Limitations on micro-evolution and speciation

[Greg1234]

This is simple to show you that You are not "above" other animals
such as Chimpanzees and gorillas (for example)

Man is not beast.

ALL of the Primate Family comes from ONE Source, If you are a HUMAN
you are then RELATED to a CHIMPANZEE

No, I don't have monkeys in my family tree.

which you consider an insult because of
your beliefs and racist history of your beliefs,

Sure.

Because they follow the Bible?

Well that didn't take long. Show me where in my post the bible was brought up. Or is this just another attempt to turn it into a theological argument.

I am Christian as a note, Clearly we see OUR religion in different ways (I do not follow the literal interpretation of the Bible as I am not a Racist
Sara

This has nothing to do with interpretation. Only a basic understanding of the covenant. If you believe creationism is just a racist establishment, then use that as motivation for your Darwinian presentations.

By the way, you may need to amend your painting.

YouTube - Icons of Evolution 10th Anniversary: Dr. Jonathan Wells on Darwin's Tree of Life

 

[AV1611VET]

Greg, you think inanimate objects are the same as living objects?

Sara, you are the one that doesn't understand -- and since you seem to sound sincere, I shall attempt to explain.

(Greg, please correct me here if I'm wrong.)

Let a missing link (that's been found) represent one rotation of a fan blade.

Got it? 1ml = 1 rpm

Two missing links make two rotations, or 2ml = 2 rpm

Three missing links make three rotations, etc.

For evolution to have no missing links whatsoever, you would have to have in your possession enough missing links (now found) to have that fan blade propelling an air boat from one end of the Everglades to the other within seconds.

Billions upon billions of rpms.

Does that clarify?

 

[Itinerant Lurker]

. . . .

Whatever that was, it said nothing at all about the mechanisms of evolution which is the topic of the thread. Inanimate objects don't reproduce with variation, therefore they are not analogous to living things in regards to evolution.



Lurker

 

[AV1611VET]

Whatever that was, it said nothing at all about the mechanisms of evolution which is the topic of the thread. Inanimate objects don't reproduce with variation, therefore they are not analogous to living things in regards to evolution.



Lurker

This isn't about whether an object is animate or inanimate -- it is about pure numbers.

The number of links needed to daisy-chain cyanobacteria-to-man would be analogous to the amount of rpms needed for a ceiling fan to power an air boat from one end of the Everglades to the other w/i seconds.

 

[Taq]

This isn't about whether an object is animate or inanimate -- it is about pure numbers.

The number of links needed to daisy-chain cyanobacteria-to-man would be analogous to the amount of rpms needed for a ceiling fan to power an air boat from one end of the Everglades to the other w/i seconds.

Can you please show us where in the theory of evolution it requires that every generation of every lineage be fossilized within easy reach of paleontologists?

 

[Itinerant Lurker]

This isn't about whether an object is animate or inanimate -- it is about pure numbers.

The number of links needed to daisy-chain cyanobacteria-to-man would be analogous to the amount of rpms needed for a ceiling fan to power an air boat from one end of the Everglades to the other w/i seconds.

Do ceiling fans where you come from reproduce with variation so as to increase or decrease their rpms? We're not talking about missing links, we're talking about the mechanism that ostensibly limits macroevolution. If you'd like to defend worthless analogies that is your call.




Lurker

 

[Delphiki]

Man is not beast.

Please explain how we, in every way that is demonstrable and real, have everything in common with "beasts", but you don't we are. Sorry bub, we're animals. Our intelligence and opposable thumbs are our unique traits, but for every one of our unique traits I can name one for the chimpanzee. You don't even have to understand evolution to know this.

Now, with all these missing links and lack of transitional evidence, it should be easy for you to find me the two consecutive found skulls below that resemble where you draw the line between man and "beast". Let me know if these don't go far back enough.

http://www.theistic-evolution.com/transitional.html

 

[Son of the King]

Please explain how we, in every way that is demonstrable and real, have everything in common with "beasts", but you don't we are. Sorry bub, we're animals. Our intelligence and opposable thumbs are our unique traits, but for every one of our unique traits I can name one for the chimpanzee. You don't even have to understand evolution to know this.

Now, with all these missing links and lack of transitional evidence, it should be easy for you to find me the two consecutive found skulls below that resemble where you draw the line between man and "beast". Let me know if these don't go far back enough.

Transitional Fossils of Hominid Skulls

If you read Genesis in the Bible you will read that God created both man and the beasts of the feild with the same natural material, dirt. Which would explain the similarities in chromosomes. The greastest and most important difference is that we, mankind, have the unique ability to seek God, know God and worship God our Creator. I can say this with the uttmost assuarance that NO OTHER creature was intended for this purpose or will EVER have this ability. Why you ask? Because this is why we are here, this is why you have the breath of life. Peace , joy and the abundant life come with knowing and doing this. Life is worth the living because God lives. Without God life is like chasing after the wind.

 

[Taq]

If you read Genesis in the Bible you will read that God created both man and the beasts of the feild with the same natural material, dirt. Which would explain the similarities in chromosomes.

Umm, no it doesn't. The minerals in dirt have nothing to do with chromosomal homologies. Or are you saying that you and your siblings have the same chromosomal arrangements because you were all made from dirt?

 

[AV1611VET]

Can you please show us where in the theory of evolution it requires that every generation of every lineage be fossilized within easy reach of paleontologists?

AFAIK, it doesn't.

And that's because it can't -- so it allows for wriggle room.

So much wriggle room in fact that you could shove almost an entire universe through the gaps.

There are so many missing links -- actual missing ones -- counting them from cyanobacteria to man would be impossible.

Thus, as long as a bone can be found from one eon, and another bone from another eon, that's good enough to say all the bones inbetween had to have existed at one time.

 

[AV1611VET]

If you'd like to defend worthless analogies that is your call.

Mind if I answer the question first, before you make a value judgment? or is it made up already?

Do ceiling fans where you come from reproduce with variation so as to increase or decrease their rpms?

Of course not -- the rpms will be hypothetically increased at the ratio of 1ml = 1rpm, every time a missing link is found.

We're not talking about missing links...

No kidding!?

I'm talking about missing links that have been found.

Are you reading my posts thoroughly, or are preconceptions keeping you from understanding?

 

[Itinerant Lurker]

I'm talking about missing links that have been found.

Then I would invite you to join the topic of this thread which is generally about the mechanisms of evolution and specifically about what mechanism prevents macroevolution and not about missing links.

Again, the mechanisms of evolution are reproduction with variation and selection. Ceiling fans do not reproduce with variation. Unfortunately (for you and Greg that is), this is simply not going to change; no matter how many different ways you try to salvage this atrocity of logic you're calling an analogy, it will remain deeply and fundamentally wrong. You don't have to believe evolution to understand it, but you do need to understand it in order to coherently criticize it.





Lurker

 

[Nathan Poe]

If you read Genesis in the Bible you will read that God created both man and the beasts of the feild with the same natural material, dirt. Which would explain the similarities in chromosomes.

So, how many chromosomes does dirt have?

 

[AV1611VET]

Then I would invite you to join the topic of this thread which is generally about the mechanisms of evolution and specifically about what mechanism prevents macroevolution and not about missing links.

I'll respectfully decline the invitation and instead defend the notion that Greg's analogy is a bad one.

I've said all I care to say here anyway, and I'm willing to leave this thread; but you guys are the ones off-base, and I just felt like stopping by and defending Greg's point, which obviously still goes over your head.

 

[Delphiki]

I'm talking about missing links that have been found.

Who finds them? Giant midgets?




http://wordnetweb.princeton.edu/perl/webwn?s=oxymoron

 

[Itinerant Lurker]

I'll respectfully decline the invitation and instead defend the notion that Greg's analogy is a bad one.

Since Greg was trying to use an analogy to explain why the MECHANISMs of evolution could not result in macroevolution this still begs the question of why you felt the need to start talking about missing links. If you're going to actually defend the analogy then you need to explain how it relates the the topic of this discussion: The mechanisms of reproduction with variation and selection. Good luck.




Lurker

 

[AV1611VET]

Since Greg was trying to use an analogy to explain why the MECHANISMs of evolution could not result in macroevolution this still begs the question of why you felt the need to start talking about missing links.

I didn't know that's what you guys were focusing on.

I didn't read all the posts, okay?

 

[DrkSdBls]

If you read Genesis in the Bible you will read that God created both man and the beasts of the feild with the same natural material, dirt.

Then by that reasoning, Evolution is equally true that all Animals (including man) are similar cause we all originated from the same Primordial Ooze.

Which would explain the similarities in chromosomes. The greastest and most important difference is that we, mankind, have the unique ability to seek God, know God and worship God our Creator. I can say this with the uttmost assuarance that NO OTHER creature was intended for this purpose or will EVER have this ability. Why you ask? Because this is why we are here, this is why you have the breath of life. Peace , joy and the abundant life come with knowing and doing this. Life is worth the living because God lives. Without God life is like chasing after the wind.

It's your Prerogative to believe that.

 

[Targ]

My Sweet Lord, have mercy.
Greg, you think inanimate objects are the same as living objects? Cheeses, I don't think my previous post regarding helping you can do much if this is the case, you obviously do not even have the most basic understanding of, erh, anything?

See what I mean? The analogy is just breathtakingly wrong and it keeps getting repeated with irritating regularity. It's almost worthy of a place on FSTDT.

 

[Nostromo]

Let a missing link (that's been found) represent one rotation of a fan blade.

I was under the impression that he used mechanical items because they can be adapted to suit one's needs. Fans can have their speed changed, bikes can have their gears changed, but in both cases the change is initiated by an intelligent agent.

He sees evolution as a similar method of adaptation within organisms, though he doesn't seem to understand (or doesn't care) that the adaptation of individuals isn't important. It's just easier for him to argue against his own strawman version of evolution, so he ignores everyone trying to explain it to him and carries on his own way.

Whether he does that to annoy people or because he genuinely doesn't/won't understand, I can't tell.