Total Posts:56|Showing Posts:1-30|Last Page
Jump to topic:

Newly discovered human species....

RoyLatham
Posts: 4,488
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/10/2015 7:59:00 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
Fascinating! The discovery appears to be a new species closely related to humans, with about half of the features similar to modern humans and half closer to ape-like precursors. Fifteen specimens were found in a nearly-impossible-to-reach cave in South Africa. A team of six very slender small women with scientific training was recruited to squeeze through the narrow passageway to recover the fossils. Adding to the mystery, scientists have not yet been able to date the fossils. They think that advanced techniques will be able to accomplish the dating, but it hasn't been done yet. If the fossils are very old, that would be a remarkable addition to the story of evolution; if they are relatively modern, say a few hundred thousand years old, that would be equally remarkable in a different way. It would mean a human-related species was concurrent with humans in Africa.
Ramshutu
Posts: 4,063
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/10/2015 11:05:24 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 9/10/2015 8:00:29 PM, Mikal wrote:
At 9/10/2015 5:19:45 PM, popculturepooka wrote:
http://news.nationalgeographic.com...

Interesting stuff!

At some point maybe the missing link wont be so missing

We all know Creationists will say it's either 100% ape, or 100% human; and won't understand the irony when they can't agree between themselves which it is.
Evidence
Posts: 847
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/11/2015 3:58:19 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 9/10/2015 5:19:45 PM, popculturepooka wrote:
http://news.nationalgeographic.com...

Interesting stuff! :

Yes it is interesting just to what extent people will go to try to justify their religious beliefs with magical Pixar graphic stories. I just love the way they set up the stage, just like in the movie Jurassic Park, actors and all. I also love the expression of awe on the actors faces as the "skinny-lady" brings up the 'dried-bones', .. I could just see Stephen Spielberg directing this:"take 5, .. OK guys, I know it's just bones, let's put a little more enthusiasm into it, please!? Good, .. roll it!" lol.
And of course this in the 'science Forum' too! Story built upon story with absolutely no scientific value except that they found some bones of 'dead people'.

This Face Changes the Human Story. But How?

Remember how the finding of the 'Golden tablets' changed the Face of the Mormon Story also!? Well, if a meteorite can bring millions of people to worship as one, I guess this dried up human skull should too. Only it's too bad it has to be at the expanse of science. Like I say, little by little religions has swallowed up science, But How? By reducing man to an animal state.
There are a thousand hacking at the branches of evil
to one who is striking at the root. - Henry David Thoreau
DanneJeRusse
Posts: 12,623
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/11/2015 6:37:44 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 9/10/2015 5:19:45 PM, popculturepooka wrote:
http://news.nationalgeographic.com...

Interesting stuff!

Fantastic discovery. Thanks for sharing.
Marrying a 6 year old and waiting until she reaches puberty and maturity before having consensual sex is better than walking up to
a stranger in a bar and proceeding to have relations with no valid proof of the intent of the person. Muhammad wins. ~ Fatihah
If they don't want to be killed then they have to subdue to the Islamic laws. - Uncung
Without God, you are lower than sh!t. ~ SpiritandTruth
v3nesl
Posts: 4,494
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/11/2015 8:40:01 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 9/10/2015 11:05:24 PM, Ramshutu wrote:
At 9/10/2015 8:00:29 PM, Mikal wrote:
At 9/10/2015 5:19:45 PM, popculturepooka wrote:
http://news.nationalgeographic.com...

Interesting stuff!

At some point maybe the missing link wont be so missing

We all know Creationists will say it's either 100% ape, or 100% human; and won't understand the irony when they can't agree between themselves which it is.

I'd start from the supposition that it's 100% the species that it is.

But the conclusion is that it's transitional, before anybody has any evidence that it transitioned from or to anything. It's the same old same old I've heard all my life, this working backwards from a pre-determined conclusion. How that's good science or good research of any sort continues to elude me.

It does, however, definitely fit with the observation that all the species are the same only different. So yeah, you can arrange it in various patterns with other specimens.
This space for rent.
SNP1
Posts: 2,403
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/12/2015 2:54:04 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 9/11/2015 8:40:01 PM, v3nesl wrote:
I'd start from the supposition that it's 100% the species that it is.

But the conclusion is that it's transitional, before anybody has any evidence that it transitioned from or to anything. It's the same old same old I've heard all my life, this working backwards from a pre-determined conclusion. How that's good science or good research of any sort continues to elude me.

It does, however, definitely fit with the observation that all the species are the same only different. So yeah, you can arrange it in various patterns with other specimens.

With all the evidence that exists for evolution it is not unreasonable to.start speculating where this species fits in the tree of life. Furthermore, under the theory of evolution, EVERY species is a transitional species.
#TheApatheticNihilistPartyofAmerica
#WarOnDDO
DanneJeRusse
Posts: 12,623
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/12/2015 3:35:52 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 9/11/2015 8:40:01 PM, v3nesl wrote:

How that's good science or good research of any sort continues to elude me.

Of course, it eludes you, you have no clue what constitutes science or research. Your opinions on the subject are irrelevant, uninformed and incredulous. You first need to learn and understand what it is you're talking about, which clearly has not been accomplished.
Marrying a 6 year old and waiting until she reaches puberty and maturity before having consensual sex is better than walking up to
a stranger in a bar and proceeding to have relations with no valid proof of the intent of the person. Muhammad wins. ~ Fatihah
If they don't want to be killed then they have to subdue to the Islamic laws. - Uncung
Without God, you are lower than sh!t. ~ SpiritandTruth
Ramshutu
Posts: 4,063
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/13/2015 10:09:05 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 9/11/2015 8:40:01 PM, v3nesl wrote:
At 9/10/2015 11:05:24 PM, Ramshutu wrote:
At 9/10/2015 8:00:29 PM, Mikal wrote:
At 9/10/2015 5:19:45 PM, popculturepooka wrote:
http://news.nationalgeographic.com...

Interesting stuff!

At some point maybe the missing link wont be so missing

We all know Creationists will say it's either 100% ape, or 100% human; and won't understand the irony when they can't agree between themselves which it is.

I'd start from the supposition that it's 100% the species that it is.

But the conclusion is that it's transitional, before anybody has any evidence that it transitioned from or to anything. It's the same old same old I've heard all my life, this working backwards from a pre-determined conclusion. How that's good science or good research of any sort continues to elude me.

It does, however, definitely fit with the observation that all the species are the same only different. So yeah, you can arrange it in various patterns with other specimens.

Except you can only arrange it among hominids and Australopiths. And you have to arrange it between humans and apes because of its properties. You can't place it nearer to gorillas, fish, plants, dogs, sponges, etc.

And despite it being impossible to find a delineation between humans and chimps because there are so many species in between that contain a blending of traits such that it becomes really hard to tell whether a species is just a more hominid Australopith, or more Australopith looking hominid; it must obviously be illogical to claim that may are transitional!

Transitional forms are a prediction, and the prediction is that we would find forms with a mosaic of traits between parent and child clades. These all match that definition, and are clearly transitional forms, inexplicable by any form of creationism, and dependent on you dismissing them using no logical reasoning but just hand waving "doesn't count".

Your logic is ridiculous.
bills_friend
Posts: 64
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/14/2015 4:45:55 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 9/10/2015 5:19:45 PM, popculturepooka wrote:
http://news.nationalgeographic.com...

Interesting stuff! : :

I like the artists they hire to make these bones look like half ape and half human. They sure do have some creative thoughts?
v3nesl
Posts: 4,494
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/14/2015 2:29:00 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 9/12/2015 2:54:04 PM, SNP1 wrote:
At 9/11/2015 8:40:01 PM, v3nesl wrote:
I'd start from the supposition that it's 100% the species that it is.

But the conclusion is that it's transitional, before anybody has any evidence that it transitioned from or to anything. It's the same old same old I've heard all my life, this working backwards from a pre-determined conclusion. How that's good science or good research of any sort continues to elude me.

It does, however, definitely fit with the observation that all the species are the same only different. So yeah, you can arrange it in various patterns with other specimens.

With all the evidence that exists for evolution it is not unreasonable to.start speculating where this species fits in the tree of life. Furthermore, under the theory of evolution, EVERY species is a transitional species.

Well, exactly. Do you not see now circular this is? Under the hypothesis, every species is a transitional species, so therefore you try to place every new specimen in between two others. The fact that you can make a reasonable sequence by doing this is the evidence for evolution in the first place.

And yes, it IS evidence for evolution. The problem is that other hypotheses can explain the pattern as well or better. Like - maybe an intelligent designer created a wide variety of species with a wide variety of features, and built a range of self-modification into the species, so that the eco-system would auto-adapt to varying conditions.

The problem with Darwinian evolution is that the idea that the ecosystem could build itself one small undirected step at a time is preposterous. It's just flat out a belief in magic, there really can be no two ways about this. For instance, I caught a little blurb last night about how fire ants in the Amazon all 'link hands', put the queen in the center, and form a floating colony that can survive flooding. Now clearly such communal behavior cannot form one mutation at a time. One ant mutates a desire to cling to another ant's feet. That does not produce a floating colony, just an annoyed neighbor, so it can't be selected for future use, can it? You have a complex meta-intelligence here - the colony as a whole does something far beyond the intelligence of any individual ant. This is explained quite comfortably by intelligent design, but only by the most extreme sort of fanciful thinking as a sequence of undirected mutations.
This space for rent.
SNP1
Posts: 2,403
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/14/2015 4:02:30 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 9/14/2015 2:29:00 PM, v3nesl wrote:
At 9/12/2015 2:54:04 PM, SNP1 wrote:
With all the evidence that exists for evolution it is not unreasonable to.start speculating where this species fits in the tree of life. Furthermore, under the theory of evolution, EVERY species is a transitional species.

Well, exactly. Do you not see now circular this is?

Not at all.
This would only be circular IF it was being used as evidence for evolution.
This, however, is going off the already ESTABLISHED THEORY of Evolution to understand how the species fits into the tree of life.

Under the hypothesis, every species is a transitional species,

Except that it isn't a hypothesis. Only the scientifically illiterate think it is.

so therefore you try to place every new specimen in between two others.

By working under the ESTABLISHED THEORY of Evolution.
Do we have to question the theory of gravity and relativity with every newly discovered planet? No, we go off the established theories and find out how the new discovery fits.

Only when a discovery goes against the predictions of a theory do we question the theory. If we found a body of greater mass orbiting a body of lesser mass, we would question our current theories. If we found human and dinosaur fossils in the same geometric layer, then we would question our current theories.

Finding a hominid where we would expect to find a hominid is not reason enough to question the established theories.

The fact that you can make a reasonable sequence by doing this is the evidence for evolution in the first place.

And yes, it IS evidence for evolution. The problem is that other hypotheses can explain the pattern as well or better. Like - maybe an intelligent designer created a wide variety of species with a wide variety of features, and built a range of self-modification into the species, so that the eco-system would auto-adapt to varying conditions.

Does the Law of Parsimony mean anything to you?
Does the fossil record mean anything to you?
Does empirical evidence mean anything to you?

The problem with Darwinian evolution is that the idea that the ecosystem could build itself one small undirected step at a time is preposterous. It's just flat out a belief in magic, there really can be no two ways about this. For instance, I caught a little blurb last night about how fire ants in the Amazon all 'link hands', put the queen in the center, and form a floating colony that can survive flooding. Now clearly such communal behavior cannot form one mutation at a time. One ant mutates a desire to cling to another ant's feet. That does not produce a floating colony, just an annoyed neighbor, so it can't be selected for future use, can it? You have a complex meta-intelligence here - the colony as a whole does something far beyond the intelligence of any individual ant. This is explained quite comfortably by intelligent design, but only by the most extreme sort of fanciful thinking as a sequence of undirected mutations.

You obviously have no idea how SMALL changes over time can create BIG differences.

Honestly, looking at your previous posts on evolution, I doubt you have even studied it beyond a middle school level.
#TheApatheticNihilistPartyofAmerica
#WarOnDDO
v3nesl
Posts: 4,494
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/14/2015 5:16:32 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 9/14/2015 4:02:30 PM, SNP1 wrote:
At 9/14/2015 2:29:00 PM, v3nesl wrote:
At 9/12/2015 2:54:04 PM, SNP1 wrote:
With all the evidence that exists for evolution it is not unreasonable to.start speculating where this species fits in the tree of life. Furthermore, under the theory of evolution, EVERY species is a transitional species.

Well, exactly. Do you not see now circular this is?

Not at all.
This would only be circular IF it was being used as evidence for evolution.
This, however, is going off the already ESTABLISHED THEORY of Evolution to understand how the species fits into the tree of life.

Under the hypothesis, every species is a transitional species,

Except that it isn't a hypothesis. Only the scientifically illiterate think it is.


Pfffffttttt. I love it when somebody attempts to insult my intelligence by saying something ignorant. lol.


You obviously have no idea how SMALL changes over time can create BIG differences.

Honestly, looking at your previous posts on evolution, I doubt you have even studied it beyond a middle school level.

I've got a bachelor of engineering degree. Being an engineer, especially a design engineer, is like being a scientist except that you have to actually make stuff work. And that's my problem - I don't see how certain things can be built by a series of small changes. And neither do you, you just have faith that somebody does know what they're talking about.

But many things simply cannot be built one small change at a time. You could not build a house, for instance, by adding one 2x4 each year. Why? The first boards would rot long before you got the structure under roof. No, to build a house, you must get the frame under roof in a reasonable amount of time. And all systems are this way - many things must be done simultaneously to deploy a real world system. And the ecosystem is a real world system. So evolution is mythology and not real world science. It's a story, a story told around so many 20th century campfires (National Geographic shows, in other words) that you think it's literally true.
This space for rent.
Evidence
Posts: 847
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/14/2015 6:11:25 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 9/14/2015 5:16:32 PM, v3nesl wrote:
At 9/14/2015 4:02:30 PM, SNP1 wrote:
At 9/14/2015 2:29:00 PM, v3nesl wrote:
At 9/12/2015 2:54:04 PM, SNP1 wrote:
With all the evidence that exists for evolution it is not unreasonable to.start speculating where this species fits in the tree of life. Furthermore, under the theory of evolution, EVERY species is a transitional species.

Well, exactly. Do you not see now circular this is?

Not at all.
This would only be circular IF it was being used as evidence for evolution.
This, however, is going off the already ESTABLISHED THEORY of Evolution to understand how the species fits into the tree of life.

Under the hypothesis, every species is a transitional species,

Except that it isn't a hypothesis. Only the scientifically illiterate think it is.


Pfffffttttt. I love it when somebody attempts to insult my intelligence by saying something ignorant. lol.


You obviously have no idea how SMALL changes over time can create BIG differences.

Honestly, looking at your previous posts on evolution, I doubt you have even studied it beyond a middle school level.

I've got a bachelor of engineering degree. Being an engineer, especially a design engineer, is like being a scientist except that you have to actually make stuff work. And that's my problem - I don't see how certain things can be built by a series of small changes. And neither do you, you just have faith that somebody does know what they're talking about.

But many things simply cannot be built one small change at a time. You could not build a house, for instance, by adding one 2x4 each year. Why? The first boards would rot long before you got the structure under roof. No, to build a house, you must get the frame under roof in a reasonable amount of time. And all systems are this way - many things must be done simultaneously to deploy a real world system. And the ecosystem is a real world system. So evolution is mythology and not real world science. It's a story, a story told around so many 20th century campfires (National Geographic shows, in other words) that you think it's literally true. :

Amen.
This goes right along with their story how single celled bacteria eventually evolved into male and female organisms that perfectly accommodate each other, all the while dying and new single celled bacteria popping out of the primordial soup, .. for millions of years, slowly one developing the male parts, and the other the female.
And wouldn't you know it, after a million years (or whatever unobserved timeline story they made up) they try it out, and by golly Wally, it works.

Just imagine the one carrying all that female womb stuff around for hundreds of thousands of years, just sitting there useless, waiting for the other one to develop the testicles and a way to deliver the sperm? No plan, no will, no intelligence behind any of this only horrible mutation and time. But that's not all, they evolved a desire to mate!
Have you ever wondered how many reproductive organs each species must have gone through before they got it perfected? Ooops, too big and vagina way to small, sorry, wishful thinking buddy, try again!

You know, with all this One-eye stuff going on just about everywhere, I was just wondering if this doesn't come from the first man-ape having evolved only one eye, then dying out because they kept running into trees and rocks? Maybe the ancient DNA is trying to make a One-eye comeback again? After all they claim the mind is the result of the brain through the accumulation of millions of years of evolution, so who knows why these ideas pop up like this all over the world. Especially in movies, man oh man, talking about making it obvious!?
Why don't they jus evolve that One-eye instead of just referring to it? Or faster yet, poke one out, sow it up, and presto now you can see 'everything', cause it's the All Seeing Eye, right?
There are a thousand hacking at the branches of evil
to one who is striking at the root. - Henry David Thoreau
janesix
Posts: 3,466
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/14/2015 6:24:53 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 9/14/2015 6:11:25 PM, Evidence wrote:
At 9/14/2015 5:16:32 PM, v3nesl wrote:
At 9/14/2015 4:02:30 PM, SNP1 wrote:
At 9/14/2015 2:29:00 PM, v3nesl wrote:
At 9/12/2015 2:54:04 PM, SNP1 wrote:
With all the evidence that exists for evolution it is not unreasonable to.start speculating where this species fits in the tree of life. Furthermore, under the theory of evolution, EVERY species is a transitional species.

Well, exactly. Do you not see now circular this is?

Not at all.
This would only be circular IF it was being used as evidence for evolution.
This, however, is going off the already ESTABLISHED THEORY of Evolution to understand how the species fits into the tree of life.

Under the hypothesis, every species is a transitional species,

Except that it isn't a hypothesis. Only the scientifically illiterate think it is.


Pfffffttttt. I love it when somebody attempts to insult my intelligence by saying something ignorant. lol.


You obviously have no idea how SMALL changes over time can create BIG differences.

Honestly, looking at your previous posts on evolution, I doubt you have even studied it beyond a middle school level.

I've got a bachelor of engineering degree. Being an engineer, especially a design engineer, is like being a scientist except that you have to actually make stuff work. And that's my problem - I don't see how certain things can be built by a series of small changes. And neither do you, you just have faith that somebody does know what they're talking about.

But many things simply cannot be built one small change at a time. You could not build a house, for instance, by adding one 2x4 each year. Why? The first boards would rot long before you got the structure under roof. No, to build a house, you must get the frame under roof in a reasonable amount of time. And all systems are this way - many things must be done simultaneously to deploy a real world system. And the ecosystem is a real world system. So evolution is mythology and not real world science. It's a story, a story told around so many 20th century campfires (National Geographic shows, in other words) that you think it's literally true. :

Amen.
This goes right along with their story how single celled bacteria eventually evolved into male and female organisms that perfectly accommodate each other, all the while dying and new single celled bacteria popping out of the primordial soup, .. for millions of years, slowly one developing the male parts, and the other the female.
And wouldn't you know it, after a million years (or whatever unobserved timeline story they made up) they try it out, and by golly Wally, it works.

Just imagine the one carrying all that female womb stuff around for hundreds of thousands of years, just sitting there useless, waiting for the other one to develop the testicles and a way to deliver the sperm? No plan, no will, no intelligence behind any of this only horrible mutation and time. But that's not all, they evolved a desire to mate!
Have you ever wondered how many reproductive organs each species must have gone through before they got it perfected? Ooops, too big and vagina way to small, sorry, wishful thinking buddy, try again!

You know, with all this One-eye stuff going on just about everywhere, I was just wondering if this doesn't come from the first man-ape having evolved only one eye, then dying out because they kept running into trees and rocks? Maybe the ancient DNA is trying to make a One-eye comeback again? After all they claim the mind is the result of the brain through the accumulation of millions of years of evolution, so who knows why these ideas pop up like this all over the world. Especially in movies, man oh man, talking about making it obvious!?
Why don't they jus evolve that One-eye instead of just referring to it? Or faster yet, poke one out, sow it up, and presto now you can see 'everything', cause it's the All Seeing Eye, right?

Yes, I would like to see an evolutionist explain how sexual reproduction "evolved" over millions of years. I have never once seen a reasonable explanation for how it happened, slowly through random mutations.

The funny thing is, they don't even try. They just call us stupid for not believing the impossible.
Chaosism
Posts: 2,667
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/14/2015 6:50:11 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 9/14/2015 5:16:32 PM, v3nesl wrote:

I've got a bachelor of engineering degree. Being an engineer, especially a design engineer, is like being a scientist except that you have to actually make stuff work. And that's my problem - I don't see how certain things can be built by a series of small changes. And neither do you, you just have faith that somebody does know what they're talking about.

But many things simply cannot be built one small change at a time. You could not build a house, for instance, by adding one 2x4 each year. Why? The first boards would rot long before you got the structure under roof. No, to build a house, you must get the frame under roof in a reasonable amount of time. And all systems are this way - many things must be done simultaneously to deploy a real world system. And the ecosystem is a real world system. So evolution is mythology and not real world science. It's a story, a story told around so many 20th century campfires (National Geographic shows, in other words) that you think it's literally true.

I believe that you're committing a few False Equivalence fallacies, here. You are comparing evolutionary development with engineering and construction, which are vastly different.

1.) You are an engineer and are likely quite skilled at what you do. However, the [amusing] statement that it is "like being a scientist except that you have to actually make stuff work" is unfounded. You do not have the expertise or knowledge that those experts of other fields possess. A research scientist could say, "being an engineer is like being a scientist, except that someone already figured out for you how it works". Namely, how electricity is the flow of electrons. You must have faith that all of these previous theories are true, since I doubt that you have verified this for yourself.

2.) Engineering is goal-oriented while evolution is not. The modifications that are genetically passed through successive generations and "selected" by an unintelligent processes. Engineering is a goal-oriented process driven by intelligent and intentional design. These are completely opposite.

3.) Construction is achieved by adding components to contribute to the whole of the project. Evolution functions in no such way; existing components undergo mutation and selection processes which may slightly alter or extend (or even inhibit) the component's original function. These changes become more pronounced through successive generations as long as these change remain beneficial to the organism in regards environmental pressures. Houses do not breed and pass on their blueprints to their progeny. The house analogy is not at all in line with the evolutionary processes.

4.) Yes, in a real-world situation, such as constructing a building, all of the components and systems must be put into place during the process, somewhat simultaneously. However, this is not how evolution works. The complex biological systems did not just mutate into existence spontaneously, and in perfect harmony with other spontaneously created systems. The more complex systems became so through the same processes mentioned above. An organism with a more complicated system isn't "selected" because of the greater complication, but rather because the modifications to the system proved beneficial. Additionally, creating a building is done from nothing, whereas new organisms develop from preexisting matter and DNA. This comparison is not valid.

Please keep in mind that I am certainly not trying to discredit or to devalue your intelligence. I am just trying to prevent strawman arguments to be made out of lack of understanding of evolutionary theory.
Chaosism
Posts: 2,667
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/14/2015 7:12:25 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 9/14/2015 6:24:53 PM, janesix wrote:

Yes, I would like to see an evolutionist explain how sexual reproduction "evolved" over millions of years. I have never once seen a reasonable explanation for how it happened, slowly through random mutations.

I don't know, but perhaps the exact mechanics of how it came about are not known. Have you ever search the internet for this information? I found a couple sources with a quick search, such as this one: http://www.nature.com..., and this YouTube video: https://www.youtube.com.... I do know that one of the benefits of sexual reproduction is that it increasing genetic diversity by providing more opportunities for mutations to develop, which is accompanied by sexual selection mechanisms. Also, keep in mind that males and females emerged after sexual reproduction did.

The funny thing is, they don't even try. They just call us stupid for not believing the impossible.

No one should ever call anyone stupid for asking a question. Science should welcome and invite questions. You should be skeptical, but you should also evaluate that which has led them to their conclusion before declaring it impossible. But, in the end, no one can tell you what to believe.
janesix
Posts: 3,466
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/14/2015 7:20:28 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 9/14/2015 7:12:25 PM, Chaosism wrote:
At 9/14/2015 6:24:53 PM, janesix wrote:

Yes, I would like to see an evolutionist explain how sexual reproduction "evolved" over millions of years. I have never once seen a reasonable explanation for how it happened, slowly through random mutations.

I don't know, but perhaps the exact mechanics of how it came about are not known. Have you ever search the internet for this information? I found a couple sources with a quick search, such as this one: http://www.nature.com..., and this YouTube video: https://www.youtube.com.... I do know that one of the benefits of sexual reproduction is that it increasing genetic diversity by providing more opportunities for mutations to develop, which is accompanied by sexual selection mechanisms. Also, keep in mind that males and females emerged after sexual reproduction did.

The funny thing is, they don't even try. They just call us stupid for not believing the impossible.

No one should ever call anyone stupid for asking a question. Science should welcome and invite questions. You should be skeptical, but you should also evaluate that which has led them to their conclusion before declaring it impossible. But, in the end, no one can tell you what to believe.

Yes, I have looked into it,and haven't found a satisfactory answer. Each mutation would have to be beneficial for it to stick around in the gene pool. How many mutations would there have to be before sexual reproduction "worked"? It's the same thing with any irreducibly complex system.
Chaosism
Posts: 2,667
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/14/2015 7:32:14 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 9/14/2015 7:20:28 PM, janesix wrote:
At 9/14/2015 7:12:25 PM, Chaosism wrote:
At 9/14/2015 6:24:53 PM, janesix wrote:

Yes, I would like to see an evolutionist explain how sexual reproduction "evolved" over millions of years. I have never once seen a reasonable explanation for how it happened, slowly through random mutations.

I don't know, but perhaps the exact mechanics of how it came about are not known. Have you ever search the internet for this information? I found a couple sources with a quick search, such as this one: http://www.nature.com..., and this YouTube video: https://www.youtube.com.... I do know that one of the benefits of sexual reproduction is that it increasing genetic diversity by providing more opportunities for mutations to develop, which is accompanied by sexual selection mechanisms. Also, keep in mind that males and females emerged after sexual reproduction did.

The funny thing is, they don't even try. They just call us stupid for not believing the impossible.

No one should ever call anyone stupid for asking a question. Science should welcome and invite questions. You should be skeptical, but you should also evaluate that which has led them to their conclusion before declaring it impossible. But, in the end, no one can tell you what to believe.

Yes, I have looked into it,and haven't found a satisfactory answer. Each mutation would have to be beneficial for it to stick around in the gene pool. How many mutations would there have to be before sexual reproduction "worked"? It's the same thing with any irreducibly complex system.

I only reviewed that video briefly, but it did seem to present pretty fine details on the development and processes, and I did see that he specifically mentioned the "irreducible complexity" issue and points to another video in which that is specifically addressed. What about this was unsatisfactory, out of curiosity?
v3nesl
Posts: 4,494
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/14/2015 7:41:51 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 9/14/2015 6:50:11 PM, Chaosism wrote:
At 9/14/2015 5:16:32 PM, v3nesl wrote:

I've got a bachelor of engineering degree. Being an engineer, especially a design engineer, is like being a scientist except that you have to actually make stuff work. And that's my problem - I don't see how certain things can be built by a series of small changes. And neither do you, you just have faith that somebody does know what they're talking about.

But many things simply cannot be built one small change at a time. You could not build a house, for instance, by adding one 2x4 each year. Why? The first boards would rot long before you got the structure under roof. No, to build a house, you must get the frame under roof in a reasonable amount of time. And all systems are this way - many things must be done simultaneously to deploy a real world system. And the ecosystem is a real world system. So evolution is mythology and not real world science. It's a story, a story told around so many 20th century campfires (National Geographic shows, in other words) that you think it's literally true.

I believe that you're committing a few False Equivalence fallacies, here. You are comparing evolutionary development with engineering and construction, which are vastly different.


This is the typical dodge, but you can't have it both ways: Either life came about by purely natural processes, or it didn't. If you accept evolution, then engineering, life, and non-life are all of the same stuff. The are all the spontaneous products of the noise of the cosmos.


2.) Engineering is goal-oriented while evolution is not. The modifications that are genetically passed through successive generations and "selected" by an unintelligent processes. Engineering is a goal-oriented process driven by intelligent and intentional design. These are completely opposite.


Completely opposite, eh? So to restate your conundrum here: Where did engineering come from, if not evolution? Wouldn't engineering itself be merely a selected bit of human behavior?


4.) Yes, in a real-world situation, such as constructing a building, all of the components and systems must be put into place during the process, somewhat simultaneously. However, this is not how evolution works.

Let's be intellectually honest here: Say "this is not how evolution is ALLEGED to work". And let's be clear: You're claiming that evolution didn't and doesn't work the way things we can observe and experiment with work. Be clear about that!

The complex biological systems did not just mutate into existence spontaneously,

That's exactly what evolution claims. Perhaps you mean to say something different, but what you wrote is precisely what evolution claims.

Additionally, creating a building is done from nothing, whereas new organisms develop from preexisting matter and DNA. This comparison is not valid.


This is the old statistics fallacy. Which is more likely, flipping 100 heads in a row, or 10 sets of 10 heads in a row? The odds are exactly the same, of course. Breaking a random process into smaller steps does not make a given overall result any less statistically unlikely. Evolution is still claiming that all life formed from a single [simple] common ancestor.

Please keep in mind that I am certainly not trying to discredit or to devalue your intelligence. I am just trying to prevent strawman arguments to be made out of lack of understanding of evolutionary theory.

I understand it too well, that's the problem with me. I insist on popping the hood and not accepting the 30,000 foot story, where parts of it seem to make some sense. But the devil's in the details. It's when you try to break it down to an actual sequence of actual mutations you realize that it's quite fantastic.
This space for rent.
Chaosism
Posts: 2,667
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/14/2015 8:19:00 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 9/14/2015 7:41:51 PM, v3nesl wrote:
At 9/14/2015 6:50:11 PM, Chaosism wrote:
At 9/14/2015 5:16:32 PM, v3nesl wrote:

I've got a bachelor of engineering degree. Being an engineer, especially a design engineer, is like being a scientist except that you have to actually make stuff work. And that's my problem - I don't see how certain things can be built by a series of small changes. And neither do you, you just have faith that somebody does know what they're talking about.

But many things simply cannot be built one small change at a time. You could not build a house, for instance, by adding one 2x4 each year. Why? The first boards would rot long before you got the structure under roof. No, to build a house, you must get the frame under roof in a reasonable amount of time. And all systems are this way - many things must be done simultaneously to deploy a real world system. And the ecosystem is a real world system. So evolution is mythology and not real world science. It's a story, a story told around so many 20th century campfires (National Geographic shows, in other words) that you think it's literally true.

I believe that you're committing a few False Equivalence fallacies, here. You are comparing evolutionary development with engineering and construction, which are vastly different.


This is the typical dodge, but you can't have it both ways: Either life came about by purely natural processes, or it didn't.

What was I dodging? All I was doing was challenging the analogies that were presented in regards to evolution. If life "came about" by some other means (aside from abiogenesis), then the evidence that the theory is based upon still points to common ancestry.

If you accept evolution, then engineering, life, and non-life are all of the same stuff. The are all the spontaneous products of the noise of the cosmos.

I don't understand this statement. We are composed of matter whether God created us or not (unless you deny that we are made of cells). How does that change our descriptions of life and non-life, which essentially pertain to states of matter?

2.) Engineering is goal-oriented while evolution is not. The modifications that are genetically passed through successive generations and "selected" by an unintelligent processes. Engineering is a goal-oriented process driven by intelligent and intentional design. These are completely opposite.


Completely opposite, eh? So to restate your conundrum here: Where did engineering come from, if not evolution? Wouldn't engineering itself be merely a selected bit of human behavior?

The emergent ability for an organism to think and use tools is a product of the evolutionary processes. This does not mean that it was necessarily a required aspect to the processes themselves.

4.) Yes, in a real-world situation, such as constructing a building, all of the components and systems must be put into place during the process, somewhat simultaneously. However, this is not how evolution works.

Let's be intellectually honest here: Say "this is not how evolution is ALLEGED to work". And let's be clear: You're claiming that evolution didn't and doesn't work the way things we can observe and experiment with work. Be clear about that!

I was assuming this to be inferred based upon one's own stance on evolution. One does not have to stress the same in a theological argument, for instance: "...that is how God ALLEGEDLY created the world".

The complex biological systems did not just mutate into existence spontaneously,

That's exactly what evolution claims. Perhaps you mean to say something different, but what you wrote is precisely what evolution claims.

I would very much like to see where this claim can be found.

Additionally, creating a building is done from nothing, whereas new organisms develop from preexisting matter and DNA. This comparison is not valid.


This is the old statistics fallacy. Which is more likely, flipping 100 heads in a row, or 10 sets of 10 heads in a row? The odds are exactly the same, of course. Breaking a random process into smaller steps does not make a given overall result any less statistically unlikely. Evolution is still claiming that all life formed from a single [simple] common ancestor.

I presented a statistical fallacy? How so? I didn't present any references to likelihood or probability. I was saying that the biological reproduction is a direct lineage of production whereas the constructing of houses isn't. They are built from materials that come from a great number of differing type and sources that have no direct relationship to each other.

Please keep in mind that I am certainly not trying to discredit or to devalue your intelligence. I am just trying to prevent strawman arguments to be made out of lack of understanding of evolutionary theory.

I understand it too well, that's the problem with me. I insist on popping the hood and not accepting the 30,000 foot story, where parts of it seem to make some sense. But the devil's in the details. It's when you try to break it down to an actual sequence of actual mutations you realize that it's quite fantastic.

I wouldn't call that a problem, being skeptical is good. But, you are asserting that you have more knowledge on the subject than an incredible number of experts of biology, who've dedicated their lives to it. I know you're not the only one, but I'm interested to hear what you know that they don't.
Ramshutu
Posts: 4,063
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/14/2015 9:01:51 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 9/14/2015 2:29:00 PM, v3nesl wrote:
At 9/12/2015 2:54:04 PM, SNP1 wrote:
At 9/11/2015 8:40:01 PM, v3nesl wrote:
I'd start from the supposition that it's 100% the species that it is.

But the conclusion is that it's transitional, before anybody has any evidence that it transitioned from or to anything. It's the same old same old I've heard all my life, this working backwards from a pre-determined conclusion. How that's good science or good research of any sort continues to elude me.

It does, however, definitely fit with the observation that all the species are the same only different. So yeah, you can arrange it in various patterns with other specimens.

With all the evidence that exists for evolution it is not unreasonable to.start speculating where this species fits in the tree of life. Furthermore, under the theory of evolution, EVERY species is a transitional species.

Well, exactly. Do you not see now circular this is? Under the hypothesis, every species is a transitional species, so therefore you try to place every new specimen in between two others. The fact that you can make a reasonable sequence by doing this is the evidence for evolution in the first place.

How is classifying organisms by their traits (with no assumption of descent), finding they come up with a tree, then concluding descent circular? Please justify your assertion.

If you could always come up with a tree using this criteria, no matter what the organisms were; you may have a point. But you can"t. Again, if you disagree please demonstrate this by ordering life objectively by traits and coming up with a different tree.

And yes, it IS evidence for evolution. The problem is that other hypotheses can explain the pattern as well or better.

Intelligent design doesn"t explain the evidence. A designer designs are dependent on their skills, abilities and motivations. As Intelligent design makes no statement or predictions on any of these things, any configuration of anything, no matter how it was created could be waved away as intelligent design.

Moreover, the configuration of life we see certainly precludes the most reasonable speculation on what the motivations or abilities of the designer actually would be if you actually look at what life is. Indeed, using your own arguments in comparison to human designers, the intelligent designer is a semi-competent, foresight lacking individual who systematically tries one design after another, with most designs ending up being failures; lacking the intelligence or ability to transplant features from one line of designs to another, limited to only tweaking what is there before, and almost invariably failing to learn from mistakes.

Like - maybe an intelligent designer created a wide variety of species with a wide variety of features, and built a range of self-modification into the species, so that the eco-system would auto-adapt to varying conditions.

This may be a good argument, if you actually believed it; but you don"t. Environmental changes and catastrophes, especially major ones, such as temperature, climate, moving to new environments almost invariably kill species according to your world view as these changes are the ones that are only normally survived by species that change significantly.

In reality, the changes to species you are prepared to accept are so limited by your own definition; which means their ability to adapt to new environments is so limited as to be next to meaningless.

Secondly, prefixing your explanation with "Like - maybe", isn't really as compelling as the well evidenced, well supportive predictive theory whose explanation defines the specific nature of what life would look like; rather than being an arbitrary speculative assumption which you can use to explain anything at all.

The problem with Darwinian evolution is that the idea that the ecosystem could build itself one small undirected step at a time is preposterous. It's just flat out a belief in magic, there really can be no two ways about this. For instance, I caught a little blurb last night about how fire ants in the Amazon all 'link hands', put the queen in the center, and form a floating colony that can survive flooding. Now clearly such communal behavior cannot form one mutation at a time. One ant mutates a desire to cling to another ant's feet. That does not produce a floating colony, just an annoyed neighbor, so it can't be selected for future use, can it? You have a complex meta-intelligence here - the colony as a whole does something far beyond the intelligence of any individual ant. This is explained quite comfortably by intelligent design, but only by the most extreme sort of fanciful thinking as a sequence of undirected mutations.

This argument could be used to explain why evolution cannot be true; or can be used to show how lacking in any form of knowledge or critical thinking.

Moreover, it is not explained by Intelligent design. It is explained away by intelligent design. It is a distinct lack of an explanation that allows you to not provide any compelling explanation of any aspect of real life.
Ramshutu
Posts: 4,063
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/14/2015 10:09:01 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 9/14/2015 5:16:32 PM, v3nesl wrote:
At 9/14/2015 4:02:30 PM, SNP1 wrote:
At 9/14/2015 2:29:00 PM, v3nesl wrote:
At 9/12/2015 2:54:04 PM, SNP1 wrote:
With all the evidence that exists for evolution it is not unreasonable to.start speculating where this species fits in the tree of life. Furthermore, under the theory of evolution, EVERY species is a transitional species.

Well, exactly. Do you not see now circular this is?

Not at all.
This would only be circular IF it was being used as evidence for evolution.
This, however, is going off the already ESTABLISHED THEORY of Evolution to understand how the species fits into the tree of life.

Under the hypothesis, every species is a transitional species,

Except that it isn't a hypothesis. Only the scientifically illiterate think it is.


Pfffffttttt. I love it when somebody attempts to insult my intelligence by saying something ignorant. lol.


You obviously have no idea how SMALL changes over time can create BIG differences.

Honestly, looking at your previous posts on evolution, I doubt you have even studied it beyond a middle school level.

I've got a bachelor of engineering degree. Being an engineer, especially a design engineer, is like being a scientist except that you have to actually make stuff work. And that's my problem - I don't see how certain things can be built by a series of small changes. And neither do you, you just have faith that somebody does know what they're talking about.

But many things simply cannot be built one small change at a time. You could not build a house, for instance, by adding one 2x4 each year. Why? The first boards would rot long before you got the structure under roof. No, to build a house, you must get the frame under roof in a reasonable amount of time. And all systems are this way - many things must be done simultaneously to deploy a real world system. And the ecosystem is a real world system.

Life is not assembled, each multi-cellular organism alive today is grown from a single cell, with a complex set of signaling proteins guiding the division and specialization of each cell in the chain.

So in that respect, your argument utterly falls down, because even at the first step of analysis, life doesn't work anything like the things you are comparing it to. For life to actually be viable, it MUST add a few cells at a time, with each step and still remain biologically viable. Indeed, a newborn which is not fully developed at all, takes twenty years of continuous growth in this way, "Adding two by fours" over a period of years in order to turn into a fully grown adult. Neither organs, nor bodily structure are fully developed.

If you can't see how life can be built from a series of small steps, then you have bigger problems than your lack of belief in evolution.

What is evident throughout the fossil record, and extant life is that EVERY change we see an really be thought of as a small change over what's already there.

Indeed, the way life is actually "constructed" is pretty much the silver bullet in terms of how such major macroscopic changes over time can be built from small steps.

Regulatory changes of the like we see today can cause changes in morphology in terms of size and shape; it can remove bones, duplicate bones, change bone shape. It can duplicate parts of organs and literally turn a single chamber heart into a primitive double chambered heart, which can then undergo more subtle changes to make the development of the double chambered heart better.

Indeed, it is for this very reason that what we see in life is a very limited set of organisms on this planet, rather than the wide variety it would be reasonable to expect in design. Terrestrial vertebrate all have the same body plan, with primarily only differences in size and shape; with a handful of other developmental changes that are ALL chemically analogous. Bird feathers and reptilian scales are similar developmentally and chemically in their origin; indicative of a small changes in development.

Lungs are developmentally related to the swim bladder and the gut; hearts are related developmentally for the same reason. The same can be said for the recurrent laryngeal nerve, and tails in humans, and almost every other change that exists between two species that you claim aren't related.

Indeed, almost all of the massive differences have deep developmental homology; in a way that is never repeated in engineered systems, and is indicative only of evolution.

Indeed, this simple mechanism; mutations occurring on developmental progression explains the massively detailed set of trends in taxonomy, paleontology and biology. It makes it clear why humans can sometimes be born with tails, dolphins and snakes with legs; it makes it obvious why there are no terrestrial vertebrates with 6 legs; that everything that has a backbone has an anus that forms before the mouth. It explains why we have a coccyx, why the laryngeal nerve of the giraffe goes all the way down it's neck and back up. It explains why we are pretty much identical to chimps, save for a few differences in development. It explains life forms a nested hierarchy. It explains why there are no fish with lungs and swim bladders

This very simple process; that CAN be confirmed and tested through it's predictions that have all been shown to be true and valid brings all taxonomy together, and continues to reveal innumerable specific details about how life actually did evolve.

If you want to compare life to things that are designed, and make the comparisons you make, it is pretty clear that you have no clue as to how life actually works; because the moment you take that into account, evolution becomes the only meaningful or reasonable explanation for anything we see, and it explains it all.

As someone who also has significant engineering credentials to offer, it is clear that life is nothing like anything I have ever designed and simply cannot be compared. It bears none of the typical hallmarks of design I have come to expect including novelty and innovation and indeed if it were designed, it was by someone who had clearly run out of idea's in the cambrian. It has significant design flaws that no designer capable of creating the design would put in, and shows patterns and trends that are more limited, and more indicative of lack of resources than I have ever seen in my professional career.

On the other hand; it every aspect of the design is indicative of evolution from how the design is produced, to how the patterns in the code behind it happens. Without knowing the specific details, it is easy to understand how such major changes could occur in simple steps, that do not have to all occur at once, and allows an entire organism to evolve in a direction.

And, finally. one thing I will note as an intelligent designer.

The smartest algorithms in the world, are not ones specifically designed for a purpose; but ones revolving around evolution and growing solutions to problem through successive changes.

AI is, in primarily based on evolutionary mechanisms; and there is a reason we are so scared of it. If we get AI working to the point it evolves almost as well as real life; it will evolve so fast as to be bigger and better than anything we can conceive.
v3nesl
Posts: 4,494
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/15/2015 12:17:16 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 9/14/2015 8:19:00 PM, Chaosism wrote:
...

The complex biological systems did not just mutate into existence spontaneously,

That's exactly what evolution claims. Perhaps you mean to say something different, but what you wrote is precisely what evolution claims.

I would very much like to see where this claim can be found.


I think we better start here.

So what part of "complex biological systems mutated into existence spontaneously" do you disagree with?
This space for rent.
Chaosism
Posts: 2,667
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/15/2015 1:05:30 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 9/15/2015 12:17:16 PM, v3nesl wrote:
At 9/14/2015 8:19:00 PM, Chaosism wrote:
...

The complex biological systems did not just mutate into existence spontaneously,

That's exactly what evolution claims. Perhaps you mean to say something different, but what you wrote is precisely what evolution claims.

I would very much like to see where this claim can be found.


I think we better start here.

So what part of "complex biological systems mutated into existence spontaneously" do you disagree with?

By this, I meant a functional, developed system that suddenly emerged in a new organism's biology which did not exist in it's predecessor biology.
v3nesl
Posts: 4,494
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/15/2015 1:56:42 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 9/15/2015 1:05:30 PM, Chaosism wrote:
At 9/15/2015 12:17:16 PM, v3nesl wrote:
At 9/14/2015 8:19:00 PM, Chaosism wrote:
...

The complex biological systems did not just mutate into existence spontaneously,

That's exactly what evolution claims. Perhaps you mean to say something different, but what you wrote is precisely what evolution claims.

I would very much like to see where this claim can be found.


I think we better start here.

So what part of "complex biological systems mutated into existence spontaneously" do you disagree with?

By this, I meant a functional, developed system that suddenly emerged in a new organism's biology which did not exist in it's predecessor biology.

Well, in technical usage 'spontaneous' means (of a process or event) occurring without apparent external cause.

'Sudden' is often implied in common usage, but that's a very relative term anyhow - relative to the big bang, maybe you would say life emerged suddenly

But to get back to laying our foundation: Would you agree to this statement: "complex biological systems mutated into existence without external cause" - ?
This space for rent.
Chaosism
Posts: 2,667
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/15/2015 2:46:53 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 9/15/2015 1:56:42 PM, v3nesl wrote:
At 9/15/2015 1:05:30 PM, Chaosism wrote:
At 9/15/2015 12:17:16 PM, v3nesl wrote:
At 9/14/2015 8:19:00 PM, Chaosism wrote:
...

The complex biological systems did not just mutate into existence spontaneously,

That's exactly what evolution claims. Perhaps you mean to say something different, but what you wrote is precisely what evolution claims.

I would very much like to see where this claim can be found.


I think we better start here.

So what part of "complex biological systems mutated into existence spontaneously" do you disagree with?

By this, I meant a functional, developed system that suddenly emerged in a new organism's biology which did not exist in it's predecessor biology.

Well, in technical usage 'spontaneous' means (of a process or event) occurring without apparent external cause.

'Sudden' is often implied in common usage, but that's a very relative term anyhow - relative to the big bang, maybe you would say life emerged suddenly

OK - sorry for the confusion.

But to get back to laying our foundation: Would you agree to this statement: "complex biological systems mutated into existence without external cause" - ?

Not really. External influences are a shared cause: environmental pressures, predators, etc. Additionally, the development of such system is directly dependent on the external world, for instance, the intake (and therefore presence) of oxygen. The internal mechanism is the random mutation, which is the foundation of the process.
v3nesl
Posts: 4,494
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/15/2015 3:55:54 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 9/15/2015 2:46:53 PM, Chaosism wrote:
...

But to get back to laying our foundation: Would you agree to this statement: "complex biological systems mutated into existence without external cause" - ?

Not really. External influences are a shared cause: environmental pressures, predators, etc. Additionally, the development of such system is directly dependent on the external world, for instance, the intake (and therefore presence) of oxygen. The internal mechanism is the random mutation, which is the foundation of the process.

You're uncomfortable with saying that the ecosystem emerged spontaneously. You should be. But you have to take what can be a step of courage, to listen to your own instincts even when they conflict with the status quo.
This space for rent.