Science vs. Evolution

[interested in life]

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

And?Forgive me for being blunt but i have real trouble picturing a simple celled eukaryote or prokaryote having the ability to evolve like you say it can,your examples are still staying within their 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.

ok.this prokaryote must of been seriously advanced to evolve like you claim it has.Which is strange considering the first life was primitive.You dont see a contradiction here?

 

[interested in life]

Source?

my eyes.could be wrong,but pretty sure once again an average chimp would have 800cc and be only 3 ft tall.Which once again doesnt match up.

 

[Archaeopteryx]

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.

And you do understand the difficulty in trying to isolate a particular brain region in our now long-dead ancestors?

Socialising doesnt develop this particular part of the brain in animals.

Source? Beside that, it could be argued that socialisation does indeed bring something to bear on the pre-frontal cortex. Certainly the ventromedial PFC.

 

[interested in life]

And you do understand the difficulty in trying to isolate a particular brain region in our now long-dead ancestors?

Im not here to ask easy questions boss.As i said animals dont have 1.I want to know how this developed in animals.

Source? Beside that, it could be argued that socialisation does indeed bring something to bear on the pre-frontal cortex. Certainly the ventromedial PFC.

Animals dont have 1.I think the "we dont know" is the most honest answer.Im open to being proved incorrect,i can see potential having an army of super animals at my command.Just kidding.

 

[Archaeopteryx]

And?Forgive me for being blunt but i have real trouble picturing a simple celled eukaryote or prokaryote having the ability to evolve like you say it can,your examples are still staying within their kind.

The evolution of multi-cellularity (since that seems to be what you are looking for) can probably be found in colonial organisms like certain species of algae. It's been a while since I've looked into the phylogeny of algae and other protists but that might be a start if you'd like to see the move from single-celled organisms to multi-cellular organisms.

ok.this prokaryote must of been seriously advanced to evolve like you claim it has.Which is strange considering the first life was primitive.You dont see a contradiction here?

Umm... no, I don't see the contradiction. Yes, the first life would have indeed been very primitive, but it evolved to assume more advanced forms. From simple to complex.

 

[Archaeopteryx]

Im not here to ask easy questions boss.As i said animals dont have 1.I want to know how this developed in animals.

Animals dont have 1.I think the "we dont know" is the most honest answer.

Yes, the prefrontal cortex is probably a recent evolution, but it is present in some animals (see here). It just so happens it is particularly prominent in human animals and occupies far more space in our brains than in the brains of closely related species.

Here is a nice little article:
Prefrontal cortex white matter volume sets humans apart

The difficulty, I spoke of earlier, in assessing prefrontal cortex size in our ancestors comes from the fact that the brain is composed entirely of soft tissue, which inexorably decays. As a consequence we cannot directly access the brains of our ancestors. We can only infer from relative differences in the cranium.

 

[tanzanos]

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

sit down before you hurt yourself.

Great!i suggest you start modifying.

Not without new data!

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

Ah a creationist who has not heard of the Creationist Museum! Oh the Irony!

 

[USincognito]

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?

The difference between hominid brains, early hominid brains and our fellow primate brains is primarily size, density, shape (in this case the folds create more surface area) and a few structures. It's not like human brains are so radically different than our fellow mammals or the reptiles we evolved from.

 

[USincognito]

my eyes.could be wrong,but pretty sure once again an average chimp would have 800cc and be only 3 ft tall.Which once again doesnt match up.

Way off, that's the low end for H. erectus. Try around 400-450cc.

Check out this page on the encephalization quotient.
http://serendip.brynmawr.edu/bb/kinser/Int3.html

 

[AV1611VET]

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

You're not even going to get that.

There's only one thing that 'holds creationism up': The Bible said it -- that settles it.

 

[AV1611VET]

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.

I personally have no trouble with that, as data can be interpreted, and it's the interpretation of the data, not the data itself, we modify.

Science starts out ignorant, then works its way toward the finish line; whereas Theology starts out with Truth, and doesn't change.

We're at the finish line, waiting for you guys to catch up, but you're all taking detours.

 

[Archaeopteryx]

You're not even going to get that.

There's only one thing that 'holds creationism up': The Bible said it -- that settles it.

Which Scriptures? Hindu, Islamic or Judeo-Christian? How about Nordic and Greek mythology? Which Creationism should we believe?

 

[Archaeopteryx]

I personally have no trouble with that, as data can be interpreted, and it's the interpretation of the data, not the data itself, we modify.

Science starts out ignorant, then works its way toward the finish line; whereas Theology starts out with Truth, and doesn't change.

We're at the finish line, waiting for you guys to catch up, but you're all taking detours.

Ah, but that's the thing you see. Creationists begin with the interpretation, and then modify the data to suit that, ignoring anything that contradicts the interpretation. Real Science isn't done that way. That's why Creationism will never enter a Science classroom or textbook. But from the text under your username ('Science can take a hike'), something tells me that you don't care about genuine Science to begin with. And that's also why Creationism will never set foot in Science: because I'd wager that most Creationists are either contemptuous of Science or otherwise fail to understand its most fundamental principles.

 

[AV1611VET]

That's why Creationism will never enter a Science classroom or textbook.

Creationism does not belong in science class, as God did not work through science to create this universe.

Creationism belongs in history class.

But from the text under your username ('Science can take a hike'), something tells me that you don't care about genuine Science to begin with.

I hold genuine science to a Higher Standard than even scientists themselves do.

 

[Archaeopteryx]

Creationism does not belong in science class, as God did not work through science to create this universe.

Creationism belongs in history class.

I have no opposition to teaching Creationism as ancient mythology in a history class.

I hold genuine science to a Higher Standard than even scientists themselves do.

Lol. Yeah, that's why Creationists begin with their interpretation and then creatively work the data to fit. As I said before, they don't understand what genuine Science is.

 

[AV1611VET]

I have no opposition to teaching Creationism as ancient mythology in a history class.

I do.

Lol. Yeah, that's why Creationists begin with their interpretation and then creatively work the data to fit.

Which came first chronologically?

Maybe what you see as we 'creatively working the data' is really we 'working the data' to keep your scientific paradigms out of the picture.

And qv please: 1.

 

[USincognito]

The resistance was there to begin with,just the ones who didnt have it died off,and yet again this doesnt back up goo to you.The examples you guys use?
Show me a simple lifeform developing into something serious.

You want an amoeba turning into a starfish or something more radical like a slug turning into a skink?

I'm just asking to see how far removed your salational goalposts are from reality.

 

[USincognito]

You mean the blood types we share with chimps which was reduced from 99%, to 98.5% , to 97.5% to 95% and now is even more dropping in figure?

You certainly are confused if you think that blood type = genetic similarity.

Nice Gish Gallop though.

 

[Archaeopteryx]

I do.

That's okay, because you won't get Creationism into a classroom any other way.

Which came first chronologically?

Maybe what you see as we 'creatively working the data' is really we 'working the data' to keep your scientific paradigms out of the picture.

In other words... contorting data to fit your pre-determined conclusions and then ignoring data that contradicts those conclusions. i.e. bad science.

 

[tanzanos]

I personally have no trouble with that, as data can be interpreted, and it's the interpretation of the data, not the data itself, we modify.

Science starts out ignorant, then works its way toward the finish line; whereas Theology starts out with Truth, and doesn't change.

We're at the finish line, waiting for you guys to catch up, but you're all taking detours.

Then why did they move away from Jesus' command of adhering to the scriptures?
Why did we stop stoning to death disobedient children? (and rightly so)
Why do we help people who we know are not Christians? (and rightly so)
Why do we not put adulterers to death? (and rightly so)
Why do we not kill witches? (and rightly so)

OH WAIT! The Taliban are the only ones who actually adhere to the OT laws. So according to the Bible they shall inherit the kingdom of God?

Some things just do not make sense!