROM APE-LIKE ANCESTORS, AND I'M NOT SURE WE EVER WILL.

and ...

(b) WE REALLY DON'T KNOW FOR SURE IF "GODDIDIT" AND WE CERTAINLY CAN'T "PROVE" THAT.


Anybody who has actually read those books you keep being referred to has a big problem with (a), Dave.  We know that humans ARE apes as well as we know all that other stuff that we as a society feel constitutes a basic education.  What God or Dave wants us to know or not know (for our own good, I'm sure) really isn't relevant (see (b)).  But of course you're living evidence that you shouldn't be too worried about students being indoctrinated in actual science. Ignorance is a powerful adversary, as anyone here who has tried to help you learn (just a little!;) about the topic you're spouting off about can certainly attest.

(B), while true, is as relevant to biology classes as it is to math, physics, chemistry, history, and any subject other than religious studies.  And according to the tried and true laws and freedoms of the good ol' US of A (that I assume you once admirably defended, Dave), that is to say: "not at all".

  
normdoering



Posts: 287
Joined: July 2005

(Permalink) Posted: May 08 2006,09:01   

Quote (afdave @ May 08 2006,13:36)
Why are we standing up in science classes and teaching kids that Ape to Human Evolution is a FACT?

Nope. It's not Ape to Human, humans are an ape. It's that Apes, Monkeys and humans came from a common primate ancestor.

We're teaching kids that this is science's best guess and its as factual as this kind of science ever gets. And that is the truth. Nothing can be known with any absolute certainty, but that doesn't put all ideas on an equal footing. The evidence is clearly against "GODDIDIT" in at least the direct way that creationists want to have had it happen.

  
afdave



Posts: 1621
Joined: April 2006

(Permalink) Posted: May 08 2006,09:06   

Let me just put to rest all the talk about "More Evolved=More Abilities, etc." ...

When comparing Apes and Humans (which is the topic of this thread), I am simply saying this ... Humans Have More Abilities than Apes

Let's just forget about the bacteria and the rest until another day ...

OK?  Everybody happy now?

Also, this type of thing from Aftershave ...
Quote
Let's use AFDave "logic", shall we?

Those evil Nazis used their knowledge of chemistry to produce high explosives and poisonous gas, so therefore the Atomic Theory of Chemistry must be scientifically wrong!

Worse than that, those evil Nazis used their knowledge of physics and gravity to aim and drop their bombs, so therefore Newtonian physics and the Theory of Gravity must be scientifically wrong!

How can we teach such blasphemy as chemistry and physics to our children???

Let's say someone drops AFDave into the middle of the Pacific with no raft, into a pack of sharks, to see which is "more evolved".  Any bets?


is a sure indicator that this person has nothing left to say that is substantive ...

this does not help the image of evolution promoters ...

the YECs on the other hand thank you for ranting so ...

Could you maybe do some more?  Maybe go tell 4 friends to show up and insult me too ... then you would be 5 times as effective :-)

--------------
A DILEMMA FOR THE COMMITTED NATURALIST
A Hi-tech alien spaceship lands on earth ... DESIGNED.
A Hi-tech alien rotary motor found in a cell ... NOT DESIGNED.
http://afdave.wordpress.com/....ess.com

  
stephenWells



Posts: 127
Joined: April 2006

(Permalink) Posted: May 08 2006,09:07   

Quote (afdave @ May 08 2006,13:36)
None of this discussion here changes the simple FACT that ...

[b](a) WE REALLY DON'T KNOW FOR SURE IF HUMANS EVOLVED FROM APE-LIKE ANCESTORS, AND I'M NOT SURE WE EVER WILL.

The fact that humans evolved from ape-like ancestors is as well established as the fact that the earth orbits the sun. That used to be controversial too. Should we let geocentrism have equal time in physics classes?

Looking at human society, behaviour, anatomy, physiology and genetics, our close evolutionary relationship to the great apes is obvious. Remember the vitC gene?

  
Russell



Posts: 1082
Joined: April 2005

(Permalink) Posted: May 08 2006,09:08   

A couple quick comments:

Quote
(Jeannot: ) - The divergence between chimps and human occurred 15 My ago, IIRC.
I think the consensus these days is more like 5 My ago. About 50% longer ago for the (human/chimp)-gorilla divergence, and maybe about double that for the (human/chimp/gorilla)-orang utan divergence. Humans are more closely related to chimps (and bonobos) than chimps are related to gorillas.

Quote
(AFDave: ) WE REALLY DON'T KNOW FOR SURE IF HUMANS EVOLVED FROM APE-LIKE ANCESTORS, AND I'M NOT SURE WE EVER WILL.

Why are we standing up in science classes and teaching kids that Ape to Human Evolution is a FACT?  This is dishonest and potentially damaging to society for any number of debatable reasons.
"We" don't know to your satisfaction, perhaps. But you have demonstrated here that you are not really competent to judge.

I am quite confident that we "know" this as well as other conclusions we call "known" in science - like that the earth is billions of years old, or that ordinary matter is composed of atoms.

Are we "lying" when we teach these things in science class? Should we teach "both theories" about matter: that it is composed of atoms, and that it's not composed of atoms?

--------------
Must... not... scratch... mosquito bite.

  
Flint



Posts: 478
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: May 08 2006,09:09   

Well, going through the motions out of sheer boredom:

Quote
Why are we standing up in science classes and teaching kids that Ape to Human Evolution is a FACT?

It's a fact in the sense Gould described: attested to so thoroughly and without contradiction, by so overwhelming a body of consistent evidence, that it would be perverse to withhold tentative assent.

Quote
This is dishonest and potentially damaging to society for any number of debatable reasons.

Nope, it's not. If evidence is ignored or discarded, why bother teaching anything?

Quote
What we SHOULD be doing is telling them BOTH THEORIES--DESIGN and NO DESIGN

The problem here is, design is not a theory. It makes no predictions, has no hypotheses, has no track record, nobody is doing any research or even suggesting how research might be done. Claiming that design is a theory is a lie.

Quote
and clearly let them know they are UNPROVEN THEORIES and it is up to YOU and YOUR PARENTS to decide.

And of course, evidence doesn't matter. But in the world of science, evidence DOES matter. Theories in science are the best-fit explanations to the known evidence. No theory can EVER be proved, only the degree of evidential support can be reinforced. Evidence-based explanations aren't coin-flips or idle opinions. You are confusing science with religion.

Quote
My tax dollars are funding this education system just like yours are and I have a different opinion on something that is an unprovable fact in either direction.

Again, only if you regard evidence as irrelevant. But science is based on facts. Your tax dollars are going to show people still capable of thinking, how evidence leads to tentative conclusions. You may not LIKE the conclusions evidence leads to, and you may decide that evidence doesn't matter as a result. Too bad.

Quote
Why is my opinion shut out and vilified?

You will find little support for your defense of our children's right to remain totally ignorant, on a forum generally populated by people who have dedicated many years to dispelling their ignorance rather than wallowing in it. On the evidence, your opinions are simply incorrect.

Quote
Is this country supposed to be a representative democracy or is it not?  Last time I checked IT WAS.

But what we are discussing here is science, and science is NOT a democracy. Science is too closely tied to reality, where fact simply outweighs fiction and knowledge beats make-believe.

So the bottom line on this thread is that the evidence that humans are prime members of the great apes is so overwhelming that it's perverse to deny it. And your god-given right to remain stone ignorant of any relevant biology doesn't change this even a little bit.

  
Mr_Christopher



Posts: 1238
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: May 08 2006,09:14   

afdave, if you need retarded "science" (your idiotic AIG approved "science") to justify your faith in god you were in a world of hurt long before you came to this web site.

--------------
Uncommon Descent is a moral cesspool, a festering intellectual ghetto that intoxicates and degrades its inhabitants - Stephen Matheson

  
thurdl01



Posts: 99
Joined: Mar. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: May 08 2006,09:15   

To trot out an over used but apt comparrison.  A recent poll came out that said barely 1/3 of questioned people could locate Iraq on a map.  Does that mean that:

1)  We should improve geographic education to make sure that Americans are more aware of the world around them or
2)  We should "teach the controversy" and show both sides of the issue, both those people who believe Iraq is in the middle east, and those people who pointed at Australia and said "I think it's around here somewhere".

Popular opinion about the validity of a falsifiable fact should not be used to dictate education towards ignorance.  If anything, it means that efforts should be redoubled in those areas that people are ignorant in.

  
jeannot



Posts: 1200
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: May 08 2006,09:18   

Quote (afdave @ May 08 2006,13:36)
Why are we standing up in science classes and teaching kids that Ape to Human Evolution is a FACT?

Because we teach them that gravity makes apples fall.

Should we teach them that god pushes every obect downward, but that we are not sure because it can't be proven?

  
jeannot



Posts: 1200
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: May 08 2006,09:27   

:08-->
Quote (Russell @ May 08 2006,14:08)
I think the consensus these days is more like 5 My ago.

I just found my notes on a conference I assisted. There, Yves Coppens (French paleo-anthropologist) said that pre-humans diverged from pan some 10 Mya.

  
ericmurphy



Posts: 2460
Joined: Oct. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: May 08 2006,09:35   

Quote (afdave @ May 08 2006,13:36)
None of this discussion here changes the simple FACT that ...

(a) WE REALLY DON'T KNOW FOR SURE IF HUMANS EVOLVED FROM APE-LIKE ANCESTORS, AND I'M NOT SURE WE EVER WILL.

and ...

(b) WE REALLY DON'T KNOW FOR SURE IF "GODDIDIT" AND WE CERTAINLY CAN'T "PROVE" THAT.


OK?

Dave, we're as sure that humans and apes have a common ancestor as we're as sure of anything. The evidence of common ancestry is ironclad.

The fact that we don't have a perfect, mutation-by-mutation account of how and when humans and apes diverged from a common ancestor is due to two things: not all organisms leave fossils; and DNA doesn't fossilize.

No one will ever be able to prove whether common descent is as a result of natural laws which happened by accident of by the will of God, but such questions are beyond the realm of science.

That you don't believe the evidence is conclusive is largely due to your ignorance of the science, not due to the weakness of that science. If you were to take a course in evolutionary biology, and were honest enough to set aside your religious objections to the idea of humans and other apes sharing a common ancestor, you would have no doubts about its reality.



Quote
Now ... my BIG problem is this ...

Why are we standing up in science classes and teaching kids that Ape to Human Evolution is a FACT?


Because it is a fact, Dave (well, except  that you're stating it wrong: it's not "ape to human evolution," it's "humans share a common ancestry with other apes") No one who actually has the training to evaluate the evidence doubts that. Do you honestly believe that all paleontologists who work in the field are deluded? What makes you think you are a better judge of the evidence than the people who have devoted their lives to studying it?

Quote
This is dishonest and potentially damaging to society for any number of debatable reasons.  What we SHOULD be doing is telling them BOTH THEORIES--DESIGN and NO DESIGN and clearly let them know they are UNPROVEN THEORIES and it is up to YOU and YOUR PARENTS to decide.


No we should not. Creationism is not a "theory" because it has no explicative power (saying "goddidit" doesn't explain anything), makes no testable predictions, and is unfalsifiable in principle. It's not a matter of "he said, she said." The only "parents" who are qualified to decide between the two are those who have the technical expertise to evaluate the evidence. You may think that's elitist, but it's the way of the world. How many parents do you think are competent to evaluate the evidence supporting superstring theory and that supporting loop quantum gravity?


Quote
My tax dollars are funding this education system just like yours are and I have a different opinion on something that is an unprovable fact in either direction.  Why is my opinion shut out and vilified?  Is this country supposed to be a representative democracy or is it not?  Last time I checked IT WAS.


Dave, neither superstring theory nor loop quantum gravity are "provable." Do you object to one being taught over the other at state-funded universities? No? Could that be because neither one impinges on your religious beliefs the way evolution does?

Your objections to evolutionary theory have everything to do with your relgious beliefs and nothing whatsoever to do with the strength of the evidence. That has become abundantly plain throughout every thread you've started.

Speaking of which, how are you doing with supporting your three assertions? Despite the fact that you stated you're not prepared to address the impossibility of evolution, you're spending most of your energy trying to support that very assertion. It's plain at this point that your biggest objection to evolution is that evolution plainly implies that your ancestors at one point were ape-like? Would you care to explain exactly why that is?

--------------
2006 MVD award for most dogged defense of scientific sanity

"Atheism is a religion the same way NOT collecting stamps is a hobby." —Scott Adams

  
incorygible



Posts: 374
Joined: Feb. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: May 08 2006,09:42   

Quote (afdave @ May 08 2006,14:06)
Also, this type of thing from Aftershave ...
Quote
Let's use AFDave "logic", shall we?

Those evil Nazis used their knowledge of chemistry to produce high explosives and poisonous gas, so therefore the Atomic Theory of Chemistry must be scientifically wrong!

Worse than that, those evil Nazis used their knowledge of physics and gravity to aim and drop their bombs, so therefore Newtonian physics and the Theory of Gravity must be scientifically wrong!

How can we teach such blasphemy as chemistry and physics to our children???

Let's say someone drops AFDave into the middle of the Pacific with no raft, into a pack of sharks, to see which is "more evolved".  Any bets?


is a sure indicator that this person has nothing left to say that is substantive ...

this does not help the image of evolution promoters ...

the YECs on the other hand thank you for ranting so ...

Could you maybe do some more?  Maybe go tell 4 friends to show up and insult me too ... then you would be 5 times as effective :-)

Ah, for cryin' out loud.  I had just replaced my top-of-the-line irony meter after davescot pulled the same trick earlier this week (i.e., breaking Godwin's Law in prominent fashion before invoking it to chastise all who reply).  This is getting bloody expensive.

Dave, a few simple questions (I have spent considerable effort trying to answer yours):

Can we agree to define science (as it is taught in schools) most simply as "what scientists do, how they do it, and what they uncover about the world around us as they do it"?  You have claimed to be objectively interested in fact and reality, and you seem strong in your faith, so I don't think you should have any trouble recognizing science not as a democracy, but as a meritocracy?

Now, as a YEC, it does not surprise me that you might want to see the Bible taught as the root of understanding that you believe it to be.  But can you get it through the front door of that meritocracy honestly?

The (sometimes unlikely) source of many a good idea has preceded it into science class.  For example, from my organic chemistry classes, I still smile at Kekule's reported "eureka" moment when he supposed deduced the elusive structure of benzene from a dream of a snake eating its own tail.  That's stuck with me, even though I'd be hard-pressed to draw hydrocarbon valences now.  There are pleny of other examples, some apocryphal, some not.  Why do I have no recollection of something along the lines of:

"Beginning from the idea that Jonah spent three days in the belly of the whale, marine biologists at Bob Jones University predicted that the gross morphology of the cetacean digestive system would accomodate the survival of a full-grown human.  Subsequent experiments employing undergraduate volunteers revealed this to be true.  Furthermore, a stastically significant proportion reported feeling thoroughly uncomfortable and "forsaken"."

In your previous thread, you learned how the idea that humans and other great apes shared a common ancestor led to the hypothesis that "missing" chromosome in humans likely indicated a fusion event, and how this hypothesis was later confirmed.  In the foreseeable future, students will be learning how evolution and common descent predicted a reality in microbiology.  Furthermore, if you succeed in your attempts to include "common design" alongside "common descent", they would learn how in this case (and many others), common descent predicted something in much finer detail than could be deduced from the vague concept of common design, and thus emerges as the superior hypothesis.  Same goes for the Vitamin C pseudogene -- "common design" didn't give us anything concrete and substantive to work with, but common descent predicted the presence of a "broken" gene.  At the moment, when I teach undergrads what scientists do, how they do it, and what we've learned, I don't compare the predictions and tests of descent and design. Do you really want me to start?

No doubt my teaching about common ancestry (especially regarding humans and apes) makes you feel uncomfortable, since you deny the starting premise.  So why not put up?  Exactly what do you want me to teach, DAve? What would a "science-minded" YEC like yourself have my students learn about the world that was predicted by the Bible and later born out unequivocally through experimentally tested hypotheses and observations?  Can you give us one example that is as clear and unambiguous as chromosome 2 or Vitamin C pseudogenes or the whole science of phylogeny or...  Can you give me a "snake eating its tail" seed that I can plant in the minds of my students for years to come?

  
Paul Flocken



Posts: 290
Joined: Dec. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: May 08 2006,09:44   

Quote (afdave @ May 08 2006,13:36)
[b]Why are we standing up in science classes and teaching kids that Ape to Human Evolution is a FACT?

Because it's science, Dave.  The purpose of sitting in science class it to learn science.  If you don't like that don't sit in a science class.  If you want to learn religion go to church, no pesky science there.  But the purpose of sitting in science class is not to learn Shakespeare, basket weaving, cake baking, typing, grammar, or religion.  It is to learn science, and science was created by humanity to provide us with the best explanation we can get of how the world works and why.  It is a crying shame the conclusions of science don't agree with your religion, but maybe the religio-politico leaders of 7th century b.c. Jeruselum should have waited 2700 years before putting a plagiarised creation myth on papyrus.

--------------
"The great enemy of the truth is very often not the lie--deliberate, contrived, and dishonest, but the myth, persistent, persuasive, and unrealistic.  Belief in myths allows the comfort of opinion without the discomfort of thought."-John F. Kennedy

  
Glen Davidson



Posts: 1014
Joined: May 2006

(Permalink) Posted: May 08 2006,09:52   

"More evolved" is a difficult term and issue.  However, I don't think that it is truly meaningless in biology, nor that it would necessarily apply to the highly successful micro-organisms better than to multi-celled eukaryotes.

The human brain is generally considered to be more highly evolved than the H. erectus brain.  One reason is that it comes later, however that is not the only measure.  Size and apparent specialization, probably for speech or for more refined speech, would generally be used as criteria for using the term "more evolved".  We might very well see ourselves as "more evolved" than H. floresiensis, then, although I realize that the specialization (for instance, smaller size) of the hobbit is a credible argument against such a judgment.  More likely, then, we might judge our abstract abilities to be "more evolved" than the hobbits' (not demonstrated yet, but at least possible), while other factors might be "more evolved" in the hobbits.

Highly selected characteristics could be considered to be "more evolved", though of course more careful speech would simply use the term "highly selected characteristics".  Whole organisms/populations are not particularly good candidates for determining the "more evolved" species, using this criterion, while we may indeed think in terms of "more evolved" for certain characteristics.

If we do dare to think of whole organisms as more evolved, it is perhaps less likely that free-living bacteria are "more evolved" than are sexually-reproducing eukaryotes, at least those whose phenotypes and ways of living have changed dramatically through time.  For, although there is no doubt cyanobacteria have evolved in crucial ways through time, it is not unlikely that in many respects they have not evolved much at all.  That is how we tend to see them, in any case, since many of their metabolic activities seem rather "primitive" (for the most part).  However, their defenses against viruses and the like could hardly have been static for a couple billion years or so.

Most viruses do seem to be "highly evolved", all right, as one would expect from the arms races between parasites and hosts.  Yet one would probably do best to differentiate between what "highly evolved" means for viruses, and what it means for human cognitive abilities.  In eukaryotes, "more evolved" often can mean "more complex" (at least in non-parasitical organisms), while it rarely means that in prokaryotes.

The upshot is, of course, that "more evolved" or "more highly evolved" are slippery terms not generally used in more precise biological writings.  Nevertheless, these are not meaningless terms either.  And they are used, generally to denote improvements in selected capabilities of organisms.  "More evolved" refers best to traits, not to organisms themselves, while "more evolved" also has different meanings when we are discussing viruses than when we are discussing primates.

Within H. sapiens there is too little variation for "more evolved" to refer properly to human groups, and perhaps not even to any traits.  We almost certainly could be said to be "more evolved" than Neanderthals in some important aspects, which may also be partly why Neanderthals no longer exist.   I should add that Neanderthals were also more evolved than ourselves in physical adaptations to cold environments--if apparently these did not confer enough of an advantage for them to have survived.

--------------
http://tinyurl.com/mxaa3p....p

Nothing in biology makes sense except in the light of coincidence---ID philosophy

   
Paul Flocken



Posts: 290
Joined: Dec. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: May 08 2006,09:53   

:06-->
Quote (afdave @ May 08 2006,14:06)
Let me just put to rest all the talk about "More Evolved=More Abilities, etc." ...

When comparing Apes and Humans (which is the topic of this thread), I am simply saying this ... Humans Have More Abilities than Apes

I don't know.  Last time I checked I couldn't swing through trees 100 feet up in the air. :)

--------------
"The great enemy of the truth is very often not the lie--deliberate, contrived, and dishonest, but the myth, persistent, persuasive, and unrealistic.  Belief in myths allows the comfort of opinion without the discomfort of thought."-John F. Kennedy

  
Occam's Aftershave



Posts: 1773
Joined: Feb. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: May 08 2006,10:06   

AFDave says
Quote
Also, this type of thing from Aftershave ...

(snip my observations on Dave's claim that Hitler was an Evolutionist)

is a sure indicator that this person has nothing left to say that is substantive ...

this does not help the image of evolution promoters ...

the YECs on the other hand thank you for ranting so ...


Actually Dave, satire and parody work quite well in pointing out the gross inanity of your anti-evolution "argument".  Your peeved response shows that I did indeed hit the mark.

Quote
Could you maybe do some more?  Maybe go tell 4 friends to show up and insult me too ... then you would be 5 times as effective :-)


Gee, looks like that "I can take it, I'm an AF pilot with a thick skin" was just an act of bravado.  I'll try harder not to hurt your sensitive feeling next time.

You can help too - if you don't like being embarrassed in public, then stop repeating such bloody stupid Creationist lies like "ToE = support for Nazis".

--------------
"Science is what got us to the humble place we’re at, and what hard-won progress we might realize comes from science, with ID completely flaccid, religious apologetics bitching from the sidelines." - Eigenstate at UD

  
Paul Flocken



Posts: 290
Joined: Dec. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: May 08 2006,10:08   

Quote (afdave @ May 08 2006,14<!--emo&:0)
Also, this type of thing from Aftershave ...
Quote
Let's use AFDave "logic", shall we?

Those evil Nazis used their knowledge of chemistry to produce high explosives and poisonous gas, so therefore the Atomic Theory of Chemistry must be scientifically wrong!

Worse than that, those evil Nazis used their knowledge of physics and gravity to aim and drop their bombs, so therefore Newtonian physics and the Theory of Gravity must be scientifically wrong!

How can we teach such blasphemy as chemistry and physics to our children???

Let's say someone drops AFDave into the middle of the Pacific with no raft, into a pack of sharks, to see which is "more evolved".  Any bets?


is a sure indicator that this person has nothing left to say that is substantive ...

this does not help the image of evolution promoters ...

And by saying this you have completely missed his two points.  You suggested that because Hitler allegedly based his racism on Darwin's Theory of Natural Selection that we must, at the very least, regard it with suspicion, or perhaps, ultimately reject it entirely out of hand.  This is so fallacious it's infantile.
And if you were dropped into the habitat of a great white shark without any of the fancy technology bequethed to you by the fancy brains of your ancestors would you regard yourself as 'more' evolved or 'less' evolved.  Evolution is about fitting envionmental niches.  Science uses its own definitions.  It is not required to use the ones AFDave wants to fob off on it.

--------------
"The great enemy of the truth is very often not the lie--deliberate, contrived, and dishonest, but the myth, persistent, persuasive, and unrealistic.  Belief in myths allows the comfort of opinion without the discomfort of thought."-John F. Kennedy

  
Russell



Posts: 1082
Joined: April 2005

(Permalink) Posted: May 08 2006,10:11   

Quote
I just found my notes on a conference I assisted. There, Yves Coppens (French paleo-anthropologist) said that pre-humans diverged from pan some 10 Mya.
(emphasis mine)
Well, there you go. Need I say more? I mean, it was the French who would have had us believe it was a mistake to invade Iraq. (Oh... wait a minute...)

But seriously, I think that the molecular evidence favors the more recent date, and my (American!;)) paleontologist friend says he's comfortable with that, too.

I refer you to Richard Dawkins's "The Ancestor's Tale" for the dates I'm (provisionally) going by.

Let me take this opportunity to repeat a point that AFDave seems not to have absorbed. Chimps, bonobos, gorillas and orang-utans are all fully apes, right? No one of them is "apier" than another, right? Now, since humans are more closely related to chimps and bonobos than they are to gorillas, by what possible criterion could humans not be fully certified, card-carrying, dues-paid-up members of the Ape Club? Speaking of humans as opposed to apes makes no more sense than speaking of humans as opposed to mammals.

--------------
Must... not... scratch... mosquito bite.

  
Joe the Ordinary Guy



Posts: 18
Joined: April 2006

(Permalink) Posted: May 08 2006,10:35   

Dave, as I understand the current arrangement, we as a society teach science to our children so that they will know a little science. We teach them English literature so that they will know a little English literature, and so on down the line. The exception is religion. We as a society do NOT teach religion to our children because people have significantly differing religious beliefs, and parents prefer to teach these to their children on their own. Thus, Catholic parents teach their children Catholicism, Muslim parents teach Islam, Hindu parents teach Hinduism, and so forth.

I can imagine that for those parents who teach a religion that makes testable world-claims, the task is complicated by the fact that their children will learn something contrary in school. I’ve always imagined that such parents, when confronted with the inevitable, “But why…” questions, would simply say that the religion version is true and the school version is false. Oh, and kids, you have to learn the false school version just well enough to pass the test, but don’t believe it.

In other words, because religious education falls to parents, those who need it ALREADY HAVE the “present both sides and let the kids decide” option available to them.

Why is this system inadequate for you?

  
Mr_Christopher



Posts: 1238
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: May 08 2006,10:41   

Quote (Paul Flocken @ May 08 2006,14:53)
Quote (afdave @ May 08 2006,14:0)
Let me just put to rest all the talk about "More Evolved=More Abilities, etc." ...

When comparing Apes and Humans (which is the topic of this thread), I am simply saying this ... Humans Have More Abilities than Apes

I don't know.  Last time I checked I couldn't swing through trees 100 feet up in the air. <!--emo&:)

Let's not forget that when caged an ape's poop flinging skill seems "more evolved" than a humans as well.

--------------
Uncommon Descent is a moral cesspool, a festering intellectual ghetto that intoxicates and degrades its inhabitants - Stephen Matheson

  
thurdl01



Posts: 99
Joined: Mar. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: May 08 2006,10:42   

And as a followup question to Joe's: Why should it be your religion that the government subsidises the teaching of?

  
incorygible



Posts: 374
Joined: Feb. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: May 08 2006,10:44   

Quote (Mr_Christopher @ May 08 2006,15:41)
Let's not forget that when caged an ape's poop flinging skill seems "more evolved" than a humans as well.

I dunno about that.  Exhibit A is JAD vs. DaveScot on Larry's blog.  Put them in an actual cage (as opposed to their metaphoric mental ones), take away their keyboards...I know where I'm putting my money.  I've watched apes: they get bored of poop flinging after a while.

  
Reluctant Cannibal



Posts: 36
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: May 08 2006,10:47   

Hello AFDave,

I realise that you have a lot on your plate already, but I couldn't let this go:

Quote

"Christians had been discriminating against and killing jews for well over a thousand years before Hitler was born."
Twisted Christianity had been.  You are correct.  It got so bad that a man named Martin Luther turned things upside down.  The result?  The translation of the Bible into the English language and the attendant success of the British Empire, followed by the founding of the United States squarely upon the Bible also, again with great results.  Note also the DECLINE of the British Empire coincident with the REJECTION of the validity and authority of the Bible.


AFDave, it seems that the history of Christianity is another thing that you could learn more about. Next time you are researching, Google "Martin Luther" and anti-semitism. Read his actual writings. With regard to your claims about history, I will just observe that correlation is not causation.

  
jeannot



Posts: 1200
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: May 08 2006,10:52   

Quote (Russell @ May 08 2006,15:11)
But seriously, I think that the molecular evidence favors the more recent date, and my (American!;)) paleontologist friend says he's comfortable with that, too.

Molecular datation can't contradict geological datation. It is calibrated from geological datation (fossils or other biogeographical data).
About Sahelanthropus tchadensis:
Quote
The search for the earliest fossil evidence of the human lineage has been concentrated in East Africa. Here we report the discovery of six hominid specimens from Chad, central Africa, 2,500 km from the East African Rift Valley. The fossils include a nearly complete cranium and fragmentary lower jaws. The associated fauna suggest the fossils are between 6 and 7 million years old.

It doesn't confirm the 10 Mya, but if their datation is correct, -6 Mya is the upper limit regarding the split between our lineage and chimps.
http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v418/n6894/full/nature00879.html
(a French discovery ;) Paleo-anthopology the only scientifict field we have left, so let me be proud of it)

  
Arden Chatfield



Posts: 6657
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: May 08 2006,10:53   

Indeed, Dave should not start thinking that all the Christians who mistreated Jews were all Catholics, and that Protestants all treated them well. Many high ranking Nazis were Protestants as well. Here's what Wikipedia says about Luther:
Quote

"Luther and the Jews"

See Martin Luther and the Jews and On the Jews and Their Lies
Luther's views on the Jews have been described as racial or religious anti-Semitism, [25] or as anti-Judaism. [26] He initially believed that the Jews had been prevented from believing in Christ by the actions of Christians, and the proclamation of what he believed to be an impure Gospel. He imagined that they would respond favorably to the evangelical message. When they did not, his fury was aroused, fanned by the appearance of a forged document purporting to be written by a Jew, which was insulting to Christian faith.
In his pamphlet Von den Juden und ihren Lügen (On the Jews and their Lies), published in 1543, he wrote that Jews' synagogues should be set on fire, prayerbooks destroyed, rabbis forbidden to preach, homes "smashed and destroyed," property seized, money confiscated, and that these "poisonous envenomed worms" be drafted into forced labor or expelled "for all time."[27] He also appeared to sanction their murder: [28] "Jerusalem was destroyed over 1400 years ago, and at that time we Christians were harassed and persecuted by the Jews throughout the world ... So we are even at fault for not avenging all this innocent blood of our Lord and of the Christians which they shed for 300 years after the destruction of Jerusalem ... We are at fault in not slaying them."[29]
British historian Paul Johnson has called On the Jews and their Lies the "first work of modern anti-Semitism, and a giant step forward on the road to the Holocaust."[30] Four centuries after it was written, the Nazis cited Luther's treatise to justify the Final Solution.[31] Since the 1980s, Lutheran church bodies and organizations have begun a process of formally denouncing these writings, though they carefully qualify their declarations to fall short of characterizing Luther as an anti-Semite.


A whole bunch more info is HERE:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Martin_Luther_and_the_Jews

So, uh, Dave, don't pretend Luther 'fixed' everything.

(And let's not even MENTION Luther's weird shit fetish...)

--------------
"Rich is just mad because he thought all titties had fur on them until last week when a shorn transvestite ruined his childhood dreams by jumping out of a spider man cake and man boobing him in the face lips." - Erasmus

  
Russell



Posts: 1082
Joined: April 2005

(Permalink) Posted: May 08 2006,10:57   

Quote
followed by the founding of the United States squarely upon the Bible also
absolutely not.

Add American history to the list of subjects AFDave knows less about than he thinks.

--------------
Must... not... scratch... mosquito bite.

  
Russell



Posts: 1082
Joined: April 2005

(Permalink) Posted: May 08 2006,11:07   

Quote
Molecular datation can't contradict geological datation. It is calibrated from geological datation (fossils or other biogeographical data).
No, indeed. But with molecular data, you're not limited to the fossils of the particular animal in question; you get to use a much larger data set of animals with their attendant geological correlates - at least insofar as you can rely on molecular clock assumptions (a whole other discussion).

(By the way, I think we just say "dating" in English).

But it strikes me that this is a much more productive subject to explore than whether AFDave accepts a round earth, atomic theory, or other elements of modernity. What do you say we start another thread?

--------------
Must... not... scratch... mosquito bite.

  
Henry J



Posts: 4565
Joined: Mar. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: May 08 2006,11:17   

[quote=Russell,May 08 2006,15:11]
Quote
by what possible criterion could humans not be fully certified, card-carrying, dues-paid-up members of the Ape Club?

I haven't paid any dues for that there club. ;)

  
jeannot



Posts: 1200
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: May 08 2006,11:19   

Quote (Russell @ May 08 2006)
(By the way, I think we just say "dating" in English).

The dictionary included in Mac OS X thinks that too.
I thought 'datation' was also an English word.

A perfect example of 'Frenglish'.  :(

About a dedicated thread, anytime you want Russel.
I'm not a expert in molecular clock calibration, but I may have to do some molecular datING in my study, so I'll have to get familiar with the subject.

  
Paul Flocken



Posts: 290
Joined: Dec. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: May 08 2006,11:33   

Quote (Russell @ May 08 2006,15:57)
Quote
followed by the founding of the United States squarely upon the Bible also
absolutely not.

Add American history to the list of subjects AFDave knows less about than he thinks.

Yes Russell, but you are not going by rightwingnut approved pre-1950's history.  All that history you learned is 'liberal' history.  Can't trust that, oh no. ;)

--------------
"The great enemy of the truth is very often not the lie--deliberate, contrived, and dishonest, but the myth, persistent, persuasive, and unrealistic.  Belief in myths allows the comfort of opinion without the discomfort of thought."-John F. Kennedy

  
afdave



Posts: 1621
Joined: April 2006

(Permalink) Posted: May 08 2006,11:37   

Well ... one thing is sure ... most of you are answering me precisely as I expected you to answer ...

We'll see you guys tomorrow for some more fun ... :-)

--------------
A DILEMMA FOR THE COMMITTED NATURALIST
A Hi-tech alien spaceship lands on earth ... DESIGNED.
A Hi-tech alien rotary motor found in a cell ... NOT DESIGNED.
http://afdave.wordpress.com/....ess.com

  
afdave



Posts: 1621
Joined: April 2006

(Permalink) Posted: May 08 2006,11:39   

Well ... one thing is sure ... most of you are answering me precisely as I expected you to answer ...

We'll see you guys tomorrow for some more fun ... :-)

--------------
A DILEMMA FOR THE COMMITTED NATURALIST
A Hi-tech alien spaceship lands on earth ... DESIGNED.
A Hi-tech alien rotary motor found in a cell ... NOT DESIGNED.
http://afdave.wordpress.com/....ess.com

  
Flint



Posts: 478
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: May 08 2006,11:49   

Quote
most of you are answering me precisely as I expected you to answer

Admittedly, we are evidence addicts, every one of us. Your ministry is desperately needed here.

  
jeannot



Posts: 1200
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: May 08 2006,12:03   

Quote (afdave @ May 08 2006,16:39)
We'll see you guys tomorrow for some more fun ... :-)

There are some rules here at ATBC, and I predict you won't persist in babbling your nonsense any longer.  
;)

  
stevestory



Posts: 10127
Joined: Oct. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: May 08 2006,12:11   

What will stop him? There's no rule against being a horse's ass here.

   
JonF



Posts: 632
Joined: Feb. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: May 08 2006,13:10   

Quote (afdave @ May 08 2006,14<!--emo&:0)
When comparing Apes and Humans (which is the topic of this thread), I am simply saying this ... Humans Have More Abilities than Apes

Irrelevant.

What is relevant is how humans and apes are suited to their respective ecological niches.

Apes are stronger.  Many species of apes are better at nivigating through treetops than humans.  Apes have more and better abilities than humans ... in the area where it counts for them.

  
PuckSR



Posts: 314
Joined: Nov. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: May 08 2006,13:19   

I was just sitting here thinking....
Something occured to me...

Would it make the IDists/Creationists happy if we removed biology from the required education at schools?

Go with me here....
Sex education is voluntary at some schools...
You either take a sex-ed class...or you go take a "dissect animals sexual organs" class...

Maybe we could do the same thing for the religious...
Offer a "theological biology" class.....
They could teach the differing opinions of different religions as to the origins of life....
I think it would be fun to go one step further and teach a comparitive religions class....

I know this is old hat...and has been mentioned a million times before...but i suddenly realized something today...

AFDave is correct.
Science is only accurate from the scientific perspective...
If you deny the scientific perspective....which is very easy to do.... science is just a bunch of unsubstantiated hogwash.
I think if a parent believes that the scientific method is erroneous, that they should be able to keep their children from attending science classes.
This, however, would mean that they cannot attend any science classes...and their degrees for graduation would reflect this fact.
Im sure that if ID/Creationism is so popular, they will easily find employement and higher education oppurtunities.
I just question AFDave's denial of only one aspect of scientific understanding....

He doesnt believe in evolution...but he believes that the stars are actually giant balls of gas with massive fusion reactions occuring...
We have so little evidence to support this viewpoint it is laughable...yet we teach kids this stuff in science class everyday.
We have never visited the sun....
We have definately never visited the stars...
The inside of the sun could be jello, and the stars could just be optical illusions for all we know...
Why allow the teaching of "fusion reaction stars"?
AFDave...please explain....will you join me in my resistance of teaching star theory?

  
Seven Popes



Posts: 190
Joined: Mar. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: May 08 2006,13:22   

Teach the star controversy?
I'm on board.  Chemistry would have been a snap, too!

--------------
Cave ab homine unius libri - Beware of anyone who has just one book.

  
Ved



Posts: 398
Joined: Oct. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: May 08 2006,15:46   

[QUOTE="Paul Flocken"]The problem is not that chimps, and the animal kingdom in general, is so far behind.  It is that you are so completely unknowing of just how capable chimps really are and that you are full of species superiority about how far advanced humans really are. [/QUOTE]

Exactly Paul. Individuals of our species get a HUGE leg up on our planet by being immersed in the current incarnation of human culture of whatever location they happen to be born. Where would they be if they were born into the wild and cared for by animals, or by parents that had no concept of language, and if they had no contact with anything manmade? That recent thread that touched on the subject of feral children leads me to think that they wouldn't fare very well. The extremely rare child that is raised by animals imprints upon their adoptive parents, crawling like dogs, or imitating chickens. We spend years with our families and in schools learning just the basics about the world and how to interact with it.

Seeing the capabilies of Koko, given the advantage of being taught an already established, open ended language that promotes structured thought, leaves me quite awestruck at how smart and similar to us gorillas are. Whoever said that these ape societies are the 'Hominid Civilizations' afdave is looking for is right. It just goes to show what a good ecological niche it is that we used to share. There's plenty of room in the jungle for apes.


edit: OK i give up, how in the world wide web do you make a Quote BY someone on this board. You see what a wrote, if that's not it I have no idea...

  
normdoering



Posts: 287
Joined: July 2005

(Permalink) Posted: May 08 2006,16:08   

Quote (Ved @ May 08 2006,20:46)
Individuals of our species get a HUGE leg up on our planet by being immersed in the current incarnation of human culture of whatever location they happen to be born.

If you put a human infant in with a chimp troop, the chimps would probably think the baby was a moron by chimp standards and understanding.

  
Occam's Aftershave



Posts: 1773
Joined: Feb. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: May 08 2006,16:22   

Well AFDave, while you’re busy patting yourself on the back for anticipating the answers you’d get from those evil atheists evos, maybe you can answer a few questions about the Air Force.

Is every aspiring AF pilot guaranteed to get his wings and then be allowed to fly fighter jets?  Or is there a winnowing out process so that only those who have passed a battery of rigorous tests will be deemed qualified?

And who gets to decide if an aspiring pilot has the right skills and attributes to fly F-22s instead of tankers or trainers, or gets to fly at all?  Is it AF cooks, and drivers, and mechanics?  Or is the judgment made by a group of senior pilots who have themselves put in the years learning the trade, and know what separates the real aviators from the wanna-be ones?

I think we should give wings and assign fighter duty to everyone who applies.

Why are we standing up in the Air Force Academy and teaching that some people make better pilots than others is a FACT?  This is dishonest and potentially damaging to society for any number of debatable reasons.  What we SHOULD be doing is telling them BOTH THEORIES—ONLY A FEW PEOPLE MAKE SUPERIOR PILOTS and ALL POTENTIAL PILOTS ARE EQUALLY CAPABLE and clearly let them know they are UNPROVEN THEORIES and it is up to EACH PILOT HIMSELF and HIS PARENTS to decide if he is qualified.  My tax dollars are funding the military budget for F-22’s, etc. just like yours are and I have a different opinion on something that is an unprovable fact in either direction.  Why is my opinion shut out and vilified?  Is this country supposed to be a representative democracy or is it not?  Last time I checked IT WAS.

You do believe in the democratic process, don’t you Dave?  Shouldn’t it be applied here too?  I’m really curious to hear your answers.

--------------
"Science is what got us to the humble place we’re at, and what hard-won progress we might realize comes from science, with ID completely flaccid, religious apologetics bitching from the sidelines." - Eigenstate at UD

  
sir_toejam



Posts: 846
Joined: April 2005

(Permalink) Posted: May 08 2006,17:07   

Quote
I’m really curious to hear your answers.


you are?  really?

I'm of the opinion that "AF" dave was booted on a section 8.

I'm also beginning to think that most here apparently have a morbid fascination for the mentally handicapped.

  
Henry J



Posts: 4565
Joined: Mar. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: May 08 2006,17:19   

Why would somebody be offended by having been taught something that was believed by scientists at the time, but that found out later to be incorrect? I can see being annoyed by that, but offended? Consider some theories that were believed to at least some extent in the last 2 centuries, like ether or phlogisten (sp?). Should somebody be offended to have "learned" one or both of those while they were accepted only to have to "unlearn" them later? I wouldn't think so.

In my case, I "learned" in elementary school in the sixties that fungi are plants that happen to not have chlorophyl, that protozoans are animals that happen to be single celled, that bacteria are plants because they aren't animals and have to be one or the other, and that the periodic table of elements had 103 +/- 2 elements on it*. All of those things I've had to "unlearn", but I wasn't offended by any of them.

*Not biology related, but scienctific assertion that wasn't correct even at the time, since printed periodic charts hadn't caught up with even with the then current research. Today there's 116 elements that have been reported as observed, and it changes a few times a decade on average, usually upward although once it went down (in 1999 iirc).

Henry

  
Henry J



Posts: 4565
Joined: Mar. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: May 08 2006,18:05   

normdoering,

Re "If you put a human infant in with a chimp troop, the chimps would probably think the baby was a moron by chimp standards and understanding."

That's if they don't think of it as lunch.

Henry

  
Occam's Aftershave



Posts: 1773
Joined: Feb. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: May 08 2006,19:18   

Quote
 
<I’m really curious to hear your answers.>  

you are?  really?


Sure.  To paraphrase our newest ATBC evangelist:

"Now we scientific literati are reasonable people and we will forgive blustering ex-AF pilots if they admit their errors and fix them." ;)

--------------
"Science is what got us to the humble place we’re at, and what hard-won progress we might realize comes from science, with ID completely flaccid, religious apologetics bitching from the sidelines." - Eigenstate at UD

  
improvius



Posts: 807
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: May 08 2006,19:49   

Quote (afdave @ May 08 2006,12:35)
Quote
Since you seem to have abandoned the previous thread, I'll repost my simple, unanswered question here:

Do you or do you not find the very idea that humans are evolved apes offensive?


If it does indeed turn out to be false when I have finished my investigation into the claim, then YES, I would be offended at the idea of teaching it as if it were true.

I will resume posts on my other thread tomorrow morning.  I was not avoiding yours or anyone's questions over there.

You are still avoiding the question.  I mentioned nothing whatsoever about teaching it.

Now let's try this again.  Do you or do you not find the very idea that humans are evolved apes (as are, for Flint's benefit, all present-day apes) offensive?

--------------
Quote (afdave @ Oct. 02 2006,18:37)
Many Jews were in comfortable oblivion about Hitler ... until it was too late.
Many scientists will persist in comfortable oblivion about their Creator ... until it is too late.

  
Carol Clouser



Posts: 29
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: May 08 2006,20:02   

Afdave,

If by "more evolved" you mean, as you say, more intelligent and more abilities, then on what basis might anyone, including the nazis, have concluded that Jews are less evolved? If anything, a strong case can be made, even before the recently discovered genetic evidence pertaining to Ashkenzic Jews, that the Jews are "most evolved". And the great irony is that one can further argue that the Germans have demonstrated, by their immoral ape-like behavior, that they are the "least evolved" homo sapiens on the planet. Even more, one can make a great case that Christians thru the last two millenia have demonstrated a similar degree of evolution.

You seem to miss the key aspect of nazi immorality and racist immorality in general. It is not that they thought highly of themselves despite an absence of justification for that attitude. It is that they ordined to kill or otherwise enslave and/or dehumanize other human beings. Period.

  
Chris Hyland



Posts: 705
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: May 08 2006,21:38   

Apologies if this stuff gas already been covered I haven't had time to read the whole thread.

Firstly, what has whether Hitler based his views on Darwin got to do wih whether or not Darwin was right. If Hitlers book was called: 'Mein Kampf, or why Charles Darwin's theory of evolution says we should kill all the Jews' this would have no effect on whether evolution was true.

Quote
When comparing Apes and Humans (which is the topic of this thread), I am simply saying this ... Humans Have More Abilities than Apes
There is a reason why most churches think God of the gaps is a bad idea, gaps shrink. Humans have more advanced abilitied in apes. It's a lot to do with duplication and subsequent differential expression during development of certain hormones, which gives us larger and more complex brains. We didn't know that until a couple of years ago, so maybe it was reasonable to assume that God miraculously grew out brains. Sure you can argue that we also have a spiritual component, or that some aspcts of our consciousness can't be explained simply by our brain power. and maybe God did put them there, but that does not effect whether or not we evolved from apes.

Quote
their language is every bit as complex as English or Spanish or many other languages
What I find interesting is that many tribal languages are structured so that they could be spoken with more 'ape like' vocal cords. I also once read an interesting study of some other Brazilian tribe that said they posses:
Quote
no numbers of any kind, no terms for quantification (such as all, each, every, most and some), no colour terms and no perfect tense. They appear to have borrowed their pronouns from another language, having previously possessed none. They have no “individual or collective memory of more than two generations past”, no drawing or other art, no fiction and “no creation stories or myths.”
which sounds quite primitive to me, although aparently their verbal morphology was quite complex.

Quote
Do we not have plenty of LIVING HUMANS which could correlate very nicely with some of these fossil finds, but which we now know are completely human?
No, if you think size and gait are the only differences, you really haven't been paying much attention.

Quote
Do apes organize themselves into 'governments' and seek to conquer  other ape groups?
You'll find that most sociological behaivour displayed by us is exhibited by apes in an incredibly primitive form. Chimps even obey the golden rule most of the time. Gorillas get divorced less than in Vegas (and the bible belt for that matter).

Quote
Has anyone thought about the implications of an assertion by a government entity that "Apes are 98.5% human and therefore should be afforded certain 'human rights.
Again this has nothing to do with whether or not it is actualy true. I agree though it's a bit outdated in that we know that the large phenotypc differences are caused by small genetic differences so basing your argument on straight genome comparison is a bit daft in my opinion. Although Im pretty sure the great ape project is based more on the phenopic similarites.

  
Russell



Posts: 1082
Joined: April 2005

(Permalink) Posted: May 09 2006,02:56   

Quote
Even more, one can make a great case that Christians thru the last two millenia have demonstrated a similar degree of evolution.
I'm a little confused about the antecedents here. Similar to whom? To the Nazis, or to the Jews?

[just for the record, I'm not trying to be polemical here; I can see a case for either position]

--------------
Must... not... scratch... mosquito bite.

  
Arden Chatfield



Posts: 6657
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: May 09 2006,04:27   

Quote
their language is every bit as complex as English or Spanish or many other languages


Quote
What I find interesting is that many tribal languages are structured so that they could be spoken with more 'ape like' vocal cords.


What? ? ? Where did you read that? No offense, but that's nonsense.

There are no grammatical or phonetic differences between tribal languages and nontribal languages. All languages started out as 'tribal', including English.

Quote
I also once read an interesting study of some other Brazilian tribe that said they posses:


You're referring to the Piraha language of the Amazon:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pirahã_language

Quote

no numbers of any kind, no terms for quantification (such as all, each, every, most and some),


Not quite true, they have 3 such terms, which is still an abnormally small number.

Quote
no colour terms and no perfect tense. They appear to have borrowed their pronouns from another language, having previously possessed none.


This is one of the odder things. They don't know that the language previously possessed no pronouns, not having old documentation on the language, but there is no evidence in the language for native, unborrowed pronouns.

Quote
They have no “individual or collective memory of more than two generations past”, no drawing or other art, no fiction and “no creation stories or myths.”
which sounds quite primitive to me,


I wouldn't say that says anything about how primitive their LANGUAGE is, but it's a reflection of their culture. And a very weird fact. I've never heard of any other 'primitive tribe' anywhere that lacked those things.

Quote
although aparently their verbal morphology was quite complex.


Right. The language is grammatically very complex, which is one of the few ordinary things about it.

These claims about Piraha are quite controversial in linguistics, since it's extremely hard to find any other languages anywhere that share such features, such as the lack of numbers, the incredibly small number of kinship terms (many Indian languages of North America can have 40+ kinship terms, with systems much more complex than that of English), and an extremely small phoneme inventory (tho its inventory is not the smallest in the world). In other words, Piraha is very abnormal indeed, even when compared to other languages of 'primitive tribes', or even languages of neighboring Amazonian tribes. I have done a lot of work on North American Indian languages, and no language I've seen there shares ANY of these bizarre features.

In my opinion, setting aside things like pidgins, there is no such thing as a 'primitive language'. Languages of 'primitive tribes' are often grammatically staggeringly complex, far more so than English or Mandarin. There are some odd things that verge on primitive in Piraha, but the complex verb morphology would seem to negate the idea that you could call the language as a whole 'primitive'.

--------------
"Rich is just mad because he thought all titties had fur on them until last week when a shorn transvestite ruined his childhood dreams by jumping out of a spider man cake and man boobing him in the face lips." - Erasmus

  
afdave



Posts: 1621
Joined: April 2006

(Permalink) Posted: May 09 2006,05:21   

Good morning everyone!

I hope everyone has had an excellent night's sleep so your mind is clear and your wits are sharp!  The remaining half of my brain that's not "religion darkened" feels pretty good, so I'm ready to go at it again hammer and tongs!  

It was a fun day for me yesterday ... I learned some really interesting things, and my wife and I got some great laughs from some of the creative answers you gave.

I do see that some of my "Chief Insult Hurlers" have abandoned that tactic apparently because they found it ineffective for their cause.  We'll see how long it takes ALL the Insult Hurlers to figure this out. (You know ... some are more "highly evolved" than others, so it takes a while with some ... just kidding, JUST KIDDING! :-)  )


NOTEWORTHY HIGHLIGHTS FROM YESTERDAY'S SKIRMISHES

Tom Ames runs for cover when the "B WORD"  is mentioned ...
Quote
What is a Genome? This might seem like a trivial and self-evident question, but its simplicity hides a deep challenge (Wood 2001). The Bible (RED ALERT!! RED ALERT!! ALL PERSONNEL TAKE COVER IMMEDIATELY!! THE DEPLORABLE WORD HAS BEEN SPOKEN!;) teaches that God created adult organisms and presumably even complete ecosystems by covering the land with plants. Thus, the Bible (RED ALERT!! RED ALERT!!;) favors a holistic perspective of organisms. Modern molecular biology has favored the opposite perspective: that life is the complicated interaction of molecules and that DNA is the “code of life.” If the molecular viewpoint is correct, then the differences between organisms that really matter are indeed the differences in the DNA. If a holistic perspective is correct, then perhaps differences in the DNA are not paramount to understanding organismal differences.Complicating this reasoning is the fact that differences in DNA do indeed cause differences at the organismal level. There is a definite relationship between phenotype and genotype, even though the relationship is not as simple as Mendel might have imagined it. We could understand the genome as a repository of some of the information necessary for the physical composition of the organism (Wood 2001). In that case, far more important than the genome may be its cellular context, which interprets and applies the information stored in the genome. Since some of the cellular context is coded by the genome, we have something of a chicken/egg problem, which can only be resolved by a creation event.The similarity of the human and chimpanzee genomes offers evidence that the genome could primarily be a repository. If the fixed nucleotide mismatches between the chimpanzee and human genomes are 1.06%, then the original nucleotide identity could be as high as 99%. At that high level of similarity, perhaps it is not impossible to believe that God created humans and chimpanzees with identical genomes. The known differences between human and chimpanzee biochemistry (see Varki 2000; Varki and Atheide 2005) may well rule this out, but it is an intriguing possibility. Even at 99% identity, however, the biological and behavioral differences between chimpanzees and humans indicate that the source of these differences is not likely to be found entirely in the genome sequences. Theologically, the high similarity of humans and chimpanzees reinforces our spiritual – not physical (Ecc. 3:18-21) (RED ALERT!! RED ALERT!!;) – distinctiveness from the animals. It is the image of God (RED ALERT!! RED ALERT!! THE OTHER DEPLORABLE WORD HAS BEEN SPOKEN!;) that makes us human not some intrinsically valuable genetic element.(p.12)


NOTE:  Let me emphasize again that for YECs showing evidence of YEC Theory, the Bible is a SOURCE FOR HYPOTHESES.  Belief in Biblical inerrancy IS NOT required in this discussion.  This is a SEPARATE ISSUE and stands or falls on its own merits.

Quote
The most evolved life forms on our planet are probably bacteria and virii.
 I just LOVE this one!  My kids got a great laugh too.  I quickly learned yesterday that I am not up to date on the latest version of THE GREAT MYTH, so I thank all of you for fixing that.  You'll have to pardon me for making this mistake.  When I was in grade school, I remember all the encyclopedias showing Evolution going something like AMOEBAS - WORMS - SQUIDS - FISH - AMPHIBIANS - MAMMALS - APES - HUMANS (did I get that right?), with humans at the top of the tree.  Anyway, I remember seeing a nice little Ape to Human progression and I remember quotes from Huxley and the like saying things about whites being "more evolved" than humans.  I guess it stands to reason that ND Theory would have to change as racism became less fashionable worldwide throughout the 20th Century.  And I do apologize for not keeping up on the latest version of THE GREAT MYTH.  The Bible (My "myth" as you call it) says the same thing THIS century as it did in Darwin's day, so it's easier to keep up with than YOUR MYTH.

Quote
Human Brain Is Still Evolving: Howard Hughes Medical Institute researchers who have analyzed sequence variations in two genes that regulate brain size in human populations have found evidence that the human brain is still evolving.

And why shouldn't it be if evolution is true?  It seems that the ToE would actually PREDICT continual brain sophistication (oops ... there's one of those evil "directional" words) ... er, shall we say, er ... I'm at a loss ... anyway ... ToE should predict continual brain sophistication so that at some point there may actually be some kind of Super Homo Sapiens species who might be able to leap tall buildings in a single bound, play 100 simultaneous chess games, memorize large books in minutes, etc, etc.

Quote
Why should Common Descent produce “Hominid Civilizations”? There’s no reason to assume that this would be the case.

Actually, there is EVERY reason to believe this should be the case if the ToE is true.

Quote
After Darwin, a new possibility was raised: that those at the top of the social pyramid deserved to be there for natural reasons rather than religious reasons. There has never been ANY doubt by those at the top that their position is deserved. So these "natural" justifications have been deployed both by nations (as in Germany) and by scientists (searching for natural explanations for why the French are superior to the Germans or vice versa (depending on who's doing the study), or why whites are superior to blacks (again depending on who's doing the study). In brief, it fell out of fashion for those born into privilege to say God put them there, and into fashion to say they are "more evolved" and rose to the top from sheer innate superiority.


Quote
The anti-semitic attitudes that allowed for various attrocities - including the Holocaust - came directly from Christianity.  The notion that Hitler just came up with the idea of killing off jews all on his own is simply absurd.  Christians had been discriminating against and killing jews for well over a thousand years before Hitler was born.  Hitler was just continuing a popular tradition, and adding his own spin to the process.

You need to remove the word 'Christianity' from this one and insert 'Catholicism' instead.  The two are vastly different as I will show on a future "Martin Luther" post.  That one should be fun!

Quote
How can you hope to find any flaws in something of which you have no understanding?

My 1st grader can easily grasp the truth that Apes are Apes and Humans are Humans and that they probably HAVE ALWAYS BEEN just that, and probably WILL ALWAYS BE just that.  It doesn't take very much understanding of biology.  The reason you don't grasp this is beyond me.  Maybe too much ToE indocrination in higher education?

Quote
But you come in with arrogance and attitude on top of that. You don't show any respect for the opinions of people who do know things.
I'll give you that one.  I did come in kind of cocky on the chimp chromo thing and you are right ... I should not be cocky, but I did show respect for people's opinions when they showed me the truth.  I have always said I would ... and I did.  You got me on that one, and now I agree with you that it does in fact appear that this supports ToE.  So basically now you are "one bucket full" of water closer to draining the ocean.  You should feel justifiably proud.

Quote
If creationism offered some explanations of the otherwise unexplained, if it made any predictions at all that worked, I still have my life and my work. It wouldn't cost me a thing to adopt it. If it worked. But it doesn't.
Stay with me.  I will be resuming my work on my "Creator God Hypothesis" thread and I hope for your sake that it makes sense to you.  The world is truly a fun place when you have the right view of it!

Quote
Now, let's talk about what you have invested in creationism. Suppose we were able to convince you that AiG is just as obviously, glaringly, unambiguously wrong about everything else as I hope you have come to realize they are about the chromosome fusion story. Suppose you had to accept what every scientist who's looked at the evidence objectively accepts: that the earth is billions of years old, and that humans are just one little twig on the tree of life, that has been on the scene for but an infinitesimal fraction of the planet's history. Would that make you reassess your thoughts on life and your alleged god?

Sure.  I'd probably think there ISN'T a God.  And yes, I would be disappointed.  I admit that I LIKE the idea of there being one.  But I don't think I am necessarily jaded by this.  I think everyone's thinking is affected somewhat by their "wanters", but we have to keep this "wanter" under control.  "Evos", like "Creos" also have "wanters" and many of them DON'T WANT there to be a God because they think their life would somehow be worse, or they'd have to tie half their brain behind their back, or some such thing.

Quote
What does this (Hitler) have to do with the biologically history of the planet Earth?
Simply this. If you compare the two "World Views" you have something like the following major points:

DARWINISM:  
Survival of the fittest
Humans are animals-nothing more
No God required-I'm not accountable to anyone but myself

CHRISTIANITY (American Protestantism specifically):
God created mankind in His image
All humans are created equal
Don't kill, don't steal, etc.
Treat others as you would have them treat you
Love one another
Turn the other cheek
Bless your enemies
If your enemy is thirsty, give him a drink
Do not repay evil for evil

Now ... which of these is more conducive to a Holocaust?  You tell me.  I'm not discounting other factors.  It's true that Hitler was influenced by Catholicism, the Occult, and other factors as well.  So my point is ...

NOT ONLY IS DARWINISM FALSE AND AN INSULT TO INTELLIGENCE ... demonstrably so as we saw for many years with Henry Morris and Co. and are now seeing with Dembski, Denton, Behe, etc.

BUT IT IS ALSO AN BAD FOUNDATION UPON WHICH TO BUILD A NATION.
I don't know of a single one that was built on the Principles listed above under "Darwinism" that I would want to live in.  Do you?

In stark contrast to that, we have at least TWO examples of nations who built their laws squarely upon the CHRISTIANITY principles listed above:  Great Britain and the USA.

Now you see what gives me such zeal in fighting Darwinism.

Again, so no one misses it ... the two reasons I fight Darwinism are ...
(A) IT IS FALSE
(B) IT IS HARMFUL TO SOCIETY

Are there any questions?  Is my position perfectly clear?

By the way, for those of you wise enough to "get off the Darwin train" BEFORE the train wreck, your buddy Bill Dembski has come up with a neat list of over 500 scientists who have had the kahoonas to sign their names to a public statement that says ...
Quote
A Scientific Dissent From Darwinism
"We are skeptical of claims for the ability of random mutation and natural selection to account for the complexity of life. Careful examination of the evidence for Darwinian theory should be encouraged."


It also notes that ...
Quote
The scientists on this list dispute the first claim and stand as living testimony in contradiction to the second. Since Discovery Institute launched this list in 2001 [in response to the PBS "Evolution" propaganda piece] over 500 scientists have courageously stepped forward to sign their names. The list is growing and includes scientists from the US National Academy of Sciences, Russian, Polish and Czech National Academies, as well as from universities such as Yale, Princeton, Stanford, MIT, UC Berkeley, UCLA, and others.


Here's the link ... [url="http://www.dissentfromdarwin.org"]

(What?  We have rebels in the Ivy League too?  Heaven help us! er ... Deep space help us! (?) ... er ... May the Force help us! ... er ... well ... anyway, SOMEONE help us!;)

THOUGHT QUESTION FOR THE DAY:  If over 500 scientists have actually had the kahoonas to SIGN such a document, how many others AGREE with the document, but are AFRAID to sign it because of peer pressure, fear of not getting tenured, etc., etc.

Hmmmm ....

Quote
so afdave, have you confronted AIG about the lies on their site as you said you were going to do yet?

Patience, my friend.  These things take time.  AIG is so popular right now that they get ZILLIONS of questions every day and it takes time to get to mine.  Actually, I think the only way I will get an answer in any reasonable amount of time will be if I use my connections.  But I don't even know for sure if that will work quickly.  Stay tuned, though.

Quote
The problem is not that chimps, and the animal kingdom in general, is so far behind.  It is that you are so completely unknowing of just how capable chimps really are and that you are full of species superiority about how far advanced humans really are.
Yes. Maybe we should take this up in Congress and maybe come up with an "Ape Bill of Rights."  Good idea.  I'll take this one with me on my next trip to Washington.  Oh ... and maybe we could have an "Ape Olympics" and make it a world class event ... and maybe we should modify laws to allow Apes free access to various public places like Walmart and the Public Library, etc.  Excellent idea.  I like your progressiveness.

Quote
Dave, the reason people are becoming frustrated with you is because most of the questions you have, which you seem to view as huge problems for evolutionary biology, are in fact a result of your limited understanding of evolutionary biology.
I have an alternative explanation for the frustration (imagine that!;)  Mine is like this ...

STAGE 1: ToE advocates are becoming frustrated because their explanations are sounding more and more like pro-geocentrism and pro-flat-earth arguments as time goes on.  
STAGE 2: The Ship of Darwin has hit an iceberg and a few brave souls are jumping into life boats before it sinks.  See www.dissentfromdarwin.org
STAGE 3: And now, ordinary amateur scientists like me are jumping in the fray and shining a light on a foolish theory.
STAGE 4: Frustration ensues, followed by name calling, arrogant and belittling comments, talk of censorship, and the like.
STAGE 5: This is turn fuels more doubts in people minds. ("Why would that guy resort to name calling?  Doesn't he have any GOODS?" etc.)  
STAGE 6: Which in turn fuels more frustration and mental anguish.  And so the cycle goes until finally for some ... in a desperate moment ... possibly in the middle of the night ... or out on a peaceful lake while fishing ...
STAGE 7: THE LIGHT BULB COMES ON!  (Trumpets) And one more Darwinist is rescued from the darkness of error.

Quote
How do you test for God?
With a God Meter of course.  No.  Seriously, there are some very good ways.  Cosmic fine tuning and Biological Machines are great for starters.  And if I could get everyone on this thread to agree with me, I could hop back over to that thread (AF Dave's UPDATED Creator God Hypothesis) and give you more.  Lots more.  Stay with me.  We'll get there.

Quote
Let's say someone drops AFDave into the middle of the Pacific with no raft, into a pack of sharks, to see which is "more evolved".  Any bets?
Aftershave ... you're in STAGE 4.  See above.  (Which means there's hope for you)

Quote
Why is my opinion shut out and vilified?

That's an easy one.  Because your ideas are not within the mainstream of scientific understanding today.  It's that simple.

Yes.  Galileo's ideas were not mainstream either.  Right.

Quote
Why do you ignore the fact that the chimp/human DNA thing is a PRETTY DURN BIG piece of evidence in favor of evolution, especially since it is the proof of predictions made before people even knew there was such a thing as DNA?
I don't ignore it.  In fact I've acknowledged it several times to prove my sense of fairness and honesty.  Go read the whole "Chimp Chromo" thread and you will see this.  I'm trying to set a good example for how someone should act when they are proven wrong on a point as I was.

And here it would be appropriate for me to repeat what I told Steve Story ... that with your "Chimp Chromo" victory ...

... you are "one bucket full" of water closer to draining the ocean.  You should feel justifiably proud.

Quote
AFDave, since you refer to 'more evolved' humans, do you admit that we are the result of some evolution?
No.  I do not believe there is such a thing as 'more evolved' humans.  I just asked our ToE advocates why there ARE NO EXAMPLES of 'more evolved' or 'less evolved' humans.  There should be some living today if ToE is true.

Quote
For the umpteenth time – science is NOT a democracy, and scientific truth is NOT decided by popular vote.  Your opinion based on ignorance  doesn’t mean jack sh*t to the scientific realities of the evidence. Dave, for an otherwise intelligent guy, you’re sure doing a good impersonation of a cement-headed dumbf*ck.
Not just STAGE 4.  SERIOUS, "E.R." STAGE 4.  See above.

Quote
We're teaching kids that this is science's best guess and its as factual as this kind of science ever gets.
There are apparently more and more scientists who have a DIFFERENT guess.  But let's not consider their guess.  They are obviously 'unscientific.'

Quote
Looking at human society, behaviour, anatomy, physiology and genetics, our close evolutionary relationship to the great apes is obvious. Remember the vitC gene?
No disagreement with any of this.  I just think it indicates COMMON DESIGN, not common descent.  Not a looney, fringe idea. Should be taught in school too.  I'm in good company ... Newton for one.  Apparently thousands of currently living scientists as well in all major universities.

Quote
But you have demonstrated here that you are not really competent to judge.
Agreed.  That's why I enlist the help of Morris, Dembski, Meyer, Denton, Behe, etc. etc.

Quote
And of course, evidence doesn't matter. But in the world of science, evidence DOES matter.
 Evidence DOES matter.  That's why we are having this discussion.  Because the EVIDENCE favors COMMON DESIGN, not common descent.

Quote
But what we are discussing here is science, and science is NOT a democracy.
Quite true.  Science is not a democracy.  We have to go with the evidence.  But politicians are elected by majority.  And politicians give funding to public schools and universities.  And if universities behave irresponsibly and teach junk science -- like Darwinism -- and vilify people who don't, then the electorate can demand that the politicians RE-direct the funds to responsible schools.

Quote
afdave, if you need retarded "science" (your idiotic AIG approved "science") to justify your faith in god you were in a world of hurt long before you came to this web site.
I think you must not yet know WHY I came to this website.

Quote
To trot out an over used but apt comparrison.  A recent poll came out that said barely 1/3 of questioned people could locate Iraq on a map.  Does that mean that:
1)  We should improve geographic education to make sure that Americans are more aware of the world around them or
2)  We should "teach the controversy" and show both sides of the issue, both those people who believe Iraq is in the middle east, and those people who pointed at Australia and said "I think it's around here somewhere".


Your analogy works if you assume that "Teaching Darwinism = Teaching that Iraq is Somewhere near the North Pole", which I of course do believe is a good equation.  And in this case, YES, I would advocate (2).  

Quote
Why are we standing up in science classes and teaching kids that Ape to Human Evolution is a FACT?  Because we teach them that gravity makes apples fall.
Jeannot, Jeannot.  Come now.  Look what you just did.  You compared something with ABUNDANT EVIDENCE THAT WE SEE EVERY DAY (Gravity), with something for which there is NO EVIDENCE OF IT OCCURRING (Apelike ancestor becoming Human).  Or do you see this occurring in France?  (I can think of a joke about the REVERSE occurring, but I will be nice and refrain.  Besides, I liked Lafayette.)  I was beginning to be impressed with your grasp of science (the DNA replication info). How could you make this basic error?

Quote
Speaking of which, how are you doing with supporting your three assertions? Eric is referring to these ...
1. The Bible is literally inerrant;
2. The earth is not billions of years old, but only thousands of years old; and
3. Evolution cannot explain the origin of species.

FIRST, these are not assertions that I made in my Creator God Hypothesis although I heartily agree with them all and they all have mountains of evidence to support them which I hope we can get into.  The reason I did not make them in my Hypothesis is that there are more important things to show evidence for first.  It is most important that I BEGIN with the PHYSICAL EVIDENCE ... namely, the Cosmos and the Living World around us.  This evidence includes Cosmic Fine Tuning, Biological Machines and Relativity.  Next we should observe Humanity and Moral Laws which in fact are REAL THINGS, although we cannot "see" them.  From this evidence we can postulate a Cause for all these phenomena.  There are other phenomena we can observe to get a better and better description of what this Cause might be like.  If we can establish a pretty good case for the existence of a Great First Cause, then we are not unreasonable to postulate than maybe He gave us a written message.  We posulate the Bible as a possible candidate for THE MESSAGE OF GOD TO MANKIND because of its uniqueness and seemingly supernatural character, then test our theory in detail.  If this theory is well supported from things easily verifiable, we can now move on and investigate various claims of the Bible such as the Flood, Young Earth, the Changing of Languages at Babel, etc. which are disputed widely today.  This is the general outline I am following.  Again, remember that I have never before published a "God Hypothesis" ... I am proposing one and working out the exact details of how it should go with YOUR HELP!  Thank you!  As for proving Evolution to be false, this is not my priority, as some others are doing a good job of that.  Henry Morris, Michael Denton and Michael Behe, to name a few.  Denton was more polite than I would have been in titling his book.  Instead of "Evolution: A Theory in Crisis", I would have named it "Evolution: Impending Train Wreck."

NOTE:  Let me emphasize again that for YECs showing evidence of YEC Theory, the Bible is a SOURCE FOR PLAUSIBLE HYPOTHESES, nothing more.  Belief in Biblical inerrancy IS NOT required in this discussion.  This is a SEPARATE ISSUE and stands or falls on its own merits.

Quote
But can you get it through the front door of that meritocracy honestly?
Yes.  This is happening as we speak.

Quote
No doubt my teaching about common ancestry (especially regarding humans and apes) makes you feel uncomfortable, since you deny the starting premise.
Again, I am perfectly comfortable teaching things THAT ARE TRUE.  What I am uncomfortable with is ASSERTING things AS IF they were proven, when in fact they are not, by YOUR OWN STANDARDS.

Quote
"More evolved" is a difficult term and issue.  However, I don't think that it is truly meaningless in biology, nor that it would necessarily apply to the highly successful micro-organisms better than to multi-celled eukaryotes.
Glen ... I enjoyed reading your entire piece.  Very insightful.  Thanks!

Quote
AFDave, it seems that the history of Christianity is another thing that you could learn more about. Next time you are researching, Google "Martin Luther" and anti-semitism. Read his actual writings. With regard to your claims about history, I will just observe that correlation is not causation.
I'm sure I would agree with you.  But this has nothing to do with my point.  Go back and read my point again.  We'll do another thread an ML.  He's one of my favorites.  But not now.  I have alot on my plate :-)

Quote
Indeed, Dave should not start thinking that all the Christians who mistreated Jews were all Catholics, and that Protestants all treated them well. Many high ranking Nazis were Protestants as well. Here's what Wikipedia says about Luther:
Agreed.  It was Protestants who burned William Tyndale at the stake.  You are absolutely right.  But this does not change the fact of history that the Protestant Reformation changed the world for the better.

Quote
Add American history to the list of subjects AFDave knows less about than he thinks.
Oh?  I'll take you up on the challenge sometime.  That will be fun too!

Quote
There are some rules here at ATBC, and I predict you won't persist in babbling your nonsense any longer.
Jeannot, have you never heard of a nifty little thing made famous by Americans called FREEDOM OF SPEECH?  Do you not have this in France?

BTW ... I salute Steve and Wes for honoring Free Speech!  You have my accolades.

Quote
Offer a "theological biology" class.....
The Darwinist Religious belief on Origins would be PERFECT for this class.

Quote
Exactly Paul. Individuals of our species get a HUGE leg up on our planet by being immersed in the current incarnation of human culture of whatever location they happen to be born. Where would they be if they were born into the wild and cared for by animals, or by parents that had no concept of language, and if they had no contact with anything manmade? That recent thread that touched on the subject of feral children leads me to think that they wouldn't fare very well. The extremely rare child that is raised by animals imprints upon their adoptive parents, crawling like dogs, or imitating chickens. We spend years with our families and in schools learning just the basics about the world and how to interact with it.

Seeing the capabilies of Koko, given the advantage of being taught an already established, open ended language that promotes structured thought, leaves me quite awestruck at how smart and similar to us gorillas are. Whoever said that these ape societies are the 'Hominid Civilizations' afdave is looking for is right. It just goes to show what a good ecological niche it is that we used to share. There's plenty of room in the jungle for apes.
I agree.  All the apes need is a good environment and they will become rocket scientists.  When I am in Washington next, I will suggest to Ike Skelton that he introduce legislation for a new, tax-funded, "Primate Education Program."  Maybe we could even have a new cabinet level office ... we already have the Department of Education ... why not have the Department of Ape Education.  

Quote
Is every aspiring AF pilot guaranteed to get his wings and then be allowed to fly fighter jets?  Or is there a winnowing out process so that only those who have passed a battery of rigorous tests will be deemed qualified?

And who gets to decide if an aspiring pilot has the right skills and attributes to fly F-22s instead of tankers or trainers, or gets to fly at all?  Is it AF cooks, and drivers, and mechanics?  Or is the judgment made by a group of senior pilots who have themselves put in the years learning the trade, and know what separates the real aviators from the wanna-be ones?

I think we should give wings and assign fighter duty to everyone who applies.
Why are we standing up in the Air Force Academy and teaching that some people make better pilots than others is a FACT?  This is dishonest and potentially damaging to society for any number of debatable reasons.  What we SHOULD be doing is telling them BOTH THEORIES—ONLY A FEW PEOPLE MAKE SUPERIOR PILOTS and ALL POTENTIAL PILOTS ARE EQUALLY CAPABLE and clearly let them know they are UNPROVEN THEORIES and it is up to EACH PILOT HIMSELF and HIS PARENTS to decide if he is qualified.  My tax dollars are funding the military budget for F-22’s, etc. just like yours are and I have a different opinion on something that is an unprovable fact in either direction.  Why is my opinion shut out and vilified?  Is this country supposed to be a representative democracy or is it not?  Last time I checked IT WAS. You do believe in the democratic process, don’t you Dave?  Shouldn’t it be applied here too?  I’m really curious to hear your answers.
Good question.  I knew you could say something substantive. Answer:  The generals who set the rules EARNED THE RIGHT to do so by exercising sound judgment regarding EASILY VERIFIABLE TRUTHS.  What is this EASILY VERIFIABLE TRUTH?  It's very easy to distinguish the good pilot candidates from the bad ones.  In science today, we are talking about a different matter.  We are talking about many qualified students who can do much in the way of good, useful scientific work regardless of their worldview.  To exclude people because of their worldview is like excluding people based on sex or religious preference, ESPECIALLY when there are thousands of "Darwin dissenters" among scinetists in all major universities AND half the US and British population rejects Darwinism.  This is a significant difference.  Contrast this with putting the following question on the next national ballot, "Do you think there should be a selection process in choosing fighter pilots?"  I think you'd be very close to 100% YES.

Quote
Why would somebody be offended by having been taught something that was believed by scientists at the time, but that found out later to be incorrect?
No problem with teaching Evolution as a Theory espoused by many good scientists.  Let's just be honest and call it a theory though and quit saying it is a proven fact and shutting out the ID view.

Quote
Now let's try this again.  Do you or do you not find the very idea that humans are evolved apes (as are, for Flint's benefit, all present-day apes) offensive?
I'm perfectly fine with the idea if it turns out to be proven true.

Quote
I said ... Do we not have plenty of LIVING HUMANS which could correlate very nicely with some of these fossil finds, but which we now know are completely human?
Let me explain this one again, since it was misunderstood.

I am saying that if we took an assortment of recently (let's say they all died at once yesterday, OK?) dead African pygmies, maybe some dead dwarfs, some dead Aborigines, some dead gorillas, etc. (a morbid thought to be sure, but you get the idea ... we are collecting 'ape-like bones';) ... but if we somehow collected all these bones, we could quite possibly bury fragments of them in various places throughout the world and have a 'hominid" fossil situation  quite closely resembling the naturally occurring situation which we do have.  Make sense?  Now that you understand what I am saying, please ... go ahead and refute me.  Who knows?  Maybe you can.


MAIN POINTS I LEARNED YESTERDAY
(1) Humans are Humans
(2) Apes are Apes
(3) No one has observed Apelike ancestors becoming Humans in their lifetimes and no one ever will.
(4) Fossil evidence is dicey at best
(5) Genetic similarities are striking, but can just as easily be explained by Common Design (probably better when we really get into it) as by Common Descent
(6) Creos and Evos have strong and opposite opinions about something which cannot be proven because NO ONE CAN OBSERVE IT HAPPENING.  Contrast this with Gravity, etc.
(7) Evos are the "rulers" in academia right now and they like to call the Creos "non-scientific"
(8) There's hope for academia in spite of this thanks to courageous people like Morris, Dembski, Meyer, Denton, Behe and apparently a growing number of good scientists (over 500 signatories so far on a Darwin Dissent Document)

I need to get back to my main Creator God Hypothesis today if I can.  So do me a favor and just agree with me quickly so we can get on with it, would you?   :-)

--------------
A DILEMMA FOR THE COMMITTED NATURALIST
A Hi-tech alien spaceship lands on earth ... DESIGNED.
A Hi-tech alien rotary motor found in a cell ... NOT DESIGNED.
http://afdave.wordpress.com/....ess.com

  
jstockwell



Posts: 10
Joined: May 2006

(Permalink) Posted: May 09 2006,05:41   

afdave,

Can you explain how you reconcile the chromosomal fusion event with your explanation?  You keep saying that it is evidence for common design, not common descent, but you don't say why.

  
Russell



Posts: 1082
Joined: April 2005

(Permalink) Posted: May 09 2006,05:45   

Geez, AFD. You've got way too much time on your hands. Pity you can't use it to learn something. For instance, I doubt that among the "Main Points [you] Learned Yesterday", there was a single one of them of which you were not fully sure the day before yesterday.

I'll just comment on this one, and get on to more productive activities.
Quote
(Russell: ) But you have demonstrated here that you are not really competent to judge.
Quote
(AFDave: ) Agreed.  That's why I enlist the help of Morris, Dembski, Meyer, Denton, Behe, etc. etc.
If you're not competent to judge information that is presented by scientists who don't care about your religion, what makes you think you are competent to sort out fact from fiction coming from these guys whose stated agenda is to align science with their religion? You're not "enlisting their help", you're just playing their stooge.

--------------
Must... not... scratch... mosquito bite.

  
ericmurphy



Posts: 2460
Joined: Oct. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: May 09 2006,05:52   

Quote (afdave @ May 09 2006,10:21)
And why shouldn't it be if evolution is true?  It seems that the ToE would actually PREDICT continual brain sophistication (oops ... there's one of those evil "directional" words) ... er, shall we say, er ... I'm at a loss ... anyway ... ToE should predict continual brain sophistication so that at some point there may actually be some kind of Super Homo Sapiens species who might be able to leap tall buildings in a single bound, play 100 simultaneous chess games, memorize large books in minutes, etc, etc.

As an engineer, Dave, you should know this isn't true. Living organisms, like anything else that uses energy, are a result of trade-offs. The human brain already uses such a large percentage of the body's resources that it's unlikely to ever get much bigger than it is.

As a bicyclist, I know first-hand the trade-offs involved in building muscle mass. It is very expensive to maintain greater muscle mass than needed. If I take two weeks off from riding, I can see the atrophy of muscles, and it takes a lot of hard work to get back where I was.

The abilities you're talking about (leaping tall buildings—come on Dave; as an engineer you should know the type of development that would be required) would be selected against because the benefits would be vastly outweighed by disadvantages of devoting the immense resources required to achieve them.

Dave, sometimes your understanding of evolution seems very cartoonish. I really, really think you should read a few good books on evolutionary topics aimed at a general readership. You keep making elementary mistakes in thinking about evolution that take thousands of words on our part to correct. You could save us all a lot of time if you did so.

--------------
2006 MVD award for most dogged defense of scientific sanity

"Atheism is a religion the same way NOT collecting stamps is a hobby." —Scott Adams

  
afdave



Posts: 1621
Joined: April 2006

(Permalink) Posted: May 09 2006,06:00   

Quote
Dave, sometimes your understanding of evolution seems very cartoonish. I really, really think you should read a few good books on evolutionary topics aimed at a general readership.
Is there a better author than Dawkins for this type of book?  I do read him some.

--------------
A DILEMMA FOR THE COMMITTED NATURALIST
A Hi-tech alien spaceship lands on earth ... DESIGNED.
A Hi-tech alien rotary motor found in a cell ... NOT DESIGNED.
http://afdave.wordpress.com/....ess.com

  
ericmurphy



Posts: 2460
Joined: Oct. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: May 09 2006,06:04   

Quote (afdave @ May 09 2006,10:21)
Quote
How can you hope to find any flaws in something of which you have no understanding?

My 1st grader can easily grasp the truth that Apes are Apes and Humans are Humans and that they probably HAVE ALWAYS BEEN just that, and probably WILL ALWAYS BE just that.  It doesn't take very much understanding of biology.  The reason you don't grasp this is beyond me.  Maybe too much ToE indocrination in higher education?

This is the part I don't get, Dave, and makes me wonder how intellectually honest you're being here.

We show you compelling evidence that humans and chimps share a common ancestor. You first dispute the evidence by reference to 30-year old studies, but eventually concede the point when we show you that your objections are meritless. You appear to accept the fact that humans have one chromosome less than chimps due to chromosomal fusion, and that identical errors in human and chimp genes are strong evidence of common ancestry.

But here we are, a few days later, and now you're back to insisting that humans aren't even related to apes (despite the fact that humans are apes). Are we now going to have to assume that points you conceded a week ago are no longer conceded? Does this mean we're going to have to go over the same ground again and again with you, à la Thordaddy? Because that will get old very quickly.

--------------
2006 MVD award for most dogged defense of scientific sanity

"Atheism is a religion the same way NOT collecting stamps is a hobby." —Scott Adams

  
Flint



Posts: 478
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: May 09 2006,06:08   

Dawkins is good. Gould wrote hundreds of essays for Natural History, and collected many of them into a half dozen excellent books. Ernst Mayr wrote some highly accessible stuff.

None of this material will turn you into a biologist, but it CAN provide enough background so that after a few hundred hours of reading, you'll have enough of the background under control to at least have some slight grasp of what people are telling you. That way, when presented with valid biology, you can react more rationally than with reflexive and ignorant laughter and denial.

Of course, this material is pretty darn accurate, meaning your laugh-and-deny reflex will probably be triggered about twice per paragraph.

  
Occam's Toothbrush



Posts: 555
Joined: April 2006

(Permalink) Posted: May 09 2006,06:17   

Quote
It seems that the ToE would actually PREDICT continual brain sophistication (oops ... there's one of those evil "directional" words) ... er, shall we say, er ... I'm at a loss ... anyway ... ToE should predict continual brain sophistication so that at some point there may actually be some kind of Super Homo Sapiens species who might be able to leap tall buildings in a single bound, play 100 simultaneous chess games, memorize large books in minutes, etc, etc.

What a maroon.

Everything has a cost.  Bigger brains, among other things: 1) Consume more energy, requiring more food intake/metabolic processing and generating more heat that needs to be dissipated; 2) Take up more space, requiring tradeoff with other critical skull-based systems and/or making the head larger, affecting balance and needing more robust bodies to support the weight--as well as increasing the chance of accidental damage; 3) Require more developmental complexity, creating more things that can go wrong, larger maternal pelvises (ever watched a human birth?  $hitty 'design' there, huh?), etc., etc.  If all of these factors don't add up to an organism that survives and reproduces more effectively in its environment than the original model, the bigger brain doesn't happen.

afdave is/was supposedly an engineer.  I don't know what he worked on, but an automobile-industry engineer with his moronic mindset would churn out designs for cars with ever bigger and more powerful engines, proposing 20,000-HP monsters that would weigh 30 tons, cost millions of dollars and travel like rockets down the freeway, consuming hundreds of gallons of gas per minute, impossible to control.  That model wouldn't sell and would become extinct, as would his job.

He really doesn't think at all, does he.

--------------
"Molecular stuff seems to me not to be biology as much as it is a more atomic element of life" --Creo nut Robert Byers
------
"You need your arrogant ass kicked, and I would LOVE to be the guy who does it. Where do you live?" --Anger Management Problem Concern Troll "Kris"

  
Arden Chatfield



Posts: 6657
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: May 09 2006,06:23   

Quote (Flint @ May 09 2006,11<!--emo&:0)
Dawkins is good. Gould wrote hundreds of essays for Natural History, and collected many of them into a half dozen excellent books. Ernst Mayr wrote some highly accessible stuff.

I've actually never read any of Dawkins' books. Can anyone recommend what the best one to start with would be?

--------------
"Rich is just mad because he thought all titties had fur on them until last week when a shorn transvestite ruined his childhood dreams by jumping out of a spider man cake and man boobing him in the face lips." - Erasmus

  
afdave



Posts: 1621
Joined: April 2006

(Permalink) Posted: May 09 2006,06:43   

Quote
But here we are, a few days later, and now you're back to insisting that humans aren't even related to apes (despite the fact that humans are apes). Are we now going to have to assume that points you conceded a week ago are no longer conceded? Does this mean we're going to have to go over the same ground again and again with you, à la Thordaddy? Because that will get old very quickly.


No, no.  We will not have to cover anything over again.  I DO agree with all those things I said I agree with.  

I agree that I need to explain more fully why I believe the similarities favor Common Design over Common Descent.  I will try to address this soon.

Thanks

--------------
A DILEMMA FOR THE COMMITTED NATURALIST
A Hi-tech alien spaceship lands on earth ... DESIGNED.
A Hi-tech alien rotary motor found in a cell ... NOT DESIGNED.
http://afdave.wordpress.com/....ess.com

  
Russell



Posts: 1082
Joined: April 2005

(Permalink) Posted: May 09 2006,06:44   

Quote
I've actually never read any of Dawkins' books. Can anyone recommend what the best one to start with would be?
Depends on what you're after. I think he's a wonderfully clear explainer of ideas, which is what bugs the bejeezus out of creationists, and why, rather than actually take on the content of his explanations, they resort to a cartoon of a rabid militant atheist.

Anyway, his first book "The Selfish Gene" is relatively short and succinct. His latest "The Ancestor's Tale" is the opposite, but does two things: One, it gives a neat overview of the whole history of the tree of life going from the human twig to the root, and Two, as the various organisms are joined to the tree, it brings up individual issues that illustrate important concepts and tools in evolutionary biology.

For dealing with the issues raised by creationists, it's hard to beat "The Blind Watchmaker".

--------------
Must... not... scratch... mosquito bite.

  
Russell



Posts: 1082
Joined: April 2005

(Permalink) Posted: May 09 2006,06:49   

Quote
I need to explain more fully why I believe the similarities favor Common Design over Common Descent.  I will try to address this soon.
This should be entertaining. I hope your explanation for the vitamin C story will be a prominent part of it.

--------------
Must... not... scratch... mosquito bite.

  
Seven Popes



Posts: 190
Joined: Mar. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: May 09 2006,06:54   

Oh fer Gods sake.
500 scientists?
This tard-tacular chestnut again???
Ask how many of those scientists were actually biologists, or part of a related field.
Ask what they actually signed.  Read the document.
Ask how many scientists named "Steve" believe in ToE.(last time I checked, it was over 700.)
AFDave, you need to filter.
You have learned nothing.
You however HAVE absorbed one tiny bucketfull, but shouldn't you do a little critical reading before posting?  Please don't troll with your cut and paste from websites who are lying for their deity.  It makes you no better than they are.
Learn to Google.
Edit: Scientists named Steve.

--------------
Cave ab homine unius libri - Beware of anyone who has just one book.

  
Seven Popes



Posts: 190
Joined: Mar. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: May 09 2006,07:10   

Quote

But what we are discussing here is science, and science is NOT a democracy.
Quote

Quite true.  Science is not a democracy.  We have to go with the evidence.  But politicians are elected by majority.  And politicians give funding to public schools and universities.  And if universities behave irresponsibly and teach junk science -- like Darwinism -- and vilify people who don't, then the electorate can demand that the politicians RE-direct the funds to responsible schools.

And Americans don't fret that we are falling behind educationally. But I think that AFDave has a point. How much book learnin do young'uns need? :p

--------------
Cave ab homine unius libri - Beware of anyone who has just one book.

  
Mr_Christopher



Posts: 1238
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: May 09 2006,07:20   

Quote (Russell @ May 09 2006,10:45)
You're not "enlisting their help", you're just playing their stooge.

afstooge has a nice ring to it.

--------------
Uncommon Descent is a moral cesspool, a festering intellectual ghetto that intoxicates and degrades its inhabitants - Stephen Matheson

  
Arden Chatfield



Posts: 6657
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: May 09 2006,07:31   

Quote
Science is not a democracy.  We have to go with the evidence.  But politicians are elected by majority.  And politicians give funding to public schools and universities.  And if universities behave irresponsibly and teach junk science -- like Darwinism -- and vilify people who don't, then the electorate can demand that the politicians RE-direct the funds to responsible schools.


I'm confused, Dave -- since scientists overwhelmingly disagree with you that Darwinism is junk science, who exactly was it that came up with the conclusion that it is?

You know, we should probably clarify this before politicians start 'punishing' schools, and all...

--------------
"Rich is just mad because he thought all titties had fur on them until last week when a shorn transvestite ruined his childhood dreams by jumping out of a spider man cake and man boobing him in the face lips." - Erasmus

  
ericmurphy



Posts: 2460
Joined: Oct. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: May 09 2006,07:43   

Quote (afdave @ May 09 2006,10:21)
MAIN POINTS I LEARNED YESTERDAY
(1) Humans are Humans
(2) Apes are Apes
(3) No one has observed Apelike ancestors becoming Humans in their lifetimes and no one ever will.
(4) Fossil evidence is dicey at best
(5) Genetic similarities are striking, but can just as easily be explained by Common Design (probably better when we really get into it) as by Common Descent
(6) Creos and Evos have strong and opposite opinions about something which cannot be proven because NO ONE CAN OBSERVE IT HAPPENING.  Contrast this with Gravity, etc.
(7) Evos are the "rulers" in academia right now and they like to call the Creos "non-scientific"
(8) There's hope for academia in spite of this thanks to courageous people like Morris, Dembski, Meyer, Denton, Behe and apparently a growing number of good scientists (over 500 signatories so far on a Darwin Dissent Document)

I need to get back to my main Creator God Hypothesis today if I can.  So do me a favor and just agree with me quickly so we can get on with it, would you?   :-)

Let's see what Dave would have learned if he hadn't been blinded by ideology:

(1) Humans are apes
(2) Apes are, well, apes too
(3) No one will ever observe anything evolving into humans a) because evolution doesn't work that way, and b) evolution is not observable on the timescale of an individual life
(4) Fossil evidence is as solid as any other type of physical evidence
(5) Common design has no explicative power, because either a) without knowing the capabilities of the designer it's impossible to know what the designer can or cannot design; or b) if a designer's capabilties are infinite, there is no way to know whether something was designed or only appears that way
(6) science is not in the business of "proving" anything. "Proof" is the province of mathematics, not science. On the other hand, the theory of evolution is equally as established within the scientific community as general relativity or quantum physics. The only "controversy" regarding the theory of evolution is outside of the scientific community.
(7) Creationists are not "scientists" because they do not practice science, they practice religion.
(8) The works of people like Morris, Dembski, Meyer, Denton, and Behe have been thoroughly and comprehensively discredited in the scientific community.
(9) There are more scientists named "Steve" who believe in the accuracy of evolutionary theory than there are signatories of the Darwin Dissent Document.

Yes, Dave, you really do need to get back to the Creator God Hypothesis. So far you have come up with zero evidence to support it.

--------------
2006 MVD award for most dogged defense of scientific sanity

"Atheism is a religion the same way NOT collecting stamps is a hobby." —Scott Adams

  
Ved



Posts: 398
Joined: Oct. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: May 09 2006,07:44   

Quote
DARWINISM:

No one here is defending these as "main points" of "Darwinism" as a "world view". Anyone who thinks we are is an idiot or a liar. This is a straw man, and several people just got done explaining why none of these points are true.

Survival of the fittest- is one tiny cog in mechanism of evolution, and is no excuse for human behavior. If I were to shoot you in the face and say "ahh well, too bad afdave, survival of the fittest, you know!" there is no doubt that I have committed a moral atrocity.

Humans are animals- nothing more- Humans are animals, yes? Do you disagree? Isn't it obvious that we are a little bit "more" than just the average animal? We've done some pretty amazing things, gone to the moon, split atoms, pondered the meaning of the universe...

No God required-I'm not accountable to anyone but myself- This is complete bull. Even if there just happens to be no God, does that mean I'm not accountable for my actions? Would your family not care that I shot you in the face?



Quote
CHRISTIANITY (American Protestantism specifically):

You may be shocked to learn that as an athiest I don't have a problem living by most of the "major points" you purport to be important to the Christian "world view".

God created mankind in His image- Here's the only big one, the way I understand it, mankind made God in our image, and many aspire to be more like him and less like wild animals straight from the jungle.

All humans are created equal- I have no problem with giving all humans the benefit of the doubt and treating them as equals.

Don't kill, don't steal, etc.- I don't do any of that stuff. Funny, seems like those things are wrong.

Treat others as you would have them treat you- Jesus heard of the Golden Rule, huh? Yeah, I agree that's a good rule of thumb.

Love one another- Cool, I love my homies, my family...

Turn the other cheek- Most times, sure. Sometimes duck.

Bless your enemies- Our supposed enemies at the moment are the terrorists. I don't agree with our present military policy.

If your enemy is thirsty, give him a drink- Lots of thirsty people over in Iraq, I agree could use some help.

Do not repay evil for evil- Better to take the high road, sounds good. Revenge is over-rated and dangerous.

  
ericmurphy



Posts: 2460
Joined: Oct. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: May 09 2006,07:56   

Quote (afdave @ May 09 2006,10:21)
Quote
Speaking of which, how are you doing with supporting your three assertions? Eric is referring to these ...
1. The Bible is literally inerrant;
2. The earth is not billions of years old, but only thousands of years old; and
3. Evolution cannot explain the origin of species.

FIRST, these are not assertions that I made in my Creator God Hypothesis although I heartily agree with them all and they all have mountains of evidence to support them which I hope we can get into.  The reason I did not make them in my Hypothesis is that there are more important things to show evidence for first.   :-)

Dave, I don't understand why you keep claiming you did not make these assertions in your Creator God Hypothesis. You most certainly did, as anyone who reads your first post on that thread can see.

You claim you have mountains of evidence to support these assertions, and you've been saying that for weeks now, but so far you have not provided a single smidgen of evidence to support any assertion you have made. You've spent most of your time unsuccessfully trying to rebut evidence in support of the Theory of Evolution, and at this rate I wonder if we'll ever see any of your purported "evidence." You're beginning to remind me not just of Thordaddy but also of Mr. Paley.

--------------
2006 MVD award for most dogged defense of scientific sanity

"Atheism is a religion the same way NOT collecting stamps is a hobby." —Scott Adams

  
Seven Popes



Posts: 190
Joined: Mar. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: May 09 2006,08:00   

AFDave:
Quote
STAGE 3: And now, ordinary amateur scientists like me are jumping in the fray and shining a light on a foolish theory.

Cutting and pasting from AIG makes you a scientist?  How did you get your purported engineering degree?  Boxtops?

Seriously, you came in here all excited with your fistful of drivel from AIG, it got blasted.  All we need for the next bucketful is some more rubbish from you.  OR, you could read.  Preferably biology. Make it sporting.

--------------
Cave ab homine unius libri - Beware of anyone who has just one book.

  
ericmurphy



Posts: 2460
Joined: Oct. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: May 09 2006,08:05   

As a side note, Dave, I'm curious as to why you have all this heartburn about the Theory of Evolution, about which you appear to know almost nothing, but you don't seem to have any problems with, say, Quantum Theory, about which I'm guessing you also know almost nothing.

The predictions that quantum theory makes are vastly more absurd, incomprehensible, and counterintuitive than anything in the Theory of Evolution. Why do you not have similar problems with quantum theory? Could it be that quantum theory does not challenge your religious beliefs in the same direct way as you obviously think the Theory of Evolution does?

After reading your posts for a couple of weeks, it's become clear to me that essentially all your objections to the Theory of Evolution have nothing to do with the strength of the evidence supporting it. Rather, your objections to it are based entirely on the fact that numerous elements of evolutionary theory directly contradict what you have read in the Bible.

I know you'll deny this, but I think the other readers of your threads can draw their own conclusions on the matter.

--------------
2006 MVD award for most dogged defense of scientific sanity

"Atheism is a religion the same way NOT collecting stamps is a hobby." —Scott Adams

  
Seven Popes



Posts: 190
Joined: Mar. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: May 09 2006,08:10   

Eric, all his quotes are from AIG.  He doesn't even want to read an opposing view.  He comes barreling in here, hyperventilating with excitement, ready to tell off all 'dem science folks.  And got blasted.  AND WENT RIGHT BACK TO AIG.  Wacky! ???
The next step is lying for Jesus.
That's when he fails to really believe all his rubbish, but like AIG repeats it none the less.

--------------
Cave ab homine unius libri - Beware of anyone who has just one book.

  
ericmurphy



Posts: 2460
Joined: Oct. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: May 09 2006,08:35   

Quote (Seven Popes @ May 09 2006,13:10)
Eric, all his quotes are from AIG.  He doesn't even want to read an opposing view.  He comes barreling in here, hyperventilating with excitement, ready to tell off all 'dem science folks.  And got blasted.  AND WENT RIGHT BACK TO AIG.  Wacky! ???

Yeah, I have the feeling that eventually AFDave's threads will degenerate to where they're indistinguishable from Thordaddy's threads. He'll keep repeating the same tired arguments over and over again, while we'll wearily repeat the same devastating rebuttals of them over and over again.

Gets tedious after a while.

--------------
2006 MVD award for most dogged defense of scientific sanity

"Atheism is a religion the same way NOT collecting stamps is a hobby." —Scott Adams

  
Occam's Aftershave



Posts: 1773
Joined: Feb. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: May 09 2006,08:36   

Quote
OA says: Is every aspiring AF pilot guaranteed to get his wings and then be allowed to fly fighter jets?  Or is there a winnowing out process so that only those who have passed a battery of rigorous tests will be deemed qualified?

And who gets to decide if an aspiring pilot has the right skills and attributes to fly F-22s instead of tankers or trainers, or gets to fly at all?  Is it AF cooks, and drivers, and mechanics?  Or is the judgment made by a group of senior pilots who have themselves put in the years learning the trade, and know what separates the real aviators from the wanna-be ones?

I think we should give wings and assign fighter duty to everyone who applies.
Why are we standing up in the Air Force Academy and teaching that some people make better pilots than others is a FACT?  This is dishonest and potentially damaging to society for any number of debatable reasons.  What we SHOULD be doing is telling them BOTH THEORIES—ONLY A FEW PEOPLE MAKE SUPERIOR PILOTS and ALL POTENTIAL PILOTS ARE EQUALLY CAPABLE and clearly let them know they are UNPROVEN THEORIES and it is up to EACH PILOT HIMSELF and HIS PARENTS to decide if he is qualified.  My tax dollars are funding the military budget for F-22’s, etc. just like yours are and I have a different opinion on something that is an unprovable fact in either direction.  Why is my opinion shut out and vilified?  Is this country supposed to be a representative democracy or is it not?  Last time I checked IT WAS. You do believe in the democratic process, don’t you Dave?  Shouldn’t it be applied here too?  I’m really curious to hear your answers.


AFDave says:
Quote
Good question.  I knew you could say something substantive.


When will be able to say the same for you? ???

Quote
Answer:  The generals who set the rules EARNED THE RIGHT to do so by exercising sound judgment regarding EASILY VERIFIABLE TRUTHS.  What is this EASILY VERIFIABLE TRUTH?  It's very easy to distinguish the good pilot candidates from the bad ones.  In science today, we are talking about a different matter.  


Wrong Dave, we’re talking about the exact same thing.  Scientific ideas are put through a rigorous peer-review process very similar to pilot selection.   The scientific peer-reviewers are the “generals” who have EARNED THE RIGHT to do so by exercising sound judgment regarding EASILY VERIFIABLE TRUTHS.  It is very easy for scientists to winnow out the sound scientific theories like ToE from the crappy pseudoscientific junk like Young Earth Creationism by the quality and quantity of the evidence.  In fact, the YECs have submitted almost NOTHING in the way of positive evidence TO BE reviewed.  They consistently and willfully AVOID THE SELECTION PROCESS because they know they can’t cut the muster.  That which they have submitted for scrutiny has been found woefully lacking, just like the noob pilots who wash out on their first day.

Would you fly on a plane with a pilot who washed out of flight school, then went crying to his local Congressman and got given his pilot’s license anyway over the severe objections of the flight school professionals?  That’s exactly what you’re doing when you accept AIG’s YEC claims over the objections of the qualified scientific community.

Once more, with feeling:  You, Dave, ARE NOT QUALIFIED to judge the quality of scientific evidence being presented, just as I an NOT QUALIFIED to dispute the generals’ judgments about a pilot’s aptitude.  The charlatans at AIG, your primary information source, are also NOT QUALIFIED to judge.  They, like you, are motivated by their religious beliefs, NOT by any desire for scientific veracity.  AIG is rife with lies and disinformation.  You saw how badly they misrepresented the human-chimp chromosomal fusion info – just wait till you see how badly they lie about the Young Earth data.

Quote
We are talking about many qualified students who can do much in the way of good, useful scientific work regardless of their worldview.  To exclude people because of their worldview is like excluding people based on sex or religious preference, ESPECIALLY when there are thousands of "Darwin dissenters" among scientists in all major universities AND half the US and British population rejects Darwinism.


Your worldview is not an issue as long as the quality of your work doesn’t suffer because of it.  You can be an atheist and be a damm fine pilot, you can also be a YEC and be a damm fine doctor or scientist.  However, if you reject any of your scientific findings based solely on your YEC preconceptions then you deserve to be tossed out on your ass.   Imagine your daughter is desperately ill.  You take her to Doctor A who prescribes a new antibiotic, because he understands the strain of flu your daughter has contracted has evolved and no longer responds to the old antibiotic.  Doctor B is a YEC, and he tells you your daughter is possessed by Satan’s minions and that you should just go home and pray.  Whose advice would you follow, and why?

Quote
This is a significant difference.  Contrast this with putting the following question on the next national ballot, "Do you think there should be a selection process in choosing fighter pilots?"  I think you'd be very close to 100% YES.


Agreed.  Do you think there should be a selection process based on positive evidence in deciding the veracity of scientific ideas?  Or should every last idea, even the crackpot ones, be given equal time in school?

--------------
"Science is what got us to the humble place we’re at, and what hard-won progress we might realize comes from science, with ID completely flaccid, religious apologetics bitching from the sidelines." - Eigenstate at UD

  
C.J.O'Brien



Posts: 395
Joined: Aug. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: May 09 2006,08:54   

Quote
No.  I do not believe there is such a thing as 'more evolved' humans.  I just asked our ToE advocates why there ARE NO EXAMPLES of 'more evolved' or 'less evolved' humans.  There should be some living today if ToE is true.

It seems likely from the evidence of paleoanthropology that, at any given time in Africa, there were several extant species of Australopithecine simultaneously. And that H. habilis probably overlapped with Australopithecines. H. habilis and H. erectus were probably alive at the same time. And, most recently, H. sapiens and H. neanderthalis certainly lived at the same time. So, for most of the history of hominids, the situation you describe roughly pertained. Of course, "more" and "less" evolved still betrays a misunderstanding. All of the creatures in question were successful species in their own right that lived for millions of years. H. sapiens sapiens is the question mark there. A million years is looking like a longshot for us.

It cannot be stressed enough that a single human lifetime is the briefest of 'snapshots' through which to view the history of life on earth. And even the history of civilization is a blip in deep time. That is why a serious engagement with the molecular and fossil evidence is the only way to understand the basis for evolutionary thought. Against tens of thousands of scientists uncovering and interpreting this evidence for over one hundred years, you offer only incredulity, based on prior religious commitments. No one here is going to buy it, so your fantasies of "waking up" a deluded Darwinist is mere bluster. You're just here to amuse yourself (as well as your wife and children, apparently).

--------------
The is the beauty of being me- anything that any man does I can understand.
--Joe G

  
jeannot



Posts: 1200
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: May 09 2006,08:57   

Quote
The most evolved life forms on our planet are probably bacteria and virii.

AFDave "I just LOVE this one!  My kids got a great laugh too. "
Well, being evolved is not a scientific attribute. We don’t have any measure for that. All currently living lineages have evolved for the same exact time. Maybe some have undergone more mutations, maybe some have undergone more phenotypic changes… This is moot. The fittest in its environment reproduce more efficiently, that’s all we have to know.
Quote

ToE should predict continual brain sophistication so that at some point there may actually be some kind of Super Homo Sapiens …
Absolutely not. Do people with a more sophisticated brain have more children?
Quote

[quote]Why should Common Descent produce “Hominid Civilizations”? There’s no reason to assume that this would be the case.

AFDave: "Actually, there is EVERY reason to believe this should be the case if the ToE is true."
No there is not.
Even if there were, do you really think we could tolerate another human species (say Homo neanderthalensis)?
Quote
After Darwin, a new possibility was raised: that those at the top of the social …
I skip the politico-social nonsense. If you can’t understand that scientific facts (fundamental science) has nothing to do with morality, this discussion won’t go anywhere.
What is the position of your (creationist) president on social Darwinism?
Quote

STAGE 1: ToE advocates are becoming frustrated because their explanations are sounding more and more like pro-geocentrism and pro-flat-earth arguments as time goes on.  
STAGE 2: The Ship of Darwin has hit an iceberg and a few brave souls are jumping into life boats before it sinks.  
OMG! We're going toward our Waterloo ? (gasp!;)
Quote

With a God Meter of course.  No.  Seriously, there are some very good ways.  Cosmic fine tuning …
Dave, what observation could falsify the existence of God?
Is it possible for us to observe a universe that couldn’t have permitted our existence?
Quote

…blablabla COMMON DESIGN blablablabla…
What observation could falsify common design?
Quote

Jeannot, have you never heard of a nifty little thing made famous by Americans called FREEDOM OF SPEECH?  Do you not have this in France?
Trolls aren’t well appreciated in discussion boards in both countries. If you keep asking question without willing to learn anything, you are a troll. And I won’t start on this topic if I were you. You know, Christian fundamentalism and freedom of speech don’t go together well.
Quote

No problem with teaching Evolution as a Theory espoused by many good scientists.  Let's just be honest and call it a theory though and quit saying it is a proven fact and shutting out the ID view.
If you like, we can call evolution a theory and ID… nothing at all.
Quote

Now let's try this again.  Do you or do you not find the very idea that humans are evolved apes (as are, for Flint's benefit, all present-day apes) offensive?

AFDave: "I'm perfectly fine with the idea if it turns out to be proven true."
Out of curiosity, what evidence would convince you?
Quote

I am saying that if we took an assortment of recently (let's say they all died at once yesterday, OK?) dead African pygmies…
… and have a 'hominid" fossil situation  quite closely resembling the naturally occurring situation which we do have.  
Wow… :/  Paleontologists draw their conclusion on each separate bones.
Quote

(4) Fossil evidence is dicey at best
Question: where do you think these fossils come from? You haven’t answered me yet.
Quote

(7) Evos are the "rulers" in academia right now and they like to call the Creos "non-scientific"
What research have you been doing lately?
Quote

(8) There's hope for academia in spite of this thanks to courageous people like Morris, Dembski, Meyer, Denton, Behe and apparently a growing number of good scientists (over 500 signatories so far on a Darwin Dissent Document)
What about doing some research to test your theory?

  
Russell



Posts: 1082
Joined: April 2005

(Permalink) Posted: May 09 2006,09:07   

Quote
do you really think we could tolerate another human species (say Homo neanderthalensis)?
Makes for a really interesting thought experiment, doesn't it?

Quote
…blablabla COMMON DESIGN blablablabla…
What observation could falsify common design?
Vitamin C?

--------------
Must... not... scratch... mosquito bite.

  
jeannot



Posts: 1200
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: May 09 2006,09:14   

Quote (Russell @ May 09 2006,14<!--emo&:0)
Quote
do you really think we could tolerate another human species (say Homo neanderthalensis)?
Makes for a really interesting thought experiment, doesn't it?

Yes it does. A war experiment actually. I'm pretty sure we would never tolerate a competing species. There wouldn't show any moral or mercy there. It would be a struggle to death. That's my prediction (not that I'd approve it)

How do Vitamin C falsify common design?
I'm not aware of this case, do you have a link?

EDIT: Ok I found one. But it doesn't falsify common design. One could argue that god decided to deactivate this gene for some reason.

  
Henry J



Posts: 4565
Joined: Mar. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: May 09 2006,09:17   

Re " OMG! We're going toward our Waterloo ? (gasp!"

Darwin was English. ;)

  
jeannot



Posts: 1200
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: May 09 2006,09:23   

Quote (Henry J @ May 09 2006,14:17)
Re " OMG! We're going toward our Waterloo ? (gasp!"

Darwin was English. ;)

So I'm going toward my Waterloo, and you'll meet your Pearl Harbour soon.
I don't know any famous British defeat.

  
thurdl01



Posts: 99
Joined: Mar. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: May 09 2006,09:24   

Ah, so our troll found the rather infamous "list of scientists" that "support" creationism.  I was wondering how long it would take for him to get to that.

So then, here are some questions based on that for AFDave:

1) Are you aware of Project Steve?  Project Steve is a listing of scientists who have signed a document saying they support evolution, and right now that list is at 740 compared to your claims of 500 who are against it.  Now, that might not sound like much, it isn't even 50% above the creationist list.  Well, the name Project Steve comes from the fact that it only allows scientists named Steve or Stephanie to sign the list.  Thus, there is more demonstrated support of evolution among scientists named Steve than there is support of creationism among all scientists.

2) Are you using the AIG list?  Because if you are, are you aware that there are many many MANY problems with that list.

3) I believe you are going to inevitably claim that Project Steve doesn't count, because that's the only possible way out of admitting that the vast huge massive majority of scientists are on the side of evolution.  So, why are your 500 scientists greater than Project Steve's 740?  In addition, are you willing to account for the fact that Project Steve has a lot more star power to it, as it includes such famous Steve scientists as Hawking?

4) Are you aware that NEITHER the creationist list of scientists NOR Project Steve even matter?  Why's this you ask?  Because both of them are a prime example of argumentum ad verecundiam, which is a logical fallacy right up there with argumentum ad populum (which is what your attempts to democratize science fall under).  In fact, Project Steve was intentionally set up to show that.

So.  Still want to stand up your list, still think it represents some kind of devistating attack under which evolution whithers?  Or are you willing to conceed that it's based on a logical fallacy, and that even if it wasn't a fallacious line of reasoning, it would be trumped so hard by Project Steve?

  
ericmurphy



Posts: 2460
Joined: Oct. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: May 09 2006,09:29   

Quote (jeannot @ May 09 2006,14:14)
How do Vitamin C falsify common design?
I'm not aware about this case, do you have a link?

The busted Vitamin C gene that humans and chimps does not, of course, "falsify" common design (since common design is, after all, unfalsifiable), but it does make it look pretty dubious.

It would be hard to argue that a busted gene would be "designed" into an organism. If God took the basic chimp design, and modified it create humans, wouldn't he take the time to first fix the busted gene? Or is God just congenitally lazy?

For a guy who can create everything from electrons to galactic superclusters, fixing one little transcription error seems like it would have been pretty trivial. Kind of like Windows, where you see the same bugs cropping up in versions of Windows ten years later.

Or maybe Windows programmers' flaws are evidence that God created man in his own image? Who knows?

--------------
2006 MVD award for most dogged defense of scientific sanity

"Atheism is a religion the same way NOT collecting stamps is a hobby." —Scott Adams

  
Arden Chatfield



Posts: 6657
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: May 09 2006,10:10   

Quote (jeannot @ May 09 2006,14:23)
Quote (Henry J @ May 09 2006,14:17)
Re " OMG! We're going toward our Waterloo ? (gasp!"

Darwin was English. ;)

So I'm going toward my Waterloo, and you'll meet your Pearl Harbour soon.
I don't know any famous British defeat.

Dunkirk?

--------------
"Rich is just mad because he thought all titties had fur on them until last week when a shorn transvestite ruined his childhood dreams by jumping out of a spider man cake and man boobing him in the face lips." - Erasmus

  
Seven Popes



Posts: 190
Joined: Mar. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: May 09 2006,10:13   

American Revolutionary War?

--------------
Cave ab homine unius libri - Beware of anyone who has just one book.

  
Arden Chatfield



Posts: 6657
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: May 09 2006,10:13   

Quote (ericmurphy @ May 09 2006,13:35)
Quote (Seven Popes @ May 09 2006,13:10)
Eric, all his quotes are from AIG.  He doesn't even want to read an opposing view.  He comes barreling in here, hyperventilating with excitement, ready to tell off all 'dem science folks.  And got blasted.  AND WENT RIGHT BACK TO AIG.  Wacky! ???

Yeah, I have the feeling that eventually AFDave's threads will degenerate to where they're indistinguishable from Thordaddy's threads. He'll keep repeating the same tired arguments over and over again, while we'll wearily repeat the same devastating rebuttals of them over and over again.

Gets tedious after a while.

It looks like even Thordaddy got tired of that. Now he's content to just drop by every so often and fulminate against gays.

--------------
"Rich is just mad because he thought all titties had fur on them until last week when a shorn transvestite ruined his childhood dreams by jumping out of a spider man cake and man boobing him in the face lips." - Erasmus

  
Ved



Posts: 398
Joined: Oct. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: May 09 2006,10:16   

Don't forget Singapore

  
Henry J



Posts: 4565
Joined: Mar. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: May 09 2006,10:17   

Re "I don't know any famous British defeat."
The one after Washington crossed the Delaware?
(The Battle of Trenton. )

Henry

  
jeannot



Posts: 1200
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: May 09 2006,10:18   

Quote (Arden Chatfield @ May 09 2006,15:10)
[quote=jeannot,May 09 2006,14:23][quote=Henry J,May 09 2006,14:17]Re " OMG! We're going toward our Waterloo ? (gasp!"

Darwin was English. ;)

So I'm going toward my Waterloo, and you'll meet your Pearl Harbour soon.
I don't know any famous British defeat.[/quote]
Dunkirk?[/quote]
You mean Dunkerque?

(There are some problems with nested quotes.  :angry: )

  
argystokes



Posts: 766
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: May 09 2006,10:24   

Hi AFDave,

I'm looking forward to your thesis on why common design is a superior interpretation of the evidence than common descent.  I'd like to make sure you include a section on endogenous retroviral sequences and how they factor into your hypothesis, keeping in mind that it doesn't matter whether or not ERVs have function, but only that we can recognize ERV sequences as such.

--------------
"Why waste time learning, when ignorance is instantaneous?" -Calvin

  
Arden Chatfield



Posts: 6657
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: May 09 2006,10:27   

Quote
=jeannot,May 09 2006,15:18][=Arden Chatfield,May 09 2006,15:10][quote=jeannot,May 09 2006,14:23][=Henry J,May 09 2006,14:17]Re " OMG! We're going toward our Waterloo ? (gasp!"

Darwin was English. ;)
So I'm going toward my Waterloo, and you'll meet your Pearl Harbour soon.
I don't know any famous British defeat.

Dunkirk?

You mean Dunkerque?

(There are some problems with nested quotes.  :angry: )


Yeah, 'Dunkirk' is the usual British spelling of 'Dunkerque'.

The English also pronounce 'Calais' as 'cally'. Ouch.

I shouldn't complain, tho, all Anglophones pronounce 'Paris' as 'perriss'. Oh well.

--------------
"Rich is just mad because he thought all titties had fur on them until last week when a shorn transvestite ruined his childhood dreams by jumping out of a spider man cake and man boobing him in the face lips." - Erasmus

  
jeannot



Posts: 1200
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: May 09 2006,10:31   

Personally, I'd like to hear Dave's thoughts about endosymbiosis and the species concept.

  
Henry J



Posts: 4565
Joined: Mar. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: May 09 2006,10:32   

"Dunkirk" is the English spelling, "Dunkerque" is the French spelling.

  
jeannot



Posts: 1200
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: May 09 2006,10:35   

Actually, I thought of this possibility... but too late.  :0

  
Henry J



Posts: 4565
Joined: Mar. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: May 09 2006,10:38   

Then there was the Alamo, but it wasn't (yet) part of the U.S. at the time.

  
Russell



Posts: 1082
Joined: April 2005

(Permalink) Posted: May 09 2006,10:42   

English Waterloo: yes, the American Revolution. But more specifically, the final battle, Yorktown, after which Cornwallis surrendered.

Vitamin C: The Designer apparently decided to give humans, chimps, gorillas AND guinea pigs broken vitamin C making enzymes. Well, it's been said The Designer works in mysterious ways; I suppose He must have had a reason for doing that. But why did he give all the primates the same defect, and the guinea pigs another? Seems a whole lot more compatible with common descent than common (mis)design to me.

--------------
Must... not... scratch... mosquito bite.

  
Arden Chatfield



Posts: 6657
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: May 09 2006,10:48   

Quote

Vitamin C: The Designer apparently decided to give humans, chimps, gorillas AND guinea pigs broken vitamin C making enzymes. Well, it's been said The Designer works in mysterious ways; I suppose He must have had a reason for doing that. But why did he give all the primates the same defect, and the guinea pigs another?


Some sort of punishment for the Garden of Eden, no doubt.

Do gorillas have the broken Vitamin C gene? I thought it was only humans and chimps.

--------------
"Rich is just mad because he thought all titties had fur on them until last week when a shorn transvestite ruined his childhood dreams by jumping out of a spider man cake and man boobing him in the face lips." - Erasmus

  
Henry J



Posts: 4565
Joined: Mar. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: May 09 2006,10:51   

What did the guinea pigs do to merit that punishment of having their vit-C thing broken? Did they pick the wrong side in the Garden, or something? :)

  
Arden Chatfield



Posts: 6657
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: May 09 2006,10:52   

Quote (Henry J @ May 09 2006,15:51)
What did the guinea pigs do to merit that punishment of having their vit-C thing broken? Did they pick the wrong side in the Garden, or something? :)

Oh, you don't want to know what the guinea pigs did...

--------------
"Rich is just mad because he thought all titties had fur on them until last week when a shorn transvestite ruined his childhood dreams by jumping out of a spider man cake and man boobing him in the face lips." - Erasmus

  
jeannot



Posts: 1200
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: May 09 2006,10:59   

Quote (Henry J @ May 09 2006,15:38)
Then there was the Alamo, but it wasn't (yet) part of the U.S. at the time.

While we're at it, the second famous French defeat, is the battle of Dien Bien Phu (1954), where we got humiliated by Vietnamese (who were not vietnamese at that time). Next comes the Blitzkrieg (1940), and I dare not tell you more about it.
And don't forget Azincourt (1415), where we got soundly beaten by English who were four times less numerous than us.
 :0

(I'm preparing my defeat, that's why I'm doing some history. You should too, while there's still time  ;) )

  
Henry J



Posts: 4565
Joined: Mar. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: May 09 2006,11:05   

I suppose that if the "designer" produced new species by modifying earlier species, and if an earlier species with a broken gene were picked as the "template" (so to speak) for both human and chimpanzee, then the broken gene thing could be construed as consistent with "design".

Say, what's the point in sticking the word "common" in front of "design", anyway?

Come to think of it, why do people use the phrase "common descent" to mean "common ancestry"? That phrasing puzzles me.

Henry

  
sir_toejam



Posts: 846
Joined: April 2005

(Permalink) Posted: May 09 2006,11:06   

Quote
Oh, you don't want to know what the guinea pigs did...


being the omniscient being, it was pre-emptive punishment for guinea pigs far in the future allowing themselves to be abused in a certain way by Richard Gere.

If you don't know what I'm speaking of, you don't want to, as the author of the quote correctly implies.

  
normdoering



Posts: 287
Joined: July 2005

(Permalink) Posted: May 09 2006,11:06   

Quote (jeannot @ May 09 2006,13:57)
Do people with a more sophisticated brain have more children?

We try! We try!

The Genius Factory: The Curious History of the Nobel Prize Sperm Bank:
http://www.powells.com/cgi-bin/biblio?inkey=62-1400061245-0

The "Genius Babies," and How They Grew:
http://www.slate.com/id/100331/

Quote
...in the late 1970s, Graham persuaded several Nobel Prize winners in science—either three or five, depending on who's talking—to give him their sperm. Later he recruited dozens of younger scientists for his bank. Graham advertised for mothers in a Mensa magazine. Women had to be married to infertile men, well-educated, and financially comfortable. Soon he had a waiting list. He mailed out a catalog that advertised men such as "Mr. Fuschia," an Olympic gold medallist—"Tall, dark, handsome, bright, a successful businessman and author"; and "Mr. Grey-White … ruggedly handsome, outgoing, and positive, a university professor, expert marksman who enjoys the classics." (The repository revolutionized the sperm bank industry by—oddly for such an avowedly elitist institution—democratizing it: It took donor choice away from doctors and gave it to mothers. Instead of settling for a doctor's paltry offerings, mothers could be demanding customers, requiring as much [or more] accomplishment from a vial of sperm as from her flesh-and-blood husband.)

  
Chris Hyland



Posts: 705
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: May 09 2006,11:06   

Quote
You need to remove the word 'Christianity' from this one and insert 'Catholicism' instead.  The two are vastly different as I will show on a future "Martin Luther" post.
Please please don't.

Quote
Maybe too much ToE indocrination in higher education?
I don't know about today, but when I went they didn't make such a big deal out of it.

Quote
Bill Dembski has come up with a neat list of over 500 scientists who have had the kahoonas to sign their names to a public statement that says ...
I'd sign that statement, to say it is purely random mutation followed by natural selection is a gross oversimplification at best. Sometimes it's the other way round for a start. To say that statement reprsents a dismissal of modern evolutionary theory is just plain wrong.

Quote
STAGE 1: ToE advocates are becoming frustrated because their explanations are sounding more and more like pro-geocentrism and pro-flat-earth arguments as time goes on.
For example?

Quote
Biological Machines are great for starters
Don't pretend you've even begun to give evidence for this.

Quote
I just asked our ToE advocates why there ARE NO EXAMPLES of 'more evolved' or 'less evolved' humans.  There should be some living today if ToE is true.
More evolved is a meaningless term, just like 'genetically superior'.

Quote
There are apparently more and more scientists who have a DIFFERENT guess
Are there more and more? Actual scientists with qualifications in the relevent field?

Quote
Evidence DOES matter.  That's why we are having this discussion.  Because the EVIDENCE favors COMMON DESIGN, not common descent.
If you could list the main evidence for this in bullet points I would be very grateful.

Quote
And politicians give funding to public schools and universities.  And if universities behave irresponsibly and teach junk science -- like Darwinism -- and vilify people who don't, then the electorate can demand that the politicians RE-direct the funds to responsible schools.
If creation is so much better then let the schools an colleges that teach it produce research and make scientific discoveries based on evolution, then the electorate won't need to bother.

Quote
Your analogy works if you assume that "Teaching Darwinism = Teaching that Iraq is Somewhere near the North Pole", which I of course do believe is a good equation.
I prefer the analogy of teaching children about the holocaust. A minoroty of historians don't think it happened, but we still teach children it did.

Quote
Jeannot, Jeannot.  Come now.  Look what you just did.  You compared something with ABUNDANT EVIDENCE THAT WE SEE EVERY DAY (Gravity), with something for which there is NO EVIDENCE OF IT OCCURRING (Apelike ancestor becoming Human).
Gravity isn't the act of things falling, it is our theory of the forces that cause things to fall. Evolution is our theory explaining the distribution of species on the planet.

Quote
What I am uncomfortable with is ASSERTING things AS IF they were proven, when in fact they are not, by YOUR OWN STANDARDS.
I was never taught any theory as true, I was taught it as the best theory to explain the evidence. Yes I know you don't think evolution is the best theory to explain the evidence, and we'd all be grateful if you tell us why.

Quote
We'll do another thread [o]n ML.
I promise if you post it on another forum to where it is more suited we will all come over and argue with you about it.

Quote
I agree.  All the apes need is a good environment and they will become rocket scientists.  When I am in Washington next, I will suggest to Ike Skelton that he introduce legislation for a new, tax-funded, "Primate Education Program."  Maybe we could even have a new cabinet level office ... we already have the Department of Education ... why not have the Department of Ape Education.
You seem to be making the common creationist mistake of forgeting the millions of years part. Can you please tell us now if you won't accept evolution until you see this kind of change take place naturally.

Quote
No problem with teaching Evolution as a Theory espoused by many good scientists.  Let's just be honest and call it a theory though and quit saying it is a proven fact and shutting out the ID view.
Evolution is taught as a theory AFAIK. As far as shutting out the ID view, if we teach kids that something like Darwin's black box is a good piece of scientific analysis we will be producing bad scientists. Desing might be true but if it is it should be able to lead to superior scientific research. Even if there is a consiracy against it, point me to the research in creationist journals.

Quote
... but if we somehow collected all these bones, we could quite possibly bury fragments of them in various places throughout the world and have a 'hominid" fossil situation  quite closely resembling the naturally occurring situation which we do have.  Make sense?
No, the differences are not just the difference between us and pygmies.

This is getting very old, could you just post your evidence on whatever thread you like. We do not need a philosophical discussion of why your evidence is right, just your evidence.

  
Henry J



Posts: 4565
Joined: Mar. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: May 09 2006,11:12   

Re "I'm preparing my defeat, that's why I'm doing some history. You should too, while there's still time "

Uh oh - in that case I'm in trouble; history wasn't my best subject.

Henry

  
sir_toejam



Posts: 846
Joined: April 2005

(Permalink) Posted: May 09 2006,11:12   

chris, rather than bother responding to each piece of dave's ramblings, there is a single word that correctly summarizes ALL of Dave's drivel:

PROJECTION.

in spades.

  
Arden Chatfield



Posts: 6657
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: May 09 2006,11:16   

Quote (sir_toejam @ May 09 2006,16:06)
Quote
Oh, you don't want to know what the guinea pigs did...


being the omniscient being, it was pre-emptive punishment for guinea pigs far in the future allowing themselves to be abused in a certain way by Richard Gere.

If you don't know what I'm speaking of, you don't want to, as the author of the quote correctly implies.

(a) I thought that was hamsters, not guinea pigs, and
(b) it's an urban legend anyway.

--------------
"Rich is just mad because he thought all titties had fur on them until last week when a shorn transvestite ruined his childhood dreams by jumping out of a spider man cake and man boobing him in the face lips." - Erasmus

  
Henry J



Posts: 4565
Joined: Mar. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: May 09 2006,11:21   

And anyway, I thought that was Bill Murray and groundhogs?

(Uh - on second thought, never mind. :) )

  
Ved



Posts: 398
Joined: Oct. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: May 09 2006,11:27   

Guinea pigs ate from the Tree of Knowledge of Eating Their Own Young, of course!

sir_toejam, projection and how! I think it's the only way a person can cope with making those kind of arguments...

  
jeannot



Posts: 1200
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: May 09 2006,11:28   

Don't be ironical.
Dave certainly knows what the guinea pig did, and we'll be PWNED when he expose this biblical evidence.

  
Henry J



Posts: 4565
Joined: Mar. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: May 09 2006,11:29   

Re "The predictions that quantum theory makes are vastly more absurd, incomprehensible, and counterintuitive than anything in the Theory of Evolution."

Yep. Quantum tunneling, particle entanglement, discrete possible "orbits", wave-particle duality, etc.

Otoh, evolution "predicts" that new species will be slight modifications of a previous nearby species, and that developments that are indedendent of each other will for the most part differ from each other in areas not constained by environment. And both of those sound like common sense to me.

Henry

  
stevestory



Posts: 10127
Joined: Oct. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: May 09 2006,11:51   

Quote
Dave certainly knows what the guinea pig did, and we'll be PWNED when he expose this biblical evidence.
Paley has a definitive model showing what the guinea pigs did. But he's just been busy at work lately, and really not enough people have voted for the guinea pigs, and anyway this thread is supposed to be about apes,....

   
Mr_Christopher



Posts: 1238
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: May 09 2006,12:09   

Riddle me this,  guinea pigs are fine tuned creatures, apes are fine tuned creatures....how come we don't see any half guinea pigs half apes walking around?  I think afdave might be on to something after all....

Gosh, I'm starting to think I've been listening to the wrong crowd the whole time!   A space alien musta invented guinea pigs!

--------------
Uncommon Descent is a moral cesspool, a festering intellectual ghetto that intoxicates and degrades its inhabitants - Stephen Matheson

  
normdoering



Posts: 287
Joined: July 2005

(Permalink) Posted: May 09 2006,12:26   

Quote (Mr_Christopher @ May 09 2006,17:09)
how come we don't see any half guinea pigs half apes walking around?

It's called a koala bear.


And, according to some ancient Greeks, an ostrich is what happens when a male gnat accidently flies up into the genitals of a giraffe.

  
Russell



Posts: 1082
Joined: April 2005

(Permalink) Posted: May 09 2006,12:36   

Quote
Do gorillas have the broken Vitamin C gene? I thought it was only humans and chimps.
Apparently it's all primates. The broken gene is thought to be inherited from an ancestor common to all the primates about 40 million years ago. So you've got all these primates with a broken gene. And, once it was broken, of course, there's no selection that prevents it from accumulating more mutations. And, just like other DNA that's not under strong selection, you generate a nested hierarchy of mutations that pretty much overlaps the nested hierarchy of mutations in any other representative sample of the genome. Now, how does the "common designer hypothesis" explain that?

(Actually, I don't know how much of the relevant data is already in; I certainly can't cite the relevant research. So you can regard it both as a sketchy summary of the sketchy data that's already in and a prediction of data yet to be produced. What predictions does the "common designer hypothesis" make about it?)

--------------
Must... not... scratch... mosquito bite.

  
Mr_Christopher



Posts: 1238
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: May 09 2006,12:40   

You don't fool ME, Mr Darwinist.  That picture of a half guinea pig half ape is obviously a forgery!

--------------
Uncommon Descent is a moral cesspool, a festering intellectual ghetto that intoxicates and degrades its inhabitants - Stephen Matheson

  
Paul Flocken



Posts: 290
Joined: Dec. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: May 09 2006,15:26   

Quote (jeannot @ May 09 2006,14:23)
Quote (Henry J @ May 09 2006,14:17)
Re " OMG! We're going toward our Waterloo ? (gasp!"

Darwin was English. ;)

So I'm going toward my Waterloo, and you'll meet your Pearl Harbour soon.
I don't know any famous British defeat.

Isandlwana

--------------
"The great enemy of the truth is very often not the lie--deliberate, contrived, and dishonest, but the myth, persistent, persuasive, and unrealistic.  Belief in myths allows the comfort of opinion without the discomfort of thought."-John F. Kennedy

  
Seven Popes



Posts: 190
Joined: Mar. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: May 09 2006,16:55   

And the wiki link to the above mentioned war.
The Battle of Isandlwana was a battle in the Anglo-Zulu War in which a Zulu army wiped out a British force on January 22, 1879. The British were commanded by Frederick Augustus Thesiger, 2nd Baron Chelmsford.

--------------
Cave ab homine unius libri - Beware of anyone who has just one book.

  
Chris Hyland



Posts: 705
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: May 11 2006,00:36   

Quote
The British were commanded by Frederick Augustus Thesiger, 2nd Baron Chelmsford.
Was that the guy that looks an awful lot like Michael Caine?

Quote
And, just like other DNA that's not under strong selection, you generate a nested hierarchy of mutations that pretty much overlaps the nested hierarchy of mutations in any other representative sample of the genome. Now, how does the "common designer hypothesis" explain that?
The best answer I can think of is that the designer knew that primates were getting ample amounts of vitamin C from their diets, and so he inactivated the gene. The advantage of this would be that the animals would waste less energy producing an unessecary protein. This still suggests common descent though, but I'm confident it's better than the official creationist story.

  
Renier



Posts: 276
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: May 11 2006,01:18   

Afdave keeps on harping on about the evidence he presented. I have been reading all his threads, but cannot see any evidence presented by him. It appears as if he thinks the cc is evidence. Is it just me, or are other people also still waiting on his evidence? Is there ANYONE here that picked up on any evidence that Afdave has presented? Is there ANYONE?

  
Flint



Posts: 478
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: May 11 2006,03:00   

Renier:

You have to understand that within the religious mindset, 'evidence' has a very different meaning from what you may expect. The bible is evidence. Claims made by congenial authorities are evidence. Sincere belief in the absence of, or even defiance of, scientific evidence is also evidence.

Basically, start with your convictions. Find something that can be represented as supporting them. *Anything* that can be so represented is a good candidate, including uninformed opinions, declarations of doctrine, making stuff up, whatever works. Since these support the target convictions, they become evidence.

Remember, Behe testified that "an intelligence is involved" is something he regards as raw data, a straight unambiguous observation. Evidence.

  
stevestory



Posts: 10127
Joined: Oct. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: May 11 2006,03:16   

Remember the guy on Uncommonly Dense who claimed that he could feel his Intelligent Designer, and why wasn't that scientific evidence?

   
Flint



Posts: 478
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: May 11 2006,04:19   

Good point. How can one deny the reality of anything that answers your prayers, enters your heart, and speaks directly to your soul?

  
afdave



Posts: 1621
Joined: April 2006

(Permalink) Posted: May 11 2006,04:21   

Good morning to all my "Evo" friends ...

The Vitamin C issue with apes and humans seems to be a very compelling evidence for you that Apes and Humans do indeed share a common ancestor.

OK.  Let's take a look.  I assume everyone is familiar with the Talk Origins article my Dr. Edward Max here and the AIG article by Woodmorappe here, right?

Dr. Max begins with an analogy to a plagiarism case ...
Quote
One way to distinguish between copying and independent creation is suggested by analogy to the following two cases from the legal literature. In 1941 the author of a chemistry textbook brought suit charging that portions of his textbook had been plagiarized by the author of a competing textbook (Colonial Book Co, Inc. v. Amsco School Publications, Inc., 41 F. Supp.156 (S.D.N.Y. 1941), aff'd 142 F.2d 362 (2nd Cir. 1944)). In 1946 the publisher of a trade directory for the construction industry made similar charges against a competing directory publisher (Sub-Contractors Register, Inc. v McGovern's Contractors & Builders Manual, Inc. 69 F.Supp. 507, 509 (S.D.N.Y. 1946)). In both cases, mere similarity between the contents of the alleged copies and the originals was not considered compelling evidence of copying. After all, both chemistry textbooks were describing the same body of chemical knowledge (the books were designed to "function similarly") and both directories listed members of the same industry, so substantial resemblance would be expected even if no copying had occurred. However, in both cases errors present in the "originals" appeared in the alleged copies. The courts judged that it was inconceivable that the same errors could have been made independently by each plaintiff and defendant, and ruled in both cases that copying had occurred. The principle that duplicated errors imply copying is now well established in copyright law. (In recognition of this fact, directory publishers routinely include false entries in their directories to trap potential plagiarizers.)


Now I have read both articles in their entirety, but before Dr. Max even gets into the details of gene "mistakes", there is one very large item jumps out at me. The analogy seems very clever, but there is a huge assumption that is made which I consider to be invalid and to me this destroys the whole analogy.  See what you think and please correct me if I am wrong.

OK.  Are you ready?  With the plagiarism case, we are talking about printed words in a well-known language.  In the GLO gene case, we are talking about genetic "words" in a poorly-understood language.  I hope I don't have to cite the recent literature to prove to you how poorly we understand the genetic language.  If you do a Google Scholar search, you will see numerous articles talking about pseudogene and "junk DNA" function and how much we are learning and how much there is remaining to be learned.  Here's just one with an appropriate comment from Woodmorappe ...
Quote
Balakirev, E.S. and Ayala, F.J., Pseudogenes: are they ‘junk’ or functional DNA? Annual Review of Genetics 37:123–151, 2003. The very title of this article would have, only a few years ago, been almost on a par with the following: ‘The Earth: is it spherical or flat?’


Are you with me so far?  I don't want to lose anyone.  Again, I am saying that ...

With the plagiarism case, we are talking about printed words in a well-known language.  In the GLO gene case, we are talking about genetic "words" in a poorly-understood language.  This is a big, big difference.

Notice again that Dr. Max's whole argument rests on the following ...
Quote
In both cases, mere similarity between the contents of the alleged copies and the originals was not considered compelling evidence of copying ... The principle that duplicated errors imply copying is now well established in copyright law.


Do you see where I am going?  Dr. Max is assuming that the state of the GLO gene in humans and apes is an error and with our as yet limited knowledge of gene function, genome function as a whole, pseudogene function discoveries, and "not-junk-after-all" discoveries about "junk DNA", this seems to be an enormous unwarranted assumption.  If, in fact, this GLO gene turns out to have some function, then Max's whole argument fails, because now the gene would be rightly interpreted as part of the correct informational content analogous to the correct informational content in the textbooks.

To emphasize this point, consider a passage of text from a language which you do not know, but I do (my dad's jungle tribe for whom he is a Bible translator).  In this case, I am playing the role of the hypothetical "Designer" and you are playing the role of the genetic researcher trying to unlock the code.    Let us say the above plagiarism case involved the following text ...

Quote

ORIGINAL TEXT:  Twaihsom me thakwa xatkene roowo pono komo ahnoro.  Yipinin yaw so tko xakne Kaan.  Ero ke Tumumuru tak nimyakne rma okwe twaihsom mera tak ehtome so.  Waipini ro me xa matko naxe Noro pona enine komo.

ALLEGED PLAGIARIZED TEXT:  Twaihsom me thakwa xatkene roowo pono komo.  Yipinin yaw so xakne Kaan.  Ero ke Tumumuru tak nimyakne okwe twaihsom mera tak ehtome so. Waipini ro me naxe Noro pona enine komo.


While a word by word comparison of the above text gives some evidence of plagiarism, i.e. they are similar, you cannot conclude this positively if we use the court case guidelines because you do not know the language so as to be able to detect errors.

Now I DO know the language, so I can identify an error, namely that the word "cewnaninhiri" which means "only begotten" (it is John 3:16) is left out of both texts.

So we see that for Dr. Max's argument to be valid, we have to know the language which obviously, genetic researchers do not yet very well.


Now there is something else interesting here.  This text of John 3:16 could be rendered in a number of different ways and yet communicate the same meaning.  For example, we could say ...
Quote
Yipinin yaw so xakne Kaan roowo pono komo poko. Ero ke Tumumuru tak nimyakne okwe twaihsom mera tak ehtome so. Waipini ro me naxe Kaan pona enine komo.


I know the language well enough to know that this would communicate the same message, but with different structure.

Now, back to biology.  It is my theory that this is exactly the situation which we will find in the genomes of various organisms as we understand more and more about them every year.  I predict that we will find that the genetic code is a very real language, complete with "words", "sentences", "phrases", "paragraphs", and different ways of saying the same thing.

Now, here is something else ...

How do you explain the similarity of the GLO gene "defects" of humans and guinea pigs? (you knew I was going to go here, didn't you)  Apparently, something like 36% of the substitutions are the same when compared to the functional rat GLO gene.  If we assume that there is some pro-simian ancestor that has a functional GLO gene, then it would appear that humans are more closely related to guinea pigs than to this pro-simian ancestor.  This would seem to defy the evolutionary scenario.  How do you explain this?

OK.  There's some food for thought.  Now pick me apart.


Oh ... and here the quote from Balakirev and Ayala for you

Quote
Annual Review of Genetics
Vol. 37: 123-151 (Volume publication date December 2003)
(doi:10.1146/annurev.genet.37.040103.103949)

First published online as a Review in Advance on June 25, 2003

PSEUDOGENES: Are They "Junk" or Functional DNA?

Evgeniy S. Balakirev1,2 and ­Francisco J. Ayala1­
1Department of Ecology and Evolutionary Biology, University of California, Irvine, California 92697-2525; email: fjayala@uci.edu

2Institute of Marine Biology, Vladivostok 690041,

Russia and Academy of Ecology, Marine Biology, and Biotechnology, Far Eastern State University, Vladivostok 690600, Russia; email: esbalak@bio.dvgu.ru

Pseudogenes have been defined as nonfunctional sequences of genomic DNA originally derived from functional genes. It is therefore assumed that all pseudogene mutations are selectively neutral and have equal probability to become fixed in the population. Rather, pseudogenes that have been suitably investigated often exhibit functional roles, such as gene expression, gene regulation, generation of genetic (antibody, antigenic, and other) diversity. Pseudogenes are involved in gene conversion or recombination with functional genes. Link to article




And here's one I like from Dr. Max that confirms what us YECers so often say about mutations ...
Quote
Mutations causing genetic diseases and malformations are generally so detrimental to the organism's survival and reproductive success that in the wild--i.e. in the absence of modern medical science--they would tend to be "weeded out" by the pressure of natural selection. Rarely, mutations can be beneficial to an organism: these rare cases form the basis for evolutionary adaptations that improve the "fitness" of an organism to its environment.Link to article


--------------
A DILEMMA FOR THE COMMITTED NATURALIST
A Hi-tech alien spaceship lands on earth ... DESIGNED.
A Hi-tech alien rotary motor found in a cell ... NOT DESIGNED.
http://afdave.wordpress.com/....ess.com

  
afdave



Posts: 1621
Joined: April 2006

(Permalink) Posted: May 11 2006,04:26   

And now, while you all are busy refuting me on this thread, I will hop back over to the "Creator God Hypothesis" thread and dive in again ...

It appears that no one accepts the evidence for a Creator I have given so far, so we will explore that some and find out why ...

See you there ... :-)

--------------
A DILEMMA FOR THE COMMITTED NATURALIST
A Hi-tech alien spaceship lands on earth ... DESIGNED.
A Hi-tech alien rotary motor found in a cell ... NOT DESIGNED.
http://afdave.wordpress.com/....ess.com

  
afdave



Posts: 1621
Joined: April 2006

(Permalink) Posted: May 11 2006,04:36   

Also check the "AF Dave wants you to prove Evolution to him" thread ...

I will be posting some questions there directly out of a children's book about evolution ...

It's called (ingeniously) "Evolution" and it is from the DK Eyewitness series.  It is pretty recent (2000).

That should be fun as well !!

--------------
A DILEMMA FOR THE COMMITTED NATURALIST
A Hi-tech alien spaceship lands on earth ... DESIGNED.
A Hi-tech alien rotary motor found in a cell ... NOT DESIGNED.
http://afdave.wordpress.com/....ess.com

  
Chris Hyland



Posts: 705
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: May 11 2006,04:57   

I haven't read any of those vitamin c articles you mentioned, but I think  your missing the point. The pseudogene may have function but is no longer a gene which produces a protein involved vitamin C synthesis. It is good evidence for common descent whether or not the pseudogene has function. Am I missing something there?

  
Arden Chatfield



Posts: 6657
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: May 11 2006,05:00   

Quote (Russell @ May 09 2006,17:36)
Quote
Do gorillas have the broken Vitamin C gene? I thought it was only humans and chimps.
Apparently it's all primates. The broken gene is thought to be inherited from an ancestor common to all the primates about 40 million years ago. So you've got all these primates with a broken gene. And, once it was broken, of course, there's no selection that prevents it from accumulating more mutations. And, just like other DNA that's not under strong selection, you generate a nested hierarchy of mutations that pretty much overlaps the nested hierarchy of mutations in any other representative sample of the genome. Now, how does the "common designer hypothesis" explain that?

(Actually, I don't know how much of the relevant data is already in; I certainly can't cite the relevant research. So you can regard it both as a sketchy summary of the sketchy data that's already in and a prediction of data yet to be produced. What predictions does the "common designer hypothesis" make about it?)

All well and good, but here's what's confusing me. I think it's obvious that the Designer broke our Vitamin C gene as punishment for the Garden of Eden, eating apples, all that. We've established that scientifically. But this whole 'collateral damage' thing of chimps, bonobos, gorillas and orangutans also getting their Vitamin C taken away baffles me. Why should our Designer punish a bunch of apes like that, and not other animals, like, say, badgers, skunks, Komodo dragons, and kangaroos? Is this some indication that back in the Garden the apes were also disobeying their Lord?

--------------
"Rich is just mad because he thought all titties had fur on them until last week when a shorn transvestite ruined his childhood dreams by jumping out of a spider man cake and man boobing him in the face lips." - Erasmus

  
normdoering



Posts: 287
Joined: July 2005

(Permalink) Posted: May 11 2006,05:07   

Quote (afdave @ May 11 2006,09:21)
With the plagiarism case, we are talking about printed words in a well-known language.  In the GLO gene case, we are talking about genetic "words" in a poorly-understood language.  I hope I don't have to cite the recent literature to prove to you how poorly we understand the genetic language.

That's a half truth. It's true that we don't know enough yet to write sophisticated creatures using the DNA language. In fact we're still struggling with finding the simplest cell.

Looking for the "minimal cell":
http://microbialcellproject.org/complete.shtml
http://research.unc.edu/endeavors/spr2000/Hutchison.htm
http://scienceweek.com/2005/sw050325-1.htm
http://www.physorg.com/news8460.html

However, it somehow seems to have escaped your notice that large parts of this DNA language are well understood and that there was enough detail in the Dr. Max article to make good comparisons. Your question is even addressed in his article:

Quote

Imagine a defendant at a murder trial defending himself--against overwhelming incriminating evidence--with the parallel argument: that since some convicted criminals have later been exonerated, he (the current defendant) should therefore be acquitted now, because someday in the future, evidence might be found to clear him! This defense would be as ridiculous as Dr. Gish's argument is.

  
afdave



Posts: 1621
Joined: April 2006

(Permalink) Posted: May 11 2006,05:54   

Quote
I haven't read any of those vitamin c articles you mentioned, but I think  your missing the point. The pseudogene may have function but is no longer a gene which produces a protein involved vitamin C synthesis. It is good evidence for common descent whether or not the pseudogene has function. Am I missing something there?


My point is that your statement and Dr. Max's statement assumes that somewhere back in time, the GLO gene functioned to produce vitamin C, but now no longer does.  I am just saying that I think this assumes too much, namely that we know what the gene used to be like.  We do not know this.  All we really know is that ... (a) it is somewhat similar to the functional rat GLO gene (149 out of 647 substitutions when comparing humans to rats, 96 out of 647 substitutions when comparing guinea pigs to rats), and (b) that humans cannot synthesize their own Vitamin C. (we are presuming that this is because the GLO gene is "broken", and we are assuming that other primates GLO genes are almost identical to ours) (a safe bet probably, but it has not been determined yet)

What reason do we have to assume that the modern GLO gene in humans ever was used for Vitamin C production?  As I said, we really don't know the language that well yet ... my understanding is that we have just scratched the surface ... it is entirely reasonable to me that the supposed "broken GLO gene" has always had a function which has nothing to do with Vitamin C production.  In any case, we cannot determine that it is broken until we know the language better, just as you could not determine the error in my text examples.

Quote
However, it somehow seems to have escaped your notice that large parts of this DNA language are well understood and that there was enough detail in the Dr. Max article to make good comparisons. Your question is even addressed in his article:

Quote  

Imagine a defendant at a murder trial defending himself--against overwhelming incriminating evidence--with the parallel argument: that since some convicted criminals have later been exonerated, he (the current defendant) should therefore be acquitted now, because someday in the future, evidence might be found to clear him! This defense would be as ridiculous as Dr. Gish's argument is.


No.  I read that part.  I am in no way defending Gish's argument.

I am making my own and it is entirely different.  The paragraph above is talking about letting the guy off because of future evidence we may have in the future.

My argument recognizes that we don't have evidence RIGHT NOW to convict the guy.  To make the analogy correct, imagine that the judge and jury only spoke French and there was no interpreter.  Now they could not convict him on evidence which was written in English because they could not even determine what an error is.

This is situation we have in genetics today.

--------------
A DILEMMA FOR THE COMMITTED NATURALIST
A Hi-tech alien spaceship lands on earth ... DESIGNED.
A Hi-tech alien rotary motor found in a cell ... NOT DESIGNED.
http://afdave.wordpress.com/....ess.com

  
Russell



Posts: 1082
Joined: April 2005

(Permalink) Posted: May 11 2006,05:55   

No reason to belabor the point: normdoering made it very well. It's the ultimate answer to any hopeless argument: "Sure, it looks like an open and shut case now, but sometime in the future we may learn something totally unexpected that changes everything!"  That's kind of a science stopper, isn't it? Why bother trying to understand anything, knowing that some future information might change our conclusions?

Here's a ground rule we'll just have to accept in order not to render all discussions ridiculous: explain observations based on currently known data, or admit that you really can't explain it.  For instance, given the data on the broken vitamin C gene, it could be explained by (A) common inheritance of a mutation that occurred in a common ancestor, or (B) it could be explained by an as yet unknown explanation.
Quote
Now, here is something else ...

How do you explain the similarity of the GLO gene "defects" of humans and guinea pigs? (you knew I was going to go here, didn't you)  Apparently, something like 36% of the substitutions are the same when compared to the functional rat GLO gene.  If we assume that there is some pro-simian ancestor that has a functional GLO gene, then it would appear that humans are more closely related to guinea pigs than to this pro-simian ancestor.  This would seem to defy the evolutionary scenario.  How do you explain this?
Now, this may prove interesting. We can think of it as an experiment. (I'm not familiar with the data you're talking about, so I'm going to assume it's in the Max article - if not, please clarify.) Now I would predict, based on evolution, that the errors would be essentially random, and that we should not see a statistically improbable coincidence in guinea pig and primate errors. I gather you're saying that we do, which I guess you contend challenges evolution. In fact, if the errors are sufficiently similar, it might be construed as consistent with the "common designer hypothesis". (I.e. The Designer says to Himself, "for reasons known only to me, I see the need to give guinea pigs, humans, and all the monkeys and apes a broken vitamin C gene. No need to reinvent the wheel, I'll just give them the same broken gene!"). I predict that a careful examination of the data will prove you wrong. Further, I predict that you won't admit it.

Quote
And here's one I like from Dr. Max that confirms what us YECers so often say about mutations ...
Wow! You guys are way ahead of us! Do you also stake out such bold claims as "water is wet"?

Actually, believe it or not, geneticists have always known that mutations are more likely to be detrimental than beneficial. But unless you can quantify the odds in some meaningful way, relative to the "statistical resources" (i.e. the number of "trials" available), it's completely useless.

--------------
Must... not... scratch... mosquito bite.

  
ericmurphy



Posts: 2460
Joined: Oct. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: May 11 2006,05:59   

Quote (afdave @ May 11 2006,09:21)
Now I have read both articles in their entirety, but before Dr. Max even gets into the details of gene "mistakes", there is one very large item jumps out at me. The analogy seems very clever, but there is a huge assumption that is made which I consider to be invalid and to me this destroys the whole analogy.

Nope. You're completely missing the point of the analogy, Dave.

Suppose you've got two samples of text in a language you don't understand. Finnish, say. Both samples are about the same length, say, 20 pages, and have a similar number of paragraphs, sentences, etc. They look like they're probably different versions of the same story. You don't understand the language at all, but you see a lot of the same words, in roughly the same places in various paragraphs. Is one a copy of the other? At this point, you don't know. They could be different versions of the same story, say two newspaper articles about the same event.

Then, you notice a paragraph of about 400 characters that's identical in both samples. It's not in the same place in both texts, but it is absolutely identical down to the individual character. You even note that at the end of the fifth sentence, there's an extra period. You have no idea what any of the text means, but is there any doubt, at this point, that one sample was in fact at least partially copied from the other? Is there any possible doubt that both articles share a common provenance?

You don't need to know anything whatsoever about the language to make this determination, Dave. And it is far from true that biologists know nothing at all about the genetic code. In fact, they may not know what all the "paragraphs" (i.e., genes) in the genetic code mean, but they sure know what the "words" (i.e., codons) mean.

--------------
2006 MVD award for most dogged defense of scientific sanity

"Atheism is a religion the same way NOT collecting stamps is a hobby." —Scott Adams

  
improvius



Posts: 807
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: May 11 2006,06:13   

Quote (afdave @ May 09 2006,10:21)
Now ... which of these is more conducive to a Holocaust?  You tell me.  I'm not discounting other factors.  It's true that Hitler was influenced by Catholicism, the Occult, and other factors as well.  So my point is ...

Well, since the single greatest contributing factor to the Holocaust is over a thousand years of Christians hating Jews, Christianity is the obvious answer.

It seems you are disregarding the facts in favor of a pet theory.  Here's a hint: if your pet theory is in conflict with known facts, then it's probably your theory that's wrong - not the facts.

--------------
Quote (afdave @ Oct. 02 2006,18:37)
Many Jews were in comfortable oblivion about Hitler ... until it was too late.
Many scientists will persist in comfortable oblivion about their Creator ... until it is too late.

  
normdoering



Posts: 287
Joined: July 2005

(Permalink) Posted: May 11 2006,06:19   

Quote (afdave @ May 11 2006,10:54)
My argument recognizes that we don't have evidence RIGHT NOW to convict the guy.  To make the analogy correct, imagine that the judge and jury only spoke French and there was no interpreter.  Now they could not convict him on evidence which was written in English because they could not even determine what an error is.

This is situation we have in genetics today.

Your analogy doesn't work. Your example is too unknown and there are only two versions. We have hundreds of versions and we know a lot about Vitamin C and the genes involved.

It's also a clear prediction of evolution -- we should find vestigial DNA. Humans don't have the capability to synthesize Vitamin C, we can get scurvy. Our predicted ancestors had this function (as do all animals except primates and guinea pigs).  Therefore, we predicted this, not assume it, as you claim. humans, primates, and guinea pigs should carry evidence of this lost function as a molecular vestigial character. We looked for it and found it.

We found a lot of details to support that conclusion.

What does your theory look for?

What has your theory found?

What does your theory predict about the details we will find in  DNA.

You have nothing.

  
afdave



Posts: 1621
Joined: April 2006

(Permalink) Posted: May 11 2006,06:20   

Quote
Then, you notice a paragraph of about 400 characters that's identical in both samples. It's not in the same place in both texts, but it is absolutely identical down to the individual character. You even note that at the end of the fifth sentence, there's an extra period. You have no idea what any of the text means, but is there any doubt, at this point, that one sample was in fact at least partially copied from the other? Is there any possible doubt that both articles share a common provenance?

You don't need to know anything whatsoever about the language to make this determination, Dave. And it is far from true that biologists know nothing at all about the genetic code. In fact, they may not know what all the "paragraphs" (i.e., genes) in the genetic code mean, but they sure know what the "words" (i.e., codons) mean.


Are you saying that this is what has been found?  I did not understand that from the findings of the authors