Evolution is a Big Lie

[Shermana]

Changing the subject now? Let's stick to the actual subject, since you want to ignore my questions, how long do you think it took for monkey-things to turn into Cro-magnon.

What is the current "concensus" on how long it took for man to develop from these mammalian creatures. Perhaps you'd also like to answer my question of how long you think it would take for the arched foot to develop, with all its complex specific muscles and bones. And how long it took to completely lose the tail while you're at it.

 

[Iti oj]

Huh? I really don't understand your point. You said that you expanded by saying that it involves fetal development, which is what I said initially about being a female chassis. How am I attacking you and your style? I don't see why this female-chassis-origin in any way discredits intelligent design. So if I say that I brought up a point before you did while you claim I ignore the point you made, that's "dissent"? I suppose I'm dissenting against your accusation that I ignored your point when I first brought it up to begin with.

Your argument that the tailbone and appendix not being as perfect as you think they should be way is more of an opinion than an argument, and you have yet to explain why the backbone is less than perfect for bipedalism (which also ventures into the territory of flaws in the evolution of the backbone)

how does it not discredit an intelligent designer especially a perfect one like God.

 

[Iti oj]

Changing the subject now? Let's stick to the actual subject, since you want to ignore my questions, how long do you think it took for monkey-things to turn into Cro-magnon.

What is the current "concensus" on how long it took for man to develop from these mammalian creatures. Perhaps you'd also like to answer my question of how long you think it would take for the arched foot to develop, with all its complex specific muscles and bones.

well which monkey thing do you want me to start from?

 

[Dirty Penguin]

Do not look at it as add or removed but in chnages maybe a gene splits into 2 maybe 2 genes merge together..these of course get altered in other ways too

Yep that's why I gave her the example of Chimp Chromosome #2

http://www.religiousforums.com/forum/2679658-post271.html

 

[painted wolf]

OK I am with you on this.I see these changes as information being affected. I know natural selection can select from information but the information must be there to select from.I understand how those processes are effecting information.I want to understand the process of new information being provided.Does mutation add new information or just effect pre existing information? I am honestly trying to understand this from a simplistic point of view.
Something is not clicking here for me and I can't pin point it.
For me it still makes more sense that all information is there from the beginning and as time goes on and the universe expands information is lost and effected by change.
I just can't buy into new information being added but easy to see information being lost.

There are a few mutations that can "add information".
One example is an insertion mutation... where a single nucleotide is inserted into a segment of DNA during duplication.

But the best example is a duplication mutation... where a larger segment (whole genes) are inserted into a string of DNA during duplication. This second copy can have several effects on the organism from good to bad to neutral.

Good- the extra copy of the gene means you can produce more of a beneficial product. An example in humans is a gene that helps us digest carbohydrates some populations of people have extra copies of this gene and that lets them digest carbs more efficiently.

Bad- The extra copy means you produce extra of a cell product that has a negative effect in high quantities. An example in humans is Huntington's disease where the more copies of the gene you have the worse the effects of the disease and the faster it develops.

Neutral- The extra copy of the gene doesn't have a measurable effect on the cell at all. In this case the extra copy of the gene is free to mutate in other ways and can become a new gene with a new purpose. An example of this is the antifreeze genes in Ice Fish.

wa:do

 

[Shermana]

how does it not discredit an intelligent designer especially a perfect one like God.

Answer my question first, how DOES it discredit? It doesn't discredit it whatsoever since they have actual use and function, the Tailbone is absolutely critical, the Appendix, like the loss of a single kidney, can be lived without, but it's much better to have one, and things like Appendicitis aren't much different than say intestinal cancer. Meanwhile, being born with nipples if anything is a problem for Evolution, since males should have lost it like we all lost tails, right? Otherwise, I don't see what's wrong with the idea of him making us in female chassis to begin with, why does that disprove his design? Maybe its just for aesthetics. Maybe its for extra protection of the critical chest area. Either way, it has more problems for Macro-evolution than intelligent design.

well which monkey thing do you want me to start from?

OLDEST MONKEY SKULL 15 million years old is the current "oldest known monkey". Now answer my question about how long you think it would take to completely lose the tail and develop arched feet, I'm keeping count of how many times I ask.

This 15-million-year-old skull is significant because it flies in the face of what scientists have believed about how the earliest monkeys looked and behaved," said Brenda R. Benefit, an associate professor of anthropology at Southern Illinois University. "It also challenges commonly held beliefs about how the ancient ancestors of apes--and humans--looked. And it influences where we can place other fossil catarrhines (Old World monkeys, apes and humans) on the evolutionary tree. The concept of ancestor influences everything else down the line."

 

[Iti oj]

cro-magnon was 40,000 years ago give or take archaic humans 160,000 years ago ergasts/erectus 1.8 million years ago 2 million yuears habilines 'ape men' about 3-4 million years ago.... should i keep going?

 

[Dirty Penguin]

Random mutations can either add or remove information but this really has nothing to do with whether they are harmful or beneficial. The sickle cell trait could be considered a loss of information for building proper red blood cells yet it gives you immunity to malaria so it is beneficial.

And this has always been one of my favorite example....:yes:

 

[Shermana]

Very good, you understand the timeline in the current models. Now once again, and I'm keeping count, how much time do you think would be needed to lose the tail and develop the arched foot with all its specific muscles and bones?

 

[Iti oj]

between 5-7 million years we split from chimps

 

[Iti oj]

Very good, you understand the timeline in the current models. Now once again, and I'm keeping count, how much time do you think would be needed to lose the tail and develop the arched foot with all its specific muscles and bones?

Why does what i think matter? im posting fact and a scientific evidence and knowledge. fyi if you didnt see i also post that between 5-7 million years ago we split from chimps.

 

[Dirty Penguin]

Ummm, what part about us starting as Female chassis didn't you get? Are you referring to that video with the spastastic guy?

This comes as a surprise because their scripture said man was created first and then "God" caused man to sleep and took from him to make a woman...So how did he start with the woman chassis first...?

 

[Shermana]

Why does what i think matter? im posting fact and a scientific evidence and knowledge. fyi if you didnt see i also post that between 5-7 million years ago we split from chimps.

No, you're posting scientific models and estimates. And outdated ones at that. The fact you call it "knowledge" as if its a concrete fact without any doubt demonstrates my point. Did you even click the link of the 15 million year old Monkey skull? Did you even read the quote I posted from it? It's causing their "knowledge" to come into question on the issue of the ancestry timeline. If you can't answer the question of how long it would take to lose the tail and develop arched feet in terms of actual science, you're demonstrating why I said that the there's a major unresolved paradox in the issue of how long it would take. If you refuse to answer the question, then thank you very much.

Painted wolf, perhaps you can help your friend here, how long do you think it would take to develop arched feet with all its muscles and bones specific to the task of bipedalism, and how long would it take to lose the tail?

 

[Iti oj]

No, you're posting scientific models and estimates. The fact you call it "knowledge" as if its a concrete fact without any doubt demonstrates my point. If you can't answer the question of how long it would take to lose the tail and develop arched feet in terms of actual science, you're demonstrating why I said that the there's a major unresolved paradox in the issue of how long it would take. If you refuse to answer the question, then thank you very much.

no just because you doubt evolution does not mean its not fact. nothing you post has suggested other wise. we show you evidence and you just ignore it. im already at 7 million years ago. you have no valid point and my opinion does not matter were talking about science.

 

[Shermana]

This comes as a surprise because their scripture said man was created first and then "God" caused man to sleep and took from him to make a woman...So how did he start with the woman chassis first...?

It's not necessarily a contradiction DP, if in the story man is created, he was created fully formed and didn't need to go through the gestation phase.

 

[Shermana]

no just because you doubt evolution does not mean its not fact. nothing you post has suggested other wise. we show you evidence and you just ignore it. im already at 7 million years ago. you have no valid point and my opinion does not matter were talking about science.

Okay, so once again that's a refusal to answer the question, and you totally ignored what I posted with the 15 million year old monkey skull causing the ancestry dates to come into doubt. Thank you very much.

 

[ImmortalFlame]

Okay, so once again that's a refusal to answer the question, and you totally ignored what I posted with the 15 million year old monkey skull causing the ancestry dates to come into doubt. Thank you very much.

Sources?

 

[painted wolf]

Changing the subject now? Let's stick to the actual subject, since you want to ignore my questions, how long do you think it took for monkey-things to turn into Cro-magnon.

What "monkey-thing" did you have in mind?

What is the current "concensus" on how long it took for man to develop from these mammalian creatures.

which one? From chimps it's about

Perhaps you'd also like to answer my question of how long you think it would take for the arched foot to develop, with all its complex specific muscles and bones. And how long it took to completely lose the tail while you're at it.

It took a couple of million years. From the very low arch in the foot of Ardipithicus to the almost modern arch in Australopithicus to the modern arch in Homo.

As for losing a tail... that is really common among primates. Many species of monkeys have extremely short to absent tails.

All apes lack a tail. The oldest apes date back between 34.5 and 29 million years ago. The oldest "monkey-things" way back to between 65 and 50 million years ago.

wa:do

 

[Shermana]

OLDEST MONKEY SKULL

Also posted on last page.

This 15-million-year-old skull is significant because it flies in the face of what scientists have believed about how the earliest monkeys looked and behaved," said Brenda R. Benefit, an associate professor of anthropology at Southern Illinois University. "It also challenges commonly held beliefs about how the ancient ancestors of apes--and humans--looked. And it influences where we can place other fossil catarrhines (Old World monkeys, apes and humans) on the evolutionary tree. The concept of ancestor influences everything else down the line."

So does anyone want to actually answer the question of how long it would take to develop the highly complex arched foot and lose the tail?

Edit: THank you for the respectful reply PW, I'll look into that, there's disagreement on what exactly Lucy's findings suggest. There's the question of why apes lost their tails to begin with. There's also question on how exactly the arched foot developed, which as I posted from that peer-reviewed article, no one has any real clue and there is vast disagreement on the very basics. Two million years for such a drastic change seems a bit lightning fast.

 

[Dirty Penguin]

It's not necessarily a contradiction DP, if in the story man is created, he was created fully formed and didn't need to go through the gestation phase.

Correct...so why does his offspring (male) have nipples? Surely a god would know that any male offspring would have no need for them. We're not the only male mammal with nipples and there are some out there (males) that do not have nipples. So it begs the question...Why, from the perspective of "God", do we have them if they serve no purpose. Evolution answers this question but religion has failed.