Creation & EvolutionForum for the discussion of this important topic. This forum is open to non-believers. There is a Christians-only forum in the Christians-only section too.
Jet Black, thanks for the response. I agree with some of what you said and others are up in opinion. I noticed you used the word "hovindian refutations." Just to set the record, ive been to DrDino webpage before, but all ive done is read it, that doesnt mean i agree with him, or post his qoutes. Me and DrDino dont see eye to eye on a couple things, yet i still commend his purpose, ive seen him speak before, hes a guy with alot of movitation. But i dont qoute him or agree with some of his thoughts. But, i see your point, i used two species that are completely apart on the evolutionary tree and there paths would most likely never cross, one wouldnt evolve into another. I see your point, but when evolution claims that everything came from a single ancestor one can assume that everything is related, someone somehow, no matter how small. Would a TX turn into a rabbit according to evolution, no, yet they would still have a common factor. The evolutionary tree (as stated in the first thread) shows that the relationships between species dont match up. My example was a fish turning into a lion, i used this because the first cells were in water type environments then evolved onto land. If i cant use the fish and lion example, then what, what two species (old to new) would be apporiate? Just give an example, considering everything came from one thing. You commented on my no transitional fossil thing. Fine, i understand. A million years from now when different looking humans approach an ape are they going to claim it was the transitional fossil to humans, well no, its a ape, its still a different class of species. Or are they going to look at our present bones and claim its the transtional fossil from apes to the far advanced humans a million years from now, well, no, we are still humans. We arent going to change into a different class. An ape is an ape, it has DNA of an ape, just as we have DNA of a human. The transitional fossil are species already exsisted that appear similar to other species, just like apes and humans. I dont know if im making sense, i hope so, but you see what im saying. DNA is designed to make that species work at upmost effiency, zero flaws, no mistakes. A human, an ape, a fish, anything has different characteristics that place them into different classes of species for a reason. Whats the transitional fossil between sample x and apes to humans? What species was before the ape and then to humans? All the transitional fossils are already identified as species already known to exsist, remember 95% of all species that have ever lived are gone. Maybe if i can get some coffee ill be able to explain that idea better because i dont think im doing a good job of it. Then you accuse me of accusations without refences, then you gave the WMD thing. I dont believe you are i have the ability the know if they have or have not found WMD in Iraq, its above our paylevel. There are tons of people that know this stuff that arent going to blab to the press about it due to international relations. You are i cant say if they've found WMD in Iraq because we dont know. Everyone bais there view of the world by the news and media, and thats well and fine, but it does provide everything. Not saying that you do, but i cant stand when uninformed people make decision by just watching the news. There are people that know tons more about the progress of Iraq than us (the people that watch the news and think we know it all). The same is true for my statements i made above about highly mutated species. The example i used in the original thread was something to think about, not based on any findings, yet i believe ive come across some webpages about the subject, ill check that out and get back with you. Then the pig thing, if were not, then fine, its just what ive heard. The point was to describe that other animals are many similar characterics to humans, not just apes. Other animals have some of our complex systems. And your last comment, i fully understand that according to evolution that humans and apes have a similiar ancestor, not that one evolved into another, i believe i stated that, but if i didnt, my bad. I dont deny that species adapt, that clear, thats obvious, thats micro-evolution. That isnt my agruement, its about marco-evolution, that everything came from a single cell, that is what im arguing. Micro-evolution is provable, observiable and testable (not to mention in the bible) but macro-evolution is the tough one to shollow from a scientific standpoint.
Jet Black, thanks for the response. I agree with some of what you said and others are up in opinion. I noticed you used the word "hovindian refutations." Just to set the record, ive been to DrDino webpage before, but all ive done is read it, that doesnt mean i agree with him, or post his qoutes.
well as I said, your example wasn't quite as bad as his sorry if I seemed to imply you were an avid follower of his.
Me and DrDino dont see eye to eye on a couple things, yet i still commend his purpose, ive seen him speak before, hes a guy with alot of movitation. But i dont qoute him or agree with some of his thoughts.
there have been many threads about hovind, I won't derail this one by talking about him.
But, i see your point, i used two species that are completely apart on the evolutionary tree and there paths would most likely never cross, one wouldnt evolve into another.
well lions do have an ancestor that was a sort of fish, albeit a very very ancient one. it won't have been anything like a cod.
I see your point, but when evolution claims that everything came from a single ancestor one can assume that everything is related, someone somehow, no matter how small.
ultimately, yes. everything has a common ancestor of a cellular origin. there are alot of things that point to this.
Would a TX turn into a rabbit according to evolution, no, yet they would still have a common factor.
yup. It would be nothing like either though.
The evolutionary tree (as stated in the first thread) shows that the relationships between species dont match up. My example was a fish turning into a lion, i used this because the first cells were in water type environments then evolved onto land. If i cant use the fish and lion example, then what, what two species (old to new) would be apporiate? Just give an example, considering everything came from one thing.
well I would suggest being a little less specific, and pointing out steps closer together. Granted at some time modern day fish and lions would have had an ancestor, but it is so far back, tens to hundreds of millions of years ago that you end up talking about the entire evolutionary tree. talking about things like "how did we get from the sea to the land" or "how do we get mammals" is a bit more contsructive, since there are actual examples of both of these things, that don't require a ten volume book to explain
You commented on my no transitional fossil thing. Fine, i understand. A million years from now when different looking humans approach an ape are they going to claim it was the transitional fossil to humans, well no, its a ape, its still a different class of species. Or are they going to look at our present bones and claim its the transtional fossil from apes to the far advanced humans a million years from now, well, no, we are still humans.
well they will acknowledge that we are humans. we are homo sapiens after all. however they will be something else. there will probably be lots of varieties of them too, especially once we start travelling to other planets and isolating gene pools by tens of thousands of years and billions of miles.
We arent going to change into a different class. An ape is an ape, it has DNA of an ape, just as we have DNA of a human.
we are apes! we have the DNA of a homonid ape of the homo sapiens variety (the only homonid left afaik, though further study has to be done into politicians) Chimps are an ape of the pan troglodytes branch. we are all apes. we share ape like features, and ape like DNA (although a couple of our chromosomes have fised together) there is nothing "distinct" about our DNA that makes is especially different from any other animal.
The transitional fossil are species already exsisted that appear similar to other species, just like apes and humans. I dont know if im making sense, i hope so, but you see what im saying. DNA is designed to make that species work at upmost effiency, zero flaws, no mistakes.
only there are lots of flaws, and lots of mistakes. but one would expect this from evolution. Evolution basically just selects the best of the bunch (the best being the most suited to that environment, and hence the most successful). If the best still sucks, it doens't matter, because it is better than everything else in that environment.
All the transitional fossils are already identified as species already known to exsist,
that is because we all have a common ancestor, for example chordata. we aren't suddently going to pull up an entirely different symmetry, because we wither out-competed all the others (see the cambrian explosion) or live in reasonable harmony with them (insects and starfish etc)
Then you accuse me of accusations without refences, then you gave the WMD thing. I dont believe you are i have the ability the know if they have or have not found WMD in Iraq, its above our paylevel. There are tons of people that know this stuff that arent going to blab to the press about it due to international relations. You are i cant say if they've found WMD in Iraq because we dont know. Everyone bais there view of the world by the news and media, and thats well and fine, but it does provide everything. Not saying that you do, but i cant stand when uninformed people make decision by just watching the news. There are people that know tons more about the progress of Iraq than us (the people that watch the news and think we know it all). The same is true for my statements i made above about highly mutated species.
the point of the illustration was that "many people say something" is not proof of something, nor is it acceptable evidence of any sort in this case; I don't know who "many people are" in the WMD case, "many people" could be the entirity of the FBI, CIA, KGB (or whatever they are now), Interpol, MI5 and MI6. you have to tell me who these people are who say these things.
Then the pig thing, if were not, then fine, its just what ive heard. The point was to describe that other animals are many similar characterics to humans, not just apes. Other animals have some of our complex systems.
yes, but not as similar to us as monkeys are. since our common ancestors are much closer. One thing I suggest from this, is that you look into some of these things that you hear first, so you don't make mistakes like thinking that pigs are more closely related to us than chimps. If they in fact were, then that would be something really worth looking at, because they shouldn't be. perhaps this was some confusion over things like xenotransplantation.
And your last comment, i fully understand that according to evolution that humans and apes have a similiar ancestor, not that one evolved into another, i believe i stated that, but if i didnt, my bad.
well technically we are a sort of ape, but if when you say ape you mean chimps, gorillas et al, then fair enough.
I dont deny that species adapt, that clear, thats obvious, thats micro-evolution. That isnt my agruement, its about marco-evolution, that everything came from a single cell, that is what im arguing. Micro-evolution is provable, observiable and testable (not to mention in the bible) but macro-evolution is the tough one to shollow from a scientific standpoint.
not really. It is simply the accumulation of changes over a long time. say we have a primitive carnivor (generic features like sharp pointy teeth for eating meat), and some different things to eat. say some big things like elephants, some things like horses, some things like rabbits, some snakes and so on, what do you think will happen to those carnivors if you leave them alone for a hundred million years in that environment with lots of different things to eat?
__________________ MSci MSc ARCS DIC PhD..... yes, I am bragging.
Last edited by Jet Black; 29th September 2003 at 06:32 AM.
Just one thing, Jet Black already pointed it out but..
All transitional fossils are fossils that belong to a certain class of species. Most people think that evolution teaches we come from apes, such is not the case. Evolution claims that we have come from a ‘similar’ ancestor from an ape. In all actually we, as humans, are closer physically to monkeys since both monkey’s and humans have tailbones, apes do not.
Very very wrong. We are apes. We are much much closer to other apes than to monkeys. Genetically, morpholigically, physically, even geographically.
Yes, Apes do have tailbones. Every single one. However monkeys have tails, not tailbones.
Jet Black, well done. I'm amazed at your ability to concentrate on all that text. I completly lose my ability to bother about him when he started to argue about the lack of transistional fossiles between lions and fishes.
We need more people like Jetty to stop the US biology education from being overrun with creationists that sound good but doesn't know what they are talking about.
__________________ "The problem isn't stupid people, the problem is that lightning bolts aren't distributed properly".
"We are both Atheists.. I just believe in one less god than you do."
"God made me an atheist, who are you to question his wisdom?"
What's interesting is just how many transitionals we do have between fish and lion.
Off the top of my head I can think of:
Panderichthys
Ichthyostega
Entire therapsid series
Miacis
Quite a few gaps in there; I'm sure some googling on the various transitions would bring up the dozens of others...
__________________ I take a stand on justice, I take a stand on race Gonna take me a TV evangelist and punch him in the face I sing about the hope that’s in me and ask why the poor aren’t fed But if I don’t tow the party line, it’s be better if I were dead
I’m a liberal backslider I’ve been sliding ‘bout ten years
People ask me how I’m doin’ and I confirm all their fears I’m swearing like a trooper, and I’m drinking like a bum
I'm a liberal backslider, and it sure is a lot of fun
sorry if I seemed to imply you were an avid follower of his.
Linear Mode
