Darwin's Illusion

[Subduction Zone]

Again, try to think. Let's go over realtime experience again. If a group of people develop long legs, they.are.still.human.

Yep. And you do not seem to understand that you are still an ape.

Why do you think that a species evolves into something that it is not?

 

[ppp]

Again, try to think. Let's go over realtime experience again. If a group of people develop long legs, they.are.still.human.

@Polymath257 asked you a question. At do them the courtesy of a direct and concise answer.

 

[leroy]

Oh, you fooled me. I went back and looked. I was right. You only made an unsupported claim. Why am I not surprised at all. Sorry, now you can no longer claim that others are not doing their job. You keep making things worse for you:

See above post for details.

If you can make unsuported claims , why cant I?

 

[Dan From Smithville]

I've never used a cpap because I doubt if I could get to sleep wearing one so I thought this micro cpap would be a good compromise until I googled it and saw doctors review it, couldn't even blow a piece of toilet paper.

I don't think I've heard of micro CPAP. Doesn't sound like I need to look into it either.

 

[leroy]

Yep. And you do not seem to understand that you are still an ape.

Why do you think that a species evolves into something that it is not?

Semantics,

Adress his point

 

[Polymath257]

There is nothing, absolutely nothing to show, prove, demonstrate, validate that gorillas and humans evolved from a "Common Ancestor."

So you didn't answer my questions.

1. Do you agree that no animal that lived 20 million years ago was a gorilla?

2. Do you agree that all modern gorillas are descended from animals that lived 20 million years ago?

When you say that gorillas stay gorillas, you have to deny one or the other of thee two propositions. Which one?

 

[Polymath257]

They are still fruit flies. Unfortunately for your theories, there is and has not been proof oh that awful word again to show otherwise. Still fruitflies after all these years...yes...still fruitflies after all these years...

But different species. And, like I have been saying, the number of years is still quite small. What? Maybe 100 years? To get major changes requires much, much longer than that.

But we do have new species. And that means the small changes we see can add up to give large changes over more generations.

 

[Polymath257]

Here's something to ponder over...maybe your descendents will not need oxygen. No CPAP.

Unlikely because of the energetics. Oxygen is a very reative chemical and so is required for the higher energy reactions of multicellular life.

 

[leroy]

Again, try to think. Let's go over realtime experience again. If a group of people develop long legs, they.are.still.human.

Direct observation doest support evolution (common ancestry) as you said humans give birth to humans dogs to dogs and flies to flies.


But there are multiple lines of evidence that are better explained by evolution (common ancestry) which is why evolution should be prefered over ID


For example In all species there are things that seem to be broken genes, the remarcable fact is that say humans and chimps have the Same broken gene in the same location

Common ancestry explains this very good

But ID woul have to make a big adhoc in order to explain this. .... why would a designer create 2 independent species with the same "mistake" in the same location?


Obviously if you think deeply you might find some explanation.....but the problem is that there are docens of similar arguments comming from different áreas of science.....and any explanation that you give for this argument wouldn't work for other arguments.

So you ether insist in ID and make a big salad of adhoc arguments

Or you simply accept evolution (common ancestry) which nicely fits the evidence.

 

[Polymath257]

Like I am saying, humans with different breathing capacities within a group are still humans.

Sure. And apes that developed larger brains and lost hair are still apes. And, when they learned how to use tools, developed agriculture, and literature, they are *still* apes.

But they are still very different than the apes that lived 5 million years ago. NONE of the apes from 5 million years ago composed literature. Now, the hairless apes with large brains do.

 

[ppp]

I don't think I've heard of micro CPAP. Doesn't sound like I need to look into it either.

I got a micro CPAP to make travel easier. It was a waste of money.

 

[YoursTrue]

Proof?

You haven't heard about particular human groups with very long legs? As opposed to groups with short-er legs?

If you can make unsuported claims , why cant I?

Because...

 

[leroy]

Of course I quote and explain perceived mistakes. That's the sine qua non of debate - rebuttal. When do you think I failed to quote an alleged mistake or fallacy? Are you referring to my refusal to find posts you say you never saw? Find them yourself.

Yes that would be an example of an alleged mistake, where you are expected to show that it really was mistake.

That doesn't answer my question. I asked you what your purpose was on these threads,

Learn and share opinions.

what you were hoping to accomplish. You seem to like this role you're playing here, but if so, I can't see what need it fills. In your position, I would have done the search and reported my findings to you.

That is exactly what I did, I searched for your alleged response and reported that I found nothing but vague and undeveloped hypothesis such as

Mistakes

Lies


I asked you to develop a specific hypothesis in detail....... and you lied by saying that you already did it.

Anyway, I'll answer for you as I think you would if you were forthcoming about your thoughts and feelings. I believe that unlike the people you "debate," you have no desire to learn, teach, or to cooperate with others.

That is a very unfair accusation given that I coopareted and responded to your demands with detail......even at the expense of ignoring other posts made by other users.

 

[YoursTrue]

Sure. And apes that developed larger brains and lost hair are still apes. And, when they learned how to use tools, developed agriculture, and literature, they are *still* apes.

But they are still very different than the apes that lived 5 million years ago. NONE of the apes from 5 million years ago composed literature. Now, the hairless apes with large brains do.

such a remarkable difference, IF that is true about larger brains. Yes, a quite remarkable and likely inexplicable difference. Want to explain it? Maybe they began figuring what grunts mean in various ways? In order to write them down?

 

[YoursTrue]

Direct observation doest support evolution (common ancestry) as you said humans give birth to humans dogs to dogs and flies to flies.


But there are multiple lines of evidence that are better explained by evolution (common ancestry) which is why evolution should be prefered over ID


For example In all species there are things that seem to be broken genes, the remarcable fact is that say humans and chimps have the Same broken gene in the same location

Common ancestry explains this very good

But ID woul have to make a big adhoc in order to explain this. .... why would a designer create 2 independent species with the same "mistake" in the same location?


Obviously if you think deeply you might find some explanation.....but the problem is that there are docens of similar arguments comming from different áreas of science.....and any explanation that you give for this argument wouldn't work for other arguments.

So you ether insist in ID and make a big salad of adhoc arguments

Or you simply accept evolution (common ancestry) which nicely fits the evidence.

Actuall;y, I do not think that every organism on earth is a result of specific creation. It is possible that some groups developed genetically, within their group of sorts. In other words, fish did not eventually evolve to become elephants. And/or--
For instance: Polycephaly - Wikipedia.

 

[Polymath257]

such a remarkable difference, IF that is true about larger brains. Yes, a quite remarkable and likely inexplicable difference. Want to explain it? Maybe they began figuring what grunts mean in various ways? In order to write them down?

Well, writing came long after the basics of language. In this regard, writing is *very* recent, only about 5000 years old. Language and symbolic representation is much older (as are modern humans). So this isn't a biological difference, only a cultural one.

But yes, many *modern* primates communicate through various vocalizations. As brains got larger, those vocalizations became more complex. Determining when the 'line' for language was crossed probably can't be determined from the fossils (although there is evidence that H Erectus had anatomical adaptations corresponding to language) and there is a definitional problem in even say what is and what is not language.

Writing arose from marks made on vessels to represent what was inside the vessels. It gradually became more complicated and we have examples of the steps in that process. I would suggest looking into the archeology related to the rise of writing.

 

[Polymath257]

Actuall;y, I do not think that every organism on earth is a result of specific creation. It is possible that some groups developed genetically, within their group of sorts. In other words, fish did not eventually evolve to become elephants.

You realize that the diversity of 'fish' is very large? And so they cannot all be of the same 'kind' unless you want to allow all mammals (including humans) to be of the same 'kind'.

 

[leroy]

Actuall;y, I do not think that every organism on earth is a result of specific creation. It is possible that some groups developed genetically, within their group of sorts. In other words, fish did not eventually evolve to become elephants.

I understand that.

Buy would a creator create useless genetic marckers (like broken genes) in the same spot, in different independient species?

If you find the same spelling mistake in two different editions of harry potter , you would assume that both editions where copied from a common source (and that the common source had that spelliing mistake)

If you claim that both editions where written independently, it becomes inexplicable why would they have the same spelling mistake in the same word and in the same sentence.

 

[Polymath257]

Actuall;y, I do not think that every organism on earth is a result of specific creation. It is possible that some groups developed genetically, within their group of sorts. In other words, fish did not eventually evolve to become elephants.
For instance: Polycephaly - Wikipedia.

But to agree with the fossil record, those 'special creations' have to be distributed throughout time and be different for each group of animal or plant.

So, for example, the 'special creation' for dog-like animals was after that for the various types of dinosaur and was at a different time than thr 'special creation' for different primates.

Here's the problem. The scientists that *originally* studied these things expected to see evidence of a flood and special creation. They quickly realized the actual evidence doesn't support either.

Their fallback position became an assumption of multiple catastrophes with the flood simply being the last. This allowed for very different animals between the various catastrophes while allowing for stasis for each species.

But then they realized that was also not consistent with the actual evidence. Different types of animal arose at different times, but there were no catastrophes evident separating them AND the times for the appearance of different 'types' didn't match any particular time sequence.

This was why scientists originally realized that species are not static: they do, in fact, change over time.

 

[YoursTrue]

@Polymath257 asked you a question. At do them the courtesy of a direct and concise answer.

are you addressing this to me? If so can you repeat the question please?