More News on the Changing Evolution Scene :-) !!! :-)

[TagliatelliMonster]

When contrasting the theory with what the Bible says about creation, and when I contemplate these things such as the way things are now in organisms, I have decided that what the Bible says about creation is true

How did you contrast the theory of evolution with what the bible says, when you never bothered to learn even only the basics of the theory of evolution?

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

Not sure what you're saying here.

Uhu. This is part of your problem. You don't understand the difference between claims, evidence and explanation

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

For one thing, tribal similarities such as aborigine or Hutu do not change the fact they are humans. The proof of genetics is there now as far as them staying human. That is not evolution as far as the Darwinian concept.

If humans would produce non-humans, evolution theory would be disproven.


This is how bad it is. The evidence you demand to believe in evolution, would actually disprove it if it would exist.

This reveals that you literally have no clue on what it is exactly that you are arguing against.
Perhaps you should reflect on that a bit.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

Finches still stay birds and in the finch family.

Evolution would be disproven if they weren't.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

Because they're not human, chimpanzees are not gorillas. When it is demonstrated beyond question I'll believe gorillas, humans, chimps and bonobos came from a common ancestor.

It already has been.

DNA.

DNA allows you to trace ancestry.
And the family tree of life it produces, matches the one that is obtained from comparative anatomy. It also matches the geographic distribution of species (and fossils) and even makes sense in context of pangea breaking up. ie, we don't see kangaroo's or kangaroo fossils outside of australia.

Common ancestry of species = genetic fact.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Evolution would be disproven if they weren't.

It looks like he might subscribe to the Kent Hovind strawman of evolution.

 

[Astrophile]

Finches still stay birds and in the finch family.

Humans still stay primates and in the ape family.

 

[Astrophile]

For one thing, tribal similarities such as aborigine or Hutu do not change the fact they are humans. The proof of genetics is there now as far as them staying human. That is not evolution as far as the Darwinian concept.

The same genetic evidence that shows that Australian aboriginals and Hutus are humans and descended from a common human ancestor also shows that humans, chimpanzees, bonobos and gorillas are apes and descended from a common simian ancestor. Why do you find it so difficult to understand this evidence?

 

[YoursTrue]

It has been demonstrated beyond any reasonable doubt. I have now posted a link to an article about just a small part of the genetic evidence in reply to you at least three times, probably four, the latest being in #101, and I'm not the only one who's given you links to detailed evidence. Nobody can force you to look at the evidence but if you don't, why should anybody take your claims about the lack of evidence at all seriously?

The missing link has not been found, yet you keep telling me there must be a link somewhere, somehow. Granted, I understand the reasoning, but -- it's based on a theory, and along with the theory is something some call proof of the theory because of fossils changing, or genetic similarities. But again -- these things do not prove evolution of the Darwinian kind.

 

[YoursTrue]

Humans still stay primates and in the ape family.

They might as well be in the family from the first atomic structure. (Why not?) Furthermore, humans do not become finches, there's a rather vast difference unless you want to argue there is not, and interestingly enough, while it is thought that gorillas, humans, chimpanzees, etc. come from some unknown common ancestor, as of yet, chimpanzees stay chimpanzees and they are not humans.

 

[YoursTrue]

The same genetic evidence that shows that Australian aboriginals and Hutus are humans and descended from a common human ancestor also shows that humans, chimpanzees, bonobos and gorillas are apes and descended from a common simian ancestor. Why do you find it so difficult to understand this evidence?

No, just because bacteria are found in virtually every organism does not mean that bacteria are human. Or gorillas.

 

[YoursTrue]

Because that's how evolution works. It produces variations WITHIN the taxa. Hence why humans are descended from apes, because humans are a variation of ape. Apes are descended from mammals, and are a variation of mammals. Mammals are descended from vertebrates, and are a variation of vertebrates. And vertebrates are descended from eukaryotes, and are a variation of eukaryotes.

The "x is still x" argument is not evidence against evolution. All it really does is demonstrate that you have absolutely zero knowlege of how evolution works and what evolutionary theory states.

You're the ones telling me what it states. At least you still call it a theory. Anyway, it's been interesting.

 

[YoursTrue]

False. And also the word 'kind' is an undefined creationist term, not one from evolutionary theory - which suggests that you may have been reading creationist propaganda sources rather than the real evidence.



Firstly, the use of the word 'kind' again suggests your source. Secondly, what do you think stops lots and lots of small changes from adding up to very large ones? Thirdly, you've been given references to genetic evidence by myself (Genesis and the Genome - pdf) and others many times and you just ignore it.

OK, I read it. And I believe that God created Adam different from other creations. I also believe that living things came about as described in Genesis. Do I believe that various forms may have similar genetics? (Yes, you guessed it.)

 

[We Never Know]

More news to ponder over -- scientists pondering once again -- "“Maybe brain size isn’t all it’s cracked up to be,” said Hawks. “It opens the door for us to say that maybe they were more capable than we might assume; maybe it isn’t just (brain) size.”
Uh huh -- maybe it's not just brain size. Maybe.
Homo sapien’s ‘Shadow’ Species --"Hints We May Have Had Story of Evolution All Wrong" | The Daily Galaxy

"Changing evolution scene"

That's an odd title being that evolution is responsible for and is always changing the scene.

 

[ratiocinator]

The missing link has not been found, yet you keep telling me there must be a link somewhere, somehow. Granted, I understand the reasoning, but -- it's based on a theory, and along with the theory is something some call proof of the theory because of fossils changing, or genetic similarities. But again -- these things do not prove evolution of the Darwinian kind.

This just shows again that you don't have the first clue about science. A theory in the scientific sense is as good as it gets. It means and explanation which is well supported by evidence and testing. Theories are never proved. DNA, fossils, direct observation, and so on, provide comprehensive evidence from different and independent sources.

 

[ratiocinator]

OK, I read it. And I believe that God created Adam different from other creations. I also believe that living things came about as described in Genesis. Do I believe that various forms may have similar genetics? (Yes, you guessed it.)

If you read it (with any comprehension at all) you should know that it's not just about similarities but about the exact nature of those similarities. So how do you explain the specifics? For example, if humans were made differently why is there a broken version of the gene for making egg yoke in the place in our genome we'd expect it if we evolved from egg laying ancestors? Why all the broken olfactory receptor genes, whose exact mutations lead us to conclude the same relationship between humans, chimpanzees, gorillas, and orangutans we'd deduced from other evidence?

If we are a special creation, then the creator has gone to a great deal of trouble to make it look exactly like we evolved.

 

[ImmortalFlame]

You're the ones telling me what it states.

Well... yeah. Because you don't know or understand it.

Do you not think it's weird how you are arguing against something you don't even know anything about? Do you not think that indicates that maybe you're not arguing against it for good reasons?

At least you still call it a theory. Anyway, it's been interesting.

So, not only do you not understand what evolution says, you don't understand that scientific theories are the highest form of explanatory framework, and that something can be BOTH a theory AND a fact.

For instance, gravity is the name we give to a force that attracts smaller objects to larger ones. Gravity is a fact. The THEORY of gravity is how science EXPLAINS the fact.

Why do so many creationists utterly fail to not only understand evolution and what it is, but fail to grasp even basic scientific knowledge? Do you seriously think you're going to overturn nearly 200 years of research without even knowing what a theory is? It would be like me claiming I can overturn the entirety of Christian theology, and when somebody asks me who Jesus Christ was, I'm just like "Aren't they that guy from that Big Lebowski movie?"

 

[Valjean]

Finches still stay birds and in the finch family.

No, over time they'll diverge into a new family. Given enough time they may evolve into something quite different from birds.

This is evidence-supported. Magic poofing is not.

 

[Valjean]

God endowed humans with special qualities. Different from other organisms. Each in its own type of consciousness, or world of thought or activity.

Naked mole rats and slime molds have special qualities, too. So what?
The "special qualities" of any organism can be accounted for by ordinary, familiar, observable evolutionary mechanisms. No divine guidance and magic needed.

The Bible says that God created animals according to their kind. Birds, according to their kind, water creatures according to their kind and so forth.
Genesis 1 verses 20-21 says:
Then God said: “Let the waters swarm with living creatures, and let flying creatures fly above the earth across the expanse of the heavens. And God created the great sea creatures and all living creatures that move and swarm in the waters according to their kinds and every winged flying creature according to its kind."
So water creatures were created to live according to their kind, same with flying creatures. According to their kind.

You must realize that this is not a biological text, and "kind" is a generic term.
These writers had no knowledge of history or biology.

 

[wellwisher]

The same genetic evidence that shows that Australian aboriginals and Hutus are humans and descended from a common human ancestor also shows that humans, chimpanzees, bonobos and gorillas are apes and descended from a common simian ancestor. Why do you find it so difficult to understand this evidence?

One thing that evolution ignores is consciousness. For example, everyone in these discussion forums have human DNA. However, we do not all think the same. There are two extremes of intellectual adaptation; religious and atheist. These often cannot see eye to eye.

The brain and consciousness are not as uniform as human DNA. You cannot just look at my DNA and tell me my attitude toward reality. The reason is my brain is not just influence by my DNA, but also by external input through my five sensory systems, as well as the internal/external neutral synthesis of the two. Consciousness is wider than the DNA?

In story of Adam and Eve, neither were born in the conventional biological way. The bible was not taking about DNA or biological. After Adam and Eve are exiled then they used biological reproduction. What made Adam and Eve unique was free will and choice, which are connected to their brain and consciousness. The changes into Adam and Eve occurred within their consciousness and not their DNA. They could produce human sons with human DNA.

The DNA is very conservative and based on template relationships. Consciousness is more open and moldable to external influences through our fives senses. The DNA is not moldable with the cells having many failsafe methods to prevent changes.

The first humans to form civilization, had human DNA. This was the same human DNA shared by those who maintained the old ways of migratory herding and gathering. The difference was not in the DNA, but in in the brain and consciousness. A new species of humans appears with the same human DNA, based on changes within the brain and consciousness; updated operating system based on the interaction of nature with nurture.

The problem science has is they have no consensus definition for consciousness that is as straight forward as DNA, for physical attributes. They take the shallow path of comparing the outer shell and ignoring the guts of consciousness. The consciousness path is the path taken by religion. New ideas like God, has a profound influence on the evolution of human consciousness. It places a type of external force, above the DNA and its instincts, allowing consciousness to break away from DNA based instincts; will and choice.

From the consciousness POV, modern humans appeared with civilization. This was not due to DNA, but the impact of consciousness on the DNA, with consciousness connected to both internal and external data collection. The external plus internal added up to beyond just the impact of internal human DNA. The first civilizations became the milestone of consciousness from which all that follows can be traced; first conscious humans in the modern sense.