Understanding Evolution (2)

[DerelictJunction]

I haven't killed anything. Dogs are dogs are dogs, humans are humans are humans. Nothing suggests that they have a common ancestor with each other or with a pine tree or with a cockroach other than the faith-based guesses and suppositions of atheistic Darwinist creationism.

The DNA suggests it. Your liturgy is a lie.

 

[Loudmouth]

They're dogs. They're not cats.

Humans and chimps are primates. Dogs and cats are Carnivorans.

Is that your new criteria, whether or not we can describe the two groups using the same word?

 

[PsychoSarah]

Can you give an example of a man made pump machine which is comparable to the human heart?

Great.

They all present examples that one must decide as to how they were created.

Yes, tons. The heart is a glorified pump, I would consider it less complex in many ways to your average breast pump women use sometimes instead of nursing. Probably the simplest major organ in our body, which is why we can replace it with artificial ones of our own design.

Well, if you are going to argue complexity as being an argument against evolution, you should at least give examples of truly extreme traits in nature. Humans only have the most complex frontal lobes, we don't even have the most complex versions of all brain structures.

Sorry, but number of times a heart beats has nothing to do with the complexity of the organ itself. At least, not enough that it is worth mentioning by itself.

 

[justlookinla]

Still spouting nonsense that you agreed is nonsensical?

No one said they are the same. We are saying that the differences and the ease of recognition of said differences are invalid criteria for determining if they shared a common ancestor.

Since that criteria has been shown invalid. What is your next "evidence" against common ancestry for chimps and humans?

What is your next "evidence" FOR common ancestry of chimps and humans and pine trees and cockroaches from a single life form of long long ago, with the only impetus being naturalistic mechanisms?

You see, you, as well as others, attempt to circumnavigate the core issue. Who/what created you and how? That's the question that will continue despite efforts to change the focus.

 

[Loudmouth]

I haven't killed anything. Dogs are dogs are dogs, humans are humans are humans.

Chihuahuas are chihuahuas, great danes are great danes. And yet, they still share a common ancestor.

Nothing suggests that they have a common ancestor . . .

The shared genetic markers, shared morphology, and transitional fossils do suggest that humans and other apes share a common ancestor.

 

[PsychoSarah]

They're dogs. They're not cats.

Dogs and cats are more genetically different than humans and chimpanzees. I bet if I dyed a Zebra black you would think it was a horse.

 

[Loudmouth]

What is your next "evidence" FOR common ancestry of chimps and humans and pine trees and cockroaches . . .

Those are all eukaryotes. Since I can describe all three with the same name, that makes them the same life form according to your own criteria.

 

[Loudmouth]

Dogs and cats are more genetically different than humans and chimpanzees. I bet if I dyed a Zebra black you would think it was a horse.

More importantly, chimps share more DNA with humans than they do with gorillas and orangutans. I have yet to see a creationist explain that.

 

[bhsmte]

Yes, tons. The heart is a glorified pump, I would consider it less complex in many ways to your average breast pump women use sometimes instead of nursing. Probably the simplest major organ in our body, which is why we can replace it with artificial ones of our own design.

Well, if you are going to argue complexity as being an argument against evolution, you should at least give examples of truly extreme traits in nature. Humans only have the most complex frontal lobes, we don't even have the most complex versions of all brain structures.

Sorry, but number of times a heart beats has nothing to do with the complexity of the organ itself. At least, not enough that it is worth mentioning by itself.

As a pump, the actual mechanical efficiency of the heart leaves a lot to be desired.

 

[justlookinla]

Yes, tons. The heart is a glorified pump, I would consider it less complex in many ways to your average breast pump women use sometimes instead of nursing. Probably the simplest major organ in our body, which is why we can replace it with artificial ones of our own design.

Artificial ones of our own design (you're missing the irony of that statement) do not compare to the pump that typically lasts for 70+ years in the human body. The heart pump and associated connection to the body is yet to be fully understood due to it's complexity. And to compare it to the average breast pump is unlike you, Sarah. Do you realize the incredible absurdity of that claim?

Well, if you are going to argue complexity as being an argument against evolution, you should at least give examples of truly extreme traits in nature. Humans only have the most complex frontal lobes, we don't even have the most complex versions of all brain structures.

You're referencing a part of the human machine that is, once again, so complex it's not completely understood. I'm sure you've read extensively about the human brain, but it seems that a review on your part is warranted. Else you wouldn't make statements like that.

Sorry, but number of times a heart beats has nothing to do with the complexity of the organ itself. At least, not enough that it is worth mentioning by itself.

No pump on earth approaches the durability of the human pump. There is certainly complexity in the design which allows for that durability.

 

[justlookinla]

Chihuahuas are chihuahuas, great danes are great danes. And yet, they still share a common ancestor.



The shared genetic markers, shared morphology, and transitional fossils do suggest that humans and other apes share a common ancestor.

Or it's common design. Because a bicycle uses wheels and the space shuttle uses wheels does not mean they have a common ancestor, it means there's a common design which uses wheels.

 

[justlookinla]

The DNA suggests it. Your liturgy is a lie.

DNA suggests an intelligent designer. Atheistic Darwinist creationism is a lie.

 

[justlookinla]

Humans and chimps are primates. Dogs and cats are Carnivorans.

Is that your new criteria, whether or not we can describe the two groups using the same word?

Use whatever word you wish. That doesn't make a chimp a human or a human a chimp. Thankfully, so far, nobody has mistaken the human for the chimp and the chimp for the human in the photo. That's encouraging.

 

[DerelictJunction]

What is your next "evidence" FOR common ancestry of chimps and humans and pine trees and cockroaches from a single life form of long long ago, with the only impetus being naturalistic mechanisms?

You haven't rebutted any of the evidence presented so far and now you want more evidence? Additionally, you want us to provide evidence that a deity didn't create every species while leaving no evidence except the same evidence that would be left if only naturalistic mechanisms evolved those species.

You want us to prove there is no God. A bit of a burden of proof shift, don't you think?

You see, you, as well as others, attempt to circumnavigate the core issue. Who/what created you and how? That's the question that will continue despite efforts to change the focus.

I am not concerned with the who/what unless the evidence points to a particular who/what. I'm not circumnavigating the how at all. I want to know the how. You know the how? Then explain the how.

Don't tell me the who or the what. Tell me how it was done.

You say humans and chimps don't have a common ancestor despite the evidence in the fossils and the DNA.

So, how did humans come into existence and what is your evidence to support your conclusion?

 

[selfinflikted]

DNA suggests an intelligent designer.

In your own words, please explain how.

 

[DerelictJunction]

Use whatever word you wish. That doesn't make a chimp a human or a human a chimp. Thankfully, so far, nobody has mistaken the human for the chimp and the chimp for the human in the photo. That's encouraging.

No one has said they are the same.

You are not your cousin either but you had a common ancestor.

No one would mistake you for the president of Iran but, according to you, you both had a common ancestor.

No one mistakes a you for a chimp, but according to the DNA and fossil evidence you had a common ancestor.
What is your evidence that you don't have a common ancestor with chimpanzees, because ease of recognition of the differences between two organisms doesn't support it.

 

[PsychoSarah]

Artificial ones of our own design (you're missing the irony of that statement) do not compare to the pump that typically lasts for 70+ years in the human body. The heart pump and associated connection to the body is yet to be fully understood due to it's complexity. And to compare it to the average breast pump is unlike you, Sarah. Do you realize the incredible absurdity of that claim?



You're referencing a part of the human machine that is, once again, so complex it's not completely understood. I'm sure you've read extensively about the human brain, but it seems that a review on your part is warranted. Else you wouldn't make statements like that.



No pump on earth approaches the durability of the human pump. There is certainly complexity in the design which allows for that durability.

1, if we could create a heart that would last longer than our natural ones, which is very possible for in the future, how would that be a defense of evolution anyways? You are arguing for designed life, so why compare to stuff we know we designed as if it has any relevance? Even if I could build a robot 1000x more complex than my own body right now, that wouldn't be evidence for or against either of our positions. 2, the heart is a really simple organ, thus why it is perfectly logical that it would be the first major organ that we could make a fully artificial replacement for. The most complex thing about it is a bundle of nerves that maintain its rythm as needed, and even the artificial hearts have versions of that structure that work ok.

Well yeah, the brain in humans is complex. But there are analogous structures in other animals that are more highly developed than the equivalent in humans, and also brain structures seen in other species that humans don't even have. Usually, they are related to senses.

Other animals have hearts that last longer. Think of the fact that many tortoise species live decades longer than humans. Heck, there are car engines from when cars just started being a thing that are still functional.

 

[justlookinla]

As a pump, the actual mechanical efficiency of the heart leaves a lot to be desired.

Give an example of a man made pump which could do what the human pump does, from conception to the end of life.

 

[PsychoSarah]

Give an example of a man made pump which could do what the human pump does, from conception to the end of life.

Why? Why would us creating a DESIGN that could work as well as what you perceive to be DESIGNED support evolution?

 

[justlookinla]

You haven't rebutted any of the evidence presented so far and now you want more evidence?

Nope, there's been not one single shred of evidence given.

Additionally, you want us to provide evidence that a deity didn't create every species while leaving no evidence except the same evidence that would be left if only naturalistic mechanisms evolved those species.

I'm asking for evidence that naturalistic mechanisms alone created all life from a single life form of long long ago.

You want us to prove there is no God. A bit of a burden of proof shift, don't you think?

I want you to prove that naturalistic mechanisms alone created all life we observe today from a single life form of long long ago.

I am not concerned with the who/what unless the evidence points to a particular who/what. I'm not circumnavigating the how at all. I want to know the how. You know the how? Then explain the how.

The how depends on one's faith-based creationist view.

Don't tell me the who or the what. Tell me how it was done.

And that's exactly what I'm asking.

You say humans and chimps don't have a common ancestor despite the evidence in the fossils and the DNA.

You're attempting to change the focus from how were the humans and chimps created in the first place.

So, how did humans come into existence and what is your evidence to support your conclusion?

I only have faith-based views....which are contrary to your faith-based views.