"Assumptions" is a magic word

[gluadys]

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.

It is not a minor point. If you can be so far off the mark about what the "direction forward" is, it is likely that the whole concept of "forward direction" is incorrect.

See the post by sfs. What direction is suggested by humans, E. coli, fruit flies and bananas all sharing a common ancestor? What "distinct direction" of movement is shown here?

 

[Assyrian]

forward in time..?

 

[Critias]

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.

 

[laconicstudent]

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.

Please Google "Ardipithecus ramidus" and "Hominid transition fossils" before posting such idiocy. There is plenty of empirical evidence of evolution in family Hominidae, just for starters.

And your wrong about how scientific theory works, by the way. Scientists form a hypothesis, then run objective tests. Proving it or disproving it isn't the point.

 

[Mallon]

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.

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.

 

[juvenissun]

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.

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)

 

[juvenissun]

What direction does it suggest that humans, E. coli, fruit flies and bananas all share a common ancestor?

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?

 

[juvenissun]

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.

We live in house, they do not.
We killed each other by tens of thousands. They do not.
Are these evidences?
Before we go to genetics, these are obvious behavior differences precipitated from the genetic differences, which everyone can see and can understand.

 

[sfs]

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?

No, I really don't see a trend. That's why I'm asking. What trend do you see?

 

[sfs]

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)

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.)

 

[sfs]

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.

Ah, the drive-by slander -- a popular genre. It's certainly easier that coming up with evidence for your position, I will say that.

 

[sfs]

We live in house, they do not.
We killed each other by tens of thousands. They do not.
Are these evidences?

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.

 

[Critias]

Ah, the drive-by slander -- a popular genre. It's certainly easier that coming up with evidence for your position, I will say that.

Slander? OK...

I guess I struck a sensitive nerve there.

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...

Anyways, thanks for the laugh and great job at keeping it real!

 

[Critias]

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.

None, absolutely positively none. EVER. Anything contrary is a LIE.

I love great science.

 

[gluadys]

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?

Well, let's go back to your ancestor level 3 or higher (deeper)---the common ancestor humans, E. coli, fruit flies and bananas all share. What trend do you see in the evolution of E. coli from that common ancestor?

I mentioned earlier thinking trees not trains. Perhaps another way to put it is to think diversity not complexity. Complexity is neither here nor there for evolution. What it is really about is diversity. Some groups become very diverse without becoming particularly complex. Some become complex but may not be very diverse. And some show both complexity and diversity.

 

[Mallon]

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.

 

[Critias]

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.

Sometimes I like being snarky. However that wasn't being snarky against science, but rather about how people view science.

I guess I could just jump in like a sheep and follow the trend of all these threads and argue along, as you kindly suggest. However, I'm just not that smart to be able to debate for or against evolution. I'll leave that to people like yourself who are much smarter than I.

 

[sfs]

Slander? OK...

I guess I struck a sensitive nerve there.

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.)

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...

My apologies. I thought your position was this:

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.

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?

 

[Mallon]

However, I'm just not that smart to be able to debate for or against evolution.

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.

 

[Critias]

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.)

Well, that was not meant as a personal attack. However, some scientists (and I should have said some originally, so I apologize) do try and PROVE their work.

If I would have known we could score points, I would have put in some more zingers!

My apologies. I thought your position was this:

Woah. My comment on the fact that there are scientists who have biases and try to prove their work has nothing to do with what my life origin view points are.

BOTH (evolution/creation) sides of the debate, I believe, are guilty of that.

I wonder what could have made me think that.

I could take a guess...

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?

I have no superiority over you or anyone else. I wouldn't be so foolish as to think so.

What type of support do you desire? Do you want just a statement, a hand written note from a scientists, dental records that show imprints of lies?

Scientists, who are creationsists, are often (not always) guilty of creating a theory and trying to prove this. Corruption knows no bounds of religious beliefs or lack thereof.

I bet you didn't expect me to speak against (gasp!) creationists.