Origins TheologyForum for the discussion of Creation Science (Young/Old) vs Theistic Evolution. Discussion of Atheistic Evolution should be taken to the Discussion and Debate forums.
You do not have to correct these minor points. I know they are not precise. They were used to address the main point which you neglected.
It is not a minor point. If you can be so far off the mark about what the "direction forward" is, it is likely that the whole concept of "forward direction" is incorrect.
See the post by sfs. What direction is suggested by humans, E. coli, fruit flies and bananas all sharing a common ancestor? What "distinct direction" of movement is shown here?
__________________ "Either we've got to pretend that Jesus was just as selfish as we are, or we've got to acknowledge that He commanded us to love the poor and serve the needy - and then admit that we just don't wanna do it." Steve Colbert
Your first is a conclusion, not an assumption. The second is neither a conclusion nor an assumption of evolution. Evolution makes no assumption about where life came from. I think it is an assumption that bacteria evolved from simpler living cells, but that assumption has little effect on the study of evolution.
Nice dodge, dodgy dodge. Evolution makes the assumption that man evolved from an ape-like ancestor and then pieces "evidence" it finds to support that assumption.
Scientists use to put together a theory/hypothesis and then try and DISPROVE it. We have the opposite in evolution - they look to PROVE it.
Anyways, just a hit and run post as your response made me laugh.
Nice dodge, dodgy dodge. Evolution makes the assumption that man evolved from an ape-like ancestor and then pieces "evidence" it finds to support that assumption.
Scientists use to put together a theory/hypothesis and then try and DISPROVE it. We have the opposite in evolution - they look to PROVE it.
Anyways, just a hit and run post as your response made me laugh.
Please Google "Ardipithecus ramidus" and "Hominid transition fossils" before posting such idiocy. There is plenty of empirical evidence of evolution in family Hominidae, just for starters.
And your wrong about how scientific theory works, by the way. Scientists form a hypothesis, then run objective tests. Proving it or disproving it isn't the point.
Last edited by laconicstudent; 1st October 2009 at 07:17 PM.
Nice dodge, dodgy dodge. Evolution makes the assumption that man evolved from an ape-like ancestor and then pieces "evidence" it finds to support that assumption.
That's a lie. It's also a lie that implies there is evidence contrary to the evolution of humans from apes, of which none exists.
__________________ "There is evidence for evolution, gobs and gobs of it. It is not just speculation or a faith choice or an assumption or a religion. It is a productive framework for lots of biological research, and it has amazing explanatory power. There is no conspiracy to hide the truth about the failure of evolution. There has really been no failure of evolution as a scientific theory. It works, and it works well." -- creation scientist Dr. Todd Wood
There is no overall direction to evolution. There has been on average an increase in complexity in life, but that's just a result of the fact that life started out simple; evolving in random directions from an initial condition of low complexity has to result in higher complexity. Other than that, I don't know what you're talking about.
Wonder if you could should me a graph on the time vs. complexity. Is the complexity keep rising or is it maximized and maintained or is it peaked and decreased? Or, is it rising at the beginning and started to become random?
My guess is that it kept rising from the beginning. Would that be a trend?
(you have to tell me how to measure the complexity. I do not know)
What direction does it suggest that humans, E. coli, fruit flies and bananas all share a common ancestor?
I know this question will come.
We said: A and B are similar, but A is not evolved from B, but A and B share a common ancestor.
Let me introduce my term: common ancestor level n. So A and B share common ancestor level 1. They also share level 2 ancestor with C and D. And they all share common ancestor level 3. etc. etc.
That is how you you get to that human and E. Coli share a common ancestor, which could well be in level 10 or in level 20.
That's a lie. It's also a lie that implies there is evidence contrary to the evolution of humans from apes, of which none exists.
We live in house, they do not.
We killed each other by tens of thousands. They do not.
Are these evidences?
Before we go to genetics, these are obvious behavior differences precipitated from the genetic differences, which everyone can see and can understand.
We said: A and B are similar, but A is not evolved from B, but A and B share a common ancestor.
Let me introduce my term: common ancestor level n. So A and B share common ancestor level 1. They also share level 2 ancestor with C and D. And they all share common ancestor level 3. etc. etc.
That is how you you get to that human and E. Coli share a common ancestor, which could well be in level 10 or in level 20.
Wonder if you could should me a graph on the time vs. complexity. Is the complexity keep rising or is it maximized and maintained or is it peaked and decreased? Or, is it rising at the beginning and started to become random?
My guess is that it kept rising from the beginning. Would that be a trend?
(you have to tell me how to measure the complexity. I do not know)
There is no really good way to measure complexity, but you can come up with some rough measures that mean something: number of genes in the genome, say, or number of cell types for multicellular species. It's not my field, but I think the graph would rise sharply at first, largely plateau for a very long time, rise sharply again with the development of multicellular life, and then plateau or rise very slowly again. (That would be the plot for the maximum complexity at any given time.)
Linear Mode
