For creationists: give me your arguments against evolution.

[OldWiseGuy]

So since its easier to understand "God blew on some dirt and out popped Adam," that God must have created humans that way??? Do you understand nuclear fusion? Brain surgery? Aerodynamics? Do you question them as well, because its not at the level of a children's book??

Apples and oranges.

 

[Paul of Eugene OR]

I thought we were evolving a tail, not losing one. They are very useful you know.

Losing. We are definitely in the losing phase of tailness.

If we were on the ascending phase, gaining a tail through evolution, then the proto-tail we would have would be even now being used successfully in ways that would be enhanced as the proto-tail came ever closer to being a full tail. Clearly, that is not happening, and so we are not gaining a tail through evolution.

 

[SkyWriting]

Science is a methodology, one that has garnered trust because it has been demonstrated to work.

It works better because men are selfish sinning lairs.
All have sinned.

Science just calls on men to publish their claims so that
other men can root out lies, bias, and deception found in all research.

It has no hold on truth or even attempts to.
It is a method that assumes men are sinners.
That's why we created it.

 

[OldWiseGuy]

Why would created life fall into a nested hierarchy?

Common designer, common materials, common processes, common utility. Man creates lots of different stuff, but no matter how different in design or function there is always some commonality.

 

[Loudmouth]

It works better because men are selfish sinning lairs.
All have sinned.

Science just calls on men to publish their claims so that
other men can root out lies, bias, and deception found in all research.

It has no hold on truth or even attempts to.
It is a method that assumes men are sinners.
That's why we created it.

Your post is the best example of why no one takes creationism seriously anymore, except for a cult of paranoia.

 

[OldWiseGuy]

Losing. We are definitely in the losing phase of tailness.

If we were on the ascending phase, gaining a tail through evolution, then the proto-tail we would have would be even now being used successfully in ways that would be enhanced as the proto-tail came ever closer to being a full tail. Clearly, that is not happening, and so we are not gaining a tail through evolution.

Shucks. And I so wanted a long tail to swat the flies away while I'm fishing (they drive me nuts).

 

[Loudmouth]

Common designer, common materials, common processes, common utility. Man creates lots of different stuff, but no matter how different in design or function there is always some commonality.

Stuff can share a lot of commonality and not fall into a nested hierarchy.

Let's use playing cards as an example. As you are aware, they share a lot of features. Do they fall into a nested hierarchy?

First things first, we need to root the whole group with a shared characteristic. All of the cards are rectangular. That works.

Now we need to split them into two groups by a feature found in one group but not the other. Let's split them into red and black. So far so good.

Each of those groups can be split into two new groups. The black cards into spades and clubs. Red cards into hearts and diamonds. Still going along swimmingly.

Now let's split them by rank. UH OH!!!!! We have a clear violation of a nested hierarchy. Our hierarchy would require ranks to all evolve exactly alike, but independently. That doesn't work. Cards do not fall into a nested hieararchy.

Do the same for your woodshop creations. Split them into smaller and smaller groups, and show how there are no violations of a nested hierarchy. If a feature is shared by members of two different groups, then that feature must be shared by all of those two groups. See if you can do it.

 

[TheImmortalJellyfish]

What features would a fossil need in order for you to accept it as transitional between modern humans and a common ancestor shared with apes?

As I said, we should see some of these "transitionals" still hanging around. At least our closest one...which was...what, Neanderthal Man? Why did all of those die out? Or do you figure there were only like a few hundred or so?

NO!!!!!!!!!

Chimps are not our ancestors. They are our cousins.

Please forgive my ignorance, but what is the difference?

There is no such thing as "more evolved". We are just as evolved as bacteria because there are just as many years between us and our common ancestor.

Then why are we still seeing viral bacteria get stronger and more resistant? Or do you feel this is incorrect?

We are talking about the size of the brain vs. body mass.

I'm admittedly at a loss...is it human brains -vs- chimp brains, or is it big human brains -vs- little human brains? I'm referring to the latter; it just seems like you're stuck on the former.

 

[Split Rock]

Your conclusion does require faith. Many transitional forms have been faked and swallowed by people of faith, like you.

Many?? Name a few other than Piltdown man and Archaeoraptor. Those are the only fakes I know that fooled anyone, and ironically the later was made up of two legitimate fossils. The only one that fooled the experts, mind you, was Piltdown Man.

The people with less faith re-checked the evidence. Like me.

LOL! Like you!? Please tell us about all the transitional fakes you uncovered from your couch... this will be good!

Scientists find fakes, not armchair creationists like yourself.

 

[Split Rock]

Apples and oranges.

God blew... and out came you!

 

[Loudmouth]

As I said, we should see some of these "transitionals" still hanging around.

Why? The fossils are proof that they did exist. That's all that evolution requires.

Why did all of those die out?

The leading contender is us. Evidence points to H. erectus and H. neanderthalensis going extinct due to competitition with H. sapiens. The species that went extinct after modern humans emerged were our cousins, and not our direct ancestors. Again, I don't understand why you require sister taxa to be living today in order to accept the transitional forms that are found in the fossil record.

Of course, we could also go back to our common ancestor that we share with our gorilla cousins. If we trace our lineage back to that shared ancestor, there is a fork in that tree. One of those forks leads to living chimps. Chimps are the very thing you are looking for, a living branch of the lineage that led to us from our common ancestor shared with gorillas.

Please forgive my ignorance, but what is the difference?

Do you understand the difference between your cousins and your grandparents? Chimps are our cousins. We are not their descendants or ancestor. They are not our direct ancestor or direct descendants. We share a common ancestor, our grandparents in the analogy. Our grandparents are neither us or our cousins. In the same way, our shared ancestor was neither a human nor a chimp.

Then why are we still seeing viral bacteria get stronger and more resistant? Or do you feel this is incorrect?

Firstly, there is no such thing as viral bacteria. Viruses and bacteria have less in common than flies and elephants.

Bacteria evolving to their environment has been happening since there were bacteria. They will continue to better adapt to the new environments that humans have created. That is how evolution works. That doesn't make them "more" evolved than a bacteria that does not infect humans. All bacteria are either adapted to their environment or adapting to a changing environment.

I'm admittedly at a loss...is it human brains -vs- chimp brains, or is it big human brains -vs- little human brains? I'm referring to the latter; it just seems like you're stuck on the former.

This is what you asked:

"At what point in the evolution chain from chimp to homosapian did one of those intermediates start speaking? Think of the complexity of speech. Why are we the only group of anything that can fluently learn to speak a (many of us more than one) language, and not just mimicry...I mean use of diction, syntax, word composition, sentence composition, meaning, inflection..."

Australopithecines are the hominid transitionals that had a chimp sized brain. They were at the left hand side of that scatter plot I showed you earlier. The plot shows how hominid brain sizes increased increased over time with respect to body mass. That is the reason that our lineage learned language, the evolution of our brains.

 

[TheImmortalJellyfish]

Why? The fossils are proof that they did exist. That's all that evolution requires.

And you can be absolutely sure they're all transitional leading to humans? How?

The leading contender is us. Evidence points to H. erectus and H. neanderthalensis going extinct due to competitition with H. sapiens. The species that went extinct after modern humans emerged were our cousins, and not our direct ancestors. Again, I don't understand why you require sister taxa to be living today in order to accept the transitional forms that are found in the fossil record.

So, thus far, we have chimps who are our cousins but not our ancestors. They survived. Apparently, none of the other transitionals viewed them as competition. But all the species in between who are also our cousins didn't make it due to competition with H. sapiens.

Of course, we could also go back to our common ancestor that we share with our gorilla cousins. If we trace our lineage back to that shared ancestor, there is a fork in that tree. One of those forks leads to living chimps. Chimps are the very thing you are looking for, a living branch of the lineage that led to us from our common ancestor shared with gorillas.

These seem to be pretty huge leaps. Macroevolution? A fork in the tree which leads to chimps from gorillas (though we still have both living among us today), but nothing left between chimps and us but fossils. What do we have between gorillas and chimps, or are they all fossils too?

Do you understand the difference between your cousins and your grandparents? Chimps are our cousins. We are not their descendants or ancestor. They are not our direct ancestor or direct descendants. We share a common ancestor, our grandparents in the analogy. Our grandparents are neither us or our cousins. In the same way, our shared ancestor was neither a human nor a chimp.

I understand your analogy, but I don't see how it applies to human family relations.

Firstly, there is no such thing as viral bacteria. Viruses and bacteria have less in common than flies and elephants.

I had a feeling I was wrong about that.

Bacteria evolving to their environment has been happening since there were bacteria. They will continue to better adapt to the new environments that humans have created. That is how evolution works. That doesn't make them "more" evolved than a bacteria that does not infect humans. All bacteria are either adapted to their environment or adapting to a changing environment.

Would you say the same of humans? If so, would you mark that as a type of evolution?

 

[Hupomone10]

I always miss the start of anti-evolution threads, so I figured I'd turn the tables around. Why do you reject evolution?

Good thread. For starters: Weak faith. for instance, I don't have enough faith to believe that all the information contained in DNA came about by pure chance.

But then, I also have a hard time believing the newspaper in my family room, which also contains information although far far less than a DNA strand, came about by pure chance; so, no big surprise, huh? i just simply don't have enough faith.

blessings,
H.

 

[Paul of Eugene OR]

Good thread. For starters: Weak faith. for instance, I don't have enough faith to believe that all the information contained in DNA came about by pure chance.
. . . . . ]

After all this time . . . after the theory of evolution has been around over 150 years . . . why does it not occur to you that pure chance is not the explanation evolutionary theory offers?

Are you deliberately ignoring what evolution theory says, or are you merely insulated completely from what evolution theory says?

Hint for the quiz: natural selection plays a part.

 

[TheImmortalJellyfish]

Maybe if the theory itself didn't evolve so much. And I really don't get the whole "theistic evolution" movement, either...where's the scriptural backup for a God-initiated evolution process?

 

[OldWiseGuy]

After all this time . . . after the theory of evolution has been around over 150 years . . . why does it not occur to you that pure chance is not the explanation evolutionary theory offers?

Actually it is either pure chance or a guiding force.

Hint for the quiz: natural selection plays a part.

Natural selection is a very intelligent force. It eliminates chance and proceeds directly towards a predetermined goal.

 

[VirOptimus]

Actually it is either pure chance or a guiding force.



Natural selection is a very intelligent force. It eliminates chance and proceeds directly towards a predetermined goal.

No, natural selection isnt intelligent, or guided or predetermind. Its a process thats very well understood and doesnt require suparnatural elements.

I suggest that you study what the science really says on natural selection.

 

[OldWiseGuy]

Stuff can share a lot of commonality and not fall into a nested hierarchy.

Let's use playing cards as an example. As you are aware, they share a lot of features. Do they fall into a nested hierarchy?

First things first, we need to root the whole group with a shared characteristic. All of the cards are rectangular. That works.

Now we need to split them into two groups by a feature found in one group but not the other. Let's split them into red and black. So far so good.

Each of those groups can be split into two new groups. The black cards into spades and clubs. Red cards into hearts and diamonds. Still going along swimmingly.

Now let's split them by rank. UH OH!!!!! We have a clear violation of a nested hierarchy. Our hierarchy would require ranks to all evolve exactly alike, but independently. That doesn't work. Cards do not fall into a nested hieararchy.

Do the same for your woodshop creations. Split them into smaller and smaller groups, and show how there are no violations of a nested hierarchy. If a feature is shared by members of two different groups, then that feature must be shared by all of those two groups. See if you can do it.

Why would rank violate the rules? This from "Nested Heirarchy For Dummies",


"In the Army example we would be classifying the US Army which is broken up into Field Armies, which contain and consist of Corps, which contain and consist of Divisions, which contain and consist of Brigades, which contain and consist of Battalions, which contain and consist of Companies, which contain and consist of Platoons, which contain and consist of Squads & Sections. Squads and sections contain and consist of soldiers. Each level, down to the soldier, has a well defined role and place in the scheme."

Doesn't "well defined role and place" imply rank?

 

[OldWiseGuy]

No, natural selection isnt intelligent, or guided or predetermind. Its a process thats very well understood and doesnt require suparnatural elements.

I suggest that you study what the science really says on natural selection.

All science says is that natural selection directs evolution. Therefore I conclude that evolution has a predetermined direction.

 

[VirOptimus]

All science says is that natural selection directs evolution. Therefore I conclude that evolution has a predetermined direction.

Your concusion is, simply put, wrong.