Some Reasons I Don't Believe in Evolution

[SkyWriting]

Not that I accept your claim, but consider this: you are relying on a book that has species in it that you now claim have been removed. You've just debunked the very book you are trying to use as evidence!

Ye are easily amused by fact. Any book claiming to document biological history is likely to be inaccurate by the time it gets printed.

 

[cupid dave]

I believe 99% of common decent is rubbish. But if a species branched off to fill some niche, there is no reason the original ancestor can't remain in it's ecological niche and stay there and survive. Evolution isn't some outside force that causes an entire species to change in unison over some preset length of time. If only one part of a species population is pressured by it's environment, only that segment needs to branch off.

According to TV, time travel just consumes too much energy to be of value.

BUT...
What I am saying is that Genesis is still right even for those people who insist on 22 links to modern man.

And also, the Big Bang WAS the beginning.
And that the seven Eras were the seven "days."

 

[Skaloop]

Wait, all the grey parts were never found, and the tan parts were bone fragments they found, broken as indicated? And you place such confidence in this that you get a tattoo of it?

You have far greater Faith than I ever will

I acknowledge that A. garhi's classification is subject to change, that the skull is incomplete, and that it may not be a unique species. But that's not why I got the tattoo. I got it because one of my favourite courses at university was about human evolution, and as part of that we got to personally observe and handle an A. garhi replica skull. That tattoo merely commemorates an interesting part of my studies that I thought looked cool. No faith involved. The only confidence I place in it is that it exists.

ETA: I also don't understand why you diminish your faith like that. Saying I have more faith than you because of a tattoo, which I chose to get for reasons you can't possibly comprehend and are not faith-based reasons, means that you have no faith. Why do you minimize your beliefs by attempting to belittle me?

 

[Split Rock]

argumentum ad hominem

I guess the appropriate response would be to show them wrong and provide the ability to check the work done. (See below)

How can I show them wrong, when they cannot even define the terms they use? Oh and btw, I didn't insult anyone, nor imply that the insult meant their argument is wrong. You creationists have the most delicate skin, I swear to G-d.

 

[Split Rock]

I believe 99% of common decent is rubbish.

I believe that 99% of creationism is rubbish.

But if a species branched off to fill some niche, there is no reason the original ancestor can't remain in it's ecological niche and stay there and survive. Evolution isn't some outside force that causes an entire species to change in unison over some preset length of time. If only one part of a species population is pressured by it's environment, only that segment needs to branch off.

Very good! Now all we need to do is push you a little further into the light...

 

[Loudmouth]

1) WRONG about Flores...

The University of Western Australia's Emeritus Professor Charles Oxnard and his colleagues, in a paper in PLoS ONE[bless and do not curse]have reconfirmed, on the post-cranial skeleton, their original finding on the skull that[bless and do not curse]Homo floresiensis[bless and do not curse]in fact bears the hallmarks of humans --[bless and do not curse]Homo sapiens[bless and do not curse]-- affected by hypothyroid cretinism.

HeritageDaily - The Latest Archaeology News & Articles - Homo floresiensis a new species of human?

Hyperthyroid cretinism does not explain the H. floresiensis wrist morphology which is more like H. erectus than H. sapiens:

The Primitive Wrist of Homo floresiensis and Its Implications for Hominin Evolution

Nor does it explain the brain endocasts:

"Our detailed analysis revealed little similarity to microcephalics and pygmies and support the theory that the fossil is a member of a unique ancestral species. Little similarity was found between the Hobbit virtual endocast and either the pygmy or microcepahlic endocast. In addition to studying brain shapes, we conducted detailed comparisons of dimensions in the virtual endocasts. These analyses identified several similarities between the Hobbit's brain and that of Homo erectus. There were, however, significant differences between the Hobbit and Homo erectus. "
Study of the Brain of LB1, Homo Floresiensis (Hobbit) - Electronic Radiology Lab

 

[Huram Abi]

1) WRONG about Flores...

The University of Western Australia's Emeritus Professor Charles Oxnard and his colleagues, in a paper in PLoS ONE[bless and do not curse]have reconfirmed, on the post-cranial skeleton, their original finding on the skull that[bless and do not curse]Homo floresiensis[bless and do not curse]in fact bears the hallmarks of humans --[bless and do not curse]Homo sapiens[bless and do not curse]-- affected by hypothyroid cretinism.

HeritageDaily - The Latest Archaeology News & Articles - Homo floresiensis a new species of human?


2) Yeah, the scientists are still sorting stuff out.
They are way way behind God who said 22 in 1362AD at least.

For instance,...

Most of the paleoanthropologists accept that these fossils do not belong to a distinct species, but that the creature called Homo rudolfensis is in fact indistinguishable from Homo habilis.

3) The point remains that scientists do not have 35 nor 10, but right around these 22 found in Genesis.

AND... most paleontologists agree with those who wrote the newest book on the subject,... 22 extinct species.

Your criticism is getting more lame as we go along.
Why not join me and take a positive view instead of this nonsense???

This is a Gish's Gallop of unsupported claims. Why don't you read the article before you decide it supports your claim?

The criticism I have is based on 27 species of hominids. That's not lame. It's hard fact.

What you have is a hodgepodge of literal and allegorical assumptions all lumped in together in a very surreal misfortune of half-truths and complete fiction.

 

[Loudmouth]

Funny how creationists come here and tell us about "well founded" Information Theory that shows evolution can't add information, but then cannot answer a simple practical question about information.

It gets even better over at Uncommon Descent. Someone posted 4 very simple question:

CSI came up again in a recent thread here on UD. I asked the participants there to assist me in better understanding CSI by providing a rigorous mathematical definition and showing how to calculate it for four scenarios:

1. A simple gene duplication, without subsequent modification, that increases production of a particular protein from less than X to greater than X. The specification of this scenario is “Produces at least X amount of protein Y.”
2. Tom Schneider’s ev evolves genomes using only simplified forms of known, observed evolutionary mechanisms, that meet the specification of “A nucleotide that binds to exactly N sites within the genome.” The length of the genome required to meet this specification can be quite long, depending on the value of N. (ev is particularly interesting because it is based directly on Schneider’s PhD work with real biological organisms.)
3. Tom Ray’s Tierra routinely results in digital organisms with a number of specifications. One I find interesting is “Acts as a parasite on other digital organisms in the simulation.” The length of the shortest parasite is at least 22 bytes, but takes thousands of generations to evolve.
4. The various Steiner Problem solutions from a programming challenge a few years ago have genomes that can easily be hundreds of bits. The specification for these genomes is “Computes a close approximation to the shortest connected path between a set of points.”

Uncommon Descent | On The Calculation Of CSI

No one at UD could answer these questions. They couldn't measure CSI for some very simple and very important questions.

 

[Loudmouth]

argumentum ad hominem

I guess the appropriate response would be to show them wrong and provide the ability to check the work done. (See below)

That is not an ad hominem. It is attacking the argument, no the arguer. Creaitonists claim that they can use information theory to show that evolution can not occur with references to information loss and gain. We are simply pointing out that creationists can do no such thing, as evidenced by their failure to measure information in very simple examples (see above).

 

[Split Rock]

It gets even better over at Uncommon Descent. Someone posted 4 very simple question:



No one at UD could answer these questions. They couldn't measure CSI for some very simple and very important questions.

Interesting set of questions. Our questions were even simpler, though.

 

[Zaius137]

First Information is only relevant to an intelligent agent. I assume you’re a fairly intelligent person so I hope information has relevance to you. I do not know what your string of base pairs does so obviously how can you interpret a change in entropy? It is like someone who only knows the Hebrew alphabet; an English sentence is meaningless to them although it may contain information. I do sense that you know nothing about information theory so when someone speaks about a loss or gain in entropy you are clueless. It is not because you do not have an intelligent mind it is only because Information Theory is foreign to you (you do not speak its language). This may help you… try and read it or Google “entropy for dummies”.


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Entropy_(information_theory)

Make it a point to learn something new every day…. A mind is a terrible thing to waist.

 

[Tinker Grey]

Make it a point to learn something new every day…. A mind is a terrible thing to waist.

Um ... I hope I'm getting whooshed.

 

[driewerf]

I believe 99% of common decent is rubbish

What you believe has no impact on the outside world whatsoever. That first sentence is a flaw on an otherwise excellent post.

But if a species branched off to fill some niche, there is no reason the original ancestor can't remain in it's ecological niche and stay there and survive. Evolution isn't some outside force that causes an entire species to change in unison over some preset length of time. If only one part of a species population is pressured by it's environment, only that segment needs to branch off.

Exactly.
I hope you co religionist brinny will understand this to. Because she came here announcing with drums and trumpets that she had the final nail on evolution's coffin ("stickler").

Well here's the stickler for me? Why are any apes even left if we evolved from apes? Was there a "pause" in the evolution process? A flaw? Were some apes just stubborn and ran from it, time-traveled from it? Please explain. Anyone. Thank you kindly.

 

[razeontherock]

That tattoo merely commemorates an interesting part of my studies that I thought looked cool.

Ok

which I chose to get for reasons you can't possibly comprehend

Yeah I guess you're right, I could never possibly comprehend that

Why do you minimize your beliefs by attempting to belittle me?

I did neither. I'm just observing we don't really know what the skull looked like, due to how much is missing.

 

[cupid dave]

This is a Gish's Gallop of unsupported claims. Why don't you read the article before you decide it supports your claim?

The criticism I have is based on 27 species of hominids. That's not lame. It's hard fact.

What you have is a hodgepodge of literal and allegorical assumptions all lumped in together in a very surreal misfortune of half-truths and complete fiction.

1) Yes that was easy, posting the list of possible species in the link to modern man.

The Last Human: A Guide to Twenty-Two Species of Extinct Humans
by G.J. Sawyer, Viktor Deak
Hardcover, 256 pages
Published June 28th 2007 by Yale University Press

The truth is more like we just do not yet have a better connection than the 22 extinct species found in the book published recently to which I refer you.

2) The evidence that supports the genealogy of 22 names in Genesis is augmented by the recent discovery of our genetic link to Neanderthal inter-breeding which is also mentioned in Genesis:

Gen. 6:2 That (line in the ascent of mankind, leading to the evolution of Christ-like men), the sons of God: [Matt 5:9; Jhn 1:12 ], (Methuselahian Modern Homo erectus, derived through the line of Seth, Eurasian Homo erectus), saw the daughters of men, (the sister species of Tubal-cain, Naamahians, a late stage Neanderthal), they took them wives of all which they chose.

 

[cupid dave]

That is not an ad hominem. It is attacking the argument, no the arguer. Creaitonists claim that they can use information theory to show that evolution can not occur with references to information loss and gain. We are simply pointing out that creationists can do no such thing, as evidenced by their failure to measure information in very simple examples (see above).

Yes, the Creationists do argue about Evolution.
But they miss the point:
No where in Genesis does the story differ with evolution.

There is no statement regarding the process by which the Plant Kingdom preceded the Animal Kingdom.
Nor does Science debate the Spontaneous Generation of Life, still hard to explain by either side, except it was an Act of God.

Fundies need to re-read Genesis, not attack science.

Even their seven "days" makes no sense in that the 24 hour day was NOT initiated until "day" 4, when God made the sun authority over our Solar Clock.

 

[Split Rock]

First Information is only relevant to an intelligent agent. I assume you’re a fairly intelligent person so I hope information has relevance to you. I do not know what your string of base pairs does so obviously how can you interpret a change in entropy? It is like someone who only knows the Hebrew alphabet; an English sentence is meaningless to them although it may contain information. I do sense that you know nothing about information theory so when someone speaks about a loss or gain in entropy you are clueless. It is not because you do not have an intelligent mind it is only because Information Theory is foreign to you (you do not speak its language). This may help you… try and read it or Google “entropy for dummies”.


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Entropy_(information_theory)

Make it a point to learn something new every day…. A mind is a terrible thing to waist.

Maybe you should be the one to read "entropy for dummies” since you cannot use your vast understanding of information theory to answer basic questions about information. Or maybe you should re-read it. Or maybe you should stop trying to apply things like Shannon information theory to things it does not apply to. Or maybe you should stop thinking so highly of I.D. bullsh*t about evolution being unable to increase information.

 

[SkyWriting]

Maybe you should be the one to read "entropy for dummies” since you cannot use your vast understanding of information theory to answer basic questions about information. Or maybe you should re-read it. Or maybe you should stop trying to apply things like Shannon information theory to things it does not apply to. Or maybe you should stop thinking so highly of I.D. b******t about evolution being unable to increase information.

Total information cannot be increased. It only changes form

 

[Jazer]

Even their seven "days" makes no sense in that the 24 hour day was NOT initiated until "day" 4, when God made the sun authority over our Solar Clock.

There are OEC and GAP creationists. Not even the majority are YEC.
The majority of Creations do not believe what you claim they believe.

 

[SkyWriting]

Yes, the Creationists do argue about Evolution.
But they miss the point:
No where in Genesis does the story differ with evolution.....

Only in it's entire premise. The weak should die so that the species more fortunate to be able to cope with environmental stresses will survive and prosper. Those who can reproduce and efficiently eat the most nutrients from its locality will dominate and the rest should die. Some variations of species are best for particular environments and should remain there while those not suited for that location should leave and never return. If a dissimilar individual wanders into your particular neighborhood, they should be killed because they are different. Of ones offspring, the weaker and least compatible with the environment should die. Of human parents, the ones with the most money and biggest houses should have the most children, the poor should starve.

You may have found a fraction of the evolution story in Genesis, but I don't see how the basics match at all with John,Luke,Mark, or Matthew.
If the "Totally Compatible " theory fails on one point, it fails on all points.
That's Science.