evolutionary theory wrang footprints

[rudemonk]

Re: evolutionary theory wrang footprints

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Derek</div><div class="ubbcode-body">monk, do you see a difference between evolution (which I'm not sure about) and adaption (which I believe is really what happens)?

</div></div>

The Theory of Evolution is:
<span style="font-weight: bold">Any change in the frequency of alleles within a gene pool from one generation to the next. </span>

Adaptation is evolution- organisms genetic code undergoes minute - or even dramatic- changes, which affect that organisms ability to reproduce and transmit those changes to their offspring.


<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">
And how did the Dogon tribes of west Africa know so much about science before science became a western subject? </div></div>

I don't think science is a western construct. All peoples conduct some at least, aspect of science in the pursuit of knowledge. Science has always been with humanity, the first time someone noticed how to kill an animal, chip a rock into a weapon, water crops... some of it very good, some of it very bad lol. Sometimes advanced, sometimes very basic.

[rudemonk]

Re: evolutionary theory wrang footprints

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: jah_yout</div><div class="ubbcode-body">...i'm absolutely certain we did not change from fish to apes to humans</div></div>

you are right! &quot;we&quot; did not &quot;change&quot; from. but our ancestors did.

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">
logic would dictate that humans &amp; chimps can interbreed if they are so similar genetically &amp; are from a common ancestor;
simple logic says that since there are still men &amp; there are still chimps, that a sub-race of man-chimps would exist who are on a different evolutionary schedule than their currently full-human and full-chimpanzee brothers </div></div>

this shows a poor grasp of logic Jah Yout. there doesn't need to be interbreeding but we do know that things like heart valves etc CAN be used between similar species- which would not be possible if there was not common lines of descent.

did you see the picture of the rhinopuss? it basically explains why what you are thinking about evolutions claims is wrong.

I know you've seen the chart - I hope- with the 'tree' chart showing why there are still fish and man. It does make sense to you?

Why do you think we share so much in common with other creatures? What explains the inherited scars in our genome, which we share with many of the great apes, more with those closer to us, and less with those further from us? The fused chromosome?

How could those things be true, and evolution not?

[jah_yout]

Re: evolutionary theory wrang footprints

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: monk</div><div class="ubbcode-body"><div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: jah_yout</div><div class="ubbcode-body">...i'm absolutely certain we did not change from fish to apes to humans</div></div>

you are right! &quot;we&quot; did not &quot;change&quot; from. but our ancestors did.

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">
logic would dictate that humans &amp; chimps can interbreed if they are so similar genetically &amp; are from a common ancestor;
simple logic says that since there are still men &amp; there are still chimps, that a sub-race of man-chimps would exist who are on a different evolutionary schedule than their currently full-human and full-chimpanzee brothers </div></div>

this shows a poor grasp of logic Jah Yout. there doesn't need to be interbreeding but we do know that things like heart valves etc CAN be used between similar species- which would not be possible if there was not common lines of descent.

did you see the picture of the rhinopuss? it basically explains why what you are thinking about evolutions claims is wrong.

I know you've seen the chart - I hope- with the 'tree' chart showing why there are still fish and man. It does make sense to you?

Why do you think we share so much in common with other creatures? What explains the inherited scars in our genome, which we share with many of the great apes, more with those closer to us, and less with those further from us? The fused chromosome?
How could those things be true, and evolution not? </div></div>

humans can also use pig blood; i guess that proves we are related...you say i have a poor grasp on logic but with a straight face tell me i--excuse me-- my ancestors-- descended from fish?

from the original article;

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: blakkgiant</div><div class="ubbcode-body"><span style="font-weight: bold">Scientists have found the oldest fossilized footprints made by a four-legged creature forcing a rethink on when fish first crawled out of water and onto land.</span></div></div>

monk, let's just say we have different definitions of 'logic'

[jah_yout]

Re: evolutionary theory wrang footprints

some of these guys are now bordering on the ridiculous;
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

<span style="font-weight: bold">A robot that slinks along the ground and winds through water like a salamander is helping scientists understand how animals walked from aquatic environments onto land millions of years ago.</span>

<span style="font-weight: bold">Studies of the robot show that our fishy ancestors likely used their primitive brains to make the evolutionary leap from water worlds to terra firma.</span>

<span style="font-style: italic">so if their primitive brains figured out how to breathe air, how come our complex brains have not figured back out how to breathe water?</span>

<span style="font-weight: bold">Until now, scientists had puzzled over how ancient swimmers, which used mostly body movements in the water, could recruit their limbs for land locomotion while triggering the distinctive body movements required for a typical walk.

Slinky robot</span>

<span style="font-weight: bold">The scientists chose the amphibious salamander as a model because the animal more closely resembles the first land-dwelling vertebrates, or animals with backbones, than any other creature living today</span>.

<span style="font-style: italic">so they used a robot to test this?</span>

<span style="font-weight: bold">&quot;We were trying to understand what really happened during the transition from primitive fishes to amphibians, like the salamander,&quot; said Auke Ijspeert, a physicist of the Swiss Federal Institute of Technology in Lausanne, lead author of a research paper on the 33-inch-long robot.</span>


<span style="font-style: italic">aye sah</span>

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,257938,00.html

[Derek]

Re: evolutionary theory wrang footprints

monk made a statement, something about <span style="font-style: italic">this is where the laws break down</span>.

He means the Laws of Science.

When scientists can't find an explanation or long words and strange hypothesis to bolster their argument, they 'blame' the same 'Laws' that they expected us to believe in.

[rudemonk]

Re: evolutionary theory wrang footprints

yes jah yout, we do use the word differently. you are using 'logic' conversationally. but that is not accurate. Logic is not something that is victim to opinion or feelings, and as soon as you adopt actual logic you will quickly see what I mean, because logic is a defense against emotionalism and puts a spotlight on it.

you are reacting emotionally to the idea that you might be descended from 'lower' organisms. personally, I'm not sure why this is so difficult for people to accept, but there it is.

in this thread before, we have seen this happen with derek. he himself carried the argument of cosmogenesis to it's logical conclusion, and saw that the truth claim of there being a creator is the same truth claim about the universe. but at the last moment where he would be free of the trappings of pre conditioning, he went back, rather than accept the facts of the conclusion. of course the more he thinks about it, and studies the issue as it's obviously one that is important to him and I would say to 95% of humanity as well, this can change.

you my friend are doing the exact same thing, because you find something incredulous.

in fact I've shown you logically about 3 times now how man and fish and lots of other animals share common lines of descent through the evolutionary model of the origin of species. if you missed this, I will post it again gladly because you really need to see it.

You actually have not acknowledged seeing the graphs I've posted so maybe that is why you still are incredulous. But I see also that you are doing a bit of cherry picking, because you also have not mentioned the genome, the fused chromosome, the hERVs, you haven't found an irreducibly complex biologic structure, all you are doing is discussing how in your opinion it's not logical somehow, that life probably evolved from the oceans and then moved onto land.

If you will allow me, I'll set out an actual logical premise.

From the fossil record, geology, and from experiments in abiogenesis, it seems likely that life evolved in the oceans first.

If that were the case, then geology and the fossil record especially will show that the older organisms will be aquatic.

Predicted, and found to be true. So that is a logical conclusion.

See, there is nothing emotional or incredulous about that. Also, logic would dictate that if life evolved in the early seas and oceans first, then we would eventually discover fossils of organisms which show a transition from living in water to living on land.

Bingo, that is what we find in the fossil record.

Now, taking it further, logic would also dictate that we would share the most commonality in our genetic material, with those creatures closest to us.

If this were not the case, then logically we could conclude that in fact our theory and it's predictions are not accurate. That's called &quot;falsifiability&quot;. We can show the theory is wrong.

However, what we find is in actuality, exactly what logic would predict. We are closest to the chimpanzee, than we are to the orangutan.

I am sorry you find it difficult to accept, but if you were using logic, you would be forced to come to the conclusion that evolution's applications and predictions have been proven, including the ones that say man and ape share common ancestry in our distant past, and that we also share common descent with all other early mammals, and so on down the line. Yes my friend, you are just a branch on the evolutionary tree.

I don't think this takes anything away from you bredren. In fact I personally find it humbling when you look at some of the models of evolution it's frankly stunning, the genome mapping, all of it is really and truly incredible that we have cracked into this and are able to do what we can with it. And we haven't even gotten started.

Did you see in the news recently where they created a human heart valve. It's floating in a solution, flapping with the current they are feeding it.

Likewise they have grown organs, and many think they are on the path to full limb regeneration, because - and this is very important to this topic - we have this ability in our genetic code. It's the same gene which some lizards and salamanders have, which is why they can lose a tail or leg and grow it back. But Humans, in our distant past, adapted and lost the ability to 'switch' this gene on.

If we were not related to such creatures, genetically, we would never be able to repair our genetic switch to do this, because we wouldn't have the EXACT same gene.

[rudemonk]

Re: evolutionary theory wrang footprints

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Derek</div><div class="ubbcode-body">monk made a statement, something about <span style="font-style: italic">this is where the laws break down</span>.

He means the Laws of Science.

When scientists can't find an explanation or long words and strange hypothesis to bolster their argument, they 'blame' the same 'Laws' that they expected us to believe in. </div></div>

actually, they are just looking for a new law and a way to describe those early conditions that can make testable predictions. the problem is, there is no way to predict anything at the point of a singularity, because the laws by which the universe operates can't make predictions at that time. Every other time they work great, but not then.

If they didn't work lol, you'd never get a picture from space.

I guess you could believe those have all been faked, if you want, but that would make you look pretty silly I think you would agree.

I mean at a certain point, it's like, science tells you how and why a lambo can drive you from point a to point b very frakking fast, and you are saying you don't believe in a lambo because how could a lambo come from a wheel.

Derek- I think you would enjoy the writings of Stephen Hawking tremendously, because he tends to write in such a way as to break down these complex issues into easier to digest language.

If you're interested I'll see if I can dig up some more of his lectures.

[Derek]

Re: evolutionary theory wrang footprints

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: monk</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Derek- I think you would enjoy the writings of Stephen Hawking tremendously</div></div>


I read a Brief History in Time about 20 years ago.