Evolution Never Claimed Man Evolved from an Ape

[Agonaces of Susa]

I've seen a lump of Carboniferous flint picked up from the beach that looks just like a human skull, and is now used as a door-stopper (by someone with more sense).

"...the suggestion of sentient humans walking about writing on North American walls during the Carboniferous Era, 250 million years ago, simply subjects the orthodox thinking apparatus to more shocks than may be comfortably sustained." -- Brad Steiger, author, October 1978

 

[Agonaces of Susa]

Darwinists Said Man Evolved From Ape

The fossil puts to rest the notion, popular since Darwin's time, that a chimpanzee-like missing link—resembling something between humans and today's apes—would eventually be found at the root of the human family tree. Indeed, the new evidence suggests that the study of chimpanzee anatomy and behavior—long used to infer the nature of the earliest human ancestors—is largely irrelevant to understanding our beginnings.

 

[Mike Elphick]

Not from a text book then, or even from the pen of a biologist, but the scribblings of a creationist:-

"Intelligent design is the study of patterns in nature that are best explained as a result of intelligence. ... Intelligent design is a minimal commitment scientifically to the possibility of detecting intelligent causation." -- Paul A. Nelson, philosopher, 2008

No wonder he can't distinguish between biological evolution and 'change over time'

.

Allow me to refer you to allegedly infallible Scripture: Common descent - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

I'm puzzled AoS. I already linked to this in post #8. What has it got to do with your claim that "the textbook definition of Neo-Darwinism" is "common descent via natural selection and undirected random mutation."?

More importantly, what has it got to do with Anaximander's point about common ancestry not being the same thing as evolution?

 

[Mike Elphick]

Darwinists Said Man Evolved From Ape

Look at the OP:- "Evolution Never Claimed Man Evolved from AN Ape". The point is that many creationists are under the misconception that:-

"What ape gave birth to the first human" and "Something had to have given birth to the first human being".

Anaximander is correcting this misunderstanding by emphasising that evolution does not occur with individuals but is a process that takes place with populations.

 

[Ar Cosc]

Fact: bacteria do not evolve.

Cyanobacteria is the same today as it was 3 billion years ago.

One species of bacteria today is the same as one species of bacteria 3 billion years ago. Therefore Spacemen.

 

[Tiberius]

Why is "making sense" or "denial" the only two alternatives?

It will make sense in "thousands of more generations" when I see how different I'll look. Then I'll be convinced.

If you think that you can represent several generations, then you are mad.

You are only one generation. You can live for a million years, but you won't evolve.

 

[Anaximander]

Look at the OP:- "Evolution Never Claimed Man Evolved from AN Ape". The point is that many creationists are under the misconception that:-

"What ape gave birth to the first human" and "Something had to have given birth to the first human being".

Anaximander is correcting this misunderstanding by emphasising that evolution does not occur with individuals but is a process that takes place with populations.

Thanks Mike.

 

[Agonaces of Susa]

I repeat: do you claim that populations are composed of something other than individuals?

 

[Agonaces of Susa]

One species of bacteria today is the same as one species of bacteria 3 billion years ago. Therefore Spacemen.

Mainstream scientists are obsessed with aliens therefore hypocrisy:

Mars may not be lifeless, say scientists

Carbon-rich organic molecules, which serve as the building blocks of life, may be present on Mars after all, say scientists - challenging a widely-held notion of the Red Planet as barren.

Comets may have brought life to Earth: new study

(PhysOrg.com) -- Life on Earth as we know it really could be from out of this world. New research from Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory scientists shows that comets that crashed into Earth millions of years ago could have produced amino acids - the building blocks of life.

 

[Ar Cosc]

Mainstream scientists are obsessed with aliens therefore hypocrisy:

Mars may not be lifeless, say scientists



Comets may have brought life to Earth: new study

Microorganisms and amino acids =/= spacefaring civilisations bent on telling us how wrong it is to eat shellfish

 

[Doveaman]

BTW, nice to see a person of faith with an appropriate and accurate understanding of ToE. Kudos.

You are aware that he believes in evolution by intelligent design, right?

 

[Agonaces of Susa]

Microorganisms and amino acids =/= spacefaring civilisations bent on telling us how wrong it is to eat shellfish

I take it from that you've never heard of Dr. Stephen Hawking.

Hawking: Aliens may pose risks to Earth - Technology & science - Space - msnbc.com

LONDON — British physicist Stephen Hawking says aliens are out there, but it could be too dangerous for humans to interact with extraterrestrial life.

 

[AV1611VET]

I take it from that you've never heard of Dr. Stephen Hawking.

Hawking: Aliens may pose risks to Earth - Technology & science - Space - msnbc.com

We need Dr. Stephen Hawking to tell us that?

According to reports they trespass, kidnap, rape, kill animals, deface property and are a public nuisance.

 

[Anaximander]

I repeat: do you claim that populations are composed of something other than individuals?

Asking this question further reveals your misconception about evolution. There is a difference between evolution operating at the individual level and evolution operating on populations composed of many "individuals". Each individual possesses a maximum of two characteristics per gene called alleles (ex. brown eyes and green eyes). A population possess dozens of alleles. As a population reproduces into successive generations, these alleles change in their percentages (frequency). For example, if the environment becomes drier, individuals possessing characteristics resistent to dry environments most likely do more of the mating. Desert-proof alleles will most likely increase in frequency within the population. This is the definition of evolution.

Notice that the correct definition (most dictionaries actually have the incorrect definition, but of course you quote these) in accordance with the experts states, "A change in the frequency of alleles..." This cannot happen to an individual possessing only two alleles. It refers to the population. This also guarantees that a species always mates with the same species. It's just that the "population" will look much different after thousands of generations if natural selection (or any other mechanism) is acting upon it. Evolution occurs without any interspecies relationships.

Do you still not get it? The reason why you are so resistent to accepting what evolution truly is (according to the "Darwinists"), is because your arguments attack the incorrect version (strawman).

best,

 

[Ar Cosc]

I take it from that you've never heard of Dr. Stephen Hawking.

Hawking: Aliens may pose risks to Earth - Technology & science - Space - msnbc.com

I believe there is intelligent life out there, and that it could pose a threat if contacted. I just don't believe that every single thing written before 200 AD is concrete, irrefutable evidence that the ancient Greeks waged nuclear war on space locusts from Mercury.

 

[Agonaces of Susa]

We need Dr. Stephen Hawking to tell us that?

According to reports they trespass, kidnap, rape, kill animals, deface property and are a public nuisance.

 

[Agonaces of Susa]

Asking this question further reveals your misconception about evolution. There is a difference between evolution operating at the individual level and evolution operating on populations composed of many "individuals". Each individual possesses a maximum of two characteristics per gene called alleles (ex. brown eyes and green eyes). A population possess dozens of alleles. As a population reproduces into successive generations, these alleles change in their percentages (frequency). For example, if the environment becomes drier, individuals possessing characteristics resistent to dry environments most likely do more of the mating. Desert-proof alleles will most likely increase in frequency within the population. This is the definition of evolution.

Notice that the correct definition (most dictionaries actually have the incorrect definition, but of course you quote these) in accordance with the experts states, "A change in the frequency of alleles..." This cannot happen to an individual possessing only two alleles. It refers to the population. This also guarantees that a species always mates with the same species. It's just that the "population" will look much different after thousands of generations if natural selection (or any other mechanism) is acting upon it. Evolution occurs without any interspecies relationships.

Do you still not get it? The reason why you are so resistent to accepting what evolution truly is (according to the "Darwinists"), is because your arguments attack the incorrect version (strawman).

best,

I don't get it and I'm not alone.

"And the problem in geology is not only [a] problem of annihilation of species but also a problem of origin of species. In fact the very question of evolution: How could so many species that populate the Earth, and many more have populated without leaving a single descendant, how could so many species evolve just by the mere process of competition? From the original simple form, practically unicellular form, just by competition, can you understand how a crocodile and a bird and a worm and a man and an insect with many legs, all could come to be?" -- Immanuel Velikovsky, polymath, 1966

"Is it chance that plants grow into special shapes to adapt to the idiosyncrasies of insects that will pollinate them, luring these insects with special color and fragrance, rewarding them with their favorite nectar, devising extraordinary canals and floral machinery with which to ensnare a bee so as to release it through a trap door only when the pollination process is completed?" -- Peter Tompkins and Christopher Bird, botanists, 1973

"Is it pure chance that night-blossoming flowers grow white the better to attract night moths and night-flying butterflies, emitting stronger fragrance at dusk, or that the carrion lily develops the smell of rotting meat in areas where only flies abound, whereas flowers which rely on the wind to cross-pollinate the species do not waste energy on making themselves beautiful, fragrant or appealing to insects, but remain relatively unattractive?" -- Peter Tompkins and Christopher Bird, botanists, 1973

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hEDYr_fgcP8

 

[Agonaces of Susa]

I believe there is intelligent life out there, and that it could pose a threat if contacted.

Agreed. The Bible says so too.

I just don't believe that every single thing written before 200 AD is concrete, irrefutable evidence that the ancient Greeks waged nuclear war on space locusts from Mercury.

Why not? Because of Lucian or Darwin?

 

[Targ]

I believe there is intelligent life out there, and that it could pose a threat if contacted. I just don't believe that every single thing written before 200 AD is concrete, irrefutable evidence that the ancient Greeks waged nuclear war on space locusts from Mercury.

There may well be life out there, but even if there is, there is absolutely no way they could ever reach us, nor is there any way that we could reach them. We can't travel at anywhere near the speed of light and to be able to reach other solar systems within a reasonable timeframe we would need to be able to do so.

The chances of life looking anything like us would also be slim - they'd be much more likely to be microbial than hominid life forms.

 

[Targ]

I take it from that you've never heard of Dr. Stephen Hawking.

Hawking: Aliens may pose risks to Earth - Technology & science - Space - msnbc.com

However much I may admire Stephen Hawking, I remember reading his comments at the time and thinking that he was talking rubbish. He gives no consideration to how life could travel the many light years distance. Other solar systems are just too far away to be reachable. Alien life could be as angry and savage and resource hungry as he claims and I still wouldn't bat an eyelid. Alien life could be just like Klingons - there's still no way they would ever make it to Earth.