Of Fish and Humans

LightHorseman · #51 2nd July 2009, 10:42 PM

Originally Posted by juvenissun

You said it, the environmental control. The environment controls the genetics. if the environment does not change much, genetic change won't go very far.

Wrong. If tyhe environment doesn't change, then significant genetic changes will not be advantageous and will die out quickly. Changes to the environment don't CAUSE genetic changes... some genetic changes make use of changes of the environment.

Hespera · #52 2nd July 2009, 10:49 PM

Lighthorse sez....

FYI, in the interests of my own mental health, I am no longer going to attempt to "discuss" anything with people who refuse to listen to anyone else's POV, and don't let actual evidence sway them from their cherished a priori beliefs."QUOTE//////

hespera sez....

A day or so ago i pointed out to juv a couple of egregious errors in his ideas about fish / amphibian evolution. ( like that the fish were salt water fish)

I asked him later if he would care to accept that he had been wrong in that, and in the other things I pointed out, "problems" with evolution that were really just his own inventions.

So far there has been no hint of such such an acknowledgement. The evidnece is plain as can be that he was wrong, but we dont see let the evidence sawy him.

FYI and all.

juvenissun · #53 2nd July 2009, 10:49 PM

Originally Posted by Washington

But you said paleontologists ignore just that: the "everything else." So if they did that, according to what you say "everything else" is, they would be doing the right thing wouldn't they ?

No they don't say they're the "same thing." They would say they belong to the same SPECIES.

No it isn't. Paleontology is the study of the forms of life existing in previous geological periods as represented by their fossils. If anything is "a study" of classification it would be taxonomy. Look it up.

That is what I am saying. Paleontology = taxonomy + interpretation.
One can use all other studies for the interpretation part. But is only a part which interprets the taxonomy. In other words, no taxonomy, no paleontology.

So, paleontological interpretation is based on taxonomy. Taxonomy does not lead to conclusion. So paleontological interpretation should never be taken as any conclusion.

juvenissun · #54 2nd July 2009, 10:52 PM

Originally Posted by LightHorseman

Wrong. If tyhe environment doesn't change, then significant genetic changes will not be advantageous and will die out quickly. Changes to the environment don't CAUSE genetic changes... some genetic changes make use of changes of the environment.

Changes to the environment don't CAUSE genetic changes.
Changes to the environment controls genetic changes

You put the wrong words into my mount and then said I am wrong.

juvenissun · #55 2nd July 2009, 10:56 PM

Originally Posted by corvus_corax

Just so there is no confusion later on, please define "non-biological differences" in this context. Being completely straightforward and defining your terms leads to a more clear cut discussion.

I know someone will pick on this one.
"I will not go there". This is a non-biological determination.

juvenissun · #56 2nd July 2009, 11:02 PM

Originally Posted by Split Rock

Of course there are differences... we are differEnt species! This does not mean we are not related. Are there no differences between you and your brother or cousin? Does that mean you are not related??

"Related" does not mean "the same".

You said you are an ape. That means you are "the same" as an ape.

I am not an ape. This does not mean I am not related to ape. The relationship is yet to be defined. I admit that my skeleton is similar to that of an ape.

juvenissun · #57 2nd July 2009, 11:11 PM

Originally Posted by Bombila

Maybe it would help if we glanced away from human evolution and our cousinship with chimps to look at other 'cousin' species as examples. These two animals are related in much the same way as humans and chimps. They are both Marmotini.

Very good strategy. But I am not taking the bait. That is the main reason that all paleontologists are wrong about human origin.

Since I am not a biologist, I will stick to argument related to human (which is what the OP about). The point is: If human did not evolved from ape, that would be good enough for me. I don't really care about the evolution of other animals. Even animals evolve, human definitely does not. If human does not, then animal should not either.

Wiccan_Child · #58 2nd July 2009, 11:15 PM

Originally Posted by juvenissun

Don't worry. Brainwash is just another name for a dedicated study. One has to be brainwashed first, then he will know he was brainwashed.

...

I think that defeats the whole point of brainwashing.

Originally Posted by juvenissun

I was brainwashed by geology. But Creationism waked me up.

In what way were you brainwashed?

Hespera · #59 2nd July 2009, 11:17 PM

So juv, just wondering... you do know you are wrong about the fresh water / salt water fish that i referred to, dont you? Im just curious, do you simply ignore it when you are wrong and go on to the next thing to be wrong about?

Or do you ever accept it that you were wrong? Are you going to this time?

Wiccan_Child · #60 2nd July 2009, 11:20 PM

Originally Posted by juvenissun

Very good strategy. But I am not taking the bait. That is the main reason that all paleontologists are wrong about human origin.

Since I am not a biologist, I will stick to argument related to human (which is what the OP about). The point is: If human did not evolved from ape, that would be good enough for me. I don't really care about the evolution of other animals. Even animals evolve, human definitely does not. If human does not, then animal should not either.

Then why do we see a plethora of fossils that, when placed chronologically in order, clearly show the gradual evolution of the human species? Take the skulls, for instance: