The only problem is, your wrong!

[TheNewAge]

We are people, we are not bactera, we are not fruit flys and we are not monkeys, we are people.

Some of us have the same capacity for logical thought as fruit flies though...

 

[I_Love_Cheese]

We are people, we are not bactera, we are not fruit flys and we are not monkeys, we are people.

And what do we share in common with all of these. We share genes, which mutate, allowing us to have different variations like you and the rest of us. If it were not for mutations, we would all have the same genes.
By the way, we are tetrapods too.

 

[JohnR7]

If it were not for mutations, we would all have the same genes.

So if it were not for mutations do you think that we would all still be bacteria and fruit flys?

 

[JohnR7]

Some of us have the same capacity for logical thought as fruit flies though...

So where does "logical thought" come from? Did it mutate or evolve in some way?

 

[notto]

It is based on lack of evidence on the part of science. I would be glad to look at their evidence for their mutation theory if they had any, but they do not have any. We are what we are because of genetics, not because of mutations.

What books have you read written by biologists or genetecists led you to this conclusion?

Can you tell us what books or resources you have read to get a basic understanding of the theory of evolution and the evidence that supports it?

You never seem to answer this question with any materials that are actully related to core biology or the theory of evolution. Your repeated misrepresentation of what the theory actually is only confirms that you are not really qualified to dismiss it because you don't really understand it.

 

[TheNewAge]

So where does "logical thought" come from? Did it mutate or evolve in some way?

Logical thought is a conceptual term used to describe a group of process, which evolved along with the quantity of brainmatter our species possesses.

 

[rmwilliamsll]

We are people, we are not bacteria, we are not fruit flies and we are not monkeys, we are people.

yet we share all basic metabolism with bacteria, there is no particularly human way of converting sugar into energy, no particularly human way of polarizing a nerve cell, we share that with worms. Almost all the work on HOX genes has been done on fruit flies and is directly transferable to human development, our HOX genes, our regulatory sequences operate exactly like those of thousands of other creatures on earth. Nothing uniquely human has been discovered there either. With monkeys or the great apes we share not only a family physical resemblance but an extraordinary set of behaviors, a very similar central nervous system including our much vaulted brain. AFAIK there are only a handful of developmental sequences, another handful of proteins that really separate us from bonobos or chimps.

it is the continuities with the rest of creation that are most notable, not a few differentiations which are nearly impossible to enumerate anyhow.

 

[rambot]

people people people.
By replying and giving this thread wheels you endorse the thought that John started this thread with a new idea: With some kernel of a new argument.

 

[I_Love_Cheese]

So if it were not for mutations do you think that we would all still be bacteria and fruit flys?

No we would never have gotten that far.

 

[Hydra009]

It is based on lack of evidence on the part of science.

lol. Priceless. And this from the same guy who declared a priori that any evidence for evolution is automatically wrong.

So, basically the game plan is to prop up one unsupported assertion with another?

We are what we are because of genetics, not because of mutations.

lol, unintentional irony ftw. Take a wild guess what field of science mutation has a HUGE impact on.

 

[Nooj]

We are people, we are not bacteria

Have you heard of eukaryotes?

 

[JohnR7]

What books have you read written by biologists or genetecists led you to this conclusion?

Right now I have been reading the "language of God", but I have not actually gotten to the part where he presents his arguement for evolution. I was planning on reading that today but I must have got distracted. But I am interested to see what sort of a case he builds for his belief in evolution.

I think this has to potential to becoming a classic book. He comes up with some fairly good answers for a wide range of different questions that people have. It maybe a while before someone comes along with better answers that what Dr Collins has on the table right now.

Also he is sort of a historical figure because he was the first to sequence DNA. It seems like the first person to do something always gets talked about a lot.

 

[JohnR7]

Have you heard of eukaryotes?

Yeah, it is a cell that lacks a mitochondria. What about it? This should be interesting, do you have some sort of a claim about eukaryotes that you intend to make?

 

[rambot]

no john...a eukaryote is a cell that has a nucleus...not a mitochondria.

/Yeah, it is a cell that lacks a mitochondria. What about it? This should be interesting, do you have some sort of a claim about eukaryotes that you intend to make?

strangely enough...there is ALSO mitochondrial DNA evidence to support evolution.
But they were talking about Eukaryotes. so...

 

[notto]

Right now I have been reading the "language of God", but I have not actually gotten to the part where he presents his arguement for evolution. I was planning on reading that today but I must have got distracted. But I am interested to see what sort of a case he builds for his belief in evolution.

I think this has to potential to becoming a classic book. He comes up with some fairly good answers for a wide range of different questions that people have. It maybe a while before someone comes along with better answers that what Dr Collins has on the table right now.

Also he is sort of a historical figure because he was the first to sequence DNA. It seems like the first person to do something always gets talked about a lot.

So have you read any basic biology books that contain core information about the theory of evolution and explain it?

I'm trying to understand where you get your (misguided) understanding of evolution? What book have you read (not one you are going to read) that explains the mechanisms and evidence for evolution including mutations? Can you name a few references or sources you have used to get you information on the theory?

Your doubts and claims really seem silly if you can't even explain what the theory really is. You are basically building a strawman of your own making.

You seem to be a great creationist.

 

[JohnR7]

I'm trying to understand where you get your (misguided) understanding of evolution?

If you want someone that is really "misguided" then look at people like Gould and his cronies. At least he could accept that change could take place pretty quick. Also he came against Darwins atheistic evoluton.

So what about the people that Gould challanged, where did they get their degree and their understanding about evolution?

Anyways, if you want to understand where I get it from, then maybe you need to understand that there are people who can think for themselves. Becasue they have eyes and can see what is going on.

Your doubts and claims really seem silly if you can't even explain what the theory really is.

I love the way you guys make me laugh, as if there were a real theory. The theory of evolution is like the weather. If you do not like what the theory is today, just want a few days, a new theory will come along. If you do not like the theory today, then just blink, because tomorrow there will be a whole new theory.

The question is, what was evolution 100 years ago and what will evolution be 100 years from now? Like Elton John says: Today is like a candle in the wind that will soon be extinguished.

 

[notto]

If you want someone that is really "misguided" then look at people like Gould and his cronies. At least he could accept that change could take place pretty quick. Also he came against Darwins atheistic evoluton.

So what about the people that Gould challanged, where did they get their degree and their understanding about evolution?

You keep avoiding the question John.

What have you read from Gould? Anything?

Also, you misrepresentation of Darwin is noted. You haven't actually read any Darwin either, have you.

Anyways, if you want to understand where I get it from, then maybe you need to understand that there are people who can think for themselves. Becasue they have eyes and can see what is going on.

Thinking for yourself only works if you have valid information to start with. Unless you are doing biological experiments on a daily basis, your 'thinking for yourself' claim is really based on nothing. How can you 'think for yourself' when you are not working with the material you dismiss or doing any original thinking or research related to it?

If I state that DNA isn't responsible for heredity then I better at least understand DNAand heredity and be able to back up my claims with original research if I'm claiming that I'm 'thinking or myself'. You can't claim that E=mc^3 without something to back it up and claim that it is 'thinking for yourself'. It is simply a misguided and easily disprovable statement. 'Thinking for yourself' only works in science if you actually do original research to support your claims.

The only conclusion we can draw is that your dismissal of the scientific evidence and support of evolution is really based on your lack of scholarship in the area.

You are a great creationist.

 

[Split Rock]

Francis Collins in his book "The Language of God" says on pg 207: "the Bible texts themselves seem to suggest that there were other humans present at the same time that Adam and Eve were expelled from the Garden of Eden. Otherwise, where did Cain's wife, mentioned only after he left Eden to live in the land of Nod (Genesis 1:16-17) come from?"

It would appear that the humans are made up of more than just one man and one women in the last 6,000 years. The Bible is just the history of the Hebrew & Arab people. Not the "gentiles" or non semetic people.

OK then. So God created at least 200 or so humans outside of Eden, before Adam and Eve, correct? Adam and Eve were special. Did the other humans have souls? How were they different?

I do not think anyone would deny the scientific research that indicates that the semetics share a common ancestor form the same time and the same location that the Bible indicates. Around what is now Syria where we find the worlds oldest cities, the beginning of farming, the beginning of the use of metal and the list goes on and on all the things that began in this part of the world at this time, just as the Bible tells us is all did.

But these things also happened in Egypt, China and India.

Bryan Sykes in his book "The seven daughters of eve" shows how farming spread out to the rest of the world from Eden or what science calls Syria.

Again the evidence shows that there were other centers of civilization in India and Egypt, and in China a bit later in time. There is no evidence they are initially connected with Syria, although trade did eventually develop between them.

 

[Apos]

I think the real problem creationists have with evolution is envy. Their belief system explains itself. They believe God created everything and evolution is a lie right off the bat... and that's that. But evolution pulls a hat trick: you can start out without any particular belief in evolution at all, just a commitment to look at the evidence and follow where it leads, and end up demonstrating evolution.

Creationism has nothing that can compare to that. And so... envy.

 

[Edx]

, do you have some sort of a claim about eukaryotes that you intend to make?

We are still eukaryotes today!