(May 16, 2013 at 6:58 pm)Rhythm Wrote: Depends on how far back you'd feel comfortable granting the distinction of "human", wouldn't it?

Nope.

Quote:Easy, that's not how anyone arrives at said conclusion, next?

So such examples and observations are not support for Common Descent? I am going to hold you to that now.

Quote:We're some of the most genetically homogenous creatures on the planet. All of us are more genetically similar to each other than two distinct populations of chimps living in africa. What, exactly, doesn't add up in this equation to you?

The timetable doesn’t add up. Humans are so genetically similar, even groups that you claimed have been separated for 140,000 years, there’s not enough time to generate the genetic differences we observe between other Primates and Humans in the allotted time frame, you’d need billions of years at that rate, and you do not have it.

Quote:
You mean, say, we lived in an alternate reality? All bets would be off in Waldorkia, yes.

No this reality, you have not established the fact that the fossils on Earth are a history of death and burial over long periods of time, and yet your entire view of life’s history hinges on that single un-established premise. Establish it.

Quote:You also, "have a different beak". Further along this little train ide of change human beings and gorillas are both "still apes".

That’s assuming the proof; you have not demonstrated that Humans and Gorillas are both apes, and no simply calling them primates doesn’t prove anything.

Quote:yes, artistic interpretations - and mountains of data on mammalian anatomy, and wear patterns, and placement in the site, and biology. -Merely- that.

That’s only if homology is a result of a common ancestor, that’s something you have not established to be the case yet.

Quote:
Why wouldn't they? Anatomical modernity was achieved long before they took their little walkabout, to the tune of roughly 140,00 years, and behavioral modernity was achieved a similarly vast (albeit smaller) number of years before.

Do you not understand how Evolution supposedly works? It requires selective pressures; abilities are only preserved when selective pressures select against those organisms that do not have the ability. Humans would not evolve the cognitive ability to be rational and to do analysis such as calculus thousands of years before the selective pressure required them to do so.

Quote:More or less convenient then "goddidit - poof"?

More convenient, the existence of God has far more useful and valuable implications than Common Descent.

Quote:actually, whenever we go around looking for data to support the theory - it has a nasty habit of turning up.

Such as?

Quote: That's why we call it a theory, as opposed to a hypothesis –

A theory is only as strong as its weakest hypothesis, and Darwinian Evolution has some embarrassingly weak hypotheses.

Quote:Except that we do observe -it- happening.

Well since you already conceded that phenotypical changes in populations over time are not support for Common Descent, what other observations are you making to support the theory of Common Descent?

Quote:There is no creation model, what kind of bullshit is this?

You’re not familiar with the current Creation model? That’s not surprising.

---

(May 16, 2013 at 6:42 pm)Ryantology Wrote:

(May 16, 2013 at 6:26 pm)Statler Waldorf Wrote: That’s a faulty analogy because the spectrum of life on Earth has never been observed to be a gradual distinction, but rather very classifiable. What gave birth to the very first Human and what made that animal not a Human? I think that’s a rather simple question.

How you do observe a species evolving over millions of years? You can't. You can only go by the fossil record, and it's not complete. Of course, we can see evolution take place on a small scale just by having a kid, it will take on characteristics of both parents but it is still a unique creature. And there are plenty of shorter-term studies which show physical changes to humanity over generations (quick, how many Hispanics existed a thousand years ago?). If people afflicted with dwarfism bred exclusively for many generations, might not they become a species of their own? It's a judgement call. Using the term 'species' in this debate just messes things up, because there is no ironclad objective metric to determine if certain life forms have changed enough to merit being reassigned. We're not a different species from our ancient predecessors as much as we are the same creature which has radically altered its characteristics over time. You can't point to any certain individual and say "this is no longer x, it is now y" because the decision is arbitrary and really beside the point. Evolution is not about one species becoming another. It is about one branch of life changing over generations, depending on how much change is necessary for them to thrive. And this is a process which demonstrably happens. Whatever most primitive single-celled organism first lived and reproduced eventually evolved into me, just as red becomes violet as the wave shortens. The only problem is that this appears to be above your head, but thanks to me, it should not be anymore and you can start forming an argument which is worth this much of a response.

I’ll have to respond to this next week Ryantology. I only had a few minutes to spend on here so I decided to give Rhythm’s response a shot since it was a lot simpler than yours. Have a great weekend!

-SW

(May 16, 2013 at 8:10 pm)Statler Waldorf Wrote: Nope.

I you don't know what your own cutoff for human would be, how do you expect to have this question answered?

Quote:So such examples and observations are not support for Common Descent? I am going to hold you to that now.

Of course not. How would a simple observation of human skin color lead to the conclusion that all life on earth had a common ancestor Stat?

Quote:The timetable doesn’t add up. Humans are so genetically similar, even groups that you claimed have been separated for 140,000 years, there’s not enough time to generate the genetic differences we observe between other Primates and Humans in the allotted time frame, you’d need billions of years at that rate, and you do not have it.

Are you intentionally trolling me as above or did you suffer a reading comprehension fail? 140,00 years -before- a group of human beings migrated to australia..they were already physically modern. They were already -us-. At least 10,000 years before that same group migrated human beings were fully behaviorally modern. They were already -us-. The timeframe for an LCA between us and our -nearest- primate relatives is estimated at about 5-7 million years. Billions of years between ourselves and our lca is a fanciful notion.

Quote:
No this reality, you have not established the fact that the fossils on Earth are a history of death and burial over long periods of time, and yet your entire view of life’s history hinges on that single un-established premise. Establish it.

I didn't realize that you took issue to just about every corner of the physical sciences. I think that if this is the case, there's little possibility of me digging your way out of such a vast chasm of ignorance.

Quote:That’s assuming the proof; you have not demonstrated that Humans and Gorillas are both apes, and no simply calling them primates doesn’t prove anything.

The designation of what is or is not an ape entails a little more than just calling any given animal an ape - otherwise we'd be calling zebras apes as well.

Quote:That’s only if homology is a result of a common ancestor, that’s something you have not established to be the case yet.

Again, biology and physics (but I understand that you don't really believe in that sort of stuff).

Quote:
Do you not understand how Evolution supposedly works? It requires selective pressures;

No, it doesn't. Natural selection requires selective pressures.

Quote:abilities are only preserved when selective pressures select against those organisms that do not have the ability.

Who told you this? It's horrendously inaccurate. All that is required for any given trait or set of genes to be preserved is that the creature successfully replicates.

Quote: Humans would not evolve the cognitive ability to be rational and to do analysis such as calculus thousands of years before the selective pressure required them to do so.

See above.

Quote:More convenient, the existence of God has far more useful and valuable implications than Common Descent.

Yeah, book sales, donations, tax breaks. Whereas common descent isn't so much useful or valuable as it is, well, existent and in evidence.

Quote:Such as?

Observed instances of evolution, demonstrated mechanisms of evolution, and successful predictions made by the theory.

Quote:
A theory is only as strong as its weakest hypothesis, and Darwinian Evolution has some embarrassingly weak hypotheses.

Well, someone may certainly come along someday and demonstrate that modern synthesis is in error. Hasn't happened yet, and that someone is unlikely to be you...... but if you really buckled down and did some science you could always hold out on hope.

Quote:Well since you already conceded that phenotypical changes in populations over time are not support for Common Descent, what other observations are you making to support the theory of Common Descent?

Common biochemistry and code, selectively neutral similarities and phylogenetic trees based on rDNA. All converging - with nary a single point of conflicting data - upon the conclusion of common descent.

Quote:You’re not familiar with the current Creation model? That’s not surprising.

It's difficult to familiarize yourself with the fantasies of another.

(May 16, 2013 at 7:49 pm)Sal Wrote: I usually respond that "god was never alive to begin with" to that Nietzschian "God is dead" phrase.

Sure. The question is rhetorical, and meant to provoke other much more relevant questions, such as:

Why is this alleged "supernatural being" not doing anything?

The hope is that the Theist will be provoked to work progressively backwards with the related questions until he eventually questions the very existence of god in the first place.

Of course, you've always got to contend with Theists who refuse to question anything about god, and those types are quick to sabatoge the process with twisted logic like, "Thanks for admitting he exists!"

To that I say, "Yeah, no problem! Now go back into your padded room while I try and think of another way to get through to you."

Theists sometimes forget that most Atheists are just trying to help cure them of their mental illness.

(May 16, 2013 at 8:10 pm)Statler Waldorf Wrote: The timetable doesn’t add up. Humans are so genetically similar, even groups that you claimed have been separated for 140,000 years, there’s not enough time to generate the genetic differences we observe between other Primates and Humans in the allotted time frame, you’d need billions of years at that rate, and you do not have it.

I feel like I have to ask: do you have any reasoning behind this by fiat assertion, or did you just decide it because it's convenient to your case? Done any research, at all? Anything?

(May 16, 2013 at 6:26 pm)Statler Waldorf Wrote:

(May 11, 2013 at 6:19 pm)pocaracas Wrote: And they determine different species through different fossils, which I assume to be a very tricky business... because you have to account for age, deformations during the fossilization process, incomplete fossils, no DNA....

It always seems to come back to the fossils. :-P So would you concede that if the fossil “record” is not truly a record of death and burial over long periods of time then the whole Evolutionary paradigm dies?

uhu? "when the Evolutionary paradigm dies"?
"The fossil record is not a record of death and burial"?
Then what is it? God sprinkling dino bones just to mess with us?

(May 16, 2013 at 6:26 pm)Statler Waldorf Wrote:

Quote:It's never just one thing, is it?
The idea is that, at some point, there is sufficient genetic change that these individuals are incompatible with the original ones.

That should involve other selective pressures though, and there really are not many different selective pressures from one island to the next, those ecosystems are very similar. This just seems like storytelling to me, I totally agree that you can get different beak sizes and shapes, but I do not see how that gives you anything other than a Finch with a different beak. Bulldogs and Great Danes are still both dogs you know.

And yet, they are not wolves.
Most dog breeds have been selectively bred to be what they are.
They are mere hundreds of years away from each other... far little time to produce a different species.

(May 16, 2013 at 6:26 pm)Statler Waldorf Wrote:

Quote: Perhaps you're right... but that's how I see the process going.
Perhaps I'm wrong... as I've stated, I'm no biologist, so my view is based on high-school science class and a few documentaries... not exactly an expert, am I?

No, I think you’re explaining it right, I just have never thought the explanation quite added up.

Maybe you need to look up more detail than we'd be able to provide you in the forum.
More perspective...

(May 16, 2013 at 6:26 pm)Statler Waldorf Wrote:

Quote:
Weren't we stretching the definition of species?

I've looked at this list:http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_hum...on_fossils
and I see neandertals at about 250 thousand years ago, so it roughly matches with homo sapiens, so it makes sense that they would be compatible.
It would also make sense that homo sapiens be compatible with homo erectus, but not with homo habilis, while homo erectus would be compatible with homo habilis.
Of course, they are all extinct, so we can't really check. Only guess... unless anyone here knows about some DNA from these extinct species.

Well they are always finding new DNA in these ancient fossils, so probably someday soon. I have never seen one of these examples that didn’t seem to actually be just a Human or a large Ape, I think Evolutionists overplay their hand a bit with all of these supposed primate linkages (they are often merely artistic interpretations of how the animal ought to have looked based on merely a handful of bones).

Indeed, what they show to the world is often just the artist's depiction.
But the bones uncovered are different from present-day apes and humans... that means that the apes at that time were different.

(May 16, 2013 at 6:26 pm)Statler Waldorf Wrote:

Quote:
Snapshots may not exist... all groups kept evolving to the changing environment....
Although, all humans (not at the same time) have adapted the environment to themselves, so I'd accept that for the past few hundreds of years we stopped evolving.

Well physically that may be true, but why would Aboriginals continue to progress mentally if they are still using Stone Age tools and essentially still possess a Stone Age understanding of their Environment? Mentally they should be a snap shot no?

A snapshot of some features.... a different path on other features.


Why don't we try to make a small exercise.
Let's say, for the sake of argument, that both evolution and creationism are two competing models... not really for the same event, but they have some overlaps.
If the evolutionary model is correct, what can we expect to find?
- If there was some way of finding out how animals looked like in the past and dating them, we'd expect that, some time ago, there were animals that resemble present day animals, but are somewhat cruder versions of them.... we'd expect that, these version would get cruder and cruder as time goes back.... we'd expect to find some animals that failed to continue their lineage and became extinct.
- If the creation model is correct, we'd expect to find only the already existing animals... always the same... and, beyond some point, nothing.

Oh, and, of course, all this applies to plants as well!

There's a whole science field called paleontology... thousands of people dedicate them selves to it. Which of the two models support their findings?

(May 16, 2013 at 7:49 pm)Sal Wrote: I usually respond that "god was never alive to begin with" to that Nietzschian "God is dead" phrase.

And there's the double-entendre, "The fool says in his heart there is no God."

There's a lot of definitions of dead, some require the thing to have been previously alive.
It's my opinion god was only ever an idea and unfortunately it still lives, still inspiring charity and murder.

Relatively new guys, meet Statler, He is well known to us, the paradigm of his though is rather simple to explain in a simple image:


In other words, do ANYTHING but giving up to reason.

(May 18, 2013 at 11:06 am)LastPoet Wrote: Relatively new guys, meet Statler, He is well known to us, the paradigm of his though is rather simple to explain in a simple image:

In other words, do ANYTHING but giving up to reason.

In other words:

Lie if you have to.

Yup, that about sums him up. And, I can go back and forth with anyone, regardless of how painfully deluded they are. But, one thing I'm not about to waste my time on is someone who doesn't accept any common basis for reality whatsoever.

When someone is willing to lie to defend their position, there's nothing conversation or debate can accomplish.

Quote: How you do observe a species evolving over millions of years? You can't.

Well then you’ve stepped out of the scientific realm and into the realm of “just-so” storytelling.

(May 16, 2013 at 9:19 pm)Rhythm Wrote: I you don't know what your own cutoff for human would be, how do you expect to have this question answered?

A healthy specimen having 46 chromosomes is a good place to start.

Quote:Of course not. How would a simple observation of human skin color lead to the conclusion that all life on earth had a common ancestor Stat?

You tell me, you’re the one who believes such nonsense.

Quote:Are you intentionally trolling me as above or did you suffer a reading comprehension fail? 140,00 years -before- a group of human beings migrated to australia..they were already physically modern. They were already -us-.

Perhaps you are trolling me since you completely ignored what I just said. First modern man appears 250,000 years ago, Aboriginals and Europeans have been separated for 140,000 years. There is absolutely no difference between these two people groups from a mental cognition standpoint. So how long did it take for this mental cognitive ability to develop from our supposed primitive ancestors that did not possess such ability? What selective pressures drove this mental development? Please be specific.

Quote:
I didn't realize that you took issue to just about every corner of the physical sciences. I think that if this is the case, there's little possibility of me digging your way out of such a vast chasm of ignorance.

We’re not talking about the physical sciences here, we’re talking historical sciences. So you cannot establish that the fossil “record” is indeed a record of death and burial over millions of years? Your entire theory is now nothing more than un-established wishful thinking and “just-so” storytelling.

Quote:The designation of what is or is not an ape entails a little more than just calling any given animal an ape - otherwise we'd be calling zebras apes as well.

What does it entail then? Be specific.

Quote:Again, biology and physics (but I understand that you don't really believe in that sort of stuff).

How intellectually lazy can you be? So you cannot establish that homology is a result of a common ancestor? You’re not fairing too well here.

Quote:
No, it doesn't. Natural selection requires selective pressures.

Yup, and natural selection is the driving mechanisms of Evolution, without natural selection you have no Evolution and without selective pressures you have no natural selection. You’re trying to assert that Humans developed the mental cognitive abilities to perform analytical thinking that was not necessary until thousands of years later. That’s not consistent with the theory at all.

Quote:Who told you this? It's horrendously inaccurate. All that is required for any given trait or set of genes to be preserved is that the creature successfully replicates.

No, not if that organism’s offspring are out competed by other organisms in the population that possess different traits, learn your own theory.

Quote: See above.

You do not understand the necessary driving mechanism of your own theory, it’s rather embarrassing.

Quote:Whereas common descent isn't so much useful or valuable as it is, well, existent and in evidence.

Yet you cannot present any evidence to actually support it; intriguing to say the least.

Quote:Observed instances of evolution, demonstrated mechanisms of evolution, and successful predictions made by the theory.

No specific examples? More storytelling.

Quote:
Well, someone may certainly come along someday and demonstrate that modern synthesis is in error. Hasn't happened yet, and that someone is unlikely to be you...... but if you really buckled down and did some science you could always hold out on hope.

I wish we were talking about science here, but unfortunately we’re not.

Quote:Common biochemistry and code, selectively neutral similarities and phylogenetic trees based on rDNA. All converging - with nary a single point of conflicting data - upon the conclusion of common descent.

Back to homology again, but since you have not demonstrated that homologous traits and structures are necessarily the result of a common ancestor you cannot use this as evidence to support Common Descent. Do you have anything else?

Quote:It's difficult to familiarize yourself with the fantasies of another.

Apparently it’s difficult for you to familiarize yourself with the very theory you’re trying to defend.

(May 16, 2013 at 9:59 pm)smax Wrote: Why is this alleged "supernatural being" not doing anything?

Who said He wasn’t doing anything?

Quote: sabatoge

Sabotage.

(May 17, 2013 at 2:08 am)Esquilax Wrote: I feel like I have to ask: do you have any reasoning behind this by fiat assertion, or did you just decide it because it's convenient to your case? Done any research, at all? Anything?

I have actually done research, but not on origins. Have you done any research to support Common Descent? I’d be very interested in reading your work.

(May 17, 2013 at 5:47 am)pocaracas Wrote: Then what is it? God sprinkling dino bones just to mess with us?

No a record of catastrophic burial and death over a very short period of geologic time.

Quote:
And yet, they are not wolves.

They can still breed with wolves though, they are all still canines.

Quote: They are mere hundreds of years away from each other... far little time to produce a different species.

You’re not a believer in punctuated equilibrium? :-P

Quote:
Maybe you need to look up more detail than we'd be able to provide you in the forum.
More perspective...

Perhaps.

Quote:
But the bones uncovered are different from present-day apes and humans... that means that the apes at that time were different.

Yes I agree, apes and humans have changed over the years, but I do not believe that demonstrates they are relatives.

Quote:
A snapshot of some features.... a different path on other features.

Ok, but what drove them to continue developing mentally? If they still live in the Stone Age shouldn’t they have Stone Age minds? I think this is strong evidence that supports the Creation model that holds that Humans have always possessed such mental cognitive abilities.

Quote: Let's say, for the sake of argument, that both evolution and creationism are two competing models... not really for the same event, but they have some overlaps.

Ok, Darwinism vs. Creationism

Quote: If the evolutionary model is correct, what can we expect to find?
- If there was some way of finding out how animals looked like in the past and dating them, we'd expect that, some time ago, there were animals that resemble present day animals, but are somewhat cruder versions of them.... we'd expect that, these version would get cruder and cruder as time goes back.... we'd expect to find some animals that failed to continue their lineage and became extinct.

Again though, this is assuming that the fossil “record” is a record of death and burial over long periods of time, creationists do not accept this assumption.

Quote: - If the creation model is correct, we'd expect to find only the already existing animals... always the same... and, beyond some point, nothing.

Not quite, creationists believe in speciation through natural selection, in fact they require it. What you’d expect to see is natural selection producing a wide variety of species but never actually generating any new genetic information, but rather merely narrowing down the genetic information that was created in the original parent kinds of animals. I think that’s what we actually observe today.

Quote: Oh, and, of course, all this applies to plants as well!

Did you know that there are numerous plants found today that can be found in very early parts of the fossil “record”? Not only this, but the plants found there are identical to the ones we find today.

Quote: There's a whole science field called paleontology... thousands of people dedicate them selves to it. Which of the two models support their findings?

Scientific facts are not established by majority opinion within the scientific community.

(May 18, 2013 at 11:06 am)LastPoet Wrote:

---

Relatively new guys, meet Statler, He is well known to us, the paradigm of his though is rather simple to explain in a simple image:

In other words, do ANYTHING but giving up to reason.

---

Oh come on LastPost, are you really chastising me for defending my position? That’s kind of what we’re all supposed to do.

(May 18, 2013 at 9:44 pm)smax Wrote: Yup, that about sums him up. And, I can go back and forth with anyone, regardless of how painfully deluded they are. But, one thing I'm not about to waste my time on is someone who doesn't accept any common basis for reality whatsoever.

You can’t even consistently define reality without God existing; you’ve helped to demonstrate that beyond a shadow of a doubt. That’s the ironic part.

Quote: When someone is willing to lie to defend their position, there's nothing conversation or debate can accomplish.

LastPost and I disagree on a lot, but he’d never call me a liar, but he’s a class act. You’ll learn how we do things on here eventually.