Quote:Well I agree with what you are saying except for one small point. How is it possible for an individual to develop the intelligence necessary to do calculus if he were not using this intelligence? Since evolution is driven by necessity, developing the intelligence to do things that are not actually being done would in reality be a hindrance to the individual because energy would be spent developing and maintaining an ability that was not being used right?

You've broken it down as though having the level of intelligence required to do calculus, without actually knowing calculus, is just a waste of brainpower. Having x level of intelligence will allow you to do/learn lots of new things (compared to a lower level of intelligence), and do/learn other things at faster rates, calculus is but one ability amongst many. It's not that they weren't using their intelligence, just that they were not using it to do calculus. Calculus is simply yet another ability that is hypothetically available to people (and space Empresses) with x level intelligence (and other features: memory, language, attention and whatnot).

This whole argument of statlers is a red herring and I'm pretty sure he knows it.

He might as well have asked when was homo sapien capable of filling out a spreadsheet in excel.

Its a non argument and basically stupid.

I'm pretty sure statler isnt stupid and that he's just toying with us for his own amusement.

Please do not feed the troll.

(October 14, 2011 at 8:37 pm)Statler Waldorf Wrote: Oh! You beat me to my own point; I was going to bring this up. Aborigines supposedly branched off 50,000 years ago, and yet if you adopt a baby from an Aborigine tribe your chances of teaching it advanced math are no less than if you adopt a baby from anywhere else in the world. In fact, physiologically speaking that baby would be no less perfect than babies anywhere else in the world. So it looks like humans have always been as intelligent as they are today, and have always been as physiologically adapted as they are today (Aborigines can donate blood and organs to Asians, Africans and Europeans- and vice versa).

They are still Homo Sapiens. The previous 'man' may have only had the capacity for quadratic equations and the one before that, simple math. Like I said, there is no way known today to pinpoint that aspect of evolution. Just because we have not the means to identify this particular variance, in no way does that stipulate "a sky-daddy did it".

Fortunately we have a time traveler amongst us and he was able to produce a specific date for you.

Next.

It takes a looooonnnng time for speciation to occur thats why aboriginal people are still homo sapiens after a quite long separation.

Its one of the ways we know that the young earth creationism is wrong.

One of the many, many ways.

(October 14, 2011 at 9:37 pm)Rhythm Wrote: Creation journals? I'm sorry I thought we were talking science.

We are talking science. I didn’t even use anything from the actual Journal of Creation because we are having a lay person’s discussion here and it would have gone over your head.

Quote: (do you get to link creation journals often at the USDA btw?)

Nope, but they don’t allow Wikipedia to be cited here (at the USDA) either and that doesn’t seem to stop you from using it.

(October 15, 2011 at 7:25 am)Stue Denim Wrote: You've broken it down as though having the level of intelligence required to do calculus, without actually knowing calculus, is just a waste of brainpower. Having x level of intelligence will allow you to do/learn lots of new things (compared to a lower level of intelligence), and do/learn other things at faster rates, calculus is but one ability amongst many. It's not that they weren't using their intelligence, just that they were not using it to do calculus. Calculus is simply yet another ability that is hypothetically available to people (and space Empresses) with x level intelligence (and other features: memory, language, attention and whatnot).

I feel you are kind of cheating here by creating a false distinction. If you are a naturalist, which I believe you are, you cannot make a distinction between physical capacity & abilities and mental capacity & abilities as you have done here. Evolutionally animals could not gain the physical ability to do something that is not providing a survival advantage. Since mental ability is determined by the chemical interactions in the brain (from a naturalistic perspective) this cannot be an exception to the observed rule. Humans’ mental ability to do something and actually doing that very thing would have to occur simultaneously according to Darwinian Theory.

(October 15, 2011 at 10:59 am)IATIA Wrote: They are still Homo Sapiens.

That’s a cop out. What were the two parents of the first Homo Sapien like? What made them not Homo Sapiens? You can’t say that Homo Sapiens have not changed in the last 50,000 years (roughly 2,000 generations) but then the first Homo Sapien was so different from his or her parents (a single generation) that he or she would be classified as something completely different. Your theory doesn’t hold up to the evidence.

(October 16, 2011 at 9:22 am)downbeatplumb Wrote: It takes a looooonnnng time for speciation to occur thats why aboriginal people are still homo sapiens after a quite long separation.

Its one of the ways we know that the young earth creationism is wrong.

One of the many, many ways.

Sorry, this is incorrect. Speciation can occur very quickly, we just don’t observe any changes happening amongst people for the last supposed 50,000 years.

Godditit isn't something that goes over anyone's head. In fact it's so simple that almost anyone can recite the theory, word for word. Unfortunately, it's incorrect.

Ah, and theres the rub, I don't pretend to work at the USDA. I can link all the wiki I like.

(October 24, 2011 at 6:20 pm)Rhythm Wrote: Godditit isn't something that goes over anyone's head. In fact it's so simple that almost anyone can recite the theory, word for word. Unfortunately, it's incorrect.

Please point to an article from the Journal of Creation that explicitly says "God Did It". I could reduce every article you present to "Evolution Did it" if you really want to play that game.

Quote: Ah, and theres the rub, I don't pretend to work at the USDA. I can link all the wiki I like.

You couldn’t work for the USDA, we hire people who actually know what they are talking about. Lol.

(October 24, 2011 at 6:15 pm)Statler Waldorf Wrote: What were the two parents of the first Homo Sapien like? What made them not Homo Sapiens? You can’t say that Homo Sapiens have not changed in the last 50,000 years (roughly 2,000 generations) but then the first Homo Sapien was so different from his or her parents (a single generation) that he or she would be classified as something completely different. Your theory doesn’t hold up to the evidence.

Chances are some egg and or sperm will suffer mutations as well. These 'mutated' genes will carry on and when they match up through generations, the changes in physiology may be good, bad or indifferent. Bad will stop. Good will go on. Indifferent could go either way.

If everyone had brown eyes, then some where along the line a mutation occurred favoring blue eyes, this gene could be carried for generations before anyone actually got blue eyes. Blue eyes are recessive which means that the child must inherit the blue eyed gene from both parents.

Considering the number of mutations that occur in one human's lifetime, extrapolate over thousands of years and we have change. When? somewhere between here and there. There is no line to draw.

(October 24, 2011 at 6:48 pm)IATIA Wrote:

---

Chances are some egg and or sperm will suffer mutations as well. These 'mutated' genes will carry on and when they match up through generations, the changes in physiology may be good, bad or indifferent. Bad will stop. Good will go on. Indifferent could go either way.

If everyone had brown eyes, then some where along the line a mutation occurred favoring blue eyes, this gene could be carried for generations before anyone actually got blue eyes. Blue eyes are recessive which means that the child must inherit the blue eyed gene from both parents.

Considering the number of mutations that occur in one human's lifetime, extrapolate over thousands of years and we have change. When? somewhere between here and there. There is no line to draw.

---

You didn’t answer my question; you just gave me a rundown on genetics that even creationists agree with. What made the parents of the first Homo Sapien not Homo Sapiens and what made the first Homo Sapien a Homo Sapien? It’s a simple two part question.

(October 24, 2011 at 6:53 pm)Statler Waldorf Wrote:

(October 24, 2011 at 6:48 pm)IATIA Wrote:

---

Chances are some egg and or sperm will suffer mutations as well. These 'mutated' genes will carry on and when they match up through generations, the changes in physiology may be good, bad or indifferent. Bad will stop. Good will go on. Indifferent could go either way.

If everyone had brown eyes, then some where along the line a mutation occurred favoring blue eyes, this gene could be carried for generations before anyone actually got blue eyes. Blue eyes are recessive which means that the child must inherit the blue eyed gene from both parents.

Considering the number of mutations that occur in one human's lifetime, extrapolate over thousands of years and we have change. When? somewhere between here and there. There is no line to draw.

---

You didn’t answer my question; you just gave me a rundown on genetics that even creationists agree with. What made the parents of the first Homo Sapien not Homo Sapiens and what made the first Homo Sapien a Homo Sapien? It’s a simple two part question.

The lines drawn in evolution are based on the scarce amount of fossils that we have available. That any are available is mostly luck. Evolutionists have drawn an arbitrary line based on the lifestyle of man. i.e., tool making in this case.