What about the differences between chimps and humans?

[AV1611VET]

It's not cause and effect for the existence of God. It's proof of the existence of believers.

That too.

But for the record, Jesus used it to convince John the Baptist, via John's disciples, that He was Jesus, when John was in prison, soon to be beheaded.

Luke 7:22 Then Jesus answering said unto them, Go your way, and tell John what things ye have seen and heard; how that the blind see, the lame walk, the lepers are cleansed, the deaf hear, the dead are raised, to the poor the gospel is preached.

 

[AV1611VET]

How would you prove that Bigfoot exists? Would you show me books written about Bigfoot? Would you show me the tourist shacks devoted to selling Bigfoot souvenirs? Would you show me a song about Bigfoot? NONE of that proves that Bigfoot is real. Yet here you are showing me all this nonsense about your god and claiming it proves he's real.

Thanks for the QED.

You're giving others equal airtime, and thus throwing the baby out with the bathwater.

The One that is drawing all men -- including you -- to Him.

 

[Phred]

That too.

But for the record, Jesus used it to convince John the Baptist, via John's disciples, that He was Jesus, when John was in prison, soon to be beheaded.

Luke 7:22 Then Jesus answering said unto them, Go your way, and tell John what things ye have seen and heard; how that the blind see, the lame walk, the lepers are cleansed, the deaf hear, the dead are raised, to the poor the gospel is preached.

For the record, that's the story you believe. You also believe that snakes can talk, donkeys can talk, angels are real and the world was flooded over the tops of mountains for one entire year killing everyone but one family. Yet, at least 7 entire civilizations show no interruptions of their historical records during this time.

You also think Jesus was a white guy.

 

[Phred]

Thanks for the QED.

You're giving others equal airtime, and thus throwing the baby out with the bathwater.

The One that is drawing all men -- including you -- to Him.

How would you prove Bigfoot is real?

 

[AV1611VET]

Yet, at least 7 entire civilizations show no interruptions of their historical records during this time.

And you believe this because of ... let me guess ... cause and effect. Right?

You also think Jesus was a white guy.

I do?

 

[AV1611VET]

How would you prove Bigfoot is real?

I wouldn't. I'd let him prove it.

 

[Hans Blaster]

First, thanks for a reasoned argument rather than the too often emotional ad hominems from the AAS (atheist, agnostic, skeptic) posters. Also, thanks for the use of the indicative rather than imperative mood in your consequences which respects the conditionals used to arrive at them.

I saw "AAS ... posters" and I suddenly got interested, and then I read the whole sentence and realized it wasn't about a scientific meeting, but rather an ad hominem complaint about ad homimem arguments. Sigh.

Unfortunately the AAS meeting was last week and virtual.

[EDIT: I could have had post #666 if I'd been a few seconds faster. Sigh.]

 

[Astrid]

How would you prove that Bigfoot exists? Would you show me books written about Bigfoot? Would you show me the tourist shacks devoted to selling Bigfoot souvenirs? Would you show me a song about Bigfoot? NONE of that proves that Bigfoot is real. Yet here you are showing me all this nonsense about your god and claiming it proves he's real.

If probability is considered I will go with
Bigfoot.

 

[Astrid]

I saw "AAS ... posters" and I suddenly got interested, and then I read the whole sentence and realized it wasn't about a scientific meeting, but rather an ad hominem complaint about ad homimem arguments. Sigh.

Unfortunately the AAS meeting was last week and virtual.

[EDIT: I could have had post #666 if I'd been a few seconds faster. Sigh.]

Probably 99 percent of ad hom complaints are themselves
the ad ho,m.

 

[Astrid]

Advances in evolution by evidence and so far there is zero evidence that it is ToE is tottering.
You need to inform AIG, DI, IRC and their sister sites that apologetics is not evidence.

As if a theory totters for a hundred and fifty years.

Maybe our hero meant
"Creationism is doddering".

 

[FrumiousBandersnatch]

First, thanks for a reasoned argument rather than the too often emotional ad hominems from the AAS (atheist, agnostic, skeptic) posters. Also, thanks for the use of the indicative rather than imperative mood in your consequences which respects the conditionals used to arrive at them.

You're welcome.

It appears that you agree with the evo theory that the change agent for the diversity of all life forms is the environment. True?

The environment is involved - mutations are the main source of heritable variation and, while the environment can affect the mutation rate, it has most effect in its role in natural selection, by determining which variants are most successful. It's worth bearing in mind that for a given individual, the environment includes other creatures, including its own kind.

If speciation has occurred then one would expect to see significant morphological changes in the two groups at some point after separation, eg., runners on the savanna would develop longer, stronger legs, an ability to stand upright, more sweat glands, an enhanced capacity to store water in its body, etc. If the migrating group was a new species then members of the two groups of opposite sex could not successfully reproduce fertile offspring by definition.

Species is not a well-defined scientific term - the interbreeding definition is more of a convenient rule of thumb. Populations may be considered separate species when they are sufficiently different to justify being treated separately in some context.

Morphological changes are not the whole story - there may be little morphological variation between species, and there may be significant differences in things like diet and behaviour without significant differences in external morphology. I would think genetic variation would be the key determinant.

Is there any evidence of either of these characteristics between the rain forest chimps and the Fongoli chimps?

I don't know the detailed differences between them, but IIRC, they're both West African. The Fongoli area tends to be hotter and dryer than the rainforest, so more physiologically stressful in that respect, and the Fongoli chimps show significantly different physiological stress markers as a consequence. They also seem to be significantly more creative and flexible in their behaviour, e.g. culture & tool use, and notably sanguine about fire. I don't know whether they can interbreed productively with rainforest chimps, but given their different behaviours and physiological responses, I would suspect that they're considered to be a subspecies of the West African chimp. Their genetics will indicate their lineage.

It occurred to me that their more flexible, creative behaviour might be an adaptation to the more challenging environmental extremes of their range, echoing similar evolutionary developments in the early ancestors of humans as they moved onto the savannah...

 

[o_mlly]

I saw "AAS ... posters" and I suddenly got interested, and then I read the whole sentence and realized it wasn't about a scientific meeting, but rather an ad hominem complaint about ad homimem arguments. Sigh.

Ad hominems?. There are none in my post. Glass houses syndrome?

You are incorrect.

Still no argument.

Look, to speed things up, in future I'll just reply to these nonsense posts with the Rule# being employed.

Atheist Playbook for Defending Evolution:
When asked about the science, follow these rules:
Premise: What ever you do, do not argue facts or logic!
#1) “Hey, we saw you walk by a church, you’re a creationist!”
Alternate: “You’re just an ID freak!”
#2) When asked for evidence of macroevolution, give ‘em microevolution and pretend that does the trick.
#3) Tell them, “You just don’t understand.”
#4) Tell them, “You’re just evil.”
#5) Make the argument about the Christian religion asap. ​

 

[Phred]

And you believe this because of ... let me guess ... cause and effect. Right?I do?

Historical records. Those pesky things.

 

[AV1611VET]

Historical records. Those pesky things.

Oooooh -- written documentation. Sorry about that! I'da never thought of that!?

Who uses that anymore?

 

[renniks]

Says the guy who believes donkey and snakes talk, that angels are real. That demons and devils and heaven and hell are all real.

Tell me how you proved your god was the one true god. What methodology did you use? How did you show that not only did a god exist but that it wasn't Apollo? Tell me all about improbability.

I don't have to. Because belief doesn't have to be proven. If you are gonna call something science, you need hard evidence, however.

 

[renniks]

Advances in evolution by evidence and so far there is zero evidence that it is ToE is tottering.
You need to inform AIG, DI, IRC and their sister sites that apologetics is not evidence.

They don't need to use apologetics. All they need to do is point out the obvious flaws in the ToE

 

[Hans Blaster]

I was working backward through the thread and found this. I thought we could use a bit of a reset...

Good scientists are always skeptics. I don't degrade but I do critically examine the claims.

Leaving the evidentiary issues aside for now, examine the rationale. Natural selection by random mutations identifies the environment as the ultimate change agent underlying all the diversity and complexity of living beings. But the evidence on earth's environment is that it is cyclical, not directional. How can a change agent that is cyclical be the cause of directional changes, eg, diversity and complexity in creatures? One might say that once a creature evolves it retains the beneficial trait forever. But that would cancel out the random gene assumption. I'm not saying it cannot be rationalized, almost anything can.

You claim that because the Earth's environment is cyclical rather than directional natural selection acting from that environment makes a poor change agent. (a paraphrase)

1. What duration of cycles do you have in mind in this posting? Annual, diurnal, others?

2. What about the duration of the cycles of environment you have in mind would prevent or inhibit natural selection.

 

[Frank Robert]

They don't need to use apologetics. All they need to do is point out the obvious flaws in the ToE

It is fair to critique science, in fact rigorous scientific critiques are fundamental for progress. The difference between scientist and apologist critiques is that apologists are not out to advance science but instead they fancy replacing science with an unknown, undefined or alien intelligence.

 

[renniks]

It is fair to critique science, in fact rigorous scientific critiques are fundamental for progress. The difference between scientist and apologist critiques is that apologists are not out to advance science but instead they fancy replacing science with an unknown, undefined or alien intelligence.

If there's such an intelligence it would have to be possible to observe it somehow through science. The idea that science can't point us to God is silly.

 

[Ponderous Curmudgeon]

If there's such an intelligence it would have to be possible to observe it somehow through science. The idea that science can't point us to God is silly.

Well then, there you go, get to it. We are only claiming that no one has done it yet. Show us where science points to God.

Just keep in mind that I don't personally know how this could have occurred does not qualify as evidence for God.