Science vs. Evolution

[AV1611VET]

Since, as you often tell us, you don't know what you're talking about when it comes to evolution and don't want to know, why in the world would anyone care what analogies you use to express your ignorance?

Well, it just might cut down on the myriad of questions that are so often repeated by you guys.

You don't have to care if you don't want to, but then what's with the sentences that end in interrogation points?

Asking me over and over for evidence for the creation just gets old when I try and explain that none would be generated, then see laughter and ridicule -- only to see the question (or demand) repeated later either to me or someone else.

 

[Nathan Poe]

Well, it just might cut down on the myriad of questions that are so often repeated by you guys.

You don't have to care if you don't want to, but then what's with the sentences that end in interrogation points?

Asking me over and over for evidence for the creation just gets old when I try and explain that none would be generated, then see laughter and ridicule -- only to see the question (or demand) repeated later either to me or someone else.

We're just looking for confirmation that really the only thing holding Creationism up is the collective pride of its followers.

...which, when you think about it, is a silly thing to expect to happen.

 

[DontTreadOnMike]

How many threads about this do we need? If you find something on AiG, you can safely assume that it's been posted here multiple times.

 

[tanzanos]

So your saying a chimp blood transfusion to human is possible?

Yes!

 

[Archaeopteryx]

A common evolutionary argument gets reevaluated—by evolutionists themselves.

That just shows that evolutionists are true Scientists and will modify a theory when data suggests that they should, unlike Creationists who are dogmatic and will modify the data to fit the theory.

 

[interested in life]

That just shows that evolutionists are true Scientists

dont strain your arm patting yourself on the back, boss.

and will modify a theory when data suggests that they should,

Great!i suggest you start modifying.

unlike Creationists who are dogmatic and will modify the data to fit the theory.

Oh you lost me there.I cant say ive heard of creationists tampering with fossils but i could be wrong..

 

[interested in life]

Your comment was wrong. Larger cranial capacity (corrected for body size) does correlate with intelligence.

Might want to correct that pal unless we are being ruled by whales and i havent been told.

Do you think it's just a coincidence that humans are highly intelligent and have very large brains for their body size?

No.lol.

 

[interested in life]

Exactly. And then we developed something else. And the one's resistant to that survived and reproduced and became dominant whereas the others died off. And then we repeated the process, and the same thing happened, and so on. And now the organism (or virus) no longer resembles what it started as.

Yet it remains a virus.This isnt the type of evolution you believe i though no?Evolution according to you has to have much greater jumps than one virus mutating into another.You keep showing me examples of each according to its kind.Im frankly grateful you have decided to promote the truth.

Because we have constantly applied selective pressures

Intelligent design?

only the one's best adapted have survived and reproduced, and new strains constantly emerge because of exactly that.

I think you would struggle to find anyone who disagrees with natural selection,however i cant see how this applies to the naturalist theory that everything came from a common ancestor.Trees,worms,the wide variety of life all descended from some sort of super virus?

I'd say avian flu is something quite serious, wouldn't you?

Yes.give it a billion years. it becomes what?

 

[interested in life]

I don't know who that is, but i tried to pm them.

I guess you are just angry i refuted your nonsense with those links.

I mistakenly called you a girl in one of my initial posts because i didnt look at your gender and your name reminded me of someone i knew.I guess if we are the same person ,then theres a problem.
Split..im not him. im far more obnoxious.God calls very different people.

 

[Archaeopteryx]

Might want to correct that pal unless we are being ruled by whales and i havent been told.

No.lol.

He is referring to hominid cranial capacity, so it's irrelevant to mention whales. Beside that, the higher corticalisation present in hominids is significantly associated with their higher intelligence. It's not just gross brain size, it's cortical volume that counts.

 

[USincognito]

Might want to correct that pal unless we are being ruled by whales and i havent been told.

Might want to read for comprehension before making a smartbutt response.

"Your comment was wrong. Larger cranial capacity (corrected for body size) does correlate with intelligence."

I bolded the part you appeared to miss.

 

[interested in life]

He is referring to hominid cranial capacity, so it's irrelevant to mention whales. Beside that, the higher corticalisation present in hominids is significantly associated with their higher intelligence. It's not just gross brain size, it's cortical volume that counts.

How did this develop?Now im no expert and this is off the top of my head(teehee)but intelligence is increased due to synapses being increased due to the individuals life experiences.So basically how did the pre frontal cortex develop when synapses werent present to begin with?

 

[Archaeopteryx]

Yet it remains a virus.This isnt the type of evolution you believe i though no?Evolution according to you has to have much greater jumps than one virus mutating into another.You keep showing me examples of each according to its kind.Im frankly grateful you have decided to promote the truth.

But it ends up being a different species of virus or micro-organism. That's the point.

Intelligent design?

Umm... no. Natural selection.

Yes.give it a billion years. it becomes what?

Who knows what it becomes after a billion years. That depends on what mutations that are inherited, what phenotypes have a higher fitness ratio, and what traits are adaptive and conducive to the preservation and proliferation of the organism. To ask me to predict what is to become would require me to know all the selective pressures that will occur in that billion year time period and what phenotypes these pressures will favour. So it's an absurd question to begin with since no-one has that predictive power. Suffice it to say that unless all things remain unchanged in a billion years, it will not be the same organism that it started as.

 

[interested in life]

Might want to read for comprehension before making a smartbutt response.

"Your comment was wrong. Larger cranial capacity (corrected for body size) does correlate with intelligence."

I bolded the part you appeared to miss.

Thanks i noted.Why corrected for body size?And hold on this seems to go against evolution seeing as smaller primates have a larger cranium to body ratio than humans do.

 

[USincognito]

Oh you lost me there.I cant say ive heard of creationists tampering with fossils but i could be wrong..

Right, they just lie about them over and over until other Creationists buy the lies. Examples being:
Lucy's Knee Joint
Archaeopteryx
Archeoraptor
"Flipperithecus"
Nebraska Man
Piltdown Man

Even when a fossil is a legitimate fraud, Creationists can't keep all the facts straight (Piltdown and Archeoraptor).

 

[USincognito]

Thanks i noted.Why corrected for body size?And hold on this seems to go against evolution seeing as smaller primates have a larger cranium to body ratio than humans do.

Source?

 

[Archaeopteryx]

How did this develop?Now im no expert and this is off the top of my head(teehee)but intelligence is increased due to synapses being increased due to the individuals life experiences.So basically how did the pre frontal cortex develop when synapses werent present to begin with?

Dunbar's research suggests that increased cortical volume might have resulted from the needs of socialisation. He found a significant association between mean group size and mean neocortical size (relative to the rest of the brain). He then calculated an equation that predicted our ancestors to have mean group sizes of around 150 individuals which, as it turns out, is the mean group size for hunter-gather societies or small village clans. The evolutionary pressure for increased cortical volume then might have been increasing social group size and interactions among early hominids.

 

[interested in life]

But it ends up being a different species of virus or microorganism. That's the point.

I appreciate you making it for me.It hasnt changed into anything else.

Who knows what it becomes after a billion years. That depends on what mutations that are inherited, what phenotypes have a higher fitness ratio, and what traits are adaptive and conducive to the preservation and proliferation of the organism. To ask me to predict what is to become would require me to know all the selective pressures that will occur in that billion year time period and what phenotypes these pressures will favour. So it's an absurd question to begin with since no-one has that predictive power. Suffice it to say that unless all things remain unchanged in a billion years, it will not be the same organism that it started as.

Why it is an absurd question when you claim that we originated from something resembling a virus.Once again.each according to its kind.

 

[Archaeopteryx]

I appreciate you making it for me.It hasnt changed into anything else.

But it has changed into something else. It's a different species.

Why it is an absurd question when you claim that we originated from something resembling a virus.Once again.each according to its kind.

I never said that we originated from something resembling a virus. I was using virus as an example of how evolution works. We most likely originated from a very simple prokaryote.

 

[interested in life]

Dunbar's research suggests that increased cortical volume might have resulted from the needs of socialisation. He found a significant association between mean group size and mean neocortical size (relative to the rest of the brain). He then calculated an equation that predicted our ancestors to have mean group sizes of around 150 individuals which, as it turns out, is the mean group size for hunter-gather societies or small village clans. The evolutionary pressure for increased cortical volume then might have been increasing social group size and interactions among early hominids.

I mean in our more primitive ancestors.Animals dont have 1.Before the scenario you envisaged,there was a time where it didnt exist in our "ancestors" brains.Socialising doesnt develop this particular part of the brain in animals.