A Challenge To All Creationists

[metis]

Does that mean you think, ""Science doesn't tell us......... that we come from "low orders of animals."" isn't true?

I guess that depends on how one might define "low orders...", which biologically we tend not to use that kind of terminology. If the above terminology is asking whether we evolved over the eons with many changes physiologically and socially, then the answer is clearly yes.

 

[Ouroboros]

Someone pictures evolution like a tree. The new life forms are higher than the previous life forms from which the new ones evolved.

The modern view is a circle or a spiral, where the "higher forms" and "lower forms" are all around.


I think what you're really are thinking of is the complexity of a species. There are species that are more complex and have more traits and abilities that others, and therefore, in a way, "higher" form. Now, in evolution, it's not really an issue, because when it comes to complexity of the DNA, there are species that have more complex DNA than other "higher" species. In other words, corn for instance, is extremely complex DNA, while some animals have less complex DNA than the corn. Basically, higher or lower in some form of complexity or importance or number of traits etc is not really useful in evolution. It doesn't help or server any purpose.

However, in psychology, philosophy, and other sciences and studies, there might be classifications talking about different hierarchical levels of life, but I think it's very uncommon in evolution to think that way.

(Here's a picture of the circle of life, but for some reason it won't show in the post)

https://phys.org/newman/gfx/news/hires/2015/treeoflifefo.jpg

 

[omega2xx]

He said the exact opposite. He said transitionals between larger groups are "abundant".

I don' think he said that, but I don't have his quote. Mayer said they are rare and he is squalified a Gould

]Yes there are.....tons of them. We even have data sets that are pretty much all transitionals. If I post an example, will you look at it, or are you still operating under your ridiculous framework of refusing to look at anything?

If you can post an example, you can post the evidence.. To say all fossils are transitional is the most unscientific straw man the evos have invented yet. It ia an attemp to to hide the fact that you have no transitional fossils AND KNOW IT.

Thanks for your input. I'm sure scientists all across the world will pay heed.

show evidence of having been brainwashed in our wonderful public school system However I am not offering my opinions, it comes from creation scientist, who are just a educationally qualified as your heroes in the faith.

 

[omega2xx]

Non-sequitur. Gould says fossils are rare nothing more. You follow up with an assertion, nothing more. I can do that too

Despite all Omega's talk on creationism he actually believes in evolution. He only brings up creationism to save face with his fellow Christians.

Saying fossils are rare is enough. If evolution was true, the great majority of fossils would be transitional and they are not.

I have NEVER believed in evolution. anyone who believes all life forms animal and plants, had a single origin, amdf uou don't even know what the origin was, is in bad need of some understanding of basic biology.

 

[Jose Fly]

I don' think he said that, but I don't have his quote.

I gave you the link earlier. Once again we see how your refusal to look at anything that doesn't tell you what you want to hear distorts your perception of reality.

"Since we proposed punctuated equilibria to explain trends, it is infuriating to be quoted again and again by creationists—whether through design or stupidity, I do not know—as admitting that the fossil record includes no transitional forms. Transitional forms are generally lacking at the species level, but they are abundant between larger groups." S. Gould in Evolution as Fact and Theory

If you can post an example, you can post the evidence.

It's from a scientific source. Will you even look at it?

However I am not offering my opinions, it comes from creation scientist, who are just a educationally qualified as your heroes in the faith.

And what contributions to our scientific understanding of the world has this "creation scientist" made?

 

[Skwim]

Imagine all life is moving up, so then all the ones before are lower.

So . . . when you say

"I am sure the theory of evolution holds the opinion that humans DO come from a lower order of animal."​

what you mean by "lower order" is nothing more than "prior forms" or "ancestral species" If so, your choice of wording is unfortunate.


.

 

[Shad]

Saying fossils are rare is enough. If evolution was true, the great majority of fossils would be transitional and they are not.

Empty claim and another non-sequitur

I have NEVER believed in evolution. anyone who believes all life forms animal and plants, had a single origin, amdf uou don't even know what the origin was, is in bad need of some understanding of basic biology.

You are just saving face by saying so. After all assertions must be true according to your logic.

It is amusing to see the outrage when I put words in your mouth but you have no issue doing it with Gould.

 

[SkepticThinker]

Science doesn't say that people come from animals? Or science doesn't say we come from a lower order of animals?

It doesn't say we come from monkeys. And it doesn't say we come from "low orders" of animals, though I'm not entirely sure what he means by that. I was thinking he was talking about animals that were "more evolved" or "less evolved," which isn't really a concept in evolution. But maybe I'm wrong and he meant something else.

Of course, we are animals.

Edit: I see this has already been thoroughly dealt with.

 

[omega2xx]

I gave you the link again we see how your refusal to look at anything that doesn't tell you what you want to hear distorts your perception of reality.


I have told you why I have quite looking at links. If that desnlt satisify you, that;s your problem I knowwht Gould lsaid, I just do have his exact quote.

"Since we proposed punctuated equilibria to explain trends, it is infuriating to be quoted again and again by creationists—whether through design or stupidity, I do not know—as admitting that the fossil record includes no transitional forms. Transitional forms are generally lacking at the species level, but they are abundant between larger groups." S. Gould in Evolution as Fact and Theory

http://www.stephenjaygould.org/library/gould_fact-and-theory.html

Thanks, but I never doubted you didn't quote him correctly. He is wrong about having an abundant number between larger groups. Mayr said the fossil record was "woefully inadequate." If he is right you can't have an abundant number anywhere in teh record.


It's from a scientific source. Will you even look at it?

No. I have been in forums like this for over 20 years. I have looked an hundreds of links. To date not one of the contained any real scientific evidence that suports evolution. Also, I want you to post what you consider the scientific evidence is.

And what contributions to our scientific understanding of the world has this "creation scientist" made?

What contributions to our understanding of the world has the TOE made?

 

[Ouroboros]

It doesn't say we come from monkeys. And it doesn't say we come from "low orders" of animals, though I'm not entirely sure what he means by that. I was thinking he was talking about animals that were "more evolved" or "less evolved," which isn't really a concept in evolution. But maybe I'm wrong and he meant something else.

Of course, we are animals.

Edit: I see this has already been thoroughly dealt with.

Agree. Just to add some thoughts I had...

I think this idea of "higher" and "lower" comes from the religious culture that we have. The idea that humans are the top of the creation, like a pyramid, with different layers of simpler life forms under us, and we're the great caretakers. This idea is totally anthropocentric. Humans as the best thing we know of, so we're so great and awesome, so therefore we're of course on the top of all animals. Well, it's a view that can't be measured or qualified that well, so it's not a useful scientific property of life forms. What trait decides that a species is higher up or lower down in the pyramid?

 

[omega2xx]

Empty claim and another non-sequitur

Thanks for confirming you don't have the knowledge to understand the fossil record. Whatever the evos say, you lap it up and never question the evidence they present.

You are just saving face by saying so. After all assertions must be true according to your logic.

You have no way of knowing my motives. F, I rejected evolution for 4o years befdor I accepted cratgionism.

[/QUOTE]It is amusing to see the outrage when I put words in your mouth but you have no issue doing it with Gould.[/QUOTE]



You also don't have the intellect to call my responses, rage. 3 strikes and yer out.

 

[savagewind]

So . . . when you say

"I am sure the theory of evolution holds the opinion that humans DO come from a lower order of animal."​

what you mean by "lower order" is nothing more than "prior forms" or "ancestral species"

Correct. Although I still think humans might be considered higher as they can actually influence evolution on purpose.

If so, your choice of wording is unfortunate.

But I think it is fortunate because they are talking to me.

 

[Skwim]

But I think it is fortunate because they are talking to me.

Just keep in mind that talking to one's self and talking to others may require a different use of the language.


.

 

[savagewind]

Just keep in mind that talking to one's self and talking to others may require a different use of the language.


.

I think it should be obvious by now that I do not communicate to be liked.

 

[Evangelicalhumanist]

Please. You can't prove anything about a bone except that it's a bone. To think you can is ridiculous.

And to suppose you cannot know something about it through examination using the tools of science is abysmally ignorant. You can. (Well, I don't suppose you can, but those with a very little training certainly can.)

 

[Evangelicalhumanist]

Imagine all life is moving up, so then all the ones before are lower.

But this is simply not true. Fish that could once see, that got trapped in a permanently dark cave, have lost their eyesight. They still have vestigial eyes, but they don't work. Eyes (like everything else) are expensive to produce in a biological sense, so if they're not doing any good, why pay the expense? So is having one of your senses slowly atrophy really "moving up?"

 

[savagewind]

But this is simply not true. Fish that could once see, that got trapped in a permanently dark cave, have lost their eyesight. They still have vestigial eyes, but they don't work. Eyes (like everything else) are expensive to produce in a biological sense, so if they're not doing any good, why pay the expense? So is having one of your senses slowly atrophy really "moving up?"

Some blind person might think so.

 

[Jose Fly]

I have told you why I have quite looking at links. If that desnlt satisify you, that;s your problem

As I said before, it serves as a good example of the creationist approach to reality......don't look.

He is wrong about having an abundant number between larger groups.

Nope. He even described some in the article the quote came from. Just because you refuse to look at something, doesn't mean it doesn't exist.

No. I have been in forums like this for over 20 years. I have looked an hundreds of links. To date not one of the contained any real scientific evidence that suports evolution. Also, I want you to post what you consider the scientific evidence is.

It's difficult to do justice to the level of delusion shown here. You declare that you refuse to look at links to scientific sources, then in the same post you demand I post scientific evidence.

If you don't see the problem with that, you should stop for a bit and think on it.

What contributions to our understanding of the world has the TOE made?

The understanding of evolutionary relationships between taxa is the means by which we figure out the functions of genetic sequences. Our understanding of how populations evolve over time is how we develop new vaccines, antibiotics, and pesticides.

I've posted links to all of these, but of course you won't look at them. Such is the nature of creationism.

 

[Evangelicalhumanist]

Some blind person might think so.

Please read my question again, and tell me that you really think that is an appropriate response.

 

[gnostic]

I think you focused on the wrong word. Survival happens after the first new thing appears. It being new and survives means it is better than from what it came. Or why else would have the thing before it evolved?

No, you are still looking at it wrongly, by overthinking what you think evolution is.

Everything that are alive now (as in today), are because they have survived, and it has adapted.

Evolution doesn't mean evolving into "perfect" life organisms. There are no such thing as a perfect species of any creature.

If the rainforest in Canada were to become arid wasteland, the populations of creatures living there would have to adapt and evolve, or risk becoming extinct.

This is what Natural Selection is. Animals choosing mates to produce offspring, that are better suited for changed environment.

Survival is everyday, from birth to death. You are forgetting that the environments can change, and with change, survival is not just just the first appearance. When on earth do get this silly idea that appear survival only required in the first appearance?