Define 'species'

[mark kennedy]

I've learned not to expect anything of substance from you. But if you want something more substantive, then you've got one more post to make to our debate before I can post my reply. Answer the questions about the definition of monkeys and apes, show me how to "discover" the definition of species in the various interrelated skulls I showed you, so that the word "species" can be precisely defined in paleofauna. Explain how you determined two of those hominines to be related, and how you decided that the third one was not. Tell me what evidence you would accept that could convince you if my position is true. Then you can look at all the points you've lost, (and snipped from your reply) and concede them honorably as you agreed to do at the onset. You might also take a stab at providing the other answers and citations I asked for, and explain why you ever believed the Bible to be a reliable authority on anything. These are all direct questions which you agreed to answer to the best of your ability, but have instead only repeatedly ignored.

That's you're whole problem and I have seen this tactic used before. You show me a bunch of skulls and expect me to make some kind of judgment based on simularities and differences. It is just like the case of skulls that Talk Origins uses that starts with a modern chimanzee and ends with a modern human. You can't rewrite natural history based on the comparisons of skulls, there is a great deal more involved.

There are a lot of different kinds of dogs, so what? Unless you think there is a common ancestor for humans in this lineup I really don't see the relavance. Why not just elablorate on how these skulls are used to classify the various species of canines and let me respond, instead of just posting a bunch of pictures and demanding a postitive statement. Are we discussing our origins or canines because you keep jumping from one taxonomic scheme to another.

Now you are perfectly welcome to bring up any omission you like in the summary. I am more interested in focusing on you're postitive statements that are contrary to evolutionary biology. The debate isn't over and you didn't make you're primary contention stick. See you in the formal debate forum, I am so looking forward to writting the summary.

 

[Ondoher]

What's more any taxonomic clad is going to be drawn up according to the Darwinian model. I wonder through you're little labyrinth of convoluted questions and found in all of them a philosophical premise that has not changed since 1859. What's more these philosophical principles are identical to the national socialism the plauged Europe for the last century.

Actually, the goal of cladistic analysis is to produce the most parsimoneous tree (the one with the fewest character transitions). That they consistently generate convergent trees is just indicative that common ancestry is likely true.

I didn't dodge them, I dismissed them as convoluted and unqualified philosophical rethoric. This is well within the parameters of the debate rules.

The same way modern taxonomy except unlike you I include language and culture. You never liked to hear this but instead wanted to introduce new terms when you were reminded of this. You posted a great picture of a baby ape and suggested that this little guy recapitiulates evolution, you never elaborated on how this is so.

I am over the homo habilis thing now that I know how they contrived this supposed transition. Homo habilis was most likely just an unusual chimp and I am very suspicious of how their tool making skills are qualified. If it's anything like the way they came up with bipedal chimps it's contrived.

Penguins are unique birds, I'll grant you that but if they had become extinct a thousand years ago they would be seen as a transitional. One of the fundamental differences between men and apes (or any animal for that matter) is a creative capacity for abstract thought.

There was an experiment done on gorillas, where they were shown two piles of jelly beans. When they pointed at a pile, they were given the other pile. The gorrilas were unable to overcome their greed instinct, and point to the smaller pile. However, when the jelly beans were replaced with an abstraction, I think it was marbles, then they started performing as expected, and picking the smaller number of marbles.

Humans are certainly unique in our cognitive abilitites, but sometimes we underestimate those of our closest relatives.

How many apes can play chess, write software programs, or use a microscope? You consider this line of reasoning substantive, are you kidding me?

The point was that penguins are unique to birds, but are still classified as birds due to taxonomic analysis of homologies. In the same sense, although humans are obviously unique amongst apes, we are still classified as apes due to the same type of taxonomic analysis.

Years ago in a Bible college the Bible and science teacher challenged me to build the best argument I could for evolution. I eventually convinced myself that evolution as a philosophy of science is unavoidable in natural science. However, eliminating God's divine intervention and providence begs the question of proof at crucial points of development. I realize that PubMed and Mendel are prime examples of cutting edge natural science but genetics simply doesn't have a demonstrated mechanism for the transformation from apes to men. What you don't seem to realize is that I can concede most of evolutionary biology's fundamental reasoning and still reject universal common descent on purely scientific grounds.

There is no valid scientific objection to common ancestry.

Santa Clause is a prime example of how the story gets better with the telling. He was an actual person who made toys for kids when they barely had enough to survive because of high taxes. I have yet to see the slightest indication that a serious documented wittness of flying reindeer but that is the difference between the myth and the history of Santa Clause. Evolution does this, it claims that the natural variations in the gene pool due to meiosis are evolution even though they are better characterized as stasis untill the gene pool is actually rewritten. Mutations are rare and hard to find and yet it is exactly here that the genetic code must be rewritten. This begs the question of proof and I am not impressed with rationalizations to the contrary.

Mutations are not rare. And they can be inferred through genetic analysis.

I suggested that the gene pool of dogs/wolves are sufficient to account for the variations we see among canines. Just ask yourself how long we have been breading this animals and how many different variations we have seen as a result. We never really got into the Flood that much even though you suggested that we might want to do that after this one is finally over. If we did decide to do that I would be a lot less permissive about the rules.

I did repeatedly and you just keep claiming I won't. It's not just about how the skeletons look, it how things like the thumb works. It's the way humans use their intellect to overcome obstacles. I once knew a computer programer that was blind and could actually bowl pretty good. You don't seem to want to face the fact that abstract thought is a telling proof of man having a creative capacity for formal reasoning. This is absent in other primates and I have been making this point from the begining but you just keep insisting that we are apes. Calling me names won't change that.

That's were I made the point that Darwin's contribution was philosphical and his reasoning was opposed to divine intervention. The reasoning was shown to have a theological bias and you actually agreed that this is out of place. I won't bother rehashing this here, it will all be in my summary.

I never intended to rewrite modern cladistics just to challenge the premise of universal common ancestry. Now you did a bang up job confusing the issue with these endless charts and graphs but you have denied the dialectic of taxonomy, the philosophical premise from Darwin, and the substantive reasoning of leading evolutionary thinkers. That will allso be dealt with at length in the summary.

Wow, I haven't even thought of that point yet. 'Less derived', so if the common ancestor were better developed that would be a big boost for creationism. It is amazing that I learn so much more from the evolutionist then I do from creationists. I had not realized that before, thanks Aron-Ra, I really appreciate that insight.

Less derived means that it has less variation from the most recent common ancestor. For instance, assymetrical flight feathers are a derrived trait of birds. However, a fused fulcrum is less derived.

 

[Physics_guy]

You don't seem to want to face the fact that abstract thought is a telling proof of man having a creative capacity for formal reasoning. This is absent in other primates and I have been making this point from the begining but you just keep insisting that we are apes.

This assertion is not supported by the evidence. True there is a degree difference between the reasoning skills of humans and the other apes, but there is not a type difference. Koko has been shown to use advanced abstract reasoning skill and has a more developed intellect than a small child.

On the other side of the coin, I highly doubt that many of the leading creationists are capable of any abstract thought at all! :LOL

 

[yossarian]

Years ago in a Bible college the Bible and science teacher challenged me to build the best argument I could for evolution. I eventually convinced myself that evolution as a philosophy of science is unavoidable in natural science. However, eliminating God's divine intervention and providence begs the question of proof at crucial points of development. I realize that PubMed and Mendel are prime examples of cutting edge natural science but genetics simply doesn't have a demonstrated mechanism for the transformation from apes to men. What you don't seem to realize is that I can concede most of evolutionary biology's fundamental reasoning and still reject universal common descent on purely scientific grounds.

genetics has all the mechanisms required for the "ape to men" transitition

what are those purely scientific grounds - what is your method of chopping up the phylogenetic tree that produces testable hypotheses confirmed by observation?

Evolution does this, it claims that the natural variations in the gene pool due to meiosis are evolution even though they are better characterized as stasis untill the gene pool is actually rewritten. Mutations are rare and hard to find and yet it is exactly here that the genetic code must be rewritten. This begs the question of proof and I am not impressed with rationalizations to the contrary.

mutations are not hard to find

What is unscientific about evolution is that it makes unique theological claims that and it was specificlly focused on that at the heart of the emphasis, and allways has been.

name one theological claim of modern evolutionary theory

 

[mark kennedy]

Researchers say that mutations are rare and hard to find and posters tell me they are not. Natural selection does not rewrite genetic code, it eliminates inferior individules in populations. This is the gospel according to Darwin and if evolutionary biology is to have any merit it has to be qualified geneticlly. Mutations simply do not account for the descent from a single common ancestor if most of them have no effect at all and the overwelming majority of the rest are harmfull.

"Adaptive mutations in E. coli
Advantageous mutations lead to a higher fitness and hence per definition to more offspring of their bearer. Because of their pivotal role in adaptation processes there has been a long-standing interest to study the nature of beneficial mutations. Unfortunately, these positive mutations are rare and thus difficult to study. We have developed a new marker system, which allows us to systematically study beneficial mutations in E. coli."

Marianne C. Imhof, Ph.D.
http://i122server.vu-wien.ac.at/People/Marianne.html

I still find it amazing the lengths people will go to, in the affirmation that we are apes. They do not have a language of their own, they don't design and build tools, they are not capable of abstract thought. When drawing up cladistics this is the one distictive that is unavoidable, intelligence.

 

[Jet Black]

I still find it amazing the lengths people will go to, in the affirmation that we are apes. They do not have a language of their own, they don't design and build tools, they are not capable of abstract thought. When drawing up cladistics this is the one distictive that is unavoidable, intelligence.

oic, so it is ok to ignore all the structural and genetic similarities and the endless matching phylogenetic trees, th ALUs, the ERVs the chromosome banding patterns, the pseudogenes, the fact that physically we are neotenic apes.... there is one difference therefore we are not apes, right? despite the fact that apes are intelligence, and our intelligence is a derived trait. How about we stop calling kiwis birds, since they don't fly, and stop calling bats rodents because they do. we can stop calling dolphins mammals because they swim and we can stop calling snakes reptiles because they don't have legs.

 

[Jet Black]

Researchers say that mutations are rare and hard to find and posters tell me they are not. Natural selection does not rewrite genetic code, it eliminates inferior individules in populations. This is the gospel according to Darwin and if evolutionary biology is to have any merit it has to be qualified geneticlly.

aah yes, the old "gospel according to darwin" religious claim again. What is the problem genetically, you keep telling us there is one but never provide a basis for it. how do you suppose we got all the variation in the alleles? there are over 200 alleles of some genes, such as haemoglobin if I am not mistaken. you think adam and eve shared 200 alleles between them?

 

[Ondoher]

Researchers say that mutations are rare and hard to find and posters tell me they are not. Natural selection does not rewrite genetic code, it eliminates inferior individules in populations. This is the gospel according to Darwin and if evolutionary biology is to have any merit it has to be qualified geneticlly. Mutations simply do not account for the descent from a single common ancestor if most of them have no effect at all and the overwelming majority of the rest are harmfull.

"Adaptive mutations in E. coli
Advantageous mutations lead to a higher fitness and hence per definition to more offspring of their bearer. Because of their pivotal role in adaptation processes there has been a long-standing interest to study the nature of beneficial mutations. Unfortunately, these positive mutations are rare and thus difficult to study. We have developed a new marker system, which allows us to systematically study beneficial mutations in E. coli."

Marianne C. Imhof, Ph.D.
http://i122server.vu-wien.ac.at/People/Marianne.html

I still find it amazing the lengths people will go to, in the affirmation that we are apes. They do not have a language of their own, they don't design and build tools, they are not capable of abstract thought. When drawing up cladistics this is the one distictive that is unavoidable, intelligence.

Sure, to somebody looking to spot one happening in a laboratory, a mutation can be considere rare. On the grand scale of a population, mutations are not that rare at all. And note your reference is finding enough mutations to study the beneficial ones.

Humans are apes. We are apes, plus the derrived characteristics of bipedalism, smaller canines, a flatter flace a larger brain, a steeper forehead and greater cognitive abilitites. Like penguins are birds with the derrived characteristics of flipper wings, extra body fat, streamlined shape, webbed feet, etc..

We fit neatly in the twin nested hierarchy.

 

[mark kennedy]

Sure, to somebody looking to spot one happening in a laboratory, a mutation can be considere rare. On the grand scale of a population, mutations are not that rare at all. And note your reference is finding enough mutations to study the beneficial ones.

Humans are apes. We are apes, plus the derrived characteristics of bipedalism, smaller canines, a flatter flace a larger brain, a steeper forehead and greater cognitive abilitites. Like penguins are birds with the derrived characteristics of flipper wings, extra body fat, streamlined shape, webbed feet, etc..

We fit neatly in the twin nested hierarchy.

You missed the part where most of the mutations are either deletreous or harmfull. I am still waiting for these beneficial mutations to rewrite the genetic code without killing off the species. You do know that in a lab they can create mutations right? They just can't create the beneficial ones that are being manifest on a grand scale, even though no one seems to want to point them out.

We are not apes because penguins are birds and have derrived characteristics. I think I know where the confusion comes in, Apes, chimpanzees and other monkeys differ greatly because they must adapt to their environment. Humans on the other hand adapt their environment to suite them, I think this is an unavoidable distinction. We have the power to destroy the environment entirely if we ever unloaded our nuclear arsonels on one another. No chimpanzee ever wielded that kind of power, no ape ever had the capacity for even realizing that this kind of power even exists.

 

[yossarian]

You missed the part where most of the mutations are either deletreous or harmfull. I am still waiting for these beneficial mutations to rewrite the genetic code without killing off the species. You do know that in a lab they can create mutations right? They just can't create the beneficial ones that are being manifest on a grand scale, even though no one seems to want to point them out.

wrong, most mutations are neutral

antibiotic resistance - beneficial mutations in an extremely short time span

 

[Ondoher]

You missed the part where most of the mutations are either deletreous or harmfull. I am still waiting for these beneficial mutations to rewrite the genetic code without killing off the species. You do know that in a lab they can create mutations right? They just can't create the beneficial ones that are being manifest on a grand scale, even though no one seems to want to point them out.

What does, "on a grand scale," mean? Beneficial mutationms happen. Mutations that create beneifical novel genes happen. Do this over a long enough period of time and soon you have genetic divergence.

We are not apes because penguins are birds and have derrived characteristics. I think I know where the confusion comes in, Apes, chimpanzees and other monkeys differ greatly because they must adapt to their environment. Humans on the other hand adapt their environment to suite them, I think this is an unavoidable distinction. We have the power to destroy the environment entirely if we ever unloaded our nuclear arsonels on one another. No chimpanzee ever wielded that kind of power, no ape ever had the capacity for even realizing that this kind of power even exists.

And no other bird swims in cold water as good as a penguin. We are apes because that's where we fit in the twin nested hierarchy.

 

[h2whoa]

Just a little fact that I thought that I'd throw in. Between any one human and another there is on average about 0.1% difference in genetic content.

0.1%.

Look at the huge differences that exist between people. Short, tall. Fat, thin. Black, white and so on.

Now ancestrally we diverged a long time ago from apes (there's that word that people love/hate so much). A long enough time for our DNA to differ by not decimal place percentages but whole percentages.

Think about the difference 0.1% can make. So when people start going nuts because there are some fundamental differences between us an other primates, just try and bear that in mind.

h2

 

[Tomk80]

You missed the part where most of the mutations are either deletreous or harmfull. I am still waiting for these beneficial mutations to rewrite the genetic code without killing off the species. You do know that in a lab they can create mutations right? They just can't create the beneficial ones that are being manifest on a grand scale, even though no one seems to want to point them out.

We are not apes because penguins are birds and have derrived characteristics. I think I know where the confusion comes in, Apes, chimpanzees and other monkeys differ greatly because they must adapt to their environment. Humans on the other hand adapt their environment to suite them, I think this is an unavoidable distinction. We have the power to destroy the environment entirely if we ever unloaded our nuclear arsonels on one another. No chimpanzee ever wielded that kind of power, no ape ever had the capacity for even realizing that this kind of power even exists.

Mark, when are you going to get that most mutations are neutral? Is that so hard to understand. Look at the genetic code. The genetic code is made up out of 4 bases. Every amino acid is coded with 3 bases, this is called a codon. This makes 64 possibilities for amino acids. There are 20 amino acids, and we need a start and a stop sign. This means that eventually we have 64 possibilities where we only need 22. There's a lot of space there for double coding, so point mutations aren't the most harmfull there.

Furthermore, in the genetic code large parts don't have a function depending on the code they have, but mostly in their distance to other genes. Mutations in these parts (the kind doesn't make much difference) are going to be neutral, unless they are very dramatic.

Even on the chromosomal level, mutations aren't that harmfull. A lot of translocations are neutral. For example, with Down's syndrom two translocations are needed. The parents of a child with Down's syndrom already have a translocation (they are 'carriers) without any detrimental effect. Only when the translocation is exacerbated subsequently in the child you get a trisomie which is harmfull.

So, most mutations are neutral, not harmfull.

Also, if people say that beneficial mutations are rare and hard to find, this doesn't mean that we haven't collected a lot of examples by now by looking hard. You've been shown multiple examples already. Face it Mark, the point you are trying to make is inacurate at best.

 

[Aron-Ra]

Since everything I believe is tentative, and based strictly on evidence and reason, then I will be forced to consider your magic invisible ghost, (whether I want to or not) the instant you show me some reason to. What have you got? Why should I believe in a god?

.

That's just the answer I expected, Mark.

So let me get this straight. On the one hand, we have a single unifying theory of biology that was compiled by the collective genius of the lion's share of the global scientific community, working independently, and competitively, -and is endorsed by every last one of Nobel laureates as well as by the Pope and by most of the rest of Christianity at large, -based on an overwhelming preponderance of all kinds of solid, demonstrable, testable evidence from a host of related and unrelated fields, leading to a wide variety of practical applications, cutting edge breakthroughs in biotechnology, and billion-dollar industries, who combine their research with all the other independent peer-reviewed discoveries to culminate a body of scientific study that is even better-supported than the Theory of gravity!

On the other hand, we have your notion, which is shared only by a fanatic fringe of mostly under-educated laity, is supported by literally nothing at all, and which is promoted solely by disreputable charlatans who can only pretend to employ any scientific method, and do not tolerate free inquiry. And you expect me to believe this wholly improbable and illogical fable for the same reason you do, which is for no reason whatsoever.

I think you'd better take another look at your PubMed site, Mark. because they do actually study genetics and medical science, but when you type "common ancestor" in their search window, you'll see that they repeatedly state that all of that evidence demands evolutionary common ancestry.

.

I believe one of our rules was that we were to honorably concede any points clearly lost. That doesn't mean snipping them from future replies without comment.

Are you now going to argue that the Earth was once the only thing in the entire universe? That the billions of other stars in our galaxy, as well as all the billions of other galaxies, -were all created after our puny little planet? Or that there were plants on Earth before the sun, or any of the other celestial bodies even existed? Can snakes talk, Mark? Do you really intend to argue for a giant crystal firmament with windows in it?

.

I believe my mission was to prove that evolution was the truest, best explanation for the origin of our species. And this is all you can counter that challenge that with?! I can't help but win if you won't offer any alternative explanation.

What was imperative was that you acknowledge the principles and particulars for the worldview you are supposedly defending. Instead evolution as a philosophy is being dismissed as irrelevant, which is absurd.

Our "world view" doesn't matter to this conversation. You would see that if you would just answer the questions like you said you would.

Now if you want to contradict Gould, Mayr, and Darwin that's you're buisness but don't expect me to pretend that what is left is substantive.

If you would answer the questions as asked, you wouldn't be able to deny the substance And I am not contradicting Gould, Mayr, or Darwin. Evolution as a philosophy is irrelevant to what I'm trying to show you. Unless you think the word "monkey" can only be defined philosophically.

What's more any taxonomic clad is going to be drawn up according to the Darwinian model. I wonder through you're little labyrinth of convoluted questions and found in all of them a philosophical premise that has not changed since 1859. What's more these philosophical principles are identical to the national socialism the plauged Europe for the last century.

But not at all similar to the nazis of today's Christian Identity, right? You ignored my question about the substantive similarities between them. Why? And why do you insist on repeating these playground-level emotional pleas and attempts to poison the well? They ain't ever gonna work, Mark. After having been proven wrong on this point so many times by so many people, you still want to pretend they're identical, meaning that there are differences at all between them?! We all know there are no significant similarities between the two, and that has been shown to you time and again. So this is a dishonest response.

When it suits you, you ignore the dominant perspective of Christianity at large, and refer to evolution as "antitheistic materialism". Then you try (feebly) to associate that with Hitler's fascists, even though all of them based their perspectives on metaphysics: They were Christians, Hindus, Odinists, and Helenists, (all theists) and many of them were occultists also. And while Hitler himself may or may not have remained Christian by your standards, he was still a theist, and definitely a creationist. That ain't exactly anti-theistic materialism, and he never knew any concept that was "identical" to anything Darwin ever proposed. What they displayed instead was the same kind of typical prejudice we see in members of every denomination whether they accept evolution or not.

I properly addressed every one of your arguments without exception, where you have dodged most of mine.

I didn't dodge them, I dismissed them as convoluted and unqualified philosophical rethoric. This is well within the parameters of the debate rules.

But they are none of the above, and you never even provided any reason to defend your allegation.

Exactly how does "What is a monkey?" count as unqualified philosophical rhetoric? Is that question too "convoluted" for you?

How do you determine the clades for monkeys or apes?

The same way modern taxonomy except unlike you I include language and culture.

OK, but how does modern taxonomy do it?

You never liked to hear this

There you go again, telling me what I think.

but instead wanted to introduce new terms when you were reminded of this.

Reminded of what?

You posted a great picture of a baby ape and suggested that this little guy recapitiulates evolution, you never elaborated on how this is so.

That's a very good question, but I did already answer it when I posted that picture. What I mean is that baby gorillas, chimpanzees or humans are more similar to each other than any adults of these species would be. The concept of neoteny is that humans have evolved to retain child-like features that are lost in other apes. Our skin isn't nearly as thick as a chimp's, and never changes color, where chimpanzees turn black at puberty. We keep the flat faces and high foreheads that chimps only have in infancy. And of course there are obvious differences in genetalia, again, only between the adults. Neoteny suggests that the ancestor of two closely-related organisms looks more like the young of its descendants than like the adults, the adults being more derived. Understand?

I am over the homo habilis thing now that I know how they contrived this supposed transition.

Aah, so your perspective is in a state of flux, is it?

Homo habilis was most likely just an unusual chimp

In that it was human? That is unusual for a chimp!

and I am very suspicious of how their tool making skills are qualified. If it's anything like the way they came up with bipedal chimps it's contrived.

I don't think anyone ever proposed bi-pedal chimps. Australopiths (like those below) and other Hominines were somewhat chimp-like, just as they were man-like. Their ribs, pelvis and brains were more like chimps. But their brain-stems, teeth, knees, and extremeties were more like men than chimps.

Also, don't forget that these ancient species pre-date chimpanzees as well as men; and that the human/chimp ancestral lines diverged before the first Hominines ever appeared.

Like the Australopiths, Homo habilis's skull was mounted to its vertebrae is a straight-up balanced position, unlike chimpanzees or other knuckle-walking apes. Hominines had to be bi-pedal. Then of course, their pelvis's, knees, feet, and other factors all sync with this where they can't be attributed to anything else. Their bipedality is not contrived.

As for their tool use, habilines made tools of stone, bone, and antlers, the latter two show evidence of wear where they were broken off, and at the tips. The stone tools were either pounded round or percussion-flaked, but not as nicely as the Levallois technique used by their descendants. Still, the obvious marks of cutting edges have been found on bones associated with habiline campsites, implying that they both ate meat, and could make good enough knives and axes for that purpose.

Penguins are unique birds, I'll grant you that but if they had become extinct a thousand years ago they would be seen as a transitional.

To what?

Sorry, but this is wrong too. Look at Hesperornis for example. If you're right, then this 6-foot pseudo-penguin should be considered a transitional to modern penguins, right? But its not.

Despite the superficial similarity, there are fundamental differences such that these birds were in a clade by themselves, apart from all other "kinds" of birds. The Hesperornis branch in the avian tree ended abruptly at the end of the Cretaceous, along with other toothy birds like Ichthyornis and flying dinosaurs like Rahonavis as well as mostly-bird dinosaurs like ovaraptor and caudipteryx. Hesperornines evidently sprouted from the same source as all other birds, but grew more derived, and divided from the rest of them since. They aren't linked to anything that still lives today. Of the six major avian groups that have ever lived, only two survived the KT event; paleognaths (ratites and tinemous) and neognaths, (everything else, including penguins).

One of the fundamental differences between men and apes (or any animal for that matter) is a creative capacity for abstract thought. How many apes can play chess, write software programs, or use a microscope? You consider this line of reasoning substantive, are you kidding me?

No sir, I'm not kidding you. The answer is that only apes can do any of these things, and in particular, only one species of ape can do all of these things. Once again, in order for you to understand that, you have to know what an ape is. That's why I keep asking for your definition.

But your comments here prompt me to also ask; what is an animal? Do you know how that word is defined? Because while you speak of the differences between men and apes, it sounds to me like arguing the differences between ducks and birds, or the difference between tuna and fish. But when you talk about the differences between men and animals, as if we weren't animals ourselves, then I have to wonder whether you know what an animal is? How could we tell an animal apart from plants, fungus, or algae?

Years ago in a Bible college the Bible and science teacher challenged me to build the best argument I could for evolution. I eventually convinced myself that evolution as a philosophy of science is unavoidable in natural science. However, eliminating God's divine intervention and providence begs the question of proof at crucial points of development.

No it doesn't. Proposing God begs the question of proof, or at least it should. But since evolution obviously doesn't require the exclusion of God, then your whole point here is moot.

I realize that PubMed and Mendel are prime examples of cutting edge natural science but genetics simply doesn't have a demonstrated mechanism for the transformation from apes to men.

Yes it does, as I have already shown you. Now how about the transformation of fish to tuna? Dachshunds to dogs? Birds to ducks? What's the difference between a reptile and a snake?

What you don't seem to realize is that I can concede most of evolutionary biology's fundamental reasoning and still reject universal common descent on purely scientific grounds.

Then make me realize that. Anything purely scientific will be objectively demonstrable in some way or other, so what are your purely scientific grounds?

Santa Clause is a prime example of how the story gets better with the telling.

Genesis is another.

He was an actual person who made toys for kids when they barely had enough to survive because of high taxes. I have yet to see the slightest indication that a serious documented wittness of flying reindeer but that is the difference between the myth and the history of Santa Clause.

So, did you choose not to believe in Santa Clause? Are you determined to deny that Santa exists? Or were you faced with the same scenario I was? That there was absolutely no reason to believe in the myths about him, and a whole lot of reasons not to? Could you have chosen to believe in him anyway?

Evolution does this, it claims that the natural variations in the gene pool due to meiosis are evolution even though they are better characterized as stasis untill the gene pool is actually rewritten. Mutations are rare and hard to find and yet it is exactly here that the genetic code must be rewritten.

You consider an average of 128 mutations in every single human zygote "rare"? Only profound mutations are rare, and they were very hard to find before we learned to read the genome.

This begs the question of proof and I am not impressed with rationalizations to the contrary.

Then go back to your pubmed site, and read it for yourself.

I suggested that the gene pool of dogs/wolves are sufficient to account for the variations we see among canines. Just ask yourself how long we have been breading this animals and how many different variations we have seen as a result. We never really got into the Flood that much even though you suggested that we might want to do that after this one is finally over. If we did decide to do that I would be a lot less permissive about the rules.

I'll definitely be a lot more strict too now that I've seen your tactics. The next debate will be a lot harder on you than this one was, no matter what rules apply.

 

[Aron-Ra]

I have tried to defend/explain how this is done, and to do so with specific examples, which is why I asked you to define what a monkey or an ape is. When you get up the gumption to answer that one, we can continue.

I did repeatedly and you just keep claiming I won't.

No you didn't.
The question I asked on message 14 of our debate was this:

"Imagine we find a new species of monkey, one we've never discovered before. How would we know if it really was a monkey or not? How would we know if was an ape or not? Imagine it is your job to describe these families according to some criteria which we could use to identify a monkey or an ape so that we could tell one apart from a dog or a camel or starfish. What is a monkey? And what is an ape?"

You didn't answer it in any way, shape, or form. So I repeated this question, (paraphrased) in message #19. But the only answer you could come up with then was to say that humans had behavior-related differences; tools, language and fire. I agree, but that still doesn't tell me what a monkey is, does it? My question asked how to tell a monkey from a dog or a camel, not a human. And saying that it doesn't have tools, language, or fire doesn't even help to distinguish monkeys from starfish.

So I repeated the question again in message # 23, reminding you that I wanted an explanation of how to tell a monkey from any other animal. But you ignored the question again. I repeated the question again in message # 26, but you still refused to make any attempt to answer it. I repeated it in message # 31 too, but again, all you could say was that men made better tools than chimps did. Well, that's great. But it still doesn't help me tell a monkey from a dog, a raccoon, a wallaby, or civet, does it?

In message # 36, I posted the question again, adding the question of what an ape is. Since you can't seem to tell the difference, maybe there isn't one. But if you'll only ignore one question, you'll certainly ignore two.

I asked it again in message # 38, but of course, answer came there none. So I asked it again in message # 42, 43, and 44. But all I got out of you was the excuse that you weren't trying to rewrite taxonomy, (when in fact, you are) and then you started whining about semantics again. This indicates to me that you don't like it when "words mean things" and you don't know what those words mean. Semantics or not, your answer still doesn't tell me how to tell a monkey (or an ape) from any other kind of animal. The best I ever got from you was "chimps are little apes. Apes are big monkeys". Well, that's great, but it still doesn't tell me how to tell a monkey from any other kind of animal, does it, Mark? You do realize there is a way to do that, right?

It's not just about how the skeletons look, it how things like the thumb works. It's the way humans use their intellect to overcome obstacles.

Great. So how do you tell a monkey from any other kind of animal?

I once knew a computer programer that was blind and could actually bowl pretty good.

My ex-wife has two blind dogs who can run through the house using the same memory and sensory aids your bowler uses. But that doesn't tell me how to tell a monkey from a dog, civet, wallaby, or sloth.

You don't seem to want to face the fact that abstract thought is a telling proof of man having a creative capacity for formal reasoning.

I've warned you before about telling other people what they think, especially when you have such a poor track record for this.

This is absent in other primates

It is not absent in them. Other apes have it too, they're just not as proficient as we are.

and I have been making this point from the begining but you just keep insisting that we are apes. Calling me names won't change that.

We are apes, and nothing you can say can change that. Yes, abstract thought is extremely well-developed in our species, and we may even be unique in our level of cognizance. But we are still apes, just as we are still primates, eutherian mammals, and synapsid, amniotic, tetrapoidal, vertebrate, craniate, animals.

That's were I made the point that Darwin's contribution was philosphical and his reasoning was opposed to divine intervention.

For some reason, atomic Theory doesn't plead for a god. Neither does any other field of study. Are they all anti-theistic too, for the same reason?

The reasoning was shown to have a theological bias and you actually agreed that this is out of place. I won't bother rehashing this here, it will all be in my summary.

At this point, I doubt very much that we'll ever get that far. But yes, comments on theology within scientific texts, pro or con, are out of place.

I never intended to rewrite modern cladistics just to challenge the premise of universal common ancestry.

That would require rewriting modern cladistics. You even admitted this early on more than once.

Now you did a bang up job confusing the issue with these endless charts and graphs

I challenge you to show me one chart and one graph that I brought up in our debate.

but you have denied the dialectic of taxonomy, the philosophical premise from Darwin, and the substantive reasoning of leading evolutionary thinkers. That will allso be dealt with at length in the summary.

OK, whatever. I've been extraordinarily patient with you up to now. But if you don't post the answer to the monkey/ape question, in addition to at least some of the other ignored questions I've had to remind you of, then I'm not going to be able to post my next reply, and you're never going to get to post your summary.

3. That our species evolved from another, less derived one, as opposed to being specially-created in our current form, as is the normally universal creationist position.

Wow, I haven't even thought of that point yet. 'Less derived', so if the common ancestor were better developed that would be a big boost for creationism.

How do you figure that? What I'm talking about is a simple formula: The more specialized something is, the less versatile it is. Versatility comes in the least specialized forms. This may be true of just about everything. But anything truly extraordinary has to be very specialized. Understand? I honestly don't see how any of that could aid creationism in any way.

It is amazing that I learn so much more from the evolutionist then I do from creationists.

Well, duh.

I had not realized that before, thanks Aron-Ra, I really appreciate that insight.

My pleasure. But I doubt very much that you know what you're talking about yet.

 

[Aron-Ra]

The complaint I get most often is that I insist that the is an antitheistic bias in evolutionary thought.

Since you're surrounded by theistic evolutionists, I can see where that would be a problem, especially since their education on this topic nearly always exceeds yours. Why do you continue to make that claim, knowing that it is false?

I don't know why you think I'm paranoid when I am just soooo not worried about it.

Because your slanderous attacks, instigative emotional pleas, and highly defensive tactics indicate that you very worried about it.

I have ran the gauntlet here for some time now and it is the denial that evolution is actually a philosophy of science that keeps me interested in these debates. This place is unique in that regards, some of the others I have debated over the years celebrate it, on here they just deny it.

Show me a link to one of these celebrations. Because I don't believe you, and am betting that you misunderstood something again.

I have had a lot of fun watching evolutionary apologists deny their fundamental philosophical premise.

Then maybe you don't understand the premise. You're certainly proved that with me. You have this tendancy to tell other people what they think. I don't know why you still do that since you're wrong so often.

I went through something like this when I was into New Testament apologetics but this is a lot more fun.

How can you call it fun when you're solidly proven wrong on every point every time? Wouldn't it be more fun if you were right once in a while?

Taxonomy is focused on semantics, that is the power of that particular discipline. How the meaning is applied to the terms (or is it vise versa), is what makes it so powerfull.

Dead wrong again, as usual. As I thought we had already demonstrated numerous times, what names or descriptive terms we choose to use simply don't matter. A rose by any other name would still be classified by its ability to smell sweet, as well as all its other collective characters combined. Then we would take other rose-like plants who share nearly all of those characters in a very particular way, and group them together based on that. We can call the group whatever you like, even "plant group 546.27". It doesn't matter what we call it because its not a matter of semantics, but a matter of detailed character analysis from the genetic level on up.

This is about a philosophy of science and you introduced dozens of terms you never defined or even expressed an interest in qualifiying how they were defined.

I gave precise, detailed definitions for every term I can remember using, and even provided sources of substantiation in each case. And you know as well as I do how easily I could point all this out. But since you keep insisting on this, why don't you just tell me what it is you still need defined so we clear this up, OK?

I found very little in the way of substantive information on this and I tried to focus on one aspect. I was going to elaborate on the Leaky find because it was a crucial point of demonstration. I was hoping you would elaborate on how the new terminology was introduced, and most importantly, why it was important.

What "new terminology" are you referring to? Because the only "new" terminology I can think of, I have already explained in detail several times.

You just did you're little victory dance and started calling me names. I don't get it, if you wanted to focus on taxonomy exclusivly then why didn't you just say so?

I did. I told you very clearly to forget about any other argument you might be thinking about, because (as I said) if creationism is true of more than a very few common ancestors, or if the concept of common ancestry is somehow fundamentally flawed, that flaw must be found here, in taxonomy. Because if the flaw isn't there, it can't be anywhere else. You insisted on looking everywhere but the one place where it has to be.

Define "real science".

Science is a word that simply means 'knowledge'

Not quite. Science is a method, a logical process of observation, experimentation, and testing proposed explanations. Now, how do you define "real science" from whatever you think is not real science?

what is interesting about this term is that it implies experiencial knowledge. This has long been considered the demonstrated effects of natural science. The real problem is that no one is actually that objective so their is a need for a philosophy of science. This was finally settled with the publication of Newton's 'Principia', that he called the first philosophy of science. The book introduced the scientific community to calculas and math has been the queen of natural science ever since. Math is the only science that is allowed to use deductive reasoning, that is why theology was divorced from natural science the reasoning is apriori (without prior). What is unscientific about evolution is that it makes unique theological claims that and it was specificlly focused on that at the heart of the emphasis, and allways has been.

When you're wrong, you go all out, don't you. Evolution is not and can't be focused on theology. That claim is retarded. I'm with Yossarian on this one. I demand that you present some of these "unique theological claims", and defend this allegation.

Darwin and Hitler both claimed this was the heart of the emphasis.

No, they didn't. But you're welcome to try and back that up too.

You should never have rejected this as having merit without giving it the credit it deserves.

If I rejected it, then I did give it the credit it deserves.

I will elaborate on this at length and the main point here is that natural selection is based on the competition not between species, but within. This was called the war of nature by Huxley (Darwin's bulldog) and he said that it resulted in one holocaust after another. Ever wonder why that particular term was applied to the genocide of the Nazi's?

Because it was a popular term that the nazis could use. Why do exclusively Christian creationist nazis still use it today?

And where was the "unique theological claim"?

The truth is that you have actually made this too easy. We are discussing the explantions for or origins and their are only two possibilites.

Wrong again. If we could consider Genesis an actual possibility, then all other creation myths are possible too, as are the pseudoscience notions of Zacharia Sitchin, Erich Von Daniken, and L. Ron Hubbard. If we're going to ignore so much evidence that we could consider the Bible, then the concept of a steady-state universe and panspermia are both options also. Why do YECs only see in black or white, with no grays, even when they're looking at a world of color?

I will elaborate on this as well and fully intend to show where the debate was derailed and it was due exclusivly to the introduction of highly semantical taxonomic relationships based on a philosophical premise.

What I call "on-track" you call "derailed". Why is that not even surprising anymore?

As far as I know the Catholics have their own discussion forum and the Mormons are considered a cult.

What is a cult, Mark? Because you're right. Mormons are a cult. And so are Baptists, Pentacosts, Jehova's Witnesses, Methodists, Lutherans, and even Orthox.

Now as far as humanism being introduced into Christian theology this has been one of the tricks that dialectical humanism has been doing for nearly a hundred years.

Humanism has traditionally been atheist, Mark. Christians introduced the concept of Christian humanism.

It's not ridicule if you are indeed a humanist, humanism rejects the traditional definition of God as being the omnipotent Creator of the heavens and the earth.

Wrong again. Didn't you bother to read the site? Don't you ever try to confirm anything before you claim it to be true?

The most telling aspect of humanistic reasoning is the way the judge history, particularly with regards to redemptive history. The supernatural is rejected with the occasional exception of the ressurection. It is not ridicule to say that naturalistic assumptions are antitheistic, it's an obvious fact to anyone who actually reads their theology.

You've said many things were "obvious facts" that were either not even apparent, or were obviously false. I don't know about "redemtive history", nor do I care about anyone else's theology. All I know is that you have a 100% failure rate so far, so this is probably wrong too.

From liberal theology cross-referenced with the Humanist manifesto for one thing. This is a fairly typical statement that expresses the humanistic rationale of liberal theology:

"Our God is the sould of the universe, its inner mysterious directing power, and creation itself is the supreme miracle,continually enacted before our eyes. The idea of a virgin birth doesn't help us reverence Jesus; it onnly troubles us as somehting out of the ordinary, hard to except, difficult to explain"

(Dr. Palmer, former President of the Chicago Federation of chruches, from his book , Paths to the Presence of God. Quoted in Therefore Stand by Wibur Smith)

He also rejects the resurection which is the heart of New Testament theology and the Gospel.

Good for him. Not relevant to what we're talking about though.

It the large body of work that has came to be known as Christian Apologetics. I could get you a bibliography if you're interested, these concepts are nothing new. A couple of names in case you're really interested would be W. Smith, J. McDowell, W. Martain, C. Van Till, they all seen the naturalistic assumptions of liberal theology as contrary to New Testament Christianity. I don't ridicule professing Christians unless they deny the Gospel and it is inextricably linked to God's soveriegn, supernatural intervention in the course of human history. To deny this is to deny the heart of the New Testament.

Then Christianity at large denies the heart of the New Testament, and only a handful of irrationally gullible people can make it to Heaven. Again, not at all relevant to what we're discussing here.

This country was founded by Deists, not Christians.

Baloney! Now if you want to get into this for real I have debated this issue at length and this Country was founded by Puritan congregationalists.

I've debated this issue at length too, and this country, as in the United States, was founded by a committee that was mostly Deist.

Jefferson could easily be considered an atheist but he allways denied it. He compiled a version of the New Testament that edited out any of the references to the supernatural which should tell you something. People like John Locke, who Jefferson palagerized in the Declaration of Independence, was what we would consider a fundamentalist or and evangelical. Now I would really love to get into this one but we would have to take it to the history forum since it is off topic.

That's for sure.

What that has to do with a discussion of our origins and a working definition of species is a mystery to me.

You're really not saying that much and when you finally wrap up you're rants some of what you say is actually very interesting. I don't know what you think you won but anytime you can't be proven wrong then you are not being scientific.

What about when you are proven wrong, by everyone, and refuse to admit it? My position can be disproved, and if that happens, I'll admit it.

Scientific hypothesis has to be falsifiable and scientific theory must be so often demonstrated that it is beyond skepticism. Evolution as far as the change of genes in populations over time is a valid theory, universal common descent is a myth, it is not easy to discern between the two but it is none the less possible. Mind you, you don't need a creationist to do it, you can do it by reading evolutionary literature. I have pointed this out repeatedly and you just deny it, that's not a substantive argument.

I deny it because it isn't a substantive argument. Common ancestry is not a myth! The concept is falsifiable, and has been so often demonstrated that it is beyond reasonable doubt, but not beyond unreasonable doubt. If you would answer my questions, as you agreed you would, then you would know that by now.

I really don't care what you think of my theology since you abandoned theology as a source for knowledge long ago.

That's right. Knowledge is not the same thing as belief, and theology can't be a source of knowledge.

Idolatry as worshiping and serving the creature more then the Creator is pure Pauline Gospel.

And that is what you're doing; worshipping the words of the creature over the work of the creator; idolatry.

I gave you the chapter and verse of a number of passages in the New Testament so don't pretend you don't know where I got it from.

I'm not sure what Biblical quotes you're talking about, when they came into the conversation, or why. But if I did, I would never pretend such a thing. That sort of behavior may be common for you or the people you associate with, but it is beneath me.

I also gave you the chapter and verse of a number of passages from the Old Testament which stated that animals had souls, just like we supposedly do, and that man has no preeminance over beasts. Why do you say we do if your supposedly infallible and unquestionable Bible says we don't?

You did know that you were argueing against a Biblical worldview from the begining.

Yeah, and?

I told you, you can't intimidate me, and you certainly can't rile me. So why do you try?

Because its fun watching you go off into these rants. I never intended to intimidate you I am trying to reason with you.

By deliberately taunting me? Just so I'll "rant"? I don't think you know what reason is. And I mean that!

You have an enormous amount of knowledge about things I am very interested in and I have learned a great deal. I don't know where you get you're ideas about Christianity

I was raised in an exclusively creationist environment where I never even met a non-creationist until I was a teenager.

but you would do well to consider what the New Testament says without distorting the meaning by rationalizing it away. The same power that created all the life is available to belivers by faith.

But not by any other way, implying that it ain't really real.

 

[Aron-Ra]

You want to characterize this as superstition when it is historically reliable.

Not in the least. The Bible is not remotely reliable either as a scientific, nor as an historic text. It is a plagiarized compilation of the collective fables of a number of different pagan religions with no relevance to anything in the real world.

That's you're whole problem

The fact that you're repeatedly refused to be accountable is my whole problem?!

and I have seen this tactic used before. You show me a bunch of skulls and expect me to make some kind of judgment based on simularities and differences.

No sir, wrong again. I showed you those skulls to demonstrate a point; that it wasn't that I "wanted" the definition of species to be "undiscoverable" where it applied to paleofauna; and that whether that word is defined or not doesn't change the relationships on iota.

It is just like the case of skulls that Talk Origins uses that starts with a modern chimanzee and ends with a modern human. You can't rewrite natural history based on the comparisons of skulls, there is a great deal more involved.

That's true. But I'm not trying to re-write anything. We're trying to discover something that has never been written.

There are a lot of different kinds of dogs, so what? Unless you think there is a common ancestor for humans in this lineup I really don't see the relavance.

Common ancestry is implied at various levels in that group because only a few of them are dogs. All other suborders of Carnivora are represented in that group too, foxes, bears, viverrids, even some Feloideans, all related to dogs at varying distances of common ancestry. That, and it was also important to show the dramatic differences in the skulls within one single species compared to the others. It was also important to show how little hominine skulls differed by comparison.

Why not just elablorate on how these skulls are used to classify the various species of canines and let me respond, instead of just posting a bunch of pictures and demanding a postitive statement.

That's what I did. But you ignored that, and started ranting about the definition of species being "undefined" and "undiscoverable" again. So I had to show you what little difference that made.

Are we discussing our origins or canines because you keep jumping from one taxonomic scheme to another.

Hey, you wanted the new topic to be about common ancestry, right? That means all taxonomic schemes, not just ours.

Now you are perfectly welcome to bring up any omission you like in the summary.

As I told you before, it would be stupid for me to post a summary, especially if it follows yours. And as our debate is already over, no summary will be necessary from either party.

I am more interested in focusing on you're postitive statements that are contrary to evolutionary biology. The debate isn't over

Yes it is. i only invited you to continue posting because there were several points you should have addressed. But after several more posts, you still haven't addressed any of them. Until you do, there's no reason to proceed.

and you didn't make you're primary contention stick.

Yes I did. Even if you drop Homo habilis, you still accept an evolutionary ancestry nested within the decidely ape-like and much less derived Homo erectus. But you didn't just lose by accepting the position I promised to prove. You also lost this debate by breaking every single one of the rules, including each of your own, over and over and over again. What you have done was to prevent this from ever even being a debate at all. You'd make a blind assertion, already disproved, and ignore when it was disproved again. I'd ask you questions which you would habitually refuse to answer, when my continuing the debate is dependant on those answers. I can't debate if you won't be accountable at all. I may as well debate against a tree. Imagine a recording saying "2+2=13" played in a constant loop that doesn't stop no matter what you say or do. Now imagine debating that, and you'll know what its like to debate you.

See you in the formal debate forum, I am so looking forward to writting the summary.

First you're going to have to re-write your last responses to include each of the direct questions you've deliberately and repeatedly ignored. If you won't do that, then I'll have nothing to reply to. You can't ignore my questions anymore, and aren't going to get the opportunity to claim victory by doing so. You have already lost, and will still lose, (all over again) even if you do answer them all.

By the way, the main goal of this debate wasn't really to prove evolution to your satisfaction. I really do this just to prove to the lurkers that creationists have no accountability, which you've proved here in spades.

 

[Vance]

By Aaron Ra:

"So let me get this straight. On the one hand, we have a single unifying theory of biology that was compiled by the collective genius of the lion's share of the global scientific community, working independently, and competitively, -and is endorsed by every last one of Nobel laureates as well as by the Pope and by most of the rest of Christianity at large, -based on an overwhelming preponderance of all kinds of solid, demonstrable, testable evidence from a host of related and unrelated fields, leading to a wide variety of practical applications, cutting edge breakthroughs in biotechnology, and billion-dollar industries, who combine their research with all the other independent peer-reviewed discoveries to culminate a body of scientific study that is even better-supported than the Theory of gravity!

On the other hand, we have your notion, which is shared only by a fanatic fringe of mostly under-educated laity, is supported by literally nothing at all, and which is promoted solely by disreputable charlatans who can only pretend to employ any scientific method, and do not tolerate free inquiry. And you expect me to believe this wholly improbable and illogical fable for the same reason you do, which is for no reason whatsoever."

'nuff said, if you ask me.

Game, set and match.

 

[h2whoa]

Mark,

I'm sorry but there is one thing that's really bugging me and it always throws my concentration when I'm trying to read. I'm not being deliberately petty, I just find it very distracting.

It's the confusion that exists between the words "your" and "you're".

You're is the abbreviated form of "you are"

Your is the possesive of "you".

So it would be (this is not a quote by the way, just an example) "your problem is you're overly reliant..." or "you're truly passionate about painting your father's face".

Sorry for the pedantic nature of the post it just really thorws me whenever I come across it.

h2

 

[h2whoa]

Aaron Ra]"So let me get this straight. On the one hand, we have a single unifying theory of biology that was compiled by the collective genius of the lion's share of the global scientific community, working independently, and competitively, -and is endorsed by every last one of Nobel laureates as well as by the Pope and by most of the rest of Christianity at large, -based on an overwhelming preponderance of all kinds of solid, demonstrable, testable evidence from a host of related and unrelated fields, leading to a wide variety of practical applications, cutting edge breakthroughs in biotechnology, and billion-dollar industries, who combine their research with all the other independent peer-reviewed discoveries to culminate a body of scientific study that is even better-supported than the Theory of gravity! [/color]

On the other hand, we have your notion, which is shared only by a fanatic fringe of mostly under-educated laity, is supported by literally nothing at all, and which is promoted solely by disreputable charlatans who can only pretend to employ any scientific method, and do not tolerate free inquiry. And you expect me to believe this wholly improbable and illogical fable for the same reason you do, which is for no reason whatsoever."[/QUOTE]

Darn tootin'.

h2