Aron-Ra v. BoranJarami

[BoranJarami]

Once again I must apalogize for my absense. I have had alot on my mind lately and some family issues. I think, however, that I am back to where I can actualy get into a discussion.

I will try to spend some time later today (as it is 3:12 and I am going to try to get at least a couple hours of sleep) looking over all the posts that I have missed.

As for the issue of genetic material at this point, I will agree that duplication of bits of genetic material as well as whole segments of genetic material can add to the overall amount of genetic material. I will also agree that chromesomes can split and result in different numbers of chromesomes. I was questioning how the number of cromesomes could be reduced, but then realized that it did not need to be.

There are a few other things about this issue that don't quite click in my mind, but I cant put my finger on them. I will have to give that a little more thought (perhaps whin I am awake).

 

[BoranJarami]

I must say, the discussion here has gotten very interesting.

After consideration of what I know about genetics (and that is very limited) I must conclude that it is possible for mutations to account for a change in the number of chromesomes.

I mentioned in my last post that there was still something bothering me and I know what that is. It is not mutations accounting for the diversity in genetics, but mutations accounting for the development of genetics in the first place.

Could anyone point me to where I could find more information or simply descibe to me here about this, such as how nucleic acids developed and theory on how they became a part of cells as they developed?

 

[Aron-Ra]

Could anyone point me to where I could find more information or simply descibe to me here about this, such as how nucleic acids developed and theory on how they became a part of cells as they developed?

What you're talking about here is off-topic for our conversation.

Abiogenesis: A collection of [so far inconclusive] scientific hypotheses which hold that the environment of the newly-formed Earth was once such that it caused replicating enzymatic polymers to be modified into chemical hypercycles, the basis for protobionts, homeostatic virus-like proteins. A series of as-yet unknown chemical changes are believed to have resulted in some of these becoming metabolic, and thus ‘alive’ by the current scientific definition. Various explanations are offered for how RNA protiens could have given rise to DNA allowing life to begin evolving.

Evolution: A process of varying genetic frequencies among reproductive populations; leading to (usually subtle) changes in their morphological or physiological composition, which –when compiled over successive generations- can increase biodiversity when continuing variation between genetically-isolated groups eventually lead to one or more descendant branches increasingly distinct from their ancestors or cousins.

You'e talking about one of the stages of abiogenesis which apparently took place a few stages prior to the emergence of the first true life-form. Whatever that process was, it couldn't use the same mechanisms as evolution, which couldn't begin until after there were life-forms to evolve from.

 

[BoranJarami]

I do not mean to discuss this topic, but I am simply looking for information on it and though that those involved in this thread might be able to point me in the right direction.

Next I would like to discuss the topic of irreducibly complex structures, but am takeing a little bit of time to make sure that I can't answer my own questions.

 

[Aron-Ra]

I do not mean to discuss this topic, but I am simply looking for information on it and though that those involved in this thread might be able to point me in the right direction.

Start a new thread for that then in the Creation v Evolution then rather than asking for that in the debates forum that this thread was moved to.

Next I would like to discuss the topic of irreducibly complex structures, but am takeing a little bit of time to make sure that I can't answer my own questions.

How much more time do you need?

 

[Schroeder]

"In science, a theory is a proposed description, explanation, or model of the manner of interaction of a set of natural phenomena, capable of predicting future occurrences or observations of the same kind, and capable of being tested through experiment or otherwise falsified through empirical observation."
--Wikipedia

So If the "theory" is a proposed description, explination, then the part that states we come from a common ancestor is this part of the diffinition. the next part would be about evolution and the last part gets me. the, and being able to be tested through experiments.... Was not the fruit fly experiments done for this part. they did not produce anything. I do not see how th epredicting part uses the idea of being from a common ancestor. We have never seen anything change into anything else, the reason given is because we dont have enought ime or cant live a million years. We trsted and observerd bacteria and such that reproduce very quickly Put still havent seen anything to prove the idea of a common ancestor. I th ink it should be called the theory of common decent instead of the theory of evolution since evolution is a fact and testable and observed and predictable ect.

Then why do you still believe in it? And especially, why do you reject quantum mechanics and say that everything was poofed out of nothing by an incantation spell instead?

well if i believe in a God that is ABOVE us in science and in knowledge then i would think this would not be a problem. I dont have a problem with not knowing everything. You saying it is form a spell makes you continue to feel that it is not possible because saying spells sounds bad sounds fake or fairytaleish. I just dont see the theory from common descent from what i observe from evoltuion or science. Maybe it is because i refuse to or because i dont know enough or have studied enough. either way it makes no effect on my life. I am who i am because of what i have experienced in life, just like you. which to me includes things i cant explain through science. This doesnt bother me.

You can test evolution as certainly as you can test gravity or atomic theory or virtually anything else.

i know you can test evolution but can you test the theory of common ansector. I know we are like 96,97% like apes but jellyfish watermelons and clouds are 90% alike or the same thing H2O but very different. so the few % that is different can make it not even close to the same.

 

[Lilandra]

i know you can test evolution but can you test the theory of common ansector. I know we are like 96,97% like apes but jellyfish watermelons and clouds are 90% alike or the same thing H2O but very different. so the few % that is different can make it not even close to the same.

Are you sure you aren't a parody?

 

[Aron-Ra]

So If the "theory" is a proposed description, explination, then the part that states we come from a common ancestor is this part of the diffinition.

If I understand your question(?) correctly, then yes, the concept of common ancestry is part of evolutionary study, and thus part of evolutionary theory. It would be easier for you to understand what a scientific 'theory' is if you use either 'study' or 'explanation' in its place.

Also, try to understand that its not "a" common ancestor, but many different teirs of them, because it is literally a family tree.

I think you'd understand this better if I use an example family's genealogy to illustrate the point. In this case, let's say Simonas Urbonas represents Man, (Homo sapiens) and Jonas Zakaras represents Pan, (chimpanzees). Aldona Zakaraite is the most recent common ancestor between them, but he is obviously not the only "common ancestor" depicted on this chart. Ancestral phylogenies in evolution are the same sort of thing, just on a larger scale.

the next part would be about evolution and the last part gets me. the, and being able to be tested through experiments.... Was not the fruit fly experiments done for this part.

Among innumerable others, yes.

they did not produce anything.

Yes they did! That was the first time macroevolution ever occured under direct observation in a controlled laboratory setting for one thing. For another, subsequent experiments isolated and revealed Hox genes.

"eight master regulators were soon discovered. When a broader spectrum of life was probed for similar control genes, a remarkable and unprecedented discovery was made. The same eight genes, with only minor variations in the genetic code, were present all across the animal world. Literally, from fish to fowl, we share the same master control genes that sculpt the basic body plan."
--Hox genes : 'The Molecular Architects' Trinity College Dublin

I do not see how th epredicting part uses the idea of being from a common ancestor.

There are too many ways to list, and you wouldn't understand any of them until you grasp the basics first.

We have never seen anything change into anything else, the reason given is because we dont have enought ime or cant live a million years.

(1) Nothing ever gave birth to another, fundamentally different thing. As I explained on my website, "Evolution never suggests that one thing ever turned into something else. Every new species or genus, (etc.) that ever evolved was just a modified version of whatever its ancestors were."
(2) We have actually seen one species beget a new species many many times already. We've directly observed this on dozens of occasions in real time both in the lab and in naturally-controlled conditions in the field, and I know I have explained this to you before. So why are you still making the same mistakes?

We trsted and observerd bacteria and such that reproduce very quickly Put still havent seen anything to prove the idea of a common ancestor.

Yes we have. In the sense that a court of law would apply that word, we have indeed proven the concept of common ancestry many times over with geology, genomics, comparative anatomy, in-depth character analysis of evidently derived synapomorphies, developmental biology, and of course palaeontology in addition to the fact that we've been able to map genetic orthologues in so many different things already. We've traced four main stem lineages as the 'roots' of all the hundreds of different breeds of domestic dogs, (for example) and molecular biologists working on the Shape of Life Project with the Marine Biological Laboratory in Woods Hole, Massachusetts have traced a single base root genome of the literal grandaddy of animals.

Once again, in case you somehow haven't seen this before, let me again quote my professor of cellular biology, (and a devout Christian):

"The evidence of taxonomic relationships is overwhelming when you look at the comparisons between the genomic (DNA) sequences of both closely-related and even distantly-related species. The DNA of yeast and humans shares over 30% homology with regard to gene sequences. Comparison of the human and mouse genome shows that only 1% of the genes in either genome fails to have an orthologue ithe other genome. Comparison of non-gene sequences, on the other hand, shows a huge amount of divergence. This type of homology can be explained only from descent from a common ancestor. The probability of these things being a coincidence, which I guess would be the argument of creationism and intelligent design, is statistically so small as to be negligible."
--Jill Buettner M.Sc., geneticist with the human genome project

I th ink it should be called the theory of common decent instead of the theory of evolution since evolution is a fact and testable and observed and predictable ect.

And so is common ancestry. My primary interest is in taxonomy, and I've seen several lineages revised or corrected according to objective tests of various types.

well if i believe in a God that is ABOVE us in science and in knowledge then i would think this would not be a problem. I dont have a problem with not knowing everything. You saying it is form a spell makes you continue to feel that it is not possible because saying spells sounds bad sounds fake or fairytaleish.

It couldn't sound any other way even if you chose how to phrase it.

I just dont see the theory from common descent from what i observe from evoltuion or science. Maybe it is because i refuse to or because i dont know enough or have studied enough.

All of the above. That, and some of your religious leaders appear to have been lying to you your whole life.

either way it makes no effect on my life. I am who i am because of what i have experienced in life, just like you. which to me includes things i cant explain through science. This doesnt bother me.

That wouldn't bother me either. Its believing things on faith that always bothered me. Because that always seemed dishonest even before I started noticing all the fraudulent claims creationists and other pseudoscientists make.

i know you can test evolution but can you test the theory of common ansector.

Yes. After you have some idea what some of these terms refer to, I'd be glad to explain how to do that.

I know we are like 96,97% like apes

We are apes, and we are 95-98% like chimpanzees.

but jellyfish watermelons and clouds are 90% alike or the same thing H2O but very different. so the few % that is different can make it not even close to the same.

I first heard this particular argument on a radio evangelist show that was on at a friend's house when I was eleven years old. I was stunned that any grown-up could be that stupid. Unfortunately, I said exactly that out loud and discovered that my friend's parents weren't any smarter than the idiot on the radio.

 

[mark kennedy]

This thread was intended to be an open discussion. It wasn't my idea to move it to this forum.

I thought it a little odd that there was no invitation thread. I did complain that this was not a formal debate but apparently there are no real formal debate rules here.

You guys have a good time with the thread.

 

[RichardT]

Evolution: A process of varying genetic frequencies among reproductive populations; leading to (usually subtle) changes in their morphological or physiological composition, which –when compiled over successive generations- can increase biodiversity when continuing variation between genetically-isolated groups eventually lead to one or more descendant branches increasingly distinct from their ancestors or cousins.

I now see why many creationists have a problem with this definition of evolution, because there is no dispute here.

 

[Aron-Ra]

I now see why many creationists have a problem with this definition of evolution, because there is no dispute here.

The problem is that, while evolution still doesn't explain the origin of life, it is a mechanism capable of explaining the diversity of life. The thing creationists find so terrible about that is that it links humans with the rest of the biosphere; we are a part of nature, not apart from it. Such a notion doesn't just challenge favored fables; it implies that we are neither the center of the universe nor the reason behind its creation. Somehow being one with the other animals means we can't claim to be something magical anymore.

More than that, creationists can't tell the difference between their scriptures and their god; they think that to question one is to question the other. So they automatically reject anything they can't ignore or line up with their priori stories. This can't be an issue of science for them. They can't be objective about this. So they're compelled to lump cosmology and abiogenesis under the umbrella of evolution, which they assume to be synonemous with atheism. Then they twist the discussion into whether there is a god or not.

That's what distinguishes creationists from common Christians. I know a lot of Christians and other folks who believe in God who haven't the slightest issue with accepting the whole of the scientific spectrum, and that includes most of my professors. In fact, among the predominantly Christian nations, most Christians are evolutionists, and most evolutionists are Christians. Evangelical Biblical literalists are so rare in the rest of the world that they're thought of as an almost exclusively American phenomenon.

And despite all their raving, the creationism movement is waning, not because of the continuously mounting evidence for evolution, but because their arguments are consistently indefensible. In the age of information, the frauds of pseudoscience are becoming too obvious, especially in forums like these.

 

[RichardT]

The problem is that, while evolution still doesn't explain the origin of life, it is a mechanism capable of explaining the diversity of life. The thing creationists find so terrible about that is that it links humans with the rest of the biosphere; we are a part of nature, not apart from it. Such a notion doesn't just challenge favored fables; it implies that we are neither the center of the universe nor the reason behind its creation. Somehow being one with the other animals means we can't claim to be something magical anymore.

More than that, creationists can't tell the difference between their scriptures and their god; they think that to question one is to question the other. So they automatically reject anything they can't ignore or line up with their priori stories. This can't be an issue of science for them. They can't be objective about this. So they're compelled to lump cosmology and abiogenesis under the umbrella of evolution, which they assume to be synonemous with atheism. Then they twist the discussion into whether there is a god or not.

That's what distinguishes creationists from common Christians. I know a lot of Christians and other folks who believe in God who haven't the slightest issue with accepting the whole of the scientific spectrum, and that includes most of my professors. In fact, among the predominantly Christian nations, most Christians are evolutionists, and most evolutionists are Christians. Evangelical Biblical literalists are so rare in the rest of the world that they're thought of as an almost exclusively American phenomenon.

And despite all their raving, the creationism movement is waning, not because of the continuously mounting evidence for evolution, but because their arguments are consistently indefensible. In the age of information, the frauds of pseudoscience are becoming too obvious, especially in forums like these.

But dude, according to your definition of evolution I would be a theistic evolutionist, since I believe in your definition of evolution. So I guess I would be a 6 day creationist / evolutionist... Do you agree with me on this?

The definition of "kind", since speciation has been observed, for example, would now have to be restricted to the family level.

 

[Aron-Ra]

But dude, according to your definition of evolution I would be a theistic evolutionist, since I believe in your definition of evolution. So I guess I would be a 6 day creationist / evolutionist... Do you agree with me on this?

No. I should have included this definition in my recent list of defined terms. Many leading evolutionary scientists, (like biologist, Dr. Ken Miller and paleontologist, Dr. Robert Bakker) are Christian also, and technically both of them believe that the Christian god is both an intelligent designer, and the creator of life, the universe, and everything -in one sense or another. But they don't think he did it by chanting any incantation like the Bible says. They believe evolutionary science reveals the mechanism God really used. Intelligent Design is distinguished theistic evolution as being a creationist movement in that it openly admits an agenda to subvert science both by definition and application.

A creationist is one who denies scientific methodology almost entirely; who believes the diversity of life came about, in whole or in part, magically as opposed to naturally, and holds that some aspects of science must never be explicable without resorting to miracles.

Intelligent Design is specifically opposed to methodological naturalism, believing that magic should be acceptible in scientific explanations; and that natural mechanisms like evolution can only ever account for a fraction of the complexity we perceive in anything we see.

Both are really the same anti-science philosophy. In either perspective, there is some point in every living thing's distant ancestry where what we see as related is really created, and where that point is varies however necessary. In nearly any case, humans must be kept entirely separate from other apes, even though we are obviously both the same "kind".

The definition of "kind", since speciation has been observed, for example, would now have to be restricted to the family level.

No one can agree what a "kind" is because none of the options yet presented can remain consistent. The "family" level, as you put it, for example, is also an antiquated and inapplicable illusion of rank which is now being discarded in favor of the concept of clades in phylogenetic systematics.

 

[BoranJarami]

Aron-Ra,

When I agreed to this discussion I had all intentiones to give my full attention to the discussion. I am truely saddened that I have not been able to do that and it does not look like I will be able to for some time. What makes it worse is some of the inane postings that have taken place in the absence of the thoughtfull discussion I was hopeing to have with you.

My most recient absence has been caused by the ice-storm. We just got power back and I am trying to get the well in working order. With all the trees down and takeing care of some minor damage (not to mention the snow moveing in), I do not think I will be able to be active on the internet for a little while.

If you do not wish to continue this discussion, I will fully understand and will gladly give you the win. If, however, you are still interested in continuing when I get the chance, let me know by private message. I will let you know when I can be more active.

I hope that you are doing well in this sudden blast of winter.

BoranJarami

 

[RichardT]

inane postings

Which "inane postings" are we talking about exacly?

 

[GreyWookiee]

I'm new to the CF Forums and am in the process of beginning serious research into a definite and defendable belief in Christianity. I thought I would start with (what I thought was) the absolute question of Creation vs. Evolution to see where the general populous was on it. I ended up staying up all night to read and respond to this thread. I found the level of this particular discussion over my head, since, I don't have anything other than an interest in science as a means to better our lives and don't have any applicable post-high school eduction to fully understand the vocabulary that was used. But, I think I mainly understood and I thank everyone for their mostly supported comments and opinions. I especially found it educational to learn the differences between fact, laws, and theories.

My main reason for wanting to understand the relationships between science and Christianity is to be able to define my beliefs and defend them if necessary. I was raised a Christian but was unfortunately not raised well enough not to question the family faith. I went many years without guidance and have only recently decided to ignore the people telling me, "You just have to have faith." "It's all about faith.". I want to know the why and how. Or at least I want to understand and believe a certain theory of why and/or how.

Aron-Ra, I think I understand your opinions on the definitions of "Creationists" and "Intelligent Designists", but I'm confused on why the "Intelligent Designists" (which I'm leaning toward) assumes that everything that can't be explained by science is magical?

I understand now that there is a difference between the agenesis and evolution theories. But, does it really come down to how old the planet is in order to disprove evolution?

I'm also having a hard time excepting that whole branches of the evolutional tree don't exist any more. I understand that we are sooooo close to apes that in some opinions we are virtually apes. But, how can we be so different then the apes that exist today?
Are we really considered part of the ape "family"?
Are there any examples of proposed evolutional relationships between two existing species that aren't in the same family?

Another problem I'm having is with the amount of time evolution takes. With our level of progression and the, what I believe already existed, level of thought and/or ability to contemplate complex ideas, how does evolution explain it taking some much longer to reach the state that we as humans could just "take off" like we did? I'm not ready to blindly believe in Genesis, for example, but the Bible doesn't make me feel that "Adam" was any less intelligent than "John". Another example is the level of thought that nobles put into literature not 500 years ago and what we call our publicly educated society today. I understand that it is probably an explanation of nature vs. nurture. But doesn't it seem that human beings as a hole aren't getting any brighter? Savants excluded.

On a side note, Aron-Ra, and I apologize if this is an inappropriate question, but since you are an atheist but believe that the real question is Intelligent Design vs. Agenesis, I would be interested in a pm of why you are an atheist. I may not be able to respond to a pm yet since this is only my second post.

Be well.
</IMG></IMG>

 

[Aron-Ra]

I'm new to the CF Forums and am in the process of beginning serious research into a definite and defendable belief in Christianity. I thought I would start with (what I thought was) the absolute question of Creation vs. Evolution to see where the general populous was on it.

Then check posts 92-94 in this thread.

I ended up staying up all night to read and respond to this thread. I found the level of this particular discussion over my head, since, I don't have anything other than an interest in science as a means to better our lives and don't have any applicable post-high school eduction to fully understand the vocabulary that was used. But, I think I mainly understood and I thank everyone for their mostly supported comments and opinions. I especially found it educational to learn the differences between fact, laws, and theories.

My main reason for wanting to understand the relationships between science and Christianity is to be able to define my beliefs and defend them if necessary. I was raised a Christian but was unfortunately not raised well enough not to question the family faith. I went many years without guidance and have only recently decided to ignore the people telling me, "You just have to have faith." "It's all about faith.". I want to know the why and how. Or at least I want to understand and believe a certain theory of why and/or how.

Aron-Ra, I think I understand your opinions on the definitions of "Creationists" and "Intelligent Designists", but I'm confused on why the "Intelligent Designists" (which I'm leaning toward) assumes that everything that can't be explained by science is magical?

Intelligent Design is a conspiracy, a religiously-motivated plot to undermine science from within. It is creationism in disguise and is fueled more by lawyers than scientists. It isn't evolution they're against. Its science itself; all its premises and practices; critical analysis, peer review, uniformitarianism, methodological naturalism; even the concept of theory, and the requirement that hypotheses be potentially-falsifiable in experimentation. Intelligent Design is an entirely under-handed anti-science agenda established with original ultimate intent of aiding in the establishment of an Orwellian theocracy in America, which they hoped to acheive by first getting thier religious beliefs taught in public schools. Many creationists have been quite outspoken in thier desire to overthrow democracy in favor of a government more like Afganistan under the Taliban. This was the main goal as outlined by R. J. Rushdoony, founder of the Chalcedon Institute; and echoed by those providing the funding behind the Discovery Institute, as well as a series of many other like conspiracies across the country. Here in Texas, for example, the majority of our recent state Board of Education were fundamentalists who's elections were all funded entirely by a local multi-millionaire with close connections to the Chalcedon Institute and to Bob Jones University. His purpose was to eliminate education into Earth's history and certain elements of American history considered "embarassing" to Christians. There was also some considerable effort on the part of the BOE to end sex education and of course to oppose all methods of birth-control, not just abortion. This is how other BOE members have explained it to me, and of course they've also posted some public discussion of this available on the web. It sounds like paranoid raving, I know; but there really was an actual well-funded and well-organized rebellion against the Constitution which very few citizens knew anything about, but which was effectively lost with Judge Jones' ruling in Kitzmiller v. Dover. That rebellion, (described by its proponants as a "culture war") still exists, but needed ID to insert a critical wedge into the Federal government. When that failed, much of the rest of their publicly-admitted agenda came cascading after it, and cost them the congressional majority which they had saught for this purpose. Now, thanks to Jon Stewart, Steven Colbert, Bill Maher, and 'Jesus Camp', America is waking up to what almost really happened while most of us weren't paying attention.

I understand now that there is a difference between the agenesis and evolution theories. But, does it really come down to how old the planet is in order to disprove evolution?

I can't really answer that other than to say that it doesn't matter what you show these people. Die-hard creationist will never admit they're wrong no matter what.

"In fact, on cross-examination, Professor Behe was questioned concerning his 1996 claim that science would never find an evolutionary explanation for the immune system. He was presented with fiftyeight peer-reviewed publications, nine books, and several immunology textbook chapters about the evolution of the immune system; however, he simply insisted that this was still not sufficient evidence of evolution, and that it was not &#8220;good enough.&#8221;
--Judge John E. Jones II; Kitzmiller v. Dover (23:19 (Behe)).

I'm also having a hard time excepting that whole branches of the evolutional tree don't exist any more.

I don't know what you mean there. Those branches still exist.

I understand that we are sooooo close to apes that in some opinions we are virtually apes.

Not virtually. We are apes.

But, how can we be so different then the apes that exist today?

These two are both the same species!

Are we really considered part of the ape "family"?

Yes. But we and the other surviving apes aren't just different species; in the Linnaean system, we're all in different genera too!

Are there any examples of proposed evolutional relationships between two existing species that aren't in the same family?

Yes, elephants and manatees for example.

Another problem I'm having is with the amount of time evolution takes. With our level of progression and the, what I believe already existed, level of thought and/or ability to contemplate complex ideas, how does evolution explain it taking some much longer to reach the state that we as humans could just "take off" like we did?

I don't really understand your question. Are you talking about how our brain size tripled over such a relatively short period of time?

I'm not ready to blindly believe in Genesis, for example, but the Bible doesn't make me feel that "Adam" was any less intelligent than "John".

There were many geniuses in ancient times. But it seems to me that none of them had a hand in writing the Bible.

Another example is the level of thought that nobles put into literature not 500 years ago and what we call our publicly educated society today. I understand that it is probably an explanation of nature vs. nurture. But doesn't it seem that human beings as a hole aren't getting any brighter? Savants excluded.

Agreed. Few modern Americans are as well-read as Thomas Jefferson was.

On a side note, Aron-Ra, and I apologize if this is an inappropriate question, but since you are an atheist but believe that the real question is Intelligent Design vs. Agenesis,

Incorrect. I don't even know what "agenesis" is, and you already know how I feel about Intelligent Design. As I thought I had made clear by now, the real issue is faith vs. reason; rationalism.

I would be interested in a pm of why you are an atheist. I may not be able to respond to a pm yet since this is only my second post.

Simply put, I don't believe in gods because there is neither physical evidence of them nor any logically-defensible argument for them. We're not talking about believing in something like air, which is invisible yet still demonstrably real. Nor are we talking about considering fanciful things that might be true, but that can't be qualified or quantified in any verifiable way. No, we're talking about actively maintaining a positive belief in something that is impossible according to everything we know about anything at all, and which would still be illogical even if it were possible, and which we're expected to believe solely on the word of the least credible people possible. So I don't believe in gods because there is no good reason to, and plenty of good reasons not to.

 

[RichardT]

I understand now that there is a difference between the agenesis and evolution theories.

If evolution is defined as "change in alleles over time", then there is no point in discussing said "evolution"

But, does it really come down to how old the planet is in order to disprove evolution?

Not only that. We can talk about the limitations of evolution, I'm sort of heading towards believing that tons of micro evolution cannot lead to macro evolution, for example.

I understand that we are sooooo close to apes that in some opinions we are virtually apes.

We differ from about 120 millon base pairs.

Hold on g2g I'll finish this later.

 

[Edx]

We differ from about 120 millon base pairs. .

Impossible, since we arent similar to apes we ARE apes.

 

[Aron-Ra]

We differ from about 120 millon base pairs. .

Impossible, since we arent similar to apes we ARE apes.

And because the word, "ape" refers to nearly 100 different species (extant and extinct) of which humans represent no more than a dozen or so, depending on how you define that word. RichardT seems to think there is one species of human and one species of "ape", and he seems to think the only apes are chimpanzees.

Here is a phylogenetic tree constructed as a result of mtDNA tests on various chimpanzees.

I suppose this chart must imply to RichardT that bonobos (Pan paniscus) and common chimps (Pan troglodytes) can't both be chimpanzees since they're both different species, and because they consequently show so much genetic variation, right?

Or maybe the problem is that he doesn't know what the word, "ape" really means?