Evolutionary Tree

[The Grand Nudger]

 Is the human mind something natural and therefore can be physically examined?

Yup, we're examining it as we speak. We've been examining it, for some time, and those examinations have produced results in -your- life. Feel free to disagree...but it will end with embarassment and retractions.

[LadyForCamus]

I haven't, Steve..you, you and no one else, are conflating the two.  Modern Synth -is not- the proposition that all life shares a common ancestor.  Modern synth is the explanation for descent with modification.  Very literaly, the "synthesis" to which it refers is genetics and darwins theory of natural selection.


No shit, which is why one being wrong.........wouldn't effect the other............

I have consistently and repeatedly explained this to you (and not just me)..you ape my own comments without even realizing it.  How did that happen, do you think?  Assuming that one is false...as you positively insist, regardless of whether or not one actually is, you know, false (which it isn't)....doesn't alter the other.  Are we done, are you done?

I apologize. I have been using the phrase wrong. I took it to mean the latest synthesizing of all the sub-theories of evolution. I just read that while related, TOL questions are not strictly part of the Modern Synthesis.

I respect your sincerity here, Steve.  Perhaps I misjudged you after all.

[ohreally]

I have to say this is quite an innovative way to say 'what about the missing link'.

[RobertE]

What you don't seem to understand is that the science of animals STARTED with their categorization-- they were organized into families according to their similarities, and those similarities, for the most part, were readily apparent: wolves are pretty obviously related to dogs; birds of all types obviously share similar features, etc.  It can be seen that among animals which produce milk, there are also OTHER similarities: a predominance of 5 fingers, for example-- even in whales!  No assumptions are required-- animals ARE related, by their properties.

Now, it COULD be that a creator said, "I'm going to make a marine animal with flippers-- but just for kicks, let's give it the same number of hand bones as people."  Or it COULD be that whales are descended from animals which benefited from having multiple independently moving fingers.  It COULD be that God made monkeys and humans with very similar DNA, similar behaviors, similar brain parts, and so on, just for kicks.  Or it COULD be that the reason they have so many similarities because they are related.  It COULD be that some species have vestigial organs because God just wanted to test our faith in the Biblical accounts of creation.  Or it COULD be that those species are descended from others which benefited from those organs.


But I gotta tell you, and don't be insulted-- there's a very important difference between the Biblical account and the theory of evolution: the Biblical account is completely useless as a tool for investigation into the world, and the theory of evolution gives us all kinds of things to think about, to research, to hope for, and in general to use our giant monkey brains on.


And, as always, my usual disclaimer about real believers-- if you really believe God made the universe, and you are unwilling to draw connections and to seriously consider how living things are related because of what some 5000 year-old desert-dweller texts tell you, you are not only against science-- you are against God.  If God is truth, then only through seeking truth, and not trying to word-salad your way around it, will you actually be attempting to draw closer to the Lord.

So be a better Christian, and try to learn something about the world.

You misunderstand my point. I am not a literal 6-day creationist. I am agnostic on the subject. My point way back was genetics studies have rendered the traditional Tree of Life, not just wrong, but obsolete by finding that individual species have within their genes conflicting evolutionary histories. If this turns out to be a long-term mystery and the theory of common decent has certain facts that do not support it, what does this mean to the greater Theory of Evolution (modern synthesis)? So far I have heard that it won't affect it at all. I think that is rubbish.

If you look at Science, and evolution in general since the days of Gregor Mendel, Charles Darwin and Linnaeus, we have come a very long way. Through experimentation, through detailed analysis, the understanding of the evolution of all species as a scientific theory and not a "hunch", has increased at a rate which is incredible. When Linnaeus came out with his taxonomical ranking system, it was all well and good, but it is what we had to work with, until science and technology went hand in hand together and brought us gene mapping. For it to tell us that there are over 500 genes that have been turned off compared to chimpanzees is incredible. We can also look at the physical structures of animals, like for example the dugong, the manatee had at one time shared a common ancestor with the elephant, yet only two of those live constantly in water, and the elephant is the only land mammal in the world that does not have a pleural cavity. Just reading a couple of lines like that must make you want to get up, tear your bible in half with your bare hands and go out and find out for yourself what evolution is really all about. Either way, whatever happens, evolution of species will never be a gift of God, but a gift of nature.

[Pat Mustard]

What you don't seem to understand is that the science of animals STARTED with their categorization-- they were organized into families according to their similarities, and those similarities, for the most part, were readily apparent: wolves are pretty obviously related to dogs; birds of all types obviously share similar features, etc.  It can be seen that among animals which produce milk, there are also OTHER similarities: a predominance of 5 fingers, for example-- even in whales!  No assumptions are required-- animals ARE related, by their properties.

Now, it COULD be that a creator said, "I'm going to make a marine animal with flippers-- but just for kicks, let's give it the same number of hand bones as people."  Or it COULD be that whales are descended from animals which benefited from having multiple independently moving fingers.  It COULD be that God made monkeys and humans with very similar DNA, similar behaviors, similar brain parts, and so on, just for kicks.  Or it COULD be that the reason they have so many similarities because they are related.  It COULD be that some species have vestigial organs because God just wanted to test our faith in the Biblical accounts of creation.  Or it COULD be that those species are descended from others which benefited from those organs.


But I gotta tell you, and don't be insulted-- there's a very important difference between the Biblical account and the theory of evolution: the Biblical account is completely useless as a tool for investigation into the world, and the theory of evolution gives us all kinds of things to think about, to research, to hope for, and in general to use our giant monkey brains on.


And, as always, my usual disclaimer about real believers-- if you really believe God made the universe, and you are unwilling to draw connections and to seriously consider how living things are related because of what some 5000 year-old desert-dweller texts tell you, you are not only against science-- you are against God.  If God is truth, then only through seeking truth, and not trying to word-salad your way around it, will you actually be attempting to draw closer to the Lord.

So be a better Christian, and try to learn something about the world.

You misunderstand my point. I am not a literal 6-day creationist. I am agnostic on the subject. My point way back was genetics studies have rendered the traditional Tree of Life, not just wrong, but obsolete by finding that individual species have within their genes conflicting evolutionary histories. If this turns out to be a long-term mystery and the theory of common decent has certain facts that do not support it, what does this mean to the greater Theory of Evolution (modern synthesis)? So far I have heard that it won't affect it at all. I think that is rubbish.

You think that a simplistic analogy designed to give laymen a basic idea of what common descent (note correct spelling) being inaccurate disproves evolution? Sir, you are solely misguided, simplistic analogies don't disprive science when they are shown to be wrong, analogies like that are wrong as a matter of course because they massively simplify very complex ideas so that a basic understanding can be built up to make the complex ideas comprehensible ir to allow laymen a basic idea of the reality.

[LadyForCamus]

You misunderstand my point. I am not a literal 6-day creationist. I am agnostic on the subject. My point way back was genetics studies have rendered the traditional Tree of Life, not just wrong, but obsolete by finding that individual species have within their genes conflicting evolutionary histories. If this turns out to be a long-term mystery and the theory of common decent has certain facts that do not support it, what does this mean to the greater Theory of Evolution (modern synthesis)? So far I have heard that it won't affect it at all. I think that is rubbish.

You think that a simplistic analogy designed to give laymen a basic idea of what common descent (note correct spelling) being inaccurate disproves evolution? Sir, you are solely misguided, simplistic analogies don't disprive science when they are shown to be wrong, analogies like that are wrong as a matter of course because they massively simplify very complex ideas so that a basic understanding can be built up to make the complex ideas comprehensible ir to allow laymen a basic idea of the reality.

I didn't realize it was you, Constable D.!   I kept thinking, 'who is this GREAT new guy?!'  ?

[RobertE]

A nice link for you Steve. A nice read.

http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/comdesc/

[Mister Agenda]

When you use the same word with multiple meanings in the same sentence without making your meaning-switching explicit, you are equivocating and it's a form of lying when you do it deliberately and understand that it causes confusion. Since you complain about every third atheist complaining about this, you're aware. That just makes you a persistent liar.

Evolution is a fact. Gravity is a fact. The theory of evolution is a theory. The theory of gravity is a theory.

You don't have to be this stupid, it's a choice.

Wow, I've never seen MA get this worked up before.  I have to think that means you're less laid back that you let on.

Funny, other people don't have a problem not using the word in different ways in the same sentence. It's easy if you have the slightest care about not being ambiguous.

By this time you should understand the difference between 'evolution the fact' and 'evolution the theory'. Do you get this confused over 'gravity the fact' and 'gravity the theory'?

No one is getting 'fact' and 'theory' confused but the people with a stake in confusing them. No one, and I mean no one, on this thread is equivocating 'evolution is a fact' as 'the theory of evolution is a fact' except you and Steve. I wonder why that is?

MA is the most patient, even tempered person I've ever cyber-met.  Maybe you'd better come clean, motorcycle guy.  What are you here for and who sent you?

Clearly, I'm not always patient and even-tempered. When I get frustrated or exasperated, I know my sharp tongue often gets the better of me. But thank you for thinking of me that way. 

It's the kind of person I'd rather be, though, so I'll try a little harder. A merit I'll claim is that I don't hold grudges or carry stuff around to different topics. My mollification reflex is near-instantaneous and you're always as good as your last post as far as I'm concerned.

[The Grand Nudger]

Looks like this thread managed to answer the age old question "why die for a lie?".
-they didn't know any better.

[RobertE]

Looks like this thread managed to answer the age old question "why die for a lie?".
-they didn't know any better.

People are like that Rythym. I mean, my girlfriends nephew converted to Islam, and he sent me a clip of Dr Zakir Naik. Suffice to say, when I did some research on him, he sounds like a nasty piece of work. However, far be it for me to stick my nose in so, you just have to let people live their lives and keep your fingers crossed that they will come to their senses in the end. You know as well as I do that very few who decide to go back to a religion seldom leave, it would be too late.