SkepticThinker
Veteran Member
APES.
-
Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:- Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
- Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
- Access to private conversations with other members.
We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!
Evolution is not observable admits Jerry Coyne
- Thread starter *blank*
- Start date
The fact that we alter environments to suit our needs instead of theirs does disadvantage them.
But this isn't strictly a matter of evolution, so much as it's our decision to cause this.
Ouroboros
Coincidentia oppositorum
LOL!
The most obvious sign in the quote from "Dawkins" that it's false. He knows that we didn't evolve from monkeys, and evolutionists know as well, so that quote is clearly invented by some "honest" (...troll, cough, cough) creationist.
SkepticThinker
Veteran Member
Um yeah!! LOL
I am waiting for Guy to provide the original source showing that Dawkins said this and that it is not taken out of context. I'm sure he wouldn't lie.
dust1n
Zindīq
I also am not sure how he reconciles that quote with this, indisputable, but entirely unsourced quote from Jesus:
Case settled.
Guy Threepwood
Mighty Pirate
Right, so we acquired a massive evolutionary advantage- over not just monkeys but millions of other species- by gaining our intelligence, the ability to make those decisions
yet in millions of following years, no monkey or ape any other animal acquired this incredibly advantageous capability.. which was yet supposedly the product of an entirely natural immutable force of constant adaptation.
The 'why are there still monkeys' question is just one of the most obvious of many instances of a final destination, reached quickly and never affected by this all powerful process-
which apparently endowed the most difficult of all design breakthroughs.. sentience on humans practically overnight, yet couldn't blunder into any significant improvement on the design of a horseshoe crab in half a billion years!
Guy Threepwood
Mighty Pirate
I also am not sure how he reconciles that quote with this, indisputable, but entirely unsourced quote from Jesus:
Case settled.
It's only indisputable if it's printed over a photograph of the actual person!
dust1n
Zindīq
Good point. No one could simply just make up words and put quote marks around them and put that on a picture, unless the picture in question wasn't a picture of the real person. Then, it would be physically impossible to do that.
Ouroboros
Coincidentia oppositorum
I tried to find it, but it seems to have roots in some obscure "quote" database file without any sources. It's most likely made up by some truth searching creationist. It's a very strange moral compass God gives them. I'm not sure how morality can be rooted in a creationist God when some creationists start to straight out lie like this?
Ouroboros
Coincidentia oppositorum
"Evolution is true." Mark 19:32I also am not sure how he reconciles that quote with this, indisputable, but entirely unsourced quote from Jesus:
Case settled.
"Creationism is false" John 36:57
We can do this all day long.
Guy Threepwood
Mighty Pirate
So why do you think there are still Monkeys, why would the process that can accidentally endow significant design improvements in a single individual, withhold this obvious advantage from monkeys? for millions of years?
Ouroboros
Coincidentia oppositorum
Yes. It's some kind of magical supernatural things with computers. You just can't attach a false quote to a picture if it's the real person. I think it's called the "Troll Factor" or something.
Clearly, this is a milestone in evolution of life, ie, that a critter can consciously alter the course of evolution of one's own & multiple other species.
dust1n
Zindīq
I want you to image something for a moment. Imagine you have two groups of apes. Not unheard of, right? Apes travel in groups, they don't travel in one giant ape group.
So take Ape Group 1, and take Ape Group 2. They start in a similar area, but separate, maybe do to weather, maybe just following the food source around... Ape Group 1 more or less travels around in areas that are pretty similar to the original area. So, they have kids, the kids look like normal, and for the most part none of them die. Ape Group 2 go North into some mountainous area and stumble upon an elevated region where it's 40 degrees. Generally, the kids Ape Group 2 is having is having a harder time surviving the cold. However, one of the ape's is born with a random mutation where their fur is slightly thicker. The baby lives, and goes on to reproduce a bunch, and all of its kids have slightly thicker coats, and so none of them die in the cold. However, all the other kids in Ape Group 2 are dying. So any ape in Ape Group 2 with that gene for thicker coats, is going to reproduce more effectively, meaning the gene for the thicker coat is going to become more abundant then the original gene. However, in Ape Group 1, that same mutation for a thicker coat would a problem, because it's not actually colder there.
So you have Ape Group 2 with a different gene frequency than Ape Group 1, even though they all the same ancestor.
It's no different for brains... monkeys have different sized brains. The brain slowly grew bigger, allowing beings to get slowly smarter over time...
Guy Threepwood
Mighty Pirate
Yes, and the only critter in millions that is conscious of creation itself, that can ponder it's meaning and purpose along with our own. Is able to deduce in turn intelligent agency behind it, and be thankful for it.
Complete coincidence perhaps, but perhaps there exists the possibility of a less improbable explanation
Fred Hoyle estimates the following probabilities for chance, random arrangement of amino acids:- (14)
- 10-19 for a ten amino acid polypeptide
- 10-20 for a functional enzyme
- 10-130 for the histone H4 molecule
- 10-40,000 for all of life's 2,000 enzymes
Ouroboros
Coincidentia oppositorum
What's even more stupid with the fake quote is that we do know why there are still monkeys. We learned it in week 3 of introduction to biological/physical anthropology. It's called speciation. It's the foundation for how evolution works. Dawkins knows about this quite well, since he's talked about it in his books. So the quote is obviously false.
Those numbers don't make sense.
Probability would be between 0 & 1.
But whatever he calculated, I'll wager that his methods are sorely inadequate in
light of modern biology's beginning to grok alternate pathways to a given result.
And we've a lot to learn still.
Shad
Veteran Member
Hoyle discredited himself years ago. Why do you think anyone here cares about Hoyle? You only mention him as it is useful for your strawman argument. Beside Hoyle had odd ideas about abiogenesis which the modern field rejects.