Q For Darwinists: Are Fish Birds or Dinosaurs?

[Anaximander]

...and I am a Bible-believing Christian.

 

[rockaction]

Sorry -- this is my first time through this thread:

I've never understood the evolution mindset on this.

Something had to have given birth to the first human being.

Yes -- I'm familiar with the arguments that we appeared so gradually that it's impossible to tell; but that doesn't excuse the fact that something other than a human gave birth to the first human.

It just makes [evolutionary] sense that that would be the case.

Evolution does not work on individuals - it works on populations. "Species" as we call them are not hard and fast guidelines. Evolution is a continuum, and the labels we put as "species" are for our own descriptions.

When there is a population, with free gene flow and variability, evolution can act. When a stress or selective pressure comes in, only those in the population that can deal with it survive. The traits that made them able to survive are now the dominant traits. This is how evolution shifts dominant phenotypes in populations. It's never about individuals.

 

[rockaction]

It's like an earlier poster posted:

This is what evolution looks like. If the red is human, when was there the first human? The question is meaningless because it's always been a gradual thing.

 

[Agonaces of Susa]

Evolution, simple as that.

Evolution ist just an euphamism for magic and miracles.

What caused human evolution to occur at 200,000 B.C. and 50,000, B.C. and no other time?

Can you show me someone actually saying that?

Can you show me a Darwinist?

Well, there Newtons theory of gravity which still works well for the basic stuff.

LOL. Newton's hypothesis is a joke and 100% useless. There is no inverse square so-called law for the gravitation of masses.

Then there's Einsteins theory of relativity which works for both the normal stuff and very big bodies/forces of gravity.

LOL. Einstein's hypothesis is a joke and 100% useless.

Galileo knew far less than modern scientists. Science have taken huge steps forward since his days. Why bother quoting people whose knowledge of the subject is outdated?

Because Galileo knew a lot more than you. You only know of two hypotheses of gravity whereas Galileo knew at least three. Therefore I would say Galileo, living in the 17th century, knew at least 33% more than you do living in the 21st century.

You must be kidding me? Hasn't advanced at all? Einstein redifined gravity with his theory of relativity!

That's not advancement. That's a devolution.

Can't say anything on this. Not that involved/interested in this whole dark matter/ dark energy stuff.

Without them gravitation is falsified so I thought you would be very interested.

I guess you're not even interested in the epicycles, just the bankrupt pre-Space Age hypotheses of Newton and Einstein.

Crazy? Maybe so, but evidently it works.

It only works if you live in a lunatic asylum or a university.

I'll say it again: These people knew far less than modern scientists. Science have taken huge steps forward since their days. Why bother quoting people whose knowledge of the subject is outdated?

Are you saying that gravity didn't exist until the 17th century?

You must be kidding me. Gravity? Falsified hypothesis?

Universal Gravitation is a falsified hypothesis.

You claim so also.

Maybe so, but Newton lived hundreds of years ago. Scientists are much better informed nowadays.

In fact, scientists are much worse informed nowadays.

They know Newton and Einstein's hypotheses are absurd and yet they still continue to believe in them anyway and make up epicycles to save them from falsification.

What does this have to do with anything? He's saying small objects experience no gravity in outer space. Completely compatible with our current theory of gravity.

Not compatible with Universal Gravitation at all and I fail to see how it is compatible with General Relativity which is after all a so-called "theory" of gravity.

Indeed, we live in universe that can be better explained by the theory of relativity proposed by Einstein.

How does Relativity falsify Newtonian gravitation?

Newtons theory still works for the basic stuff though.

You mean like for planets and stars? No it doesn't.

Besides, I fail to see how any of these show there to be several theories of gravity. Most quotes just critisize Newton.

Galileo knew of at least 3 hypotheses of gravitation. You only know of two.

I'll repeat it for you again: People at that time knew far less than modern scientists.

In the real world, people at that time knew far more than modern scientists.

Science have taken huge steps forward since their days.

Every huge step forward has been a step into error.

The only steps toward truth have been huge steps backwards.

Why bother quoting people whose knowledge of the subject is outdated?

It's not. Rather it is modern knowledge that is outdated.

Wow, that was a tedious post to quote. I'm starting to see why people think that you're either a troll or just really dense.

Wow and I'm starting to think you have no logical, rational, or scientific argument.

 

[Targ]

 

[[serious]]

LOL. I challenge you to name one hypothesis other than evolution that is legal to teach in public school biology.

Germ theory of disease has been mentioned
Mendelian genetics
ecosystem modeling
population genetics

These are just the big ones. I could also get into hypotheses for ANY gene function. For example, "The LOB gene appears to play a major role in differentiation of plant structures like leaves and stems."

 

[Gracchus]

I've never understood the evolution mindset on this.

Many of us have noticed this. Many of us have repeatedly pointed it out. You have admitted it. Keep it mind. You don’t understand evolution.

Something had to have given birth to the first human being.

There was no such thing as the "first human being". There were some things that were not human, that gave birth to things that were partly human, that gave birth to things that were mostly human (but not quite!), that gave birth to things that were human.

Yes -- I'm familiar with the arguments that we appeared so gradually that it's impossible to tell; but that doesn't excuse the fact that something other than a human gave birth to the first human.

Your "fact" isn't a fact, it is an "artifact" of language. Remember, by your own admission your understanding is defective. I know you didn't mean to admit that, but the truth will find a way.

It just makes [evolutionary] sense that that would be the case.

You are continually confusing the map with the terrain. "Human" is a classification for convenience of discussion. You have already admitted that you don't understand evolution. You can’t make "evolutionary" sense of anything. An organism may be human in some respects and not in others. You think in terms of black or white, and deny the gray. That is why it doesn't make sense to you, and why you shouldn't expect it to make sense to you. The ability to conceptualize continua is a human trait.

You cling to absurdities in your thought process and so reach absurd conclusions. You will cling to your non-living "Bible" and ignore the living word of God written in the stars and in the stones, in the hearts and minds of men and their very bones. And if reality conflicts with your convoluted fantansy then, in your own words, "Reality can take a hike."

What definitively sets humans apart from other animals is that they are capable of reasoning, they can apprehend what is unpleasant: they know that they will die. What you call the "fall" was the step that separates man from the other apes.

Even your Bible acknowledges this:
"And the LORD God said, Behold, the man is become as one of us, to know good and evil: and now, lest he put forth his hand, and take also of the tree of life, and eat, and live for ever:
Therefore the LORD God sent him forth from the garden of Eden, to till the ground from whence he was taken." --- KJV Genesis 3:22-23

We can rise to humanity or lapse back into apehood. I think you have chosen. I’ll send you a banana for your birthday.

 

[Agonaces of Susa]

Germ theory of disease has been mentioned
Mendelian genetics
ecosystem modeling
population genetics

These are just the big ones. I could also get into hypotheses for ANY gene function. For example, "The LOB gene appears to play a major role in differentiation of plant structures like leaves and stems."

You must have missed the part where I explained "as an account of human origins".

 

[Gishin]

It's like an earlier poster posted:

This is what evolution looks like. If the red is human, when was there the first human? The question is meaningless because it's always been a gradual thing.

I like how this post has been ignored.

 

[Agonaces of Susa]

There is nothing at all gradual about no humans that look like us in 201,000 B.C. and then suddenly and abruptly for no reason humans start to appear like us in 200,000 B.C.

There is nothing at all gradual about no humans behaving like us in 50,001 B.C. and then suddenly and abruptly for no reason humans start to behave like us in 50,000 B.C.

Anyone who says that is gradual is lying.

And no wonder because the Devil himself is the Prince of Lies.

 

[MoonLancer]

There is nothing at all gradual about no humans that look like us in 201,000 B.C. and then suddenly and abruptly for no reason humans start to appear like us in 200,000 B.C.

There is nothing at all gradual about no humans behaving like us in 50,001 B.C. and then suddenly and abruptly for no reason humans start to behave like us in 50,000 B.C.

its a good thing that no one says this except for you.

nice strawman.

And no wonder because the Devil himself is the Prince of Lies.

the devil in in the details which you ignore.

 

[AV1611VET]

I like how this post has been ignored.

Either that, or I already covered it here:

Yes -- I'm familiar with the arguments that we appeared so gradually that it's impossible to tell...

I didn't need another example.

These guys with their rhetoric, trying to convince me that no animal gave birth to humans because of graduality, or they gave birth to humans all at once so no one animal is responsible, aren't fooling anyone but themselves.

Some shrewdness had to have given birth to the first glorified shrewdness.

 

[DDdreamer]

Evolution ist just an euphamism for magic and miracles.

What caused human evolution to occur at 200,000 B.C. and 50,000, B.C. and no other time?


Can you show me a Darwinist?


LOL. Newton's hypothesis is a joke and 100% useless. There is no inverse square so-called law for the gravitation of masses.


LOL. Einstein's hypothesis is a joke and 100% useless.


Because Galileo knew a lot more than you. You only know of two hypotheses of gravity whereas Galileo knew at least three. Therefore I would say Galileo, living in the 17th century, knew at least 33% more than you do living in the 21st century.


That's not advancement. That's a devolution.


Without them gravitation is falsified so I thought you would be very interested.

I guess you're not even interested in the epicycles, just the bankrupt pre-Space Age hypotheses of Newton and Einstein.


It only works if you live in a lunatic asylum or a university.


Are you saying that gravity didn't exist until the 17th century?


Universal Gravitation is a falsified hypothesis.

You claim so also.


In fact, scientists are much worse informed nowadays.

They know Newton and Einstein's hypotheses are absurd and yet they still continue to believe in them anyway and make up epicycles to save them from falsification.


Not compatible with Universal Gravitation at all and I fail to see how it is compatible with General Relativity which is after all a so-called "theory" of gravity.


How does Relativity falsify Newtonian gravitation?


You mean like for planets and stars? No it doesn't.


Galileo knew of at least 3 hypotheses of gravitation. You only know of two.


In the real world, people at that time knew far more than modern scientists.


Every huge step forward has been a step into error.

The only steps toward truth have been huge steps backwards.


It's not. Rather it is modern knowledge that is outdated.


Wow and I'm starting to think you have no logical, rational, or scientific argument.

Yeah, you must be a troll. I've several of your post in other threads and you don't even seem to have a solid position. You just seem to reflexively disagree with what everyone else says. So, yeah. I won't bother responding to your points. It'll just be a waste of time.

Marcus

 

[Gishin]

In other news, I absolutely love Konata.

 

[DDdreamer]

Either that, or I already covered it here:

I didn't need another example.

These guys with their rhetoric, trying to convince me that no animal gave birth to humans because of graduality, or they gave birth to humans all at once so no one animal is responsible, aren't fooling anyone but themselves.

Some shrewdness had to have given birth to the first glorified shrewdness.

You still don't seem to get it.

Point 1: Humans ARE animals.

Point 2: A non-human creature have NEVER given birth to a human creature. People have told you this several times now and you still refuse to listen. As people have said. It was all gradual. A child has around 15 mutations that it's parents didn't have. The child of that child has around 15 mutations that it's parents didn't have. The child of that child.. etc. etc. etc. Over time mutations accumulate and creature change. Slowly and gradually, yes. But they do change. That's sorta how it works.

Marcus

EDIT:

In other news, I absolutely love Konata.

Yay, good taste there, fine chap!

 

[AV1611VET]

Point 2: A non-human creatre have NEVER given birth to a human creature.

I couldn't disagree with this more.

If you reverse-engineer the human race, where does it begin?

Also, where on earth does it begin?

If in the Fertile Crescent, for example, then what animal(s) were present in the Fertile Crescent at the time that would be responsible for this?

In fact, I don't need to know the exact binomial, I'm just trying to get someone to admit it wasn't human.

 

[DDdreamer]

I couldn't disagree with this more.

If you reverse-engineer the human race, where does it begin?

Also, where on earth does it begin?

If in the Fertile Crescent, for example, then what animal(s) were present in the Fertile Crescent at the time that would be responsible for this?

In fact, I don't need to know the exact binomial, I'm just trying to get someone to admit it wasn't human.

Well, you're not gonna succeed with that since(and I repeat) a non-human have never, ever given birth to a human. No biologist says that! None! You simply don't understand how evolution works ,is all. Wouldn't it be better to learn what actual biologists say about evolution instead of insisting that they somehow, deep down agree with your misconception? You are wrong. Deal with it.

Marcus

 

[AV1611VET]

Well, you're not gonna succeed with that since(and I repeat) a non-human have never, ever given birth to a human.

Then we either came from a rock or the Rock created us.

 

[DDdreamer]

Then we either came from a rock or the Rock created us.

No...that's also wrong. Biologists don't know exactly how life first arose, but it was not from a rock. One suggestion is that primitive life arose from a soup of chemicals. Chemicals =/= rock. How did we get from evolution to abiogenesis anyway? We were talking about the origin of humans, not the origins of life.

People have told you again and again that you are wrong. That biologists dont think what you say that they think. You have been corrected numerous times. Why do you still hang on to your misconceptions? You are bloody wrong!

Marcus

 

[AV1611VET]

People have told you again and again that you are wrong.

Ya -- I know they have; and these same people tell me I'm omphalos and Jesus didn't walk on water (let alone resurrect), and the Flood wasn't global, and Matthew didn't write Matthew and so on and so ad-nauseous forth.

Something created the first grain of table salt, something created the first crayon, something created the first slice of bread, and something [allegedly] gave birth to the first man and woman.