Discussion on the how it all started

[renniks]

Of course there aren't. Dogs didn't evolve into cats (or vise-versa). Thus we would never expect to see a half-dog/half-cat.

In fact finding examples of chimeras like that would be something a designer could do, and not something you'd expect of evolution.

So if life was designed, why don't we see any half-dogs/half-cats?

Why would we? A canine can have cat like habits if that's what it's environment requires. Gray fox are rather cat like in some ways. That is designed into them.
If you start with jelly that evolved into something else, every form of animal has to come from another form, so they all can be said to evolve from each other, no matter how many intermediate species you suppose there were.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Lots of false ideas in the world.
Darwin said:
Man selects only for his own good: Nature only for that of the being which she tends.

Doesn't that sound like someone who is making nature a god? How can nature select? Is nature an actual woman with a mind? Of course not. Nature is prone to only chaos unless someone has designed order into it.

Know, it is only a bit of anthropomorphization. Natural selection is so obvious that it is almost a tautology. The best adapted (fittest) to a particular environment are the most likely to breed successfully and pass their genes on. That is all that it says, even though Darwin did not understand the concept of genes, he did understand the concept of traits.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Why would we? A canine can have cat like habits if that's what it's environment requires. Gray fox are rather cat like in some ways. That is designed into them.
If you start with jelly that evolved into something else, every form of animal has to come from another form, so they all can be said to evolve from each other, no matter how many intermediate species you suppose there were.

If one claims that something is "designed" one takes on a burden of proof. Where is the evidence for design? None has been presented yet.

And saying "evolved into something else" is incorrect and not what the theory of evolution tells us. New traits arise through the process of variation and natural selection. There is no "change of kind". That is a creationist strawman. One never stops belonging to a group that one evolved from. Understanding cladistics is very important in understanding evolution. Today classification is done by cladisitics. It is how we now understand that we are still apes. "Evolution from apes to human" is incorrect because we never stopped being apes. If one looks at even the fossils that we have, and there are enough that we can see the evolution from what creationists would call "from ape to human" there is no clear cut boundary where one can say "this is an ape and this is a human". In fact creationists have been known to reclassify fossils from "100% ape" to "100% human". By doing so one could claim that the discovery of the 'missing link' has been done by creationists themselves.

 

[HitchSlap]

But doesn't the idea count for something. I mean if darwin got the idea shouldn't it be enough for rest of the world to trust his thoughts? He didn't have to prove it. I can't believe why people still don't trust him.

I trust him. His life’s work is the reason we have such a robust theory at this point in time. Certainly one of the most important persons from the nineteenth century.

 

[Larniavc]

No, the fact they appear in nature shows that someone designed the natural world. Chance cannot create the computer in front of you and it certainly can't create the endless complexity found in this world.

A computer is not alive. Does that need to be explained?

Did you read the paper I linked you to?

 

[Larniavc]

The authors note that the “main argument against a unique origin is that the nucleotide
diversity of human DNA data seems too high in order make a single founding couple
possible.” But they argue it is possible that humans are descended from an initial couple
if “they were created with genetic diversity in their autosomal and X-chromosome
DNA.”

From you own post! So their hypothesis only works if magic is real.

Is that really what you thought the paper meant? If not why not?

 

[pitabread]

Why would we? A canine can have cat like habits if that's what it's environment requires. Gray fox are rather cat like in some ways. That is designed into them.

The reason we would is because a designer isn't constrained by genetic inheritance the same way the process of evolution is.

In fact, human beings have engaged in genetic engineering and created things that don't exist in nature (like glow-in-the-dark rabbits: Scientists breed glow-in-the-dark rabbits).

A designer has far less constraint than biological evolution, yet what we see in nature appears to be constrained in the same manner as evolution.

If you start with jelly that evolved into something else, every form of animal has to come from another form, so they all can be said to evolve from each other, no matter how many intermediate species you suppose there were.

That isn't how evolution works in the slightest.

 

[renniks]

And saying "evolved into something else" is incorrect and not what the theory of evolution tells us. New traits arise through the process of variation and natural selection. There is no "change of kind". That is a creationist strawman. One never stops belonging to a group that one evolved from. Understanding cladistics is very important in understanding evolution. Today classification is done by cladisitics. It is how we now understand that we are still apes. "Evolution from apes to human" is incorrect because we never stopped being apes. If one looks at even the fossils that we have, and there are enough that we can see the evolution from what creationists would call "from ape to human" there is no clear cut boundary where one can say "this is an ape and this is a human". In fact creationists have been known to reclassify fossils from "100% ape" to "100% human". By doing so one could claim that the discovery of the 'missing link' has been done by creationists themselves.

You have to get from the Goop to a human being. So, how can there be no change in kind? In your theory a human would have to belong to every group, from fish to reptile to mammals and so on.

 

[renniks]

That isn't how evolution works in the slightest.

Lol, you can't get there from here then. You can't get from A to Z without going through BCDEIF and G.

 

[renniks]

I trust him. His life’s work is the reason we have such a robust theory at this point in time. Certainly one of the most important persons from the nineteenth century.

Who was wrong about pretty much everything...and was a proponent of eugenics.

 

[renniks]

A computer is not alive. Does that need to be explained?

Did you read the paper I linked you to?

No and how does a computer being alive have meaning to the conversation? A computer is not nearly as complex as a living organism. That's the point.

 

[pitabread]

Lol, you can't get there from here then. You can't get from A to Z without going through BCDEIF and G.

I'm not saying that there are not paths of inherence. It's just those paths don't appear to work the way you think they work.

Dogs and cats, for example, share a common ancestor. But that doesn't mean one evolved from the other (or vise versa).

Thus we would never expect to see a half dog/half cat.

 

[HitchSlap]

Who was wrong about pretty much everything...and was a proponent of eugenics.

Did you hit your head?

 

[Subduction Zone]

You have to get from the Goop to a human being. So, how can there be no change in kind? In your theory a human would have to belong to every group, from fish to reptile to mammals and so on.

First off because creationists cannot even define "kind".

And please, instead of jumping to extremely faulty conclusions you should always be asking questions politely and properly. Properly means no "gotcha questions". When one has no clue what one is talking about those are just rude and insulting.

 

[renniks]

Dogs and cats, for example, share a common ancestor. But that doesn't mean one evolved from the other (or vise versa).

So, there was, what? A giant leap forward or sideways in genetics and the common ancestor's descendants were suddenly two entirely different kinds?

 

[renniks]

Did you hit your head?

"Eugenicists felt that they were able to justify prejudiced and immoral actions under Darwin’s theories (Wiker, 2000). The segregation, sterilization, and murder of various groups was justified by some as being done for the greater good of evolution - those groups were considered to be ‘less fit’, and by preventing their reproduction, advocates argued that the human race would improve and evolve into a better species. The theory of evolution helped support explanations that defended these actions as necessary to ensure that human progress continued (Wiker, 2000). The most well-known consequences of this line of thinking were in Nazi Germany, when Russians, Jews, and those with mental or physical disabilities (among other groups) were sterilized, imprisoned and murdered."

"Darwin’s own opinion about eugenics is controversial. He published The Descent of Man in 1871. In it, he argues that racial extermination has brought human evolution to where it is today (Darwin, 1871). Darwin suggests that Caucasians were superior to other races, particularly Africans and Aboriginal Australians. He also discusses adversity, and how struggle is a key part of natural selection."

 

[Tinker Grey]

"Eugenicists felt that they were able to justify prejudiced and immoral actions under Darwin’s theories (Wiker, 2000). The segregation, sterilization, and murder of various groups was justified by some as being done for the greater good of evolution - those groups were considered to be ‘less fit’, and by preventing their reproduction, advocates argued that the human race would improve and evolve into a better species. The theory of evolution helped support explanations that defended these actions as necessary to ensure that human progress continued (Wiker, 2000). The most well-known consequences of this line of thinking were in Nazi Germany, when Russians, Jews, and those with mental or physical disabilities (among other groups) were sterilized, imprisoned and murdered."

"Darwin’s own opinion about eugenics is controversial. He published The Descent of Man in 1871. In it, he argues that racial extermination has brought human evolution to where it is today (Darwin, 1871). Darwin suggests that Caucasians were superior to other races, particularly Africans and Aboriginal Australians. He also discusses adversity, and how struggle is a key part of natural selection."

Yeah, and Newton didn't believe in the Trinity. So?

 

[renniks]

The reason we would is because a designer isn't constrained by genetic inheritance the same way the process of evolution is.

This is actually hilarious. A random process, generated by nothing is constrained?
No, God isn't going to created glow in the dark rabbits, probably because that would benefit no one but the predators and rabbits are already very low on the totem pole as far as having defenses against predation.
If we see common patterns in different animals, that is evidence of a common creator, not that they all came from the same ancestor.

 

[renniks]

Yeah, and Newton didn't believe in the Trinity. So?

Wow, yeah, not believing in the trinity is on the same level as endorsing wiping out entire races of humans, you got me there.

 

[Tinker Grey]

Wow, yeah, not believing in the trinity is on the same level as endorsing wiping out entire races of humans, you got me there.

The point, buddy, is that geniuses in one area aren't geniuses in all areas. Darwin was right about evolution; to the extent he was an advocate of eugenics, he was wrong. So?