RSS 2.0 Feed

» Welcome Guest Log In :: Register

Pages: (23) < 1 [2] 3 4 5 6 7 ... >   
  Topic: AF Dave Has More Questions About Apes, Creation/Evolution Debate< Next Oldest | Next Newest >  
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: 13407
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: 1201
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: 5287
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.

--------------
"CO2 can't re-emit any trapped heat unless all the molecules point the right way"
"All the evidence supports Creation baraminology"
"If it required a mind, planning and design, it isn't materialistic."
"Jews and Christians are Muslims."

- Joke "Sharon" Gallien, world's dumbest YEC.

  
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: 634
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: 1201
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: 5287
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.

--------------
"CO2 can't re-emit any trapped heat unless all the molecules point the right way"
"All the evidence supports Creation baraminology"
"If it required a mind, planning and design, it isn't materialistic."
"Jews and Christians are Muslims."

- Joke "Sharon" Gallien, world's dumbest YEC.

  
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

  
  685 replies since May 08 2006,03:55 < Next Oldest | Next Newest >  

Pages: (23) < 1 [2] 3 4 5 6 7 ... >   


Track this topic Email this topic Print this topic

[ Read the Board Rules ] | [Useful Links] | [Evolving Designs]