Why do people call it the "Theory of Evolution"?

[MarkT]

Plato called that "inside" that life or spirit, the "form" of the creature. Other philosophers call it the "idea" or the "essence" of the creature. ("Essence" means "being".) Is that what you mean by "kind"?

Essentially the idea of an invisible form is implied but I wouldn't take Plato's idea literally for animals. It would apply to people however.

For animals, I just mean the life of the kind.

It occurs to me, as life is in the blood, you might examine the blood of an animal to see if a blood relationship exists.

 

[W Jay Schroeder]

But no one is saying that, Jay. We all recognize that gorillas, humans, and chimps are different species. But they are all in the same family, while monkeys are a different family.



No, monkeys, gorillas, chimps and humans do all belong to the same class. We belong to the class called mammals---along with a lot of other mammals like bears, horses, armadillos, etc. We all belong to the same order (called Primates) along with gibbons, lemurs and tarsiers.



We belong in our own species, but we do not belong in a separate class of our own, because we have mammalian traits that put us in the mammal class.

you say this because if you did not your theory would be wrong, because you use speciation as an examble though it does nothing for your theory. How would a monkey have sex, and how is it different then a humans, Where may i ask is the fossils of a huminod with all hair and only part upright, the bones neccary for walking consistently. none, You have to change all the charictoristic of all animals at the same time for it to ever work well enough for there to be a chance for reproduction. This is not possible at all. your theory is dead. Do apes have the same sex organs as us, and use them the same, and how did they mutate this correctly so to reproduce. I dont think any mammals have external sex organs like we do. Any change even slight with this would be a reproduction disadvantage. or am i way off here.

 

[Dennis Moore]

Where may i ask is the fossils of a huminod with all hair and only part upright, the bones neccary for walking consistently.

You mean the fossil hominids? We have plenty of them.

Do apes have the same sex organs as us, and use them the same,

More or less, yes. Though I don't think the great apes are into piercing them like we are ... Prince Alberts, ouch ...

I dont think any mammals have external sex organs like we do.

Um, then apparently you don't know much about mammals.

or am i way off here.

It's safe to say that you're way off.

 

[W Jay Schroeder]

You mean the fossil hominids? We have plenty of them.

More or less, yes. Though I don't think the great apes are into piercing them like we are ... Prince Alberts, ouch ...
Um, then apparently you don't know much about mammals.
It's safe to say that you're way off.

your fossils of huminods was rather amussing and shows the lenght of stupidity to which evolutionist will go to. My opinion of course. If you need it to fit your thinking you will make it fit. Well i did not want to go into great detail on the matter, but do they have the penis like ours that is not covered as thiers is. As in not covered with flesh and always on the outside. And a slight change from this would cause reproductive disadvantages. Apes do not really court a mate do they and they are not one mate bound, sadly we are not either but this explains all the stds that are out there. Why would this happen if it doesnt with them. This would be a disadvantage for us would it not, so a bad mutation survived that is supposed to be weeded out by natural selection. Also a female would have to change correctly as well at the same time. slow change cant help because once there is a slight disadvantage it can not reproduce. And both genes from both male and female have to been simialr or it wont form anything. which is why we cant mix sex cells with different animals and get some wierd animal. The only thiing sexually similar between us and animals is it takes a male and a female to reproduce, and the male gives the female his sperm and the two make one. You all simplify it to work. you never take into account all the steps and functions reguired to do one thing, breath, concieve, pump blood, expell waste, ect. They all work together not seperate. So they have to evolve together, which is impossible even slowly.

 

[Aron-Ra]

your fossils of huminods was rather amussing and shows the lenght of stupidity to which evolutionist will go to. My opinion of course.

Your opinion has been shown to be faulty before. Remember when you said there couldn't be any half-fish/half-amphibians or half-amphibian/half-reptiles? You kept saying that even after I showed some to you!

If you need it to fit your thinking you will make it fit.

And if you don't want it to, it won't. But are you willing to test it?

Well i did not want to go into great detail on the matter, but do they have the penis like ours that is not covered as thiers is. As in not covered with flesh and always on the outside.

Yes.

And a slight change from this would cause reproductive disadvantages. Apes do not really court a mate do they and they are not one mate bound, sadly we are not either but this explains all the stds that are out there. Why would this happen if it doesnt with them.

Except that we have seen that some apes have very deep, long-term relationships with their lovers.

This would be a disadvantage for us would it not, so a bad mutation survived that is supposed to be weeded out by natural selection. Also a female would have to change correctly as well at the same time. slow change cant help because once there is a slight disadvantage it can not reproduce. And both genes from both male and female have to been simialr or it wont form anything. which is why we cant mix sex cells with different animals and get some wierd animal.

It is not only clear that you don't know what you're talking about, it is very clear that you don't want to know what you're talking about.

The only thiing sexually similar between us and animals is it takes a male and a female to reproduce, and the male gives the female his sperm and the two make one.

There is no difference between you and animals, because humans ARE animals! And incidentally, many animals, even including some vertebrates, reproduce asexually.

You all simplify it to work. you never take into account all the steps and functions reguired to do one thing, breath, concieve, pump blood, expell waste, ect. They all work together not seperate. So they have to evolve together, which is impossible even slowly.

No it isn't, obviously, or things like Dachshunds and Shi-tzus could never have been bred from wolves. Can't you be right about anything ever?

 

[W Jay Schroeder]

Your opinion has been shown to be faulty before. Remember when you said there couldn't be any half-fish/half-amphibians or half-amphibian/half-reptiles? You kept saying that even after I showed some to you!
And if you don't want it to, it won't. But are you willing to test it?

How do prove something wrong that is just a quess or assumtion in the first place. the fossils of huminods is either a ape or man. Oue skulls now look different from each other. Explain to me how you can have a half this and half that. they share traits but its still one or the other, same know as before.

Yes.
Except that we have seen that some apes have very deep, long-term relationships with their lovers.

Whatever. with there lovers is hardly the right term maybe mates but not lovers. just the type of tricky wording useily used. Their is no passion or love invovled with ape sex. Simplified again

It is not only clear that you don't know what you're talking about, it is very clear that you don't want to know what you're talking about.

whatever again, sorry i'm not perfect like evolutionist are.

There is no difference between you and animals, because humans ARE animals! And incidentally, many animals, even including some vertebrates, reproduce asexually.

Whatever, if you want to be a animal be one I'm not, I clearly show signs that I'm not an animal because i do not live by instincts. I also love and can read and write and reason and build and have a creative imagination to create fantasies, well maybe iI cant spell. I can go on.

No it isn't, obviously, or things like Dachshunds and Shi-tzus could never have been bred from wolves. Can't you be right about anything ever?

I was refering to mixing dogs and cats or a ape and human. how may i ask could ape be like a human with out all the right things evolving together. No I may noit know everything about the theory but i know what is assumption and imagination.

 

[gluadys]

To see it from my point of view it's best to begin at the beginning. You have to imagine or hypothesize a kind, a sort, a large division like a phylum or a class of animals that were created and imagine a number of families within the kind.

But when do you test your imagination against reality?

Only you can't sort by morphology this time. You have to sort by the way things move ie. swim, fly, swarm, crawl, walk on all fours, walk on two feet and then you can sort by the appearance of the characters that allow them to move about.

ok. Whales and sharks are the same kind (both swim). Bats and bluebirds are the same kind (both fly). Bees and lemmings are the same kind (both swarm). Snakes and worms are the same kind (both crawl). Horses and lions are the same kind (walk on all fours). Humans and ostriches are the same kind (walk on two feet).

Is that what you mean?

But for the purpose of establishing bloodlines and relationships, you have to begin with the kind.

How do you begin with a kind you have imagined?

You can't just sort by characters.

What else can you sort by?

A kind is a distinct sort, a division, the original group that all members of it's kind belong to but it doesn't mean they are all related by blood. A kind is just a division.

If they are not related by blood or by characteristics, how do you know what division to put them in?

The family would be the original parent population, I think.

But so far you have only imagined this parent population. How do you demonstrate that it is real and not just your imagination? We could all imagine very different families.

The outward appearance is the reflection of the inward animal; the spirit or life of the thing. You have to imagine its' kind and then you can apply the principles of speciation.

What principles of speciation? And how do you apply them to an imaginary kind?

And then you can figure the parent population represented 100% of the gene pool and characters are lost through speciation and natural selection. You start with 100% and lose characters and abilities. Animals fill a niche. Animals go extinct over time.

So you figure all this out in your imagination. When do you apply it to real animals to see if your imagination fits reality? And how do you do this?

But monkeys are related to chimps by blood. You can see it in their movements, in what they eat, in their faces, in their bodies, in their feet, in their habitat, in their ability to climb trees and hang onto branches, in the sounds they make.

You can see by their movements and faces that they are related by blood? How?

They can't be related to humans who walk on two feet, who can think logically and rationally, who can invent and create, who don't have a thing about them that looks like it was inherited from the monkey-kind.

But none of the things you mention (logic, reason, invention, creativity) has anything to do with what people look like. And when we examine what people look like, they look a lot like chimpanzees.

 

[gluadys]

Also, I think the distinction that species (by definition) can't breed is a phony one. It seems too contrived. Obviously they don't or can't for some reason. I don't know why but I suspect it has more to do with mutation than speciation.

Mutations play an important role in speciation. You can't separate mutations from speciation and say that one is more important than the other. It is through the accumulation of different sets of mutations that populations become unable or unwilling to interbreed. And that marks them as different species.

 

[gluadys]

Essentially the idea of an invisible form is implied but I wouldn't take Plato's idea literally for animals. It would apply to people however.

For animals, I just mean the life of the kind.

It occurs to me, as life is in the blood, you might examine the blood of an animal to see if a blood relationship exists.

Scientists already do that. The haemoglobins and myoglobins have been extensively examined.

Guess what. Phylogenies based on globins give us the same set of relationships as phylogenies based on morphology. Humans and chimpanzees are close cousins, gorillas and orangutans more distant cousins, monkeys more distant still, etc. And all have inherited characteristics from a common ancestor. They are all the same "kind". And they are all part of a larger "kind" called mammals, and of a still larger kind called vertebrates and of a still larger kind called eukaryotes.

That is what examining the blood shows. So does DNA sequencing. And so do many other factors such as cytochrome c and ERVS.

 

[Dennis Moore]

your fossils of huminods was rather amussing and shows the lenght of stupidity to which evolutionist will go to. My opinion of course.

It's obvious that you haven't a clue what you're talking about. Nor, obviously, did you spend any time at all studying the links. My opinion, of course.

Well i did not want to go into great detail on the matter, but do they have the penis like ours that is not covered as thiers is. As in not covered with flesh and always on the outside. And a slight change from this would cause reproductive disadvantages. Apes do not really court a mate do they and they are not one mate bound, sadly we are not either but this explains all the stds that are out there. [and on and on and on ... ]

What are you babbling on about? Do you now purport to be an expert in ape sex, too? And are you as knowledgeble in ape sex as you are in evolution?

It is becoming increasingly clear, over the course of multiple threads, that you haven't got a working knowledge of evolution. I'm not even sure if you have a working knowledge of biology. It makes me wonder how you can be so certain that evolution is so wrong, if you misunderstand it so completely.

 

[Dennis Moore]

How do prove something wrong that is just a quess or assumtion in the first place.

What is a "quess"? For that matter, what is an "assumtion"?

the fossils of huminods is either a ape or man.

Wrong.

Oue skulls now look different from each other.

Assuming here you mean "ape" and "human," well .. yeah. That's what evolution does.

Explain to me how you can have a half this and half that.

Belies an incorrect understanding of evolution.

they share traits but its still one or the other, same know as before.

Wrong again.

Whatever, if you want to be a animal be one I'm not,

Wrong. Or do you deny that you're a mammal?

I clearly show signs that I'm not an animal because i do not live by instincts.

Fallacy. Animals are not defined by their use of instinct. Evolution does not classify humans as animals based on instinct. Once again, you do not understand what you're talking about.

I also love and can read and write and reason and build and have a creative imagination to create fantasies,

None of which is used to define "animal" or "non-animal."

well maybe iI cant spell. I can go on.

Obviously, and obviously.

I was refering to mixing dogs and cats or a ape and human. how may i ask could ape be like a human with out all the right things evolving together. No I may noit know everything about the theory but i know what is assumption and imagination.

If you knew anything about evolution, you wouldn't ask such strange questions. The only assumption and imagination I see at work here are in your perception of evolution--for your perception of evolution certainly isn't based on knowledge or science.

In all seriousness: I've seen you corrected over and over on various threads, and yet you keep repeating the same wrong ideas about what you think evolution is. Do you have no desire to at least properly understand that which you are dead-set against? or are you afraid that understanding would lead to acceptance?

 

[Aron-Ra]

How do prove something wrong that is just a quess or assumtion in the first place.

You can't, which is why creationism is unsupported. Evolution on the other hand is not an assumption, but the result of considerable study of many many supportive facts, something creationism has none of.

the fossils of huminods is either a ape or man.

That's like trying to decide if you want to go to Paris or France. Paris is in France, and men are in the larger taxonomic category called apes. In fact, the word, "hominid" literally means "great ape". It also means "humanoid". Get a clue.

Oue skulls now look different from each other.

No they don't. For example, which one is this?

Doesn't it suck to be wrong about everything all the time?

Explain to me how you can have a half this and half that. they share traits but its still one or the other, same know as before.

I already did explain that in the case of fish-amphibians, and I just posted another explanation of it for amphibian-reptiles. But why don't you explain to me how someone can be half-American and half-Californian. Because that's about what you have with the ape-man claim.

Whatever. with there lovers is hardly the right term maybe mates but not lovers. just the type of tricky wording useily used. Their is no passion or love invovled with ape sex. Simplified again.

Wrong again, of course. Are all you positions based on ignorance propelled only by prejudice? Must you paint yourself as better than everything else? Bonobo sex has been observed to be quite passionate. But I wasn't even talking about sex. I was talking about love and relationships. I specifically had in mind Koko's mourning for her lost "mate" Mike.

It is not only clear that you don't know what you're talking about, it is very clear that you don't want to know what you're talking about.

whatever again, sorry i'm not perfect like evolutionist are.

The point is that your ignorance is deliberately maintained.

Whatever, if you want to be a animal be one I'm not, I clearly show signs that I'm not an animal because i do not live by instincts. I also love and can read and write and reason and build and have a creative imagination to create fantasies, well maybe iI cant spell. I can go on.

If you can read, then you should have read where I explained what an animal is, which proved that you are one. You still have instincts. Other animals can love, and reason and build, and some of them can even understand language and symbols. Being able to create fantasies is a requirment of creationists. But you can still be an animal whether you fantasize or not. And many other animals obviously do fantasize, and you can see that in the noises and movements they make when they're sleeping. Now get over yourself and learn something. You are an animal by every definition of the word.

I was refering to mixing dogs and cats or a ape and human.

Can you mix Californians and Americans? Does anyone even know what would result if a human inseminated a chimpanzee? Could modern humans have interbred with Australopithecines, if they were still around? Probably!

how may i ask could ape be like a human with out all the right things evolving together.

Because not all apes are human, but all humans are apes. There is no, repeat NO, significant difference in morphology, physiology, or genetics between us and fossil apes or chimpanzees.

"I demand of you, and of the whole world, that you show me a generic character ... by which to distinguish between Man and Ape. I myself most assuredly know of none. I wish somebody would indicate one to me. But, if I had called man an ape, or vice versa, I would have fallen under the ban of all ecclesiastics. It may be that as a naturalist I ought to have done so."
--Carl Linn, AKA Carolus Linnaeus, pre-Darwinian creationist, and the "father of taxonomy", -in a letter to J. G. Gmelin, February 14, 1747

No I may noit know everything about the theory but i know what is assumption and imagination.

Obviously not. Nothing I wrote of in my thread was assumed or imagined. Yes there are gaps between every two items of evidence. But with creationism, there is nothing but gap, a complete void without any substance of any kind. That is not the case with evolution, and our perspectives aren't driven by prejudice or fear like yours are. We also tend to be right about somethings sometimes, where you've never been right about anything yet.

 

[Tashena]

"The point is that your ignorance is deliberately maintained. "

That point could be argued 2 different ways. You are just looking at it from a different perspective than Schroeder. Sorry that you can't see over your own.

Tashena

 

[MaynardGKrebbs]

That point could be argued 2 different ways. You are just looking at it from a different perspective than Schroeder. Sorry that you can't see over your own.

Yes, but one side is backed up by reason, logic, and all lines of evidence while the other has only personal incredulity and primitive myths that have already been falsified. Obviously one perspective is right and one is wrong.......

 

[Tashena]

Yes, but one side is backed up by reason, logic, and all lines of evidence while the other has only personal incredulity and primitive myths that have already been falsified. Obviously one perspective is right and one is wrong.......

Honestly, I believe that it takes more effort in believing that we evolved from something trillions of years ago than it is to believe that a loving God sent his son to be the savior of the world. Like I said.... it can be argued 2 different ways

 

[gluadys]

Honestly, I believe that it takes more effort in believing that we evolved from something trillions of years ago than it is to believe that a loving God sent his son to be the savior of the world. Like I said.... it can be argued 2 different ways

What does "effort" have to do with it? Quantity of faith means nothing. Jesus said if your faith is as small as a mustard seed you can move mountains.

Besides many people have no trouble believing that we evolved over billions of years and that God sent his son to be the savior of the world. Believing one of these things doesn't mean you can't believe the other as well.

It is just that there is a lot more evidence for evolution than for Jesus. So, if anything is harder to believe, it is Christianity (or any religion).

 

[JohnR7]

It is just that there is a lot more evidence for evolution than for Jesus.

There is? I don't think so, it sounds like your worshiping creation over the Creator.

 

[JohnR7]

Yes, but one side is backed up by reason, logic, and all lines of evidence while the other has only personal incredulity and primitive myths that have already been falsified. Obviously one perspective is right and one is wrong.......

You are deceived, there are a lot more myths in science than what your willing to admit. Also, myths of science continue to prevail long after they have been falsified and shown not to be true.

 

[Gracchus]

You are deceived, there are a lot more myths in science than what your willing to admit. Also, myths of science continue to prevail long after they have been falsified and shown not to be true.

You're projecting again, JohnR7.

 

[JohnR7]

You're projecting again, JohnR7.

Your kidding me right? Or are you suggesting that we are long overdue for a thread on all of the myths that continue to prevail in the scientific community? It is difficult to handle a subject like that, without people accusing you of attaching science, even though it would be a well deserved "attack".