Log in
Register
Search
Search titles only
By:
Search titles only
By:
Forums
New posts
Forum list
Search forums
Leaderboards
Games
Our Blog
Blogs
New entries
New comments
Blog list
Search blogs
Credits
Transactions
Shop
Blessings: ✟0.00
Tickets
Open new ticket
Watched
Donate
Log in
Register
Search
Search titles only
By:
Search titles only
By:
More options
Toggle width
Share this page
Share this page
Share
Reddit
Pinterest
Tumblr
WhatsApp
Email
Share
Link
Menu
Install the app
Install
Forums
Discussion and Debate
Discussion and Debate
Physical & Life Sciences
Creation & Evolution
Darwinian Theator of the Mind: AKA Human Brain Evolution
JavaScript is disabled. For a better experience, please enable JavaScript in your browser before proceeding.
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an
alternative browser
.
Reply to thread
Message
<blockquote data-quote="PsychoSarah" data-source="post: 70369270" data-attributes="member: 345531"><p>I brought it up in my own response: only certain modern human populations have any Neanderthal ancestry from this hybridization, so considering Neanderthals to be an ancestral species to the whole of our own would be fallacious. Also, closely related and ancestral are different things. </p><p></p><p style="margin-left: 20px"></p> <p style="margin-left: 20px"></p> <ul style="margin-left: 20px"> <li data-xf-list-type="ul"></li> </ul> <p style="margin-left: 20px">So, I am wondering: how is any of this refuting my point? I told you the shared sequences in DNA between humans and chimpanzees was more than 90%, and you are saying 96%. Anything significantly above 25% indicates some degree of relation between species. So, what's refuting me, the genes, which your numbers have within the 20 percents of CHANGE? That means that between 70-80% of those genes (which aren't even the majority of the DNA sequences) are SHARED between humans and chimpanzees; that's well over 25%, even if only genes mattered in determining relatedness. The noncoding portions are actually more reliable for measuring it, since natural selection usually doesn't act upon them.</p><p></p><p></p><p></p><p></p><p>Not really; evolution is an explanation for the observed changes in the populations of organisms over time. Evolution didn't establish the time scale that conflicts with a 6 day creation; you can thank geologists from before the theory of biological evolution existed for that. You are acting as if this is some personal attack against your religion, with no actual motivation for that being the case. Who would sell their eternal soul to make Christianity look wrong if it wasn't? It's illogical to willfully cover up a truth for temporary gain that leads up to eternal punishment. So, I conclude that, even if one day Christianity as a whole is demonstrated to be accurate, the current evidence we can observe doesn't suggest that it is the case. Furthermore, consider the possibility that your ancient religious text did get it wrong, and that in such circumstances, the evidence definitely wouldn't match up with what the Bible says. </p><p></p><p></p><p></p><p style="margin-left: 20px">Natural causes for how populations change over time is all we observe. It's what we have evidence for. Scientists are not going to assert that an unobserved, supernatural being did anything, because science only covers the natural world. Also, the theory of evolution is not a philosophy, and Darwinism is a term creationists made up because no matter how many times people try to explain it, the fact that how one thinks humans came to be has no inherent bearing on morality or philosophical outlook goes in one ear and out the other. I would be thrilled if there was evidence for an afterlife, or deities, and nothing about being an evolution supporter makes me less open to any evidence for such things. </p><p></p><p></p><p></p><p>I saw the image of the Taung child you put up. Thank you, college anatomy class and functional eyes; that piece of skull depicts a creature with a far flatter face than a chimpanzee; I agree that they are similar in size, but here's this for you to chew on: who says only humans got bigger brains down the evolutionary line? Inevitably, if you go back far enough, human ancestors would have brains about the size of those of chimps, and smaller if you go back further. I mean, we share ancestry with sea sponges, which don't have brains at all, so again, what's the problem here?</p><p></p><p></p><p></p><p>Darwin is not the authority on his theory, which has CHANGED over time as well. He got a lot wrong, and most of his original contributions have been heavily edited or discarded. Why would his proposed ideas of how the theory still be valid when it is effectively no longer the same theory? Darwin hasn't been an authority in the theory of evolution for over 100 years; he's just a part of it's history now. Now, why not challenge the modern world more, and the mid to late 1800s less. </p><p></p><p></p><p style="margin-left: 20px"></p><p>Keith wasn't "taken in" by the Piltdown man hoax; he's considered the most likely candidate as the person who MADE the fake fossil.</p><p></p><p>Also, it was not Piltdown man that made people think early humans had ape-like jaws; Piltdown man had ape like jaws because that was already the expectation people had for a human ancestor fossil at the time. </p><p></p><p></p><p></p><p>That doesn't make Neanderthals human, more intelligent than humans, or ancestors of ALL humans. I already went through the skull pictured earlier, so I won't repeat myself. Humans have ancestors with brains smaller than those of modern chimpanzees. </p><p></p><p></p><p></p><p>Incorrect, while benign mutations are the rarest, they have shown to have positive impacts for populations numerous times, from bacteria that gain a defense from an environmental hazard, to a species of lizard in modern times whose digestive system changed to process the foods available in an island they were introduced to, to an extended family of humans with bones so strong that it was noticed when a man endured a car crash that should have broken numerous bones walked away without even a bone fracture.</p><p></p><p></p><p>Well, that compliment was backhanded.</p></blockquote><p></p>
[QUOTE="PsychoSarah, post: 70369270, member: 345531"] I brought it up in my own response: only certain modern human populations have any Neanderthal ancestry from this hybridization, so considering Neanderthals to be an ancestral species to the whole of our own would be fallacious. Also, closely related and ancestral are different things. [INDENT] [/INDENT] [INDENT][LIST] [/LIST] So, I am wondering: how is any of this refuting my point? I told you the shared sequences in DNA between humans and chimpanzees was more than 90%, and you are saying 96%. Anything significantly above 25% indicates some degree of relation between species. So, what's refuting me, the genes, which your numbers have within the 20 percents of CHANGE? That means that between 70-80% of those genes (which aren't even the majority of the DNA sequences) are SHARED between humans and chimpanzees; that's well over 25%, even if only genes mattered in determining relatedness. The noncoding portions are actually more reliable for measuring it, since natural selection usually doesn't act upon them.[/INDENT] Not really; evolution is an explanation for the observed changes in the populations of organisms over time. Evolution didn't establish the time scale that conflicts with a 6 day creation; you can thank geologists from before the theory of biological evolution existed for that. You are acting as if this is some personal attack against your religion, with no actual motivation for that being the case. Who would sell their eternal soul to make Christianity look wrong if it wasn't? It's illogical to willfully cover up a truth for temporary gain that leads up to eternal punishment. So, I conclude that, even if one day Christianity as a whole is demonstrated to be accurate, the current evidence we can observe doesn't suggest that it is the case. Furthermore, consider the possibility that your ancient religious text did get it wrong, and that in such circumstances, the evidence definitely wouldn't match up with what the Bible says. [INDENT]Natural causes for how populations change over time is all we observe. It's what we have evidence for. Scientists are not going to assert that an unobserved, supernatural being did anything, because science only covers the natural world. Also, the theory of evolution is not a philosophy, and Darwinism is a term creationists made up because no matter how many times people try to explain it, the fact that how one thinks humans came to be has no inherent bearing on morality or philosophical outlook goes in one ear and out the other. I would be thrilled if there was evidence for an afterlife, or deities, and nothing about being an evolution supporter makes me less open to any evidence for such things. [/INDENT] I saw the image of the Taung child you put up. Thank you, college anatomy class and functional eyes; that piece of skull depicts a creature with a far flatter face than a chimpanzee; I agree that they are similar in size, but here's this for you to chew on: who says only humans got bigger brains down the evolutionary line? Inevitably, if you go back far enough, human ancestors would have brains about the size of those of chimps, and smaller if you go back further. I mean, we share ancestry with sea sponges, which don't have brains at all, so again, what's the problem here? Darwin is not the authority on his theory, which has CHANGED over time as well. He got a lot wrong, and most of his original contributions have been heavily edited or discarded. Why would his proposed ideas of how the theory still be valid when it is effectively no longer the same theory? Darwin hasn't been an authority in the theory of evolution for over 100 years; he's just a part of it's history now. Now, why not challenge the modern world more, and the mid to late 1800s less. [INDENT][/INDENT] Keith wasn't "taken in" by the Piltdown man hoax; he's considered the most likely candidate as the person who MADE the fake fossil. Also, it was not Piltdown man that made people think early humans had ape-like jaws; Piltdown man had ape like jaws because that was already the expectation people had for a human ancestor fossil at the time. That doesn't make Neanderthals human, more intelligent than humans, or ancestors of ALL humans. I already went through the skull pictured earlier, so I won't repeat myself. Humans have ancestors with brains smaller than those of modern chimpanzees. Incorrect, while benign mutations are the rarest, they have shown to have positive impacts for populations numerous times, from bacteria that gain a defense from an environmental hazard, to a species of lizard in modern times whose digestive system changed to process the foods available in an island they were introduced to, to an extended family of humans with bones so strong that it was noticed when a man endured a car crash that should have broken numerous bones walked away without even a bone fracture. Well, that compliment was backhanded. [/QUOTE]
Insert quotes…
Verification
Post reply
Forums
Discussion and Debate
Discussion and Debate
Physical & Life Sciences
Creation & Evolution
Darwinian Theator of the Mind: AKA Human Brain Evolution
Top
Bottom