Creationists are selfish and un-American

[Nathan45]

But that explanation doesn't make sense. If all humans will ever become is a different sort of human than how did an ape become a human? Why not a different sort of an ape?

No, we are not apes at all. We are manKIND. Not apeKIND.

In both of these posts, You're getting caught up in semantics.

You can call an ape/human whatever you want, it doesn't change the fact of common descent.

Furthermore, it's a principle in taxonomy that anything descended from X is a type of X. This is simply by definition/convention. The definition doesn't mean anything appart from that it implies common descent. So when a scientists says "X are Y" they mean "X descended from Y", by definition.

So if humans are descended from apes, then humans should be considered a kind of ape, by this convention. Furthermore, by convention, anything that descends from humans, if anything ever does, should be considered a type of human. Humans could look totally different and change in entirity, but if there's still common descent, whatever comes out of it is still "human"

So evolution can make kinds of changes, but we're still apes, just by semantic convention.

 

[Vene]

No, we are not apes at all. We are manKIND. Not apeKIND.

Not taxonomically. Even the man who started it (Linneaus, a creationists) classified humans and apes together. Tell me, do humans have opposable thumbs? Are they bipedal? Do we have a rotating shoulder? Do we have hair? Do we have forward facing eyes? Do we share the same bones? How about the same organs? Do we have the same number of hair follicles on our body?

By the way, in case you don't know, the answer to every single question here is 'yes.' Tell me, what biological feature sets us apart?

 

[Inan3]

Not taxonomically. Even the man who started it (Linneaus, a creationists) classified humans and apes together. Tell me, do humans have opposable thumbs? Are they bipedal? Do we have a rotating shoulder? Do we have hair? Do we have forward facing eyes? Do we share the same bones? How about the same organs? Do we have the same number of hair follicles on our body?

By the way, in case you don't know, the answer to every single question here is 'yes.' Tell me, what biological feature sets us apart?

We are made in the image and likeness of God. We can speak.

 

[Inan3]

In both of these posts, You're getting caught up in semantics.

You can call an ape/human whatever you want, it doesn't change the fact of common descent.

Furthermore, it's a principle in taxonomy that anything descended from X is a type of X. This is simply by definition/convention. The definition doesn't mean anything appart from that it implies common descent. So when a scientists says "X are Y" they mean "X descended from Y", by definition.

So if humans are descended from apes, then humans should be considered a kind of ape, by this convention. Furthermore, by convention, anything that descends from humans, if anything ever does, should be considered a type of human. Humans could look totally different and change in entirity, but if there's still common descent, whatever comes out of it is still "human"

So evolution can make kinds of changes, but we're still apes, just by semantic convention.

I appreciate your answer, though I may disagree with its conclusion, because it was sincere and helpful (meaning intent).

I do believe there are similarities between apes and men but not because man came from ape. It is only a theory that that could have happened. With the evidence of God's Word it is obvious that it did not happen that way. If there was any common descent at all it would be that apes came from man not the other way around. There is evidence of that in the Bible.

 

[Nathan45]

We are made in the image and likeness of God. We can speak.

They've actually been able to train monkeys to do sign language, with some success... it's not easy to do but not impossible either.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Project_Washoe

read all about it.

 

[Nathan45]

If there was any common descent at all it would be that apes came from man not the other way around.

well, "ape" is just a general term referring to all apes/monkeys/hominids, both present ones and past. So this is sortof akin to saying that Adam was descended from Israel. You probably already know that, just clarifying it though.

And I don't think there's enough time in 6000 years for every type of ape to descend from humans.

 

[flicka]

I think it's wonderful that the creation/evolution issue has been thrust into the spotlight again. It always leads to opportunities to learn something you didn't know. Raising kids with the idea of a literal 6 day creation/adam/eve and the idea that evolution is evil is an enormous disservice, but it affords many educational opportunities! Every time there is a debate someone, somewhere will have their mind opened a little bit more. Incorrect ideas are exposed and corrected, fear is replaced with understanding. It's great.

 

[DamonWV]

Not taxonomically. Even the man who started it (Linneaus, a creationists) classified humans and apes together. Tell me, do humans have opposable thumbs? Are they bipedal? Do we have a rotating shoulder? Do we have hair? Do we have forward facing eyes? Do we share the same bones? How about the same organs? Do we have the same number of hair follicles on our body?

By the way, in case you don't know, the answer to every single question here is 'yes.' Tell me, what biological feature sets us apart?

I think we can see same patterns among any living thing when it comes to the basics of functionality of the body. Of course we all ( humans, animals ) have common things, organs, body parts, reproduction ect ect .. But we all are still very distinct in our own kind. Biologically we have alot of same things in common, and things different. Even as far as the Genome where evolutionists insist how identical we are to apes because of the amount of chomos we have compared to them. But id like to point out that the information in the chromosome is entirely different from a human and an ape, which makes us all distinct.
I would never make a claim, if i were a scientist, that we all are the same ancestors of anything just because we have the same , or close amount of chromosomes. you need to go deeper and look at the genetic information itself, then you see differnce.
Also id like to point out, on creations defense, what stops god from using comparitive things in some species. I dont think it matters even if humans and apes had the exact number of chromos, it still different information in the genes that makes us all different.
Thats on a Biological level, but something else that makes us so distinct from apes ? Thats a simple answer as well.
The answer is right here, your looking at it. the mere fact that we have the ability to use reason, and rationale , to be self aware of our existence, and to be able to make decisions with out instinct controlling us, makes us entirely different from all other living things.

 

[GodGunsAndGlory]

Opposing the status quo is now un-American. Oh no! Freedom to not believe in evolution isn't American! BAD FREEDOM!!!!

I don't see you any different then people like these:

 

[Nathan45]

I think we can see same patterns among any living thing when it comes to the basics of functionality of the body. Of course we all ( humans, animals ) have common things, organs, body parts, reproduction ect ect .. But we all are still very distinct in our own kind. Biologically we have alot of same things in common, and things different. Even as far as the Genome where evolutionists insist how identical we are to apes because of the amount of chomos we have compared to them. BUt id like to point out that the information in the chromosome is entirely different from a human and an ape, which makes us all distinct.

well, the point is that it isn't different, for the most part, chimps and humans share 96% of the same DNA.

The real evidence for common descent is that the non-coding DNA in apes and humans is very similar... we have the same endogenous retrovirus insertions, and in the same places, in the proportion that you'd expect if evolution were true...

Look, here's how they prove plagiarism in a court of law:

You look through the two manuscripts, and you look for similar errors, similar sentence structure, style, etc.

For example, mapmakers often put minor errors, like misspellings of minor roads/landmarks, etc, into their maps. That way if someone makes a new map just by copying theirs, and tries to resell it, they can prove it was plagiarized and sue them.

Because the plagiarized map contains the same errors in the same places, you can be sure it's the same map. Similarly, if a piece of art/writing displaying something uses the same sentence structure, same order, in a place where how to order something is totally arbitrary, but still picks the same order as a previous writing, you know it's plagiarized.

It's similar with DNA... There's enough evidence by similarities in the DNA to show that humans and chimps both "plagiarized" off of a common source. You'll see the same errors in the same places, even in places that don't do anything...

for example, lots of DNA simply does nothing, it's called non-coding DNA. For example, there are these things called "Endogenous retroviruses" which is retroviral DNA from ancient infections that inserted itself into the inactive portion of the genome. You'll see the same insertions in the same places in chimp and human DNA, and it's clearly a retrovirus, yet it's also part of our Genome. And part of a chimp's genome also!

So basically the fact that the DNA, both the functional part and the non-functional part, of chimps and humans is so similar, shows that there was a common ancestor. And this evidence is in wide agreement with the fossil record.

 

[DamonWV]

Yes. Especially since the term "macroevolution"just means evolution at or above the species level and microevolution is variation within a species. At least, if you're using the biological definition. And there is no barrier between them. Just like there is no barrier between walking 10 feet and 10 miles. One just takes longer.

Thats not entirely true. Because there is a distinct difference between evolutions. one way we see it, is small changes with in a species to adapt to environment. But the oter view is the gaining of NEW information to transition into a new being. ie reptiles to birds, big differnece between a scale and a feather. on a biological level they have no similarities at all. theyir entire purpose and functions have nothing to do with one another, and the demand for new information to change from one species into a whole other new species lacks if im correct in living animals. I think its been concluded that cells can not gain new information, but instead lose information through mutation.
Thats why i cant see a valid point of a species needing to change into a whole new species, instead it changes with in itself , to adapt and surive. ie longer neck - giraffe, finches beak lengths to get to food sources that are deeper in something . ect ect
Also the fossil record is very weak on transitional fossils, and even the ones that are looked at, are open to interpretation. But if animals do transition into new species, then there should be, a very , very abundant amount of transitional fossils from billions of years of evolution, and out fossil record does not have that at all.

 

[Nathan45]

Thats not entirely true. Because there is a distinct difference between evolutions. one way we see it, is small changes with in a species to adapt to environment. But the oter view is the gaining of NEW information to transition into a new being. ie reptiles to birds, big differnece between a scale and a feather.

The only difference is that one takes a hundred million years and the other takes thousands.

I mean, there's a difference between running across the hall and running to los angeles, but forrest gump did it, so I can too.

Also, they can demonstrate the creation of "New information". Any "Information" you see is coded into our DNA. Any mutation of Said DNA is new information.

The point is that reptiles and birds: they both use the same Genetic Code, and the differences between the two can really be explained by differences in that. So minor changes to DNA add up.

Here's how it works:

Random mutations, which are processes/copying errors-- These make modifications in the genome.

There are about a hundred or so copying errors per animal per generation...
so if you have a population of 1,000,000 animals born per year over 10,000,000 years, that means you're going to have 1,000,000,000,000,000 ( 1 quadrillion ) chance mutations during that time, at random parts of the genome.

So what natural selection does, is it sorts through these chance mutations, naturally, and picks out the rare ones that actually improve the animal relative to it's environment. Of course there's no guarantee that the fit animal is the one that survives, but that's what usually happens.

So natural selection weeds through these oodles of chance mutations, looking for ones that actually benefit the animal. note, that 99% of mutations do not have any noticable effect, and the other 1% are mostly negative. However, that rare beneficial mutation, when it occurs, tends to flourish. So then, once it appears, the beneficial mutation spreads throughout the population of a species in a few hundred or thousand generations through that great horizontal gene transfer mechanism known as "Sex". So beneficial mutations that arise in one place can spread to all or most members of the species through sex or other methods of horizontal gene transfer in non-sexual species.

So the point is that over the course of time in a population, you have a gazillion mutations which randomly change the DNA, and some of them are bound to be an improvement over what was before. And yes, this is "New Information" by any definition. These changes accumulate over hundreds of millions of years in a population...

( it's also worth noting that most mutations are very minor changes.. it may take several mutations to create a new trait. )

Now, here's when speciation occurs: You take a portion of the population of the above species, and isolate this group from all the other members of the species. Now, by isolated, i mean, doesn't breed, for whatever reason. Maybe it's stranded on an island, crossed a river or something, or they just don't like eachother. So you're not transfering the same genes around through sex ( horizontal transfer ) anymore. The new population is going to produce different random mutations than the old population. Furthremore, it's probably in a different environment, has different worries from predators, is likely to be killed by different things, and eats different things, so what is "Fit" in context of the species is totally different. So you'll have animals that are isolated from their main species, adapting totally separately and going totally different directions. They have different random mutations, and different selective pressures. If you isolate them for long enough, they won't interbreed with the main species ever again, eventually they'll be incapable... after which point they just get farther and farther apart, as evolution takes them in different directions... So that's how you get a new species.

and eventually you have things which share a common ancestor, yet look nothing alike.

I mean, it takes hundreds of million years for a reptile to turn into a bird. But, this change isn't inherantly different than the microevolution that creationists will believe... the point is that microevolution accumulates and becomes macroevolution. The difference between birds and modern reptiles can be understood by comparing the differences between the two, the differences are just a bunch of chance mutations that arose over time and were selected for differently in different populations.

 

[Danyc]

Ohhhhhhhhhhhhhh so THIS is how you debate. So enlightening!

You call this a debate?

That's the funniest thing I've heard all day.

 

[The Princess Bride]

Let's face it, the vast majority of the creationist movement is in the United States, so I think making the "un-American" statement is well justified.

So to the creationists, please, I'm begging you, please just show a little bit of modesty and give this fight up. You are doing no good by trying to push your particular brand of The Truth™. The United States has been a global leader in sciences and technologies for the past hundred years or so, and yet you want to take this country that has given so much to the world and turn it into a place that scorns innovation.

Yes you think you're doing good by trying to get creationism or "intelligent design" or whatever into classrooms, but you're not. By teaching this particular "controversy" you're doing nothing but hurting yourselves. You think evolutionary theory and biology are threatening to your religion, but the real problem is that you can't see the forest for the trees. If you are successful in getting creationism into classrooms you will do nothing but destroy any chances future generations of American children have in the global marketplace.

You think people losing low-paying jobs to immigrants is bad? Just wait until you have to start importing scientists and engineers because the natives are receiving an education sub-standard to the rest of the world.

You lot have your own quaint little view of the world, how you think it was created, but the fact of the matter is that world view does not pay the bills; it doesn't create the medicine; it doesn't help the economy; it doesn't do anything but feed your own hubris. So for the good of the other 60% of the population and the rest of the world at large, just swallow your pride and go with whatever actually works (hint: it's not creationism)

This has got to be the most unfounded mop-bucket of garbage I've heard in a while.

All unfounded. All unprovable.

Can you back up ANY of your allegations with substantial and reliable, un-liberalized reports of this occurance?

If a person's particular belief of creation VS. evolution is preventing them from being an active, effective laborer in the economy....phew...how ever will the average joe support all the illegal's and their kids?

Ah, yes....how "un-American" a country founded on Christian beliefs....being flushed down the toilet....

A person's intelligence or income is by no means based upon their belief of how the world came to be.

Surely anyone knows that.....unless of course, they arent "highly evolved enough" to connect such a thing.

 

[pgp_protector]

We are made in the image and likeness of God. We can speak.

I thought God was a Spirit. Guess he's got 2 Arms & 2 Legs with 10 fingers & 10 Toes.

(Sorta bad for all them humans with more or fewer than 10 Fingers / Toes, guess they're not made in God's Image / likeness)

 

[GodGunsAndGlory]

You call this a debate?

That's the funniest thing I've heard all day.

They didn't which you can get from "so this is how you debate," as in they didn't think this was a debate. Reading comprehension...

 

[Chalnoth]

But that explanation doesn't make sense. If all humans will ever become is a different sort of human than how did an ape become a human? Why not a different sort of an ape?

Humans are a different sort of ape.

 

[Chalnoth]

I think we can see same patterns among any living thing when it comes to the basics of functionality of the body. Of course we all ( humans, animals ) have common things, organs, body parts, reproduction ect ect .. But we all are still very distinct in our own kind. Biologically we have alot of same things in common, and things different. Even as far as the Genome where evolutionists insist how identical we are to apes because of the amount of chomos we have compared to them. But id like to point out that the information in the chromosome is entirely different from a human and an ape, which makes us all distinct.

Entirely different? Something like 97% of our DNA is also in chimpanzees, and of that 97%, around 98% of the sequences are identical. Under what definition would you call that "entirely different"?

I would never make a claim, if i were a scientist, that we all are the same ancestors of anything just because we have the same , or close amount of chromosomes. you need to go deeper and look at the genetic information itself, then you see differnce.

Oh, that is by far not the reason why we say that we descend from a common ancestor. The primary reason is not that we have similarities, but rather that we have a specific pattern of similarities. This is an important point. Common descent expects:

1. All similarities to exist within a nested hierarchy. Basically, each descendant of an ancestor should carry the signature of being a descendant of that ancestor. But each line of descent will have novel mutations of its own, and thus should have differences from all other lines of descent. This pattern is a nested hierarchy: whenever A and B have an explicit similarity that stems from a common ancestor C, then all other descendants of C will also have that similarity.
2. We should see that all measures of non-superficial similarities between organisms should follow the exact same nested hierarchy. This is precisely what we do find, whether it's skeletal structure, mutations in nonfunctioning regions in our DNA, endogenous retroviral insertions, or any other traits.
3. We should see a progression of fossil forms in the fossil record, with more derived forms later than more ancestral forms. This is exactly what we see: different eras in Earth's history have very different sorts of fossils in them. We see no amphibians before we find the first fish. We see no mammals before we find the first reptiles. We see no birds before we find the first dinosaurs, and so on and so forth. Chronologically, descent works.
4. When analyzing the physical processes that produce evolution in the lab, we should see rates that are consistent with the history of evolution as discovered by the fossil record. This is the case.

You see, science is enormously self-critical. Every single piece must fit exactly, or there is something we either don't know or have wrong. Scientists are most interested in things we don't know or have wrong, and so seek out such pieces that don't quite fit with extreme fervor. No such piece has been found for common descent, despite a century and a half of fervent evidence gathering. We find more and more evidence every day, and all of it supports common descent.

 

[Chalnoth]

Opposing the status quo is now un-American. Oh no! Freedom to not believe in evolution isn't American! BAD FREEDOM!!!!

I don't see you any different then people like these:

Well, sure, you have the freedom to ignore science. But you'd be violating the separation of church and state to take evolution out of the schools, or worse to have intelligent design taught in the public schools. And doing so significantly damages science education in our country. We have a huge fraction of the current generation that is missing this incredibly important fact of biology.

Ignore reality all you want, but don't drag the rest of the country down with you into the dark ages.

 

[IzzyPop]

This has got to be the most unfounded mop-bucket of garbage I've heard in a while.

All unfounded. All unprovable.

Can you back up ANY of your allegations with substantial and reliable, un-liberalized reports of this occurance?

Show us one medicine that was created using ID. Show us anything of scientific value to come from creationism.

If a person's particular belief of creation VS. evolution is preventing them from being an active, effective laborer in the economy....phew...how ever will the average joe support all the illegal's and their kids?

Oh, they can be laborers. We still need ditch diggers and fast food cooks. But where science and innovation are concerned, beliefs and feeling have nothing to do with reality. Facts rule.

Ah, yes....how "un-American" a country founded on Christian beliefs....being flushed down the toilet....

Which Christian beliefs. Be specific.

A person's intelligence or income is by no means based upon their belief of how the world came to be.

There is a correlation. The more educated a person is, the less likely they are to believe in creationism (or God) and the more money they are likely to make.

Surely anyone knows that.....unless of course, they arent "highly evolved enough" to connect such a thing.

Not evolved. Just educated.