| Creation & Evolution Forum 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. |
 | | 
27th October 2006, 08:54 PM
|  | Contributor
   
| | Join Date: 26th August 2003
Posts: 9,012
Blessings: 1,096,897
Reps: 84,929,301,057,186,064 (power: 84,929,301,057,204) | | Originally Posted by dad  A synapomorphy is a derived character-state shared by two or more terminal groups (taxa included in a cladistic analysis as further indivisible units) and inherited from their most recent common ancestor. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Synapomorphy
So, the idea is that the traits came from the most recent ancestor, or, generally, created kind. Beyond that is purest speculation.
Actually, that is the theory of evolution which is not speculation. It is a valid and tested theory. And how many of these do we actually have that relate to the worm that made the elephant?
A worm did not make an elephant. Try again. The whole idea of ERVs is that they are found in traces as having been in life in the past. No, 'common ancestory' is possiblr to deduce here, beyong the created ancestors.
A nested hierarchy is the test. A nested hierarchy is found. Common ancestry passes the test. Unless you can provide another observed mechanism that creates nested hierarchies scientists will continue to conclude that common ancestry is valid. Well, in that particular instance, if you want to talk more than ERVs, and bring in fossils, what is it that says we had some past hokey pokey to where men and chimps are related?
That doesn't explain why anatomically modern humans, fossil hominids, and chimps are never found in the same strata.
__________________
“Because they know not the forces of nature, and in order that they may have comrades in their ignorance, they suffer not that others should search out anything, and would have us believe like rustics and ask no reason...But we ask in all things a reason must be sought.” --William of Conches (c. 1090 – after 1154) |
27th October 2006, 09:01 PM
|  | Veteran
| | Join Date: 17th September 2004
Posts: 1,847
Blessings: 76,803
Reps: 1,588 (power: 10) | | Originally Posted by dad A synapomorphy is a derived character-state shared by two or more terminal groups (taxa included in a cladistic analysis as further indivisible units) and inherited from their most recent common ancestor. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Synapomorphy
So, the idea is that the traits came from the most recent ancestor, or, generally, created kind. Beyond that is purest speculation.
Except that there are synapomorphies linking higher and higher taxa until we have united all of life into a single tree. This is the point. Originally Posted by dad Where the created kind is the common ancestor, no!
Your created kinds are not in evidence. Originally Posted by dad And how many of these do we actually have that relate to the worm that made the elephant?
Modern worms are related to modern elephants via an ancestral bilaterian, which would have been called a worm were it alive today. However, there is over half a billion years separating them. Originally Posted by dad The whole idea of ERVs is that they are found in traces as having been in life in the past. No, 'common ancestory' is possiblr to deduce here, beyong the created ancestors.
No, the whole idea of ERV's is that they are synapomorphies linking primates, including humans, into a nested hierarchy demonstrating common ancestry. Originally Posted by dad Well, in that particular instance, if you want to talk more than ERVs, and bring in fossils, what is it that says we had some past hokey pokey to where men and chimps are related?
Humans and chimps share a common ancestor.  |
28th October 2006, 02:18 AM
|  | Undefeated
 | | Join Date: 17th January 2005
Posts: 20,201
Blessings: 352,163 My Mood 
Reps: 118,712,461,112,472,176 (power: 118,712,461,112,500) | | Originally Posted by Loudmouth Actually, that is the theory of evolution which is not speculation. It is a valid and tested theory.
Nothing is tested that goes beyond created kinds, actually. A worm did not make an elephant. Try again.
Don't try to wiggle out of that one. It is claimed as the ancestor. A nested hierarchy is the test. A nested hierarchy is found. Common ancestry passes the test.
Things being in groups is no test of whether the kinds were created that evolved into all the species we know today. Get real. Unless you can provide another observed mechanism that creates nested hierarchies scientists will continue to conclude that common ancestry is valid.
Unless you can observe the mechanism that was at play in the past, at the scene of the crime, evolution can no longer be considered valid. ...Gong. That doesn't explain why anatomically modern humans, fossil hominids, and chimps are never found in the same strata.
They are today! We both die, they have to be. In the past, either wicked men helped produce chimps, or we had seperate graveyards, and we haven't found any yet. ..Or, they are evolved from other primates, or, some combination. No law says that chimps had to be in Eden. There was some monkey kind, likely, there. And us, of course.
__________________
If the flood happened when laws were different than this present state we know, all bets are off for present state science being able to extrapolate backwards in any meaningful or accurate way. |
28th October 2006, 02:26 AM
|  | Senior Contributor
32
| | Join Date: 14th August 2006 Location: Italy
Posts: 11,497
Blessings: 3,091,820 My Mood 
Reps: 38,791,378,841,557,992 (power: 38,791,378,841,574) | | Originally Posted by dad Nothing is tested that goes beyond created kinds, actually.
Just because you say it doesn't make it truth. You also need evidence. And you have none. All that you have are your erroneous statements that the evidence we have is invalid. You have no evidence whatsoever to support your statements.
__________________
“It took me years, but letting go of religion has been the most profound wake up of my life. I feel I now look at the world not as a child, but as an adult. I see what's bad and it's really bad. But I also see what is beautiful, what is wonderful. And I feel so deeply appreciative that I am alive. How dare the religious use the term 'born again.' That truly describes freethinkers who've thrown off the shackles of religion so much better!” - Julia Sweeney |
28th October 2006, 02:30 AM
| | Undefeated
| | Join Date: 17th January 2005
Posts: 20,201
Blessings: 352,163 My Mood
Reps: 118,712,461,112,472,176 (power: 118,712,461,112,500) | | Originally Posted by Ondoher Except that there are synapomorphies linking higher and higher taxa until we have united all of life into a single tree. This is the point.
Not all similarities and traits are due to evolution this is the point. God made lots of things with bones, and ribs, and lungs, and eyes, and tails, and etc etc etc. Nothing, and I mean nothing says that everything had to evolve. Some evolution is not evidence that everything did nothing but evolve from nothing! Are you getting some of this? Your created kinds are not in evidence.
Says who? If, for example, a wolf was the first dog in Eden, and others evolved from that, then they would be in evidence. I have seen one!!! Modern worms are related to modern elephants via an ancestral bilaterian, which would have been called a worm were it alive today. However, there is over half a billion years separating them.
Hey, Loudmouth, are you taking notes here!!!!? Behold, the claim!! As for your billions of years, that reading of evidence is same past opinion. Nothing more!! No, the whole idea of ERV's is that they are synapomorphies linking primates, including humans, into a nested hierarchy demonstrating common ancestry.
No, your whole same past, present based, idea may be that, but the evidence does not bear that out! All we can say is that we find traces in the present cross species! That isn't saying much. Humans and chimps share a common ancestor.
That could be, I don't know, but all that would speak to is the wickedness of pre flood men.
__________________
If the flood happened when laws were different than this present state we know, all bets are off for present state science being able to extrapolate backwards in any meaningful or accurate way. |
28th October 2006, 02:33 AM
| | Undefeated
| | Join Date: 17th January 2005
Posts: 20,201
Blessings: 352,163 My Mood
Reps: 118,712,461,112,472,176 (power: 118,712,461,112,500) | | Originally Posted by Chalnoth Just because you say it doesn't make it truth. You also need evidence. And you have none.
The evidence that you can't test the past is easy, you can't, and there is no evidence you can. Period. End of story. All that you have are your erroneous statements that the evidence we have is invalid. You have no evidence whatsoever to support your statements.
The evidence we actually have is fine, but it does not include you testing some past! This is news?
__________________
If the flood happened when laws were different than this present state we know, all bets are off for present state science being able to extrapolate backwards in any meaningful or accurate way. |
28th October 2006, 02:36 AM
| | Senior Contributor
32
| | Join Date: 14th August 2006 Location: Italy
Posts: 11,497
Blessings: 3,091,820 My Mood
Reps: 38,791,378,841,557,992 (power: 38,791,378,841,574) | | Originally Posted by dad Not all similarities and traits are due to evolution this is the point. God made lots of things with bones, and ribs, and lungs, and eyes, and tails, and etc etc etc. Nothing, and I mean nothing says that everything had to evolve.
Except if God created some life forms separately, and they evolved from that point, you would expect to see a break in the nested hierarchy of all life at some point. But there is no break: all life on Earth today fits nicely into a nested hierarchy. So the evidence is against you: life on Earth today speaks loudly against separate creation at any level.
__________________
“It took me years, but letting go of religion has been the most profound wake up of my life. I feel I now look at the world not as a child, but as an adult. I see what's bad and it's really bad. But I also see what is beautiful, what is wonderful. And I feel so deeply appreciative that I am alive. How dare the religious use the term 'born again.' That truly describes freethinkers who've thrown off the shackles of religion so much better!” - Julia Sweeney |
28th October 2006, 02:37 AM
| | Senior Contributor
32
| | Join Date: 14th August 2006 Location: Italy
Posts: 11,497
Blessings: 3,091,820 My Mood
Reps: 38,791,378,841,557,992 (power: 38,791,378,841,574) | | Originally Posted by dad The evidence that you can't test the past is easy, you can't, and there is no evidence you can. Period. End of story.
That's not evidence. That's an assertion. What is your evidence for this assertion?
__________________
“It took me years, but letting go of religion has been the most profound wake up of my life. I feel I now look at the world not as a child, but as an adult. I see what's bad and it's really bad. But I also see what is beautiful, what is wonderful. And I feel so deeply appreciative that I am alive. How dare the religious use the term 'born again.' That truly describes freethinkers who've thrown off the shackles of religion so much better!” - Julia Sweeney |
28th October 2006, 02:52 AM
| | Undefeated
| | Join Date: 17th January 2005
Posts: 20,201
Blessings: 352,163 My Mood
Reps: 118,712,461,112,472,176 (power: 118,712,461,112,500) | | Originally Posted by Chalnoth Except if God created some life forms separately, and they evolved from that point,
you would expect to see a break in the nested hierarchy of all life at some point.
Why, and how? There was a full spectrum of creation. The adapting of the kinds filled in the gaps, so to speak, so that one could misread what really went on. But it takes more than misreading it to prove it, which is why you can't do it!!!! Never will. I never happened that way.
The evidence rests with us.
__________________
If the flood happened when laws were different than this present state we know, all bets are off for present state science being able to extrapolate backwards in any meaningful or accurate way. |
28th October 2006, 02:56 AM
| | Undefeated
| | Join Date: 17th January 2005
Posts: 20,201
Blessings: 352,163 My Mood
Reps: 118,712,461,112,472,176 (power: 118,712,461,112,500) | | Originally Posted by Chalnoth That's not evidence. That's an assertion. What is your evidence for this assertion?
No sense talking in circles, and puffing up. One way to settle this right here and now, if you can prove the state of the past, and the life processes of the deep past, then just do it! If you do, then I am wrong. If you don't, I am right. End of story. You can't you won't. and so, it's a done deal. Nice try.
__________________
If the flood happened when laws were different than this present state we know, all bets are off for present state science being able to extrapolate backwards in any meaningful or accurate way. | | |
| Thread Tools | | | | Display Modes |  Linear Mode |
| | |
