Evolution Primer

[dewaddict84]

Oh wow, Apple, if you're really not getting, I'm sorry for being obtuse.

One good theory is that H. Sapiens came from, evolved from, were given birth by H. Rhodesiensis. That is, a tribe or subsection of H.R. had babies that were different from other H.R. and so they'd be called H.S. Now, there probably wasn't a single birth that would count as the dividing line. It was probably a more gradual change. I suspect that the first generation of H.S could probably still mate with H.R and have viable offspring, similar to how horses and donkeys can still reproduce. It's also likely that H.S. breed a lot with H.R and diluted the old genes out of existence, or simply out performed them and they all died.

And if you're just going to give a chuckle and point out all the maybes, possiblys, and ifs in my post then YEAH, I don't know for sure. But it was probably something like that.

(oh, and I usually use wikipedia, which is updated every day.)

 

[Rasta]

Rasta, Dude,
He's not even reading our posts, as is QUITE apparent. There is no way you're going to reach him if he doesn't even hear what you say. The best we can do is answer his questions in case any others come here and had similar questions. And we can correct his mistakes so others don't take it as truth.

You can lead a horse to water, etc etc.

Yes this is very clear. I think the only person he is fooling is himself. Tis a shame really. He doesn't know the potential danger he is causing to his faith by denying science.

 

[ApplePie7]

One good theory is that H. Sapiens came from, evolved from, were given birth by H. Rhodesiensis.

Where is your falsifiable evidence?

 

[dewaddict84]

Where is your falsifiable evidence?

The bones that have been dug up. Say what you will, but something that had the skeletal structure between a man and an ape was on this planet a long time ago.

 

[ApplePie7]

The bones that have been dug up. Say what you will, but something that had the skeletal structure between a man and an ape was on this planet a long time ago.

And...?

You use this as evidence that they spawned homo sapiens sapiens?

That's just plain poor science.

 

[MorkandMindy]

Where is your falsifiable evidence?

If humans were made out of completely different things than other animals that would be compelling falsifying evidence against evolution.

 

[ApplePie7]

If humans were made out of completely different things than other animals that would be compelling falsifying evidence against evolution.

The use of common building blocks informs us of a common designer.

 

[MorkandMindy]

The use of common building blocks informs us of a common designer.

A designer could use the same building blocks or very different ones, evolution has to use pretty much the same 'building blocks'.

 

[ApplePie7]

A designer could use the same building blocks or very different ones, evolution has to use pretty much the same 'building blocks'.

Not at all.

The naturalistic approach has evolution on a mindless, undirected course. Evolution would never repeat itself time and again if it were a purely random event to begin with, and it surely would not have life bursting onto the scene fully formed and functional for its environment.

The fact that we see fully formed life sharing the same building blocks, even after being repeatedly exterminated, shows not evolution - but divine design.

A common designer.

 

[BranwenUerchLlyr]

ApplePie7,

The theory of evolution (as well as the "subsection" of human evolution) meets the criteria of adequacy far better than any other proposed hypothesis based on the observations we've gathered concerning the natural world. This may not interest you as "ultimate truth" sounds like a sexier idea, but meeting the criteria of adequacy is far more parsimonious and pragmatic. In essense, it works where "ultimate truth" fails--its fruitful, makes predictions, and is conservative. There are some concepts for you to google, if you'd like, and you can apply them to the claims of evolution for yourself. I promise--you won't be disappointed.

Also, you will not find any examples of an early hominid giving birth to a homo sapien sapien--this is the called the "line drawing" fallacy and it sounds as if that's what you're fishing for.

Hope this helps.

 

[ApplePie7]

ApplePie7,

The theory of evolution (as well as the "subsection" of human evolution) meets the criteria of adequacy far better than any other proposed hypothesis based on the observations we've gathered concerning the natural world. This may not interest you as "ultimate truth" sounds like a sexier idea, but meeting the criteria of adequacy is far more parsimonious and pragmatic. In essense, it works where "ultimate truth" fails--its fruitful, makes predictions, and is conservative. There are some concepts for you to google, if you'd like, and you can apply them to the claims of evolution for yourself. I promise--you won't be disappointed.

A model is only as good as its predictive power.

The naturalistic evolutionary model has had to realign its date for homo sapiens sapiens by orders of magnitude just within the past few years. Clearly this is a model that is out of control, has great volatility and should not be trusted.

The Biblical model on human creation, however, has never changed, and actually has greater predictive power than that of any naturalistic model.

The more we learn, the closer the naturalistic model approaches the Biblical model.

Also, you will not find any examples of an early hominid giving birth to a homo sapien sapien--this is the called the "line drawing" fallacy and it sounds as if that's what you're fishing for.

Hope this helps.

If you had read the thread, you would have observed that this “birthing fallacy” was posited by dewaddict84…

 

[dewaddict84]

A model is only as good as its predictive power.
The naturalistic evolutionary model has had to realign its date for homo sapiens sapiens by orders of magnitude just within the past few years.

I think you're talking about the multi-regional model vs. the out of africa model. The first proposes that early hominids spread over the world and they all evolved into homo sapiens with a decent amount of "gene flow" keeping us the same species. The out of africa model proposes that homo sapiens evolved in africa and then migrated over the world. The two different theories allow for a difference of when the evolution occurred. Recently, genetic studies have supported the out of africa model.

So yeah, there are two models and we're not sure which is better yet. With more DNA testing, hopefully we'll get some good conclusions.

If you had read the thread, you would have observed that this “birthing fallacy” was posited by dewaddict84…

Oh, you started reading my posts, how nice. Except you miss the VERY NEXT TWO SENTENCES:
"Now, there probably wasn't a single birth that would count as the dividing line. It was probably a more gradual change."
It's like I'm pointing out the drawing line fallacy. Thrice I say: Reading comprehension!

 

[BranwenUerchLlyr]

The Biblical model on human creation, however, has never changed, and actually has greater predictive power than that of any naturalistic model.

I would be interested in your specific take on this. I have yet to hear of a example of Biblical prediction that isn't a retroactive interpretation of scripture in light of new observation. By this, I'm talking about claims such as "we've found dinosaurs, therefore Biblical Behemoth must have been one" and "we now know about blood born pathogens, so that must be why God commanded the Israelites to treat pregnant/menstruating women the way he did." In essence, nothing could show it to be wrong, because it is general enough to be stretched if need be to account for any new observed anomalies. Its the Barnum Effect for origins mythology, if you will.

I'd be interested in hearing some examples of Biblical prediction that actually meet the other criteria of adequacy as well.

 

[BranwenUerchLlyr]

A model is only as good as its predictive power.

That is only one of the criteria of adequacy. Consider this claim: the sun will rise tomorrow because a heavenly invisible dung beetle rolls the sun into place each morning. My theory has quite a bit of predictive power, but fails on all other criteria. The veracity of a model may be limited by predictive power, but it fails utterly if it doesn't meet the other criteria. The best theory isn't always the one with the most predictions. This can only true when all other criteria are met.

The naturalistic evolutionary model has had to realign its date for homo sapiens sapiens by orders of magnitude just within the past few years. Clearly this is a model that is out of control, has great volatility and should not be trusted. The Biblical model on human creation, however, has never changed, and actually has greater predictive power than that of any naturalistic model.

Willingness to change in light of new observation is a strength, not a weakness. Your claim that the theory is clearly out of control is far from clear--Sorry. Science is observation driven, not theory driven. See my other comment on predictive power.

The more we learn, the closer the naturalistic model approaches the Biblical model.

Interesting claim--I'd like to hear more about it.

 

[ApplePie7]

I would be interested in your specific take on this. I have yet to hear of a example of Biblical prediction that isn't a retroactive interpretation of scripture in light of new observation. By this, I'm talking about claims such as "we've found dinosaurs, therefore Biblical Behemoth must have been one" and "we now know about blood born pathogens, so that must be why God commanded the Israelites to treat pregnant/menstruating women the way he did." In essence, nothing could show it to be wrong, because it is general enough to be stretched if need be to account for any new observed anomalies. Its the Barnum Effect for origins mythology, if you will.

I'd be interested in hearing some examples of Biblical prediction that actually meet the other criteria of adequacy as well.

The Holy Bible predicted, thousands of years ago, that mankind emanated from one male and one female on the order of tens of thousands of years ago.

Modern science is just now catching up to this statement with the recent discoveries of Mitochondrial Eve & Y-chromosomal Adam hypothesis.

 

[ApplePie7]

Willingness to change in light of new observation is a strength, not a weakness. Your claim that the theory is clearly out of control is far from clear--Sorry. Science is observation driven, not theory driven. See my other comment on predictive power.

The most valid model is one that requires only fine tuning...not gross re-adjustment as we are seeing with the naturalistic model...

 

[Rasta]

The most valid model is one that requires only fine tuning...not gross re-adjustment as we are seeing with the naturalistic model...

Your summary is not accurate in the least. We have not even touched upon critisizing the validity of the myths in the Bible as presented by creationists.

 

[MorkandMindy]

Not at all.

The naturalistic approach has evolution on a mindless, undirected course. Evolution would never repeat itself time and again if it were a purely random event to begin with, and it surely would not have life bursting onto the scene fully formed and functional for its environment.

The fact that we see fully formed life sharing the same building blocks, even after being repeatedly exterminated, shows not evolution - but divine design.

A common designer.

Your claim that life was repeatedly exterminated is an interesting one. In what era(s) did that happen?

Do you have evidence the same 'building blocks' were then present each time it evolved / was created?

 

[ApplePie7]

Your claim that life was repeatedly exterminated is an interesting one. In what era(s) did that happen?

Do you have evidence the same 'building blocks' were then present each time it evolved / was created?

Life extinction occurred during the late heavy bombardment of the earth when it was pelted by debris and melted the earth's surface - such collsions we can easily see on the moon even today.

Early life has been trapped in ancient zircon crystals, dating back billions of years. Carbon 13 to 12 ratio dating is used on the trapped carbon in the crystals - which informs us that not only did life exist on an early volatile earth, but that it was abundant life, as well.

 

[BranwenUerchLlyr]

The most valid model is one that requires only fine tuning...not gross re-adjustment as we are seeing with the naturalistic model...

This is not the criteria used by science to describe reality. Sorry--it just isn't. If you'd like this to be criteria for something, you will have to call it something other than science.

The Holy Bible predicted, thousands of years ago, that mankind emanated from one male and one female on the order of tens of thousands of years ago.

Modern science is just now catching up to this statement with the recent discoveries of Mitochondrial Eve & Y-chromosomal Adam hypothesis.

Mitochondrial Eve and Y-chromosome Adam lived at 50k-80k years apart. Eve alone, being 140k years old, is far older than the oft quoted age of the earth predicted by the Bible (or so it is claimed--the Bible itself doesn't directly offer an age but is derived through interpretation, the same all so called predictions). Neither are in any way associated with the origins of the human species. In the same way that mitochondrial and Y-chrom DNA is derived, you can derive the gene-genealogy for any gene found in the population today, and it will not lead you back to either of these two individuals. You are making a retroactive interpretation of scripture, on par with the examples I offered earlier. I refer again to the criteria of adequacy.