Getbig.com: American Bodybuilding, Fitness and Figure
Getbig Misc Discussion Boards => Religious Debates & Threads => Topic started by: Necrosis on October 15, 2008, 06:02:49 PM
-
we share 99%of our dna with chimpanzees, homology offers us more similarities. Would evidence of being able to learn, do similar tasks, begin to walk upright, share culture, and show emotion lend further evidence that we are just advanced animals no more special then a cat? Pretty sure it would offer strong evidence for evolution from common ancestors along with killing intelligent design, as if it has anything to offer. ::)
http://www.ted.com/index.php/talks/susan_savage_rumbaugh_on_apes_that_write.html
-
we share 99%of our dna with chimpanzees, homology offers us more similarities. Would evidence of being able to learn, do similar tasks, begin to walk upright, share culture, and show emotion lend further evidence that we are just advanced animals no more special then a cat? Pretty sure it would offer strong evidence for evolution from common ancestors along with killing intelligent design, as if it has anything to offer. ::)
http://www.ted.com/index.php/talks/susan_savage_rumbaugh_on_apes_that_write.html
Despite these similarities, I have never come across an ape uttering such profound knowledge. From a biological standpoint you're right of course. I also 100% agree on the fact that "intelligent design" can't offer anything.
-
We also do what animals do. We procreate with the females carrying the baby, we are territorial and possessive like any other animal (young kids instinctively don't share), we eat to sustain ourselves, we defficate when we need to, etc. The biggest difference is other species of animals don't fuck each other over for money.
-
We also do what animals do. We procreate with the females carrying the baby, we are territorial and possessive like any other animal (young kids instinctively don't share), we eat to sustain ourselves, we defficate when we need to, etc. The biggest difference is other species of animals don't fuck each other over for money.
What we do has biological aspects. The conclusion that our actions (or generally, we as humans) are defined just by those biological aspects is one often drawn by biologists and behavioural scientists. A conclusion however, that (besides being wrong) is one that cannot be drawn from within their field of examination. The point of origin is always human consciousness, not the other way round.
-
Despite these similarities, I have never come across an ape uttering such profound knowledge. From a biological standpoint you're right of course. I also 100% agree on the fact that "intelligent design" can't offer anything.
But your ancestors have. They lived along side the Neanderthals which possessed several capabilities such as our own. Not to mention Homo sapien's direct ancestors themselves which carried the gene mutation which provides us with the ability to communicate via speech, they were also societal animals and good tool makers. Shame only one dominant intelligent ape can possibly survive, but this is our own doing, we were just too good at what we did and more economical about it (are calorie consumption is almost half of that require by projections for Neanderthals).
-
But your ancestors have. They lived along side the Neanderthals which possessed several capabilities such as our own. Not to mention Homo sapien's direct ancestors themselves which carried the gene mutation which provides us with the ability to communicate via speech, they were also societal animals and good tool makers. Shame only one dominant intelligent ape can possibly survive, but this is our own doing, we were just too good at what we did and more economical about it (are calorie consumption is almost half of that require by projections for Neanderthals).
All biological aspects of what cannot be holistically explained by evolution.
-
we share 99%of our dna with chimpanzees, homology offers us more similarities. Would evidence of being able to learn, do similar tasks, begin to walk upright, share culture, and show emotion lend further evidence that we are just advanced animals no more special then a cat? Pretty sure it would offer strong evidence for evolution from common ancestors along with killing intelligent design, as if it has anything to offer. ::)
http://www.ted.com/index.php/talks/susan_savage_rumbaugh_on_apes_that_write.html
If human and chimp DNA are so similar, why are there so many physical and mental differences between them?
"When studying the human genome and its similarity to that of the chimp, scientists have recently concluded that 96% of our genome is similar. However, most people are unaware that this percent pertains to the regions of our DNA that result in proteins. It seems logical that if a protein performs a certain function in one organism, then that same protein should perform the same function in a variety of organisms. This is evidence for a common designer as much as for a common ancestor. But most of the DNA sequence performs an unknown function and has been largely dismissed as “junk DNA.” However, increasing evidence supports the view that “junk” DNA performs an important role. For example, a recent report unexpectedly found specific sequence patterns in “junk” DNA which scientists have termed “pyknons.”1 It has been suggested that these pyknons may be important in determining when and where proteins are made.
Within this “junk DNA” there may be large differences between man and chimp. The areas of greatest difference appear to involve regions which are structurally different (commonly called “rearrangements”) and areas of heterochromatin (tightly packed DNA).
Here are some other interesting differences between the human and chimp genomes which are often not reported:
- The amount of chimp DNA is 12% larger than what it is in humans.
- Several hundred million bases (individual components of the DNA) of the chimp genome are still unanalyzed.
- In many areas of the DNA sequence, major “rearrangements” seem apparent. These account for perhaps 4–10% dissimilarity between chimps and humans.
- Chimps have 23 chromosomes and humans have only 22 (excluding sex chromosomes for both species).
Thus, the physical and mental differences between humans and chimps are most likely due to the differences in purpose and function of the so-called junk DNA. This understanding should leave us more mindful of the awesome complexity of the Creator and His creation of DNA.
Dr. Georgia Purdom earned her doctorate from The Ohio State University in molecular genetics and spent six years as a professor of biology at Mt. Vernon Nazarene University. Dr. Purdom is also a member of the American Society for Microbiology and American Society for Cell Biology."
Footnotes:
1. Rigoutsos, Isidore, et al., Short blocks from the noncoding parts of the human genome have instances within nearly all known genes and relate to biological processes, PNAS 103(17):6605–10.
-
If human and chimp DNA are so similar, why are there so many physical and mental differences between them?
"When studying the human genome and its similarity to that of the chimp, scientists have recently concluded that 96% of our genome is similar. However, most people are unaware that this percent pertains to the regions of our DNA that result in proteins. It seems logical that if a protein performs a certain function in one organism, then that same protein should perform the same function in a variety of organisms. This is evidence for a common designer as much as for a common ancestor. But most of the DNA sequence performs an unknown function and has been largely dismissed as “junk DNA.” However, increasing evidence supports the view that “junk” DNA performs an important role. For example, a recent report unexpectedly found specific sequence patterns in “junk” DNA which scientists have termed “pyknons.”1 It has been suggested that these pyknons may be important in determining when and where proteins are made.
Within this “junk DNA” there may be large differences between man and chimp. The areas of greatest difference appear to involve regions which are structurally different (commonly called “rearrangements”) and areas of heterochromatin (tightly packed DNA).
Here are some other interesting differences between the human and chimp genomes which are often not reported:
- The amount of chimp DNA is 12% larger than what it is in humans.
- Several hundred million bases (individual components of the DNA) of the chimp genome are still unanalyzed.
- In many areas of the DNA sequence, major “rearrangements” seem apparent. These account for perhaps 4–10% dissimilarity between chimps and humans.
- Chimps have 23 chromosomes and humans have only 22 (excluding sex chromosomes for both species).
Thus, the physical and mental differences between humans and chimps are most likely due to the differences in purpose and function of the so-called junk DNA. This understanding should leave us more mindful of the awesome complexity of the Creator and His creation of DNA.
Dr. Georgia Purdom earned her doctorate from The Ohio State University in molecular genetics and spent six years as a professor of biology at Mt. Vernon Nazarene University. Dr. Purdom is also a member of the American Society for Microbiology and American Society for Cell Biology."
Footnotes:
1. Rigoutsos, Isidore, et al., Short blocks from the noncoding parts of the human genome have instances within nearly all known genes and relate to biological processes, PNAS 103(17):6605–10.
Why even share any DNA at all? If man is superior and above animals, we should just have DNA specific to just humans and not coincide with any other similar animal on earth.
-
All biological aspects of what cannot be holistically explained by evolution.
All can be explain by evolution through natural selection.
Loco, most of our DNA sequence is never actually "realised", that is to say that large portions of it are junk strands or turned off - this is why we share a huge portion of our genetic code even with a lowly banana. These portions are monoliths of are ancient past. Only a tiny amount of truly "realised" genes are required to see changes between organisms. It is a single gene for instance that dictates whether an organism sees in colour or not. The same with vocal capabilities.
Think about this, how different are humans between each other within the world population? Hugely different, in fact many White Europeans arrogantly and incorrectly thought that the Negroids of Africa were closer to other apes than we are. How different are pygmies and such isolated tribes? All from a VERY, VERY small change in an even smaller subset of our total genome.
The fact that Chimpanzees are so close on a genetic scale only gives more credibility to Darwin's theory of natural selection. If the difference was HUGE then it would fall flat on its face.
Don't assume that changes in DNA and changes in appearance are relative of each other. The smallest mutation can lead to the biggest of changes.
-
Why even share any DNA at all? If man is superior and above animals, we should just have DNA specific to just humans and not coincide with any other similar animal on earth.
Why? I don't know. Why not? That's your opinion. There is no law or rule saying that it has to be your way.
Besides, creationists and intelligent design advocates would say that these similarities are evidence that humans and chimps share, not a common ancestor, but a common creator and a common intelligent designer. So the same evidence could be interpreted either way by both sides.
-
All can be explain by evolution through natural selection.
This statement is an absolute truth not derived from science, hence self-contradicting. We already had this discussion once. Your final argument was that you "believe" in evolution, however could not come up with an explanation of what you mean by it.
-
This statement is an absolute truth not derived from science, hence self-contradicting. We already had this discussion once. Your final argument was that you "believe" in evolution, however could not come up with an explanation of what you mean by it.
I think you need to start defining what your talking about.
the surest way to test reality is objective evidence,humans a falible, philosophy can be deluded, reason can succumb to neural nots.
Evolution through natural selection is fact, it has been observed, by anyone anywhere. Dont mistake beleif with evidence for belief without evidence. Of course nothing is 100% knowable, but that doesnt mean we ignore objective results and findings and take agnositc stances on things that are quite clearly factual.
-
I think you need to start defining what your talking about.
the surest way to test reality is objective evidence,humans a falible, philosophy can be deluded, reason can succumb to neural nots.
Evolution through natural selection is fact, it has been observed, by anyone anywhere. Dont mistake beleif with evidence for belief without evidence. Of course nothing is 100% knowable, but that doesnt mean we ignore objective results and findings and take agnositc stances on things that are quite clearly factual.
I have clearly defined everything I'm talking about. I see no new arguments, all of this has already been discussed. I could refer you to a post from a few days ago and send you into an infinite loop. ;D
-
I have clearly defined everything I'm talking about. I see no new arguments, all of this has already been discussed. I could refer you to a post from a few days ago and send you into an infinite loop. ;D
i know but if your definitions are correct i would be convinced of your standpoint and i am not.
I havent seen one example of how to tell what is real and your argument(the one you presented based on form) for creation or intelligent creation was pure conjecture without axioms.
im aware you can see the limitations of scientific positivism, i can to, i just dont see a viable solution to the short-comings, i dont see what can fill that void.
I agree we are going in circles, but i find your form of argumentation somewhat cryptic and off point. Perhaps its just me. :D
-
i know but if your definitions are correct i would be convinced of your standpoint and i am not.
I havent seen one example of how to tell what is real and your argument(the one you presented based on form) for creation or intelligent creation was pure conjecture without axioms.
im aware you can see the limitations of scientific positivism, i can to, i just dont see a viable solution to the short-comings, i dont see what can fill that void.
I agree we are going in circles, but i find your form of argumentation somewhat cryptic and off point. Perhaps its just me. :D
Yes it's just you. ;D
-
Why? I don't know. Why not? That's your opinion. There is no law or rule saying that it has to be your way.
Besides, creationists and intelligent design advocates would say that these similarities are evidence that humans and chimps share, not a common ancestor, but a common creator and a common intelligent designer. So the same evidence could be interpreted either way by both sides.
A monkey is not an alligator. They share no common DNA. It's not an opinion, it's the opinion of creationists and intellectual design that chimps aren't ancestors of humans. If that's true then they shouldn't share any similar DNA just like a monkey and alligator don't. If a creator made all things, why don't all species have common DNA? This is not a tough question.
-
A monkey is not an alligator. They share no common DNA. It's not an opinion, it's the opinion of creationists and intellectual design that chimps aren't ancestors of humans. If that's true then they shouldn't share any similar DNA just like a monkey and alligator don't. If a creator made all things, why don't all species have common DNA? This is not a tough question.
Oldschool Flip, a chimpanzee is not a monkey.
You're just making up rules as you go..."if God exists, and if God created humans and chimps, then humans and chimps shouldn't share common DNA"...what? Why not?
I stand by what I posted already. The same evidence can be interpreted by either side to fit their own world view. It goes both ways.
-
Oldschool Flip, a chimpanzee is not a monkey.
You're just making up rules as you go..."if God exists, and if God created humans and chimps, then humans and chimps shouldn't share common DNA"...what? Why not?
I stand by what I posted already. The same evidence can be interpreted by either side to fit their own world view. It goes both ways.
Okay a chimpanzee doesn't share the same DNA as an alligator. You claim that intelligent design and creationists would claim that a chimp and a human have in common the same creator. Well that would also hold true for an alligator and a chimp, since nothing evolved from nothing but was created. So why don't they have common DNA? This question is from the logic you brought about.
-
Okay a chimpanzee doesn't share the same DNA as an alligator. You claim that intelligent design and creationists would claim that a chimp and a human have in common the same creator. Well that would also hold true for an alligator and a chimp, since nothing evolved from nothing but was created. So why don't they have common DNA? This question is from the logic you brought about.
Do humans share similarities only with chimps? No. Do humans share similarities with other species? Yes. Do scientists point out these similarities with other species as evidence of a common ancestor? Yes.
Common Ancestor or Common Designer?
(http://www.answersingenesis.org/assets/images/articles/am/v2/n3/homology-tn.jpg)
"Every biology textbook used in public schools has a picture like the one above. The artist has color-coded the bones to demonstrate that all of the organisms in the picture must have evolved from a common ancestor. Homology (shared characteristics among different species) is presented as solid evidence for biological evolution.
In this case, the alleged common ancestor was supposedly an unknown, extinct reptile. But is there another explanation for the similarities among these limbs?
From a creationist perspective, the similarity is logical; it supports the truth that God, the Designer, used the same basic skeletal plan. Sadly, students never hear this alternate explanation in secular textbooks."
http://www.answersingenesis.org/articles/am/v2/n3/common-ancestor-or-designer
-
Do humans share similarities only with chimps? No. Do humans share similarities with other species? Yes. Do scientists point out these similarities with other species as evidence of a common ancestor? Yes.
Common Ancestor or Common Designer?
(http://www.answersingenesis.org/assets/images/articles/am/v2/n3/homology-tn.jpg)
"Every biology textbook used in public schools has a picture like the one above. The artist has color-coded the bones to demonstrate that all of the organisms in the picture must have evolved from a common ancestor. Homology (shared characteristics among different species) is presented as solid evidence for biological evolution.
In this case, the alleged common ancestor was supposedly an unknown, extinct reptile. But is there another explanation for the similarities among these limbs?
From a creationist perspective, the similarity is logical; it supports the truth that God, the Designer, used the same basic skeletal plan. Sadly, students never hear this alternate explanation in secular textbooks."
http://www.answersingenesis.org/articles/am/v2/n3/common-ancestor-or-designer
That's nice loco, but I'm talking DNA. Almost all animals have limbs. The few that don't have skeletons like other animals. DNA isn't common is different species.
-
That's nice loco, but I'm talking DNA. Almost all animals have limbs. The few that don't have skeletons like other animals. DNA isn't common is different species.
Are you saying that human DNA has nothing in common with anything other than chimps?
-
Do humans share similarities only with chimps? No. Do humans share similarities with other species? Yes. Do scientists point out these similarities with other species as evidence of a common ancestor? Yes.
Common Ancestor or Common Designer?
(http://www.answersingenesis.org/assets/images/articles/am/v2/n3/homology-tn.jpg)
"Every biology textbook used in public schools has a picture like the one above. The artist has color-coded the bones to demonstrate that all of the organisms in the picture must have evolved from a common ancestor. Homology (shared characteristics among different species) is presented as solid evidence for biological evolution.
In this case, the alleged common ancestor was supposedly an unknown, extinct reptile. But is there another explanation for the similarities among these limbs?
From a creationist perspective, the similarity is logical; it supports the truth that God, the Designer, used the same basic skeletal plan. Sadly, students never hear this alternate explanation in secular textbooks."
http://www.answersingenesis.org/articles/am/v2/n3/common-ancestor-or-designer
loco, the website is beyond bias. I will inform you that having a conclusion come before evidence in not scientific. You see evolution has mechanisms like natural selection, mutations (point, base pair, insertion etc), things like genetic drift etc.. which all clearly show how we evolve. This is what makes the theory float per se. Then we have genetics, homology, nested hierachies, biology etc.. which all point to evolution, combined with a mechanism we have a sound theory explained with facts.
What you have is a conclusion, GOD did it but no mechanisms. How does he create? when animals adapt via natural selection is god intervening? is so, how so? Why, when? How can we prove this? how does an immaterial being interact with the material? this and many more questions. The answer to all the questions and every other one surrounding intelligent design are, We dont know.
but we have a conclusion. Also since things share DNA why would god make us special if we share genetics with things like lowly pigs etc.. Why can animals like the bonobo preform tasks indicative of increasing intelligence and a plastic brain?
the common designer explanation brings up more questions then it answers and provides a hypercomplex solution to a complex task. FAIL. ;D
-
People who do not believe in evolution simply claim that God could have 'made them 99% similar' for some reason.
Why are there so many differences between a human and a chimp? It's important to look at this in perspective. Compared to all of the similarities, the differences are quite small.
Nothing will convince someone who is emotionally invested in their beliefs, such as religious people who do not believe evolution are. The mental gymnastics required to not comprehend the facts and evidence is amusing to watch though. It's like there is some sort of wall in their minds preventing them from accepting the proof.
-
This statement is an absolute truth not derived from science, hence self-contradicting. We already had this discussion once. Your final argument was that you "believe" in evolution, however could not come up with an explanation of what you mean by it.
Natural selection and evolution are fact. Science backs this by working with observable facts i.e. measurable mutations and small evolution along with the evidence which is locked in DNA which alone is good enough evidence for declaring evolution a FACT.
"Through controlled methods, scientists use observable physical evidence of natural phenomena to collect data, and analyze this information to explain what and how things work."
Just because technically science doesn't deal with facts (due to future evidence etc.) doesn't mean evolution isn't because of association. You just seem to be pretentious about all this as a safe guard against your faith in fictitious man-made societal control manuals :D
-
Natural selection and evolution are fact. Science backs this by working with observable facts i.e. measurable mutations and small evolution along with the evidence which is locked in DNA which alone is good enough evidence for declaring evolution a FACT.
"Through controlled methods, scientists use observable physical evidence of natural phenomena to collect data, and analyze this information to explain what and how things work."
Just because technically science doesn't deal with facts (due to future evidence etc.) doesn't mean evolution isn't because of association. You just seem to be pretentious about all this as a safe guard against your faith in fictitious man-made societal control manuals :D
Amnesia induced meltdown. ;D
Read our previous threads and you will see that my arguments are headed in a completely different direction. I will not respond to old arguments anymore, I'm just too lazy.
If you can come up with new ones, I'll chime in again.
-
loco, the website is beyond bias. I will inform you that having a conclusion come before evidence in not scientific. You see evolution has mechanisms like natural selection, mutations (point, base pair, insertion etc), things like genetic drift etc.. which all clearly show how we evolve. This is what makes the theory float per se. Then we have genetics, homology, nested hierachies, biology etc.. which all point to evolution, combined with a mechanism we have a sound theory explained with facts.
What you have is a conclusion, GOD did it but no mechanisms. How does he create? when animals adapt via natural selection is god intervening? is so, how so? Why, when? How can we prove this? how does an immaterial being interact with the material? this and many more questions. The answer to all the questions and every other one surrounding intelligent design are, We dont know.
but we have a conclusion. Also since things share DNA why would god make us special if we share genetics with things like lowly pigs etc.. Why can animals like the bonobo preform tasks indicative of increasing intelligence and a plastic brain?
the common designer explanation brings up more questions then it answers and provides a hypercomplex solution to a complex task. FAIL.
(http://i60.photobucket.com/albums/h29/NeoSeminole/Hillarious/Owned.jpg)
-
(http://i60.photobucket.com/albums/h29/NeoSeminole/Hillarious/Owned.jpg)
Ha ha ha...very funny, NeoSeminole! I'm glad I'm the blue guy. I like blue. ;D
And this is coming from the same genius who compares Macroevolution to gravity and acts all tough debating Onetimehard. ::)
-
loco, the website is beyond bias. I will inform you that having a conclusion come before evidence in not scientific. You see evolution has mechanisms like natural selection, mutations (point, base pair, insertion etc), things like genetic drift etc.. which all clearly show how we evolve. This is what makes the theory float per se. Then we have genetics, homology, nested hierachies, biology etc.. which all point to evolution, combined with a mechanism we have a sound theory explained with facts.
What you have is a conclusion, GOD did it but no mechanisms. How does he create? when animals adapt via natural selection is god intervening? is so, how so? Why, when? How can we prove this? how does an immaterial being interact with the material? this and many more questions. The answer to all the questions and every other one surrounding intelligent design are, We dont know.
but we have a conclusion. Also since things share DNA why would god make us special if we share genetics with things like lowly pigs etc.. Why can animals like the bonobo preform tasks indicative of increasing intelligence and a plastic brain?
the common designer explanation brings up more questions then it answers and provides a hypercomplex solution to a complex task. FAIL. ;D
Necrosis,
That website is "Answers in Genesis", one of the leading creationist organizations out there. Of course they are beyond bias. That is the point I was making to Oldschool Flip, that creationist take the same evidence and interpret it differently. You think that this evidence is going to weaken their faith, but instead it strengthen their faith.
Creationists accept evolutionary change at and below the level of species. Creationists do not accept evolutionary change above the level of species. It has never been observed, tested or proved. It is not like gravity, which is observed and tested by all of us on a daily basis. Creationists believe neither that humans are animals nor that humans share a common ancestor with any animal.
I agree that having a conclusion come before evidence in not scientific, but we as humans do just that, whether theist or atheist. Science is not bias, theist or atheist. Science does not have a world view. But humans, whether theist, agnostic or atheist are bias and do have a world view. Richard Dawkins has said that his aim is to kill religion through the theory of evolution. He has said that as a scientist, he is very hostile toward a "rival doctrine."
Dr. Georgia Purdom for example understands very well the similarities between human and chimp DNA, but she disagrees that it points to a common ancestor.
As for God and science...Sir Ronald Fisher, Theodosius Dobzhansky, Arthur Peacocke, Russell Stannard, John Polkinghorne and Francis Collins are all good scientist who accepted evolution while being devout Christians as well, just to name a few.
By the way, according to some atheists(not you) here, tigers are native to Africa, chimpanzees are monkeys and humans have genetically nothing in common with lowly pigs. And then they say Christians are ignorant and uneducated.
-
Ha ha ha...very funny, NeoSeminole! I'm glad I'm the blue guy. I like blue.
And this is coming from the same genius who compares Macroevolution to gravity and acts all tough debating Onetimehard.
educate yourself before opening your mouth. I said the theory of evolution and the theory of gravity can never be proven. So they are the same in that regard. Only an ignoramus would bring that up to try and discredit me. Also, show me where I acted "all tough" debating Onetimehard.
-
Creationists accept evolutionary change at and below the level of species. Creationists do not accept evolutionary change above the level of species. It has never been observed, tested or proved. It is not like gravity, which is observed and tested by all of us on a daily basis. Creationists believe neither that humans are animals nor that humans share a common ancestor with any animal.
no matter how many times you've been corrected, you continue to spew the same bullshit. Evidence of speciation has been observed. Evolutionary theory makes predictions that have been tested and verified. Scientists have a better understanding of how evolution works than gravity. From now on, I will address you as "idiot" (or any other synonym of my choosing) every time I catch you spreading false information.
-
educate yourself before opening your mouth. I said the theory of evolution and the theory of gravity can never be proven. So they are the same in that regard. Only an ignoramus would bring that up to try and discredit me. Also, show me where I acted "all tough" debating Onetimehard.
I said you compared the two, and you did. ::)
ugh, I already explained this earlier. In science, fact and theory are 2 different things. A theory can never become fact no matter how much evidence comes forth. Your insistence that evolution never occurred b/c it hasn't been proven merely reflects your ignorance on the subject. Gravity is also a scientific theory. I suppose you don't believe in gravity either b/c it hasn't been proven?
-
no matter how many times you've been corrected, you continue to spew the same bullshit. Evidence of speciation has been observed. Evolutionary theory makes predictions that have been tested and verified. Scientists have a better understanding of how evolution works than gravity. From now on, I will address you as "idiot" (or any other synonym of my choosing) every time I catch you spreading false information.
Evolutionary change above the level of species has never been observed, tested or proved. It is not like gravity, which is observed and tested by all of us on a daily basis.
"Evolution has been observed. It's just that it hasn't been observed while it's happening...It is rather like a detective coming on a murder after the scene. And you… the detective hasn't actually seen the murder take place, of course."
- Richard Dawkins
I shall call you genius. ;D
-
I said you compared the two, and you did.
what was that suppose to prove? I already acknowledged that I compared evolution and gravity. ???
-
Evolutionary change above the level of species has never been observed, tested or proved.
edit: define "evolutionary change above the level of species."
It is not like gravity, which is observed and tested by all of us on a daily basis.
you're confusing gravitational theory with facts. Sure, we can observe its effects on a daily basis but scientists still don't know how gravity works. What particles are responsible? Where do they come from? etc.
"Evolution has been observed. It's just that it hasn't been observed while it's happening...It is rather like a detective coming on a murder after the scene. And you… the detective hasn't actually seen the murder take place, of course." - Richard Dawkins
source? I'm guessing that Richard Dawkins was referring to evolution on a grand scale. No one observed our hominid ancestors evolve into homo sapiens, but evolutionists can prove beyond a reasonable doubt that it occured.
I shall call you genius.
thank you.
-
Necrosis,
That website is "Answers in Genesis", one of the leading creationist organizations out there. Of course they are beyond bias. That is the point I was making to Oldschool Flip, that creationist take the same evidence and interpret it differently. You think that this evidence is going to weaken their faith, but instead it strengthen their faith.
Creationists accept evolutionary change at and below the level of species. Creationists do not accept evolutionary change above the level of species. It has never been observed, tested or proved. It is not like gravity, which is observed and tested by all of us on a daily basis. Creationists believe neither that humans are animals nor that humans share a common ancestor with any animal.
I agree that having a conclusion come before evidence in not scientific, but we as humans do just that, whether theist or atheist. Science is not bias, theist or atheist. Science does not have a world view. But humans, whether theist, agnostic or atheist are bias and do have a world view. Richard Dawkins has said that his aim is to kill religion through the theory of evolution. He has said that as a scientist, he is very hostile toward a "rival doctrine."
Dr. Georgia Purdom for example understands very well the similarities between human and chimp DNA, but she disagrees that it points to a common ancestor.
As for God and science...Sir Ronald Fisher, Theodosius Dobzhansky, Arthur Peacocke, Russell Stannard, John Polkinghorne and Francis Collins are all good scientist who accepted evolution while being devout Christians as well, just to name a few.
By the way, according to some atheists(not you) here, tigers are native to Africa, chimpanzees are monkeys and humans have genetically nothing in common with lowly pigs. And then they say Christians are ignorant and uneducated.
you can have your conclusion, but you have no mechanism and you have to explain the origins and all that accompanies this hyperintelligent being. Do you not see how this answer is unacceptable? i just want to make sure we are on the same wavelength :D
francis collins also beleives ID to be ridiculous and supports evolution, and offers evidence for it in his book. He refers to evolution as having overwhelming evidence, its quite obvious it does.
do you not think it wise to use reason? I mean god gave it to you for you to use, why would reason negate god if it has a purpose in his plan?
your theory intelligent design lacks all the attributes of a theory and is nothing but a hypothesis that is untestable. How is ID more then a mere hypothesis without anyway of proving?
"Dr. Georgia Purdom for example understands very well the similarities between human and chimp DNA, but she disagrees that it points to a common ancestor."'
sure he can think whatever he wants, what is his proof?
-
Ha ha ha...very funny, NeoSeminole! I'm glad I'm the blue guy. I like blue. ;D
And this is coming from the same genius who compares Macroevolution to gravity and acts all tough debating Onetimehard. ::)
Both established facts.
-
Evolutionary change above the level of species has never been observed, tested or proved. It is not like gravity, which is observed and tested by all of us on a daily basis.
"Evolution has been observed. It's just that it hasn't been observed while it's happening...It is rather like a detective coming on a murder after the scene. And you… the detective hasn't actually seen the murder take place, of course."
- Richard Dawkins
I shall call you genius. ;D
MacroEvolution has been indirectly observed and has also been proven. It is observed in the fossil record, in the genes of living organisms, in the trees of species, etc.
-
"Evolution has been observed. It's just that it hasn't been observed while it's happening." - Richard Dawkins
http://www.pbs.org/now/transcript/transcript349_full.html#dawkins
Who/what is this common ancestor chimpanzees and humans share?
Nobody is questioning gravity, but macroevolution is another story.
If evolutionary change above the level of species has been observed, then why is it not universally accepted by all scientists? Why do some modern, main stream, well respected, non-Creationist scientists still question it? They have the same evidence, the same fossil record, the same universe, and the same earth. They just don't see the same thing you see, and they do not share your conclusions.
"If one considers the history of evolution, we must postulate thousands of miracles; miracles, in fact, without end."
The Miracles of Darwinism - Interview with Marcel-Paul Schützenberger. Origins & Design 172
http://www.arn.org/docs/odesign/od172/schutz172.htm
"Despite the insistence of evolutionists that evolution is a fact, it is really no more than an improbable story. No one has ever shown that macroevolution can work" - Dr. Lee M. Spetner
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/fitness/spetner.html
"Hoyle compared the random emergence of even the simplest cell to the likelihood that "a tornado sweeping through a junk-yard might assemble a Boeing 747 from the materials therein." Hoyle also compared the chance of obtaining even a single functioning protein by chance combination of amino acids to a solar system full of blind men solving Rubik's Cube simultaneously."
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/genalg/genalg.html
"Sir Fred Hoyle reached the conclusion that the universe is governed by a greater intelligence."
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fred_Hoyle#Rejection_of_chemical_evolution
-
"Evolution has been observed. It's just that it hasn't been observed while it's happening." - Richard Dawkins
http://www.pbs.org/now/transcript/transcript349_full.html#dawkins
that quote is confusing b/c Dawkins doesn't specify which meaning he's using for evolution. Looking at its context, Dawkins was likely referring to evolution that takes place over millions of years. Here is another quote from the same interview which came before the one you posted.
"I mean I'm aware that the subject of evolution is, itself, controversial. I also feel that perhaps the fact that it's a sweep of four billion years helps to get things in perspective. I mean, this is the real long-term view of life."
Who/what is this common ancestor chimpanzees and humans share?
we don't know yet.
Nobody is questioning gravity, but macroevolution is another story.
wrong, many physicists question how gravity works and alternate theories have been proposed. We still haven't unified gravity with the other 3 fundamental forces of nature to create a unified "theory of everything" (TOE).
If evolutionary change above the level of species has been observed, then why is it not universally accepted by all scientists? Why do some modern, main stream, well respected, non-Creationist scientists still question it? They have the same evidence, the same fossil record, the same universe, and the same earth. They just don't see the same thing you see, and they do not share your conclusions.
define "evolutionary change above the level of species."
"If one considers the history of evolution, we must postulate thousands of miracles; miracles, in fact, without end."
The Miracles of Darwinism - Interview with Marcel-Paul Schützenberger. Origins & Design 172
http://www.arn.org/docs/odesign/od172/schutz172.htm
what is the purpose for this quote?
"Despite the insistence of evolutionists that evolution is a fact, it is really no more than an improbable story. No one has ever shown that macroevolution can work" - Dr. Lee M. Spetner
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/fitness/spetner.html
depends on his definition of "macroevolution." If he is referring to the evolution of new species, then he is incorrect.
"Hoyle compared the random emergence of even the simplest cell to the likelihood that "a tornado sweeping through a junk-yard might assemble a Boeing 747 from the materials therein." Hoyle also compared the chance of obtaining even a single functioning protein by chance combination of amino acids to a solar system full of blind men solving Rubik's Cube simultaneously."
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/genalg/genalg.html
the origin of life has nothing to do with how life evolves. Even if you disproved abiogenesis (which is impossible), it would do nothing to weaken the theory of evolution. Furthermore, the analogy of a tornado blowing through a junkyard randomly assembling a 747 airplane is flawed b/c it demands a specific outcome in a single step. This is not how evolution works. A more accurate analogy would be if millions of tornadoes are blowing through millions of junkyards simultaneously, and then stopped. The parts assembled that form part of a 747 from each junkyard are combined into new junkyards and the process repeated until you have a fully formed 747.
This site does a far better job of explaining how early proteins assembled themselves. Read "1.2.3 Statistical impossibility of proteins?"
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/fitness/
"Sir Fred Hoyle reached the conclusion that the universe is governed by a greater intelligence."
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fred_Hoyle#Rejection_of_chemical_evolution
good for him.
-
"Evolution has been observed. It's just that it hasn't been observed while it's happening." - Richard Dawkins
http://www.pbs.org/now/transcript/transcript349_full.html#dawkins
Generally. But this only applies to large scale evolution, which we observe indirectly not directly. We observe small scale evolution everywhere.
Who/what is this common ancestor chimpanzees and humans share?
Not totally sure, but Sahelanthropus tchadensis is a good candidate.
Nobody is questioning gravity, but macroevolution is another story.
Nobody questions that either. Nobody worth listening to at least...
If evolutionary change above the level of species has been observed, then why is it not universally accepted by all scientists?
Essentially it is. Only a very small % don't accept it. A few hundred biologists compared to the hundreds of thousands who accept it is not noteworthy.
Why do some modern, main stream, well respected, non-Creationist scientists still question it? They have the same evidence, the same fossil record, the same universe, and the same earth. They just don't see the same thing you see, and they do not share your conclusions.
I would say that the number of mainstream, well respected non-creationists biologists who deny evolution is probably in the single digits, if that.