Starting today August 7th, 2024, in order to post in the Married Couples, Courting Couples, or Singles forums, you will not be allowed to post if you have your Marital status designated as private. Announcements will be made in the respective forums as well but please note that if yours is currently listed as Private, you will need to submit a ticket in the Support Area to have yours changed.
You do not have to correct these minor points. I know they are not precise. They were used to address the main point which you neglected.
Your first is a conclusion, not an assumption. The second is neither a conclusion nor an assumption of evolution. Evolution makes no assumption about where life came from. I think it is an assumption that bacteria evolved from simpler living cells, but that assumption has little effect on the study of evolution.
Nice dodge, dodgy dodge. Evolution makes the assumption that man evolved from an ape-like ancestor and then pieces "evidence" it finds to support that assumption.
Scientists use to put together a theory/hypothesis and then try and DISPROVE it. We have the opposite in evolution - they look to PROVE it.
Anyways, just a hit and run post as your response made me laugh.
That's a lie. It's also a lie that implies there is evidence contrary to the evolution of humans from apes, of which none exists.Nice dodge, dodgy dodge. Evolution makes the assumption that man evolved from an ape-like ancestor and then pieces "evidence" it finds to support that assumption.
What is the main point?
There is no overall direction to evolution. There has been on average an increase in complexity in life, but that's just a result of the fact that life started out simple; evolving in random directions from an initial condition of low complexity has to result in higher complexity. Other than that, I don't know what you're talking about.
What direction does it suggest that humans, E. coli, fruit flies and bananas all share a common ancestor?
That's a lie. It's also a lie that implies there is evidence contrary to the evolution of humans from apes, of which none exists.
No, I really don't see a trend. That's why I'm asking. What trend do you see?I know this question will come.
We said: A and B are similar, but A is not evolved from B, but A and B share a common ancestor.
Let me introduce my term: common ancestor level n. So A and B share common ancestor level 1. They also share level 2 ancestor with C and D. And they all share common ancestor level 3. etc. etc.
That is how you you get to that human and E. Coli share a common ancestor, which could well be in level 10 or in level 20.
But, if you simply look at the common ancestor levels 1, 2, and 3. Do you really NOT see a trend?
There is no really good way to measure complexity, but you can come up with some rough measures that mean something: number of genes in the genome, say, or number of cell types for multicellular species. It's not my field, but I think the graph would rise sharply at first, largely plateau for a very long time, rise sharply again with the development of multicellular life, and then plateau or rise very slowly again. (That would be the plot for the maximum complexity at any given time.)Wonder if you could should me a graph on the time vs. complexity. Is the complexity keep rising or is it maximized and maintained or is it peaked and decreased? Or, is it rising at the beginning and started to become random?
My guess is that it kept rising from the beginning. Would that be a trend?
(you have to tell me how to measure the complexity. I do not know)
Ah, the drive-by slander -- a popular genre. It's certainly easier that coming up with evidence for your position, I will say that.Nice dodge, dodgy dodge. Evolution makes the assumption that man evolved from an ape-like ancestor and then pieces "evidence" it finds to support that assumption.
Scientists use to put together a theory/hypothesis and then try and DISPROVE it. We have the opposite in evolution - they look to PROVE it.
Anyways, just a hit and run post as your response made me laugh.
The first is evidence that humans and chimpanzees differ, not that they are not related. The second is mostly evidence that there are many more humans than chimpanzees. Chimpanzees do go to war and kill each other with considerable frequency. There just aren't enough chimps around for there to be tens of thousands of casualties.We live in house, they do not.
We killed each other by tens of thousands. They do not.
Are these evidences?
Ah, the drive-by slander -- a popular genre. It's certainly easier that coming up with evidence for your position, I will say that.
That's a lie. It's also a lie that implies there is evidence contrary to the evolution of humans from apes, of which none exists.
I know this question will come.
We said: A and B are similar, but A is not evolved from B, but A and B share a common ancestor.
Let me introduce my term: common ancestor level n. So A and B share common ancestor level 1. They also share level 2 ancestor with C and D. And they all share common ancestor level 3. etc. etc.
That is how you you get to that human and E. Coli share a common ancestor, which could well be in level 10 or in level 20.
But, if you simply look at the common ancestor levels 1, 2, and 3. Do you really NOT see a trend?
How about instead of just being snarky, you offer an alternate explanation as to why humans and apes share so many morphologies and mutations to the exlusion of all other animals. Or offer up some real evidence that you feel cannot be explained by the evolutionary scenario rather than just implying that it exists.None, absolutely positively none. EVER. Anything contrary is a LIE.
I love great science.
How about instead of just being snarky, you offer an alternate explanation as to why humans and apes share so many morphologies and mutations to the exlusion of all other animals. Or offer up some real evidence that you feel cannot be explained by the evolutionary scenario rather than just implying that it exists.
Another classic internet move: say something offensive and then act like you've scored a point when someone takes offense. (And if you don't know why it's offensive to tell a scientist that he's manipulating his data to fit a preconceived idea, you have no business commenting about science.)Slander? OK...
I guess I struck a sensitive nerve there.
My apologies. I thought your position was this:Don't you think it is a bit presumptuous to already assume my "position" when we've never talked on this forum before? I guess that's how you roll...
I wonder what could have made me think that.Evolution makes the assumption that man evolved from an ape-like ancestor and then pieces "evidence" it finds to support that assumption.
Scientists use to put together a theory/hypothesis and then try and DISPROVE it. We have the opposite in evolution - they look to PROVE it.
Then please don't insult those of us who do evolutionary science if you can't support yourself. If you just want to rattle peoples' cages and make trouble, please take it somewhere else.However, I'm just not that smart to be able to debate for or against evolution.
Another classic internet move: say something offensive and then act like you've scored a point when someone takes offense. (And if you don't know why it's offensive to tell a scientist that he's manipulating his data to fit a preconceived idea, you have no business commenting about science.)
My apologies. I thought your position was this:
I wonder what could have made me think that.
Instead of continuing to work on your air of superiority (trust me, I can out-condescend you six ways from Sunday), how about offering some support for the statements I quoted above?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?