Evolution, what evidence is there and what does creationism have?

[painted wolf]

What line? Can’t you see? Humans are humans, apes are apes, have you visited the Zoo lately?

yeah, that is why I'm curious.... biologically and genetically speaking we are nearly identical. Humans are classified as apes for very good reasons... and have been since the 1700's.

so my question is... what makes this an ape:

and this a human:

Where is the line between us?

wa:do

 

[fantome profane]

What line? Can’t you see? Humans are humans, apes are apes, have you visited the Zoo lately?

I have a suspicion here, and if I am wrong I apologize. But I suspect that you do not know the definition of the word “ape”.

When you refer to humans you are referring to a single species, but when you use the word “ape” you are referring to a group (a superfamily of primates) that includes many different species. If you were to go to the zoo you might look at a gibbon, and then look at a gorilla and see that they are clearly very different, they are different species but they are both apes. The human species belongs to the superfamily of "apes" just as gibbons, gorillas, orangutans and chimpanzees.

 

[Jose Fly]

Emiliano,

It's become quite apparent that you know very little about the subject of evolutionary biology. And that's fine...outside of professional biologists, there's really no reason for people to study the subject in any detail.

The problem is, despite your ignorance of the subject, you've figured yourself an expert who is qualified to tell everyone else how things are. Most people have enough sense to understand that when they don't know much about something, they don't try and pretend to be an expert in it.

Perhaps the important question here is, are you willing to take the necessary steps to study and learn about evolutionary theory? If so, there are plenty of folks here who can help.

 

[lincoln]

Evolution fails miserably when asked about its intermediary missing links. Where are they all ? Cats have always been cats, cows have always been cows. There is only evolution within a species.

Concerning apes ,it was always said that they communicate through gestures, and language evolved through gestures not vocalisation. After all babies use gestures before they speak. But a baby's throat is DESIGNED so that speech is only possible once the danger of choking over foof is past. Then the larynx drops to a suitable position for speech. This drop dosen't happen with primates.

 

[painted wolf]

So I take it you've never been to a museum of paleontology then?

wa:do

 

[emiliano]

Aha! The confusion begins to clear. So are you saying that you believe the earth is old, but do not accept the Theory of Evolution?

Well and since this is becoming clearer and you seem to accept that I was confusing the ToE with old earth theory let go on a bit longer on this, I believe that humankind underwent many changes and that that to me is evolution, what I don’t believe is that apes turned into humans at any time. That they where created humans and these changes were planed to go through this process, I also believe that there are more changes planed for the future, I believe that this process will bring more understanding as to the how of the creation.

 

[Autodidact]

Evolution fails miserably when asked about its intermediary missing links. Where are they all ? Cats have always been cats, cows have always been cows. There is only evolution within a species.

So Noah took two of each species on the ark then?

btw, did you know that scientists have actually observed new species coming into existence? During our lifetimes?

Did you know that the domesticated cow was bred from another species, the aurochs?

Do you reject all science or only Biology?

 

[Autodidact]

Well and since this is becoming clearer and you seem to accept that I was confusing the ToE with old earth theory let go on a bit longer on this, I believe that humankind underwent many changes and that that to me is evolution, what I don’t believe is that apes turned into humans at any time. That they where created humans and these changes were planed to go through this process, I also believe that there are more changes planed for the future, I believe that this process will bring more understanding as to the how of the creation.

Forget about humans, for heaven's sake. It's a simple question. O.K., let's make it even easier. Do you know what the Theory of Evolution (ToE) says? [hint: It's not primarily a theory about humans.]

 

[emiliano]

To themadhair,
I am convinced that God did it and that He did it in an awesome way and you are right continuing this discussion is pointless.
Stephen C. Meyer.

Meyer compares the sequencing of the amino acids to a language: “Amino acids alone do not make proteins, any more than letters alone make words, sentences or poetry.”9

The fact that the arrangement of the letters is not the result of chemical bonding has driven Meyer to conclude that, without intelligence, DNA would never be able to turn amino acids into proteins. He writes, “The chance of each amino acid finding the correct bond is one in twenty; the chance of one hundred amino acids hooking up to successfully make a functional protein is one in 1030.”10

And to survive, the protein chain must be contained within an intricate cellular architecture. That means that the odds against a protein being manufactured randomly are astronomical. It would be easier for a blindfolded person to find one special grain of sand hidden on one of the world’s beaches than to have a protein appear by chance.
http://www.y-origins.com/index.php?p=DNA7
DNA and Other Designs
Yet ordinary reason, and much scientific reasoning that passes under the scrutiny of materialist sanction, not only recognizes but requires us to recognize the causal activity of intelligent agents. The sculptures of Michelangelo, the software of the Microsoft corporation, the inscribed steles of Assyrian kings--each bespeaks the prior action of an intelligent agent. Indeed, everywhere in our high-tech environment we observe complex events, artifacts, and systems that impel our minds to recognize the activity of other minds--minds that communicate, plan, and design. But to detect the presence of mind, to detect the activity of intelligence in the echo of its effects, requires a mode of reasoning--indeed, a form of knowledge--the existence of which science, or at least official biology, has long excluded. Yet recent developments in the information sciences and within biology itself now imply the need to rehabilitate this lost way of knowing. As we do so, we may find that we have also restored some of the intellectual underpinning of traditional Western metaphysics and theistic belief.

Stephen C. Meyer, who did his doctoral work in the history and philosophy of science at Cambridge University, is Associate Professor of Philosophy at Whitworth College and Senior Research Fellow at the Discovery Institute in Seattle.
http://www.discovery.org/a/200

 

[emiliano]

Forget about humans, for heaven's sake. It's a simple question. O.K., let's make it even easier. Do you know what the Theory of Evolution (ToE) says? [hint: It's not primarily a theory about humans.]

Why would I do that? As you know I am also a believer in the doctrine that everything was created for human existence, and that humans are the only mammal that knows of His creator and not only that we can have communion with Him by virtue of our rationality. Forget instead about donkeys that decided to wear PJ at one stage, bananas that decided to be bananas and not humans.
My take on evolution is that all species have undergo changes trough out their existence, that presently living creatures are different that their ancestor.

 

[Autodidact]

O.K., so if I understand you right (which is hard because you don't give direct answers) you don't understand what ToE says, but you reject it. Is that right?

Please try to grasp that this is not a question about God. I am assuming, and I assume you are as well, that God created all things. So skip that, and let's move on to the how.

 

[Tristesse]

Why would I do that? As you know I am also a believer in the doctrine that everything was created for human existence, and that humans are the only mammal that knows of His creator and not only that we can have communion with Him by virtue of our rationality. Forget instead about donkeys that decided to wear PJ at one stage, bananas that decided to be bananas and not humans.
My take on evolution is that all species have undergo changes trough out their existence, that presently living creatures are different that their ancestor.

the Theory of evolution is about all things evolving, not just humans, although we underwent the same process, and are still going through it.

 

[emiliano]

[/font][/size]
yeah, that is why I'm curious.... biologically and genetically speaking we are nearly identical. Humans are classified as apes for very good reasons... and have been since the 1700's.

so my question is... what makes this an ape:

and this a human:

Where is the line between us?

wa:do

I’ve known people that look like gorillas, they are different but they are just plain ugly humans, we are humans and there is great diversity in our species but our ancestor we humans and our descendent will be humans.

 

[emiliano]

the Theory of evolution is about all things evolving, not just humans, although we underwent the same process, and are still going through it.

I’ve know people that look like gorillas, they are different but they are just plain ugly humans, we are humans and there is great diversity in our species but our ancestor we humans and our descendent will be humans.

 

[emiliano]

O.K., so if I understand you right (which is hard because you don't give direct answers) you don't understand what ToE says, but you reject it. Is that right?

Please try to grasp that this is not a question about God. I am assuming, and I assume you are as well, that God created all things. So skip that, and let's move on to the how.

It seems that I am not an evolutionist, as understand that there have been changes in humans and that created a diversity in the species, What do you call that?

 

[emiliano]

I have a suspicion here, and if I am wrong I apologize. But I suspect that you do not know the definition of the word “ape”.

When you refer to humans you are referring to a single species, but when you use the word “ape” you are referring to a group (a superfamily of primates) that includes many different species. If you were to go to the zoo you might look at a gibbon, and then look at a gorilla and see that they are clearly very different, they are different species but they are both apes. The human species belongs to the superfamily of "apes" just as gibbons, gorillas, orangutans and chimpanzees.

Relatives? they may be your, but not mine:areyoucra, no way Jose? Super family?

 

[Autodidact]

O.K., we've finally established that you reject ToE. Now, do you understand what ToE says?

 

[emiliano]

O.K., we've finally established that you reject ToE. Now, do you understand what ToE says?

No! Tell me I like to know how lemurs turned into monkeys turned into apes that turned into humans.

 

[themadhair]

Stephen C. Meyer, who did his doctoral work in the history and philosophy of science at Cambridge University, is Associate Professor of Philosophy at Whitworth College and Senior Research Fellow at the Discovery Institute in Seattle.
CSC - DNA and Other Designs

Funny you bring up Meyer. He has been challenged here:
YouTube - Challenging the Discovery Institute to Discover
Bear in mind that if Meyer cannot meet this challenge it pretty much proves that ID is not just worthless as a science, but that the discovery institute don’t do any ‘discovering’. Watch that video because it ties a little bit into the claims you quoted.

Moreover, had Meyer’s claims you quoted any merit then please answer me the following the question:

[SIZE=+3]Why did Meyer pull a runner from Dover and refuse to defend his ideas in court????[/SIZE]

The claims you quote emiliano are to do with abiogenesis, not evolutionary theory. I’ll be sure to answer them just as soon as you, or Meyer, present any positive evidence that ‘goddidit’.
This article debunks Meyer’s bogus probability calculations on amino sequences.

And finally, in order to detect design you must have either a metric or a set of criteria for detecting it. Please furnish me with such criteria or metric to verify your claim.

By the way, [SIZE=+3]did I mention that Meyer knows ID is bunk and refused to defend ID in court in Dover?[/SIZE]

 

[painted wolf]

I’ve known people that look like gorillas, they are different but they are just plain ugly humans, we are humans and there is great diversity in our species but our ancestor we humans and our descendent will be humans.

right.... but you have never known a human with a fully developed brain half the size of yours... or with the extensive differences in the ribcage, jaws, brow, and other features.

Nor have you seen an ape that walks upright with hands, feet, hips and knees and jaws like ours.

So where do you draw the line between them?

What makes the top one an ape (and not a human ancestor according to you) and the bottom one a fully fledged human (and our ancestor).

Where here do you draw the line? Which of these is human and which is "just an ape"?

wa:do