Don´t remain tied, Darwin has lied

If man evolved from monkeys, and it took thousands of years. How come, monkeys didn't keep eveolving progressively? How come after the first cave-men were developed or whatever, more monkeys didn't come down and follow their example? Then 2000 yrs later more monkeys should evolve, and so on progressively. There should logically be monkey-men of varying stages of development walking the earth today, who got off to an evolutionary late start. Why did our ancestors evolve, but as we developed over time, the species we evolved from stopped evolving. Remaining as monkeys that we see today. Evolution is supposed to be a progressive and unstoppable force of nature right?

 

I'm not saying evolution didn't happen, I'm just pointing out it must logically be guided by a higher intelligence.

 

MAN DID NOT EVOLVE FROM MONKEYS!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!


the great apes (tail-less primates) shared a common ancestor...


~

genus Homo ("humans") & genus Pan (chimpanzees) split from each other 3-5 million years ago... (with the split from gorillas farther back yet, & the split from baboons & orangs taking place even earlier...)

the interesting thing about the human line is that "we" may have spent several thousand generations playing in the estuaries along coastal africa while the plains chimps stayed inland...
& when that drought was over, the primate ("pree-mah-tay") that emerged from the shallows & headed back into the african interior regions were very, very different: face-to-face sex, subcutaneous body fat layer, brown fat in infants, diving reflex in infants, hair limited in body distribution & often streamlined for water, nares (nose) re-arrangement, the ability to squint, complex vocalization ability, suggestion of webbing between fingers & toes, the ability to enjoy (& catch! & open up! & eat!) fish & shellfish, increased manual ability, & a far more upright posture (& menses rather than estrus)---> all seem to have developed during the longest drought mother africa has ever seen; & the fossil record (the "fossil gap") of these transitional (protohuman) forms will be difficult to unearth from under the ocean shallows... heh...




well, i'll be a monkey's uncle...

check out a college-level bio 101 text (or even higher-level course) or a decent general reader book form your local library...
but don't rely on yr watered-down HS general science text with "mandatory equal time for "creation science" or "intelligent design" " ...

oy veh

 

So creationists don't believe in carbon dating right?

What about continental drift? Do they think only the earth is about 6,000 years old, or the entire universe? Do they believe that the universe isn't expanding? Do they not believe any species change over time?

To believe in this stuff like its science, you have to throw out a lotta modern science, not just evolution,

 

Occam, ofcourse He could have created everything by way of evolution but He did not. If this really happend we would have seen it in the fossil records wouldn't we?

If evolution, Occam did indeed arose step by step wether its controled or not then how come we find no real ancestorn for the trilobites? They according to scientist are among the very first creatores yet they have a very advanced eye structure, how come, if they were not created? Darwin blames lack of fossils in his book:

"For instance, I cannot doubt that all the Silurian trilobites have descended from some one crustacean, which must have lived long before the Silurian age, and which probably differed greatly from any known animal… Consequently, if my theory be true, it is indisputable that before the lowest Silurian stratum was deposited, long periods elapsed, as long as, or probably far longer than, the whole interval from the Silurian age to the present day; and that during these vast, yet quite unknown, periods of time, the world swarmed with living creatures. To the question why we do not find records of these vast primordial periods, I can give no satisfactory answer"

He put all his eggs in one basket and says "Consequently, if my theory be true",l our fossil record today is close to full...

"

Why?

 

Cabdirazzaq

Then how did he?

You seem to fully accept planetary and stellar evolution,, you have to, you use planetary geographical process to point out falsities in life evolution theory.

If the physical universe evolved.
Where did life come from?
How did the species on earth NOW come to be?


Occam

 

Cabdirazzaq- Aren't certain conditions required for the formation of fossils? If this weren't the case, wouldn't we be able to dig a few feet down anywhere in any forest and find a bunch of fossilized bones?

Here is a neat little blurb about fossilization conditions: http://www.dinosauria.com/jdp/fossil/fossil.htm

Of which I present these quotes:
"It is the requirement of rapid burial/submergence that ensures that few vertebrates become fossilized."
"Soil is not a favorable environment generally because the bone mineral will tend to dissolve in the acidic conditions that occur in many soils, carbonate-rich soils of arid zones being the exceptions."

 

For me its a matter of faith, the answers I would give would not be satisfying to you. I don't really "fully accept" planetary and stellar evolution but I take it with a big pinch of salt, I see no reason for rejecting something if it does not contradict my Criterion while at the same time see no reason to accept something that does.

 

Everything should be taken with a pinch of salt...

science, nature, education, even god.

 

Cabdirazzaq

And there is the difference between us..

You say
"while at the same time, see no reason to accept something that does"

Occam once said that you attempt to fit observed reality into a mould called Islam. In so doing, the things that do not seem to fit are
'taken with a pinch of salt.'

Those eons of planetary evolution that result in the EVIDENCE you use to disprove life evolution theory..
The supporting evidence of your invalidation of darwinian evolution based
in the processes of planetary and stellar evolution???

What a bummer..having to admit one type of evolution exists so you can
'disprove' another.

What say you?

Occam

 

Yes, Occam I do not like to believe, do or say something before passing it through my religion and if It would turn out negative I would hastingly cease to do it.

But, what kind of "observed reality" has I forsaken through this method?
The thing prohibiting me from either rejecting or accepting these kinds of observed evolutionistic processes is because of lack of knowledge.
It is indeed better to shut ones mouth and remain silent than to speak of matters which could turn to any direction at any time.

Albeit, the point which I'm trying to highlight here is not wether or not I believe in things which I rebuke others but rather that the akward problem still stands and can not be overlooked. If we were to reason that stellar and plantary evolution is indeed a fact it would not in any way prove the greator kind of evolution litte more than the fact that I can throw pebbles with my hand would prove that I would be able to throw mountains.

Even though some systems in our body seem to be able to have been produced by some evolutionary process the great deal of other systems do not, the irrducibly complex ones.

*By saying "seemes" I mean that it would be hard to disapprove the theory that they(these systems) arose by darwins method: "If it could be demonstrated that any complex organ existed, which could not possibly have been formed by numerous, successive, slight modifications, my theory would absolutely break down."

The systems which fufill this criteria are the irreducibly complex ones, hence the theory is abolutely broken down.

 

Cabdirazzaq

Exactly.. your religion defines what you WANT to believe.
While occams 'wants' apply to the processing of knowledge and the gaining of understanding in only one way.
He wants to be ACCURATE TO REALITY. This means using the methods of reality. Not the methods of a human religion.

Yes lack of knowledge...IS the deciding factor for humanity on these maters at this time.
Life evolution MAY be true or MAY be false...

INSUFFIENT DATA..

My spock was right all along...Maybe he should be god..But he is too anal.

Occam

PS...Occam suggests we call it quits on this... There is not enough
data to say if darwinian theory is valid or false..There may never be enought to say so as fact.
That is why occam DOES NOT CALL IT FACT..

If you wish to say it is untrue because it clashes with your religion..
That is fine..Occam will defend anyones right to believe what they wish.
As long as it is not used as an excuse to take away the inherent rights of others..

Occam

 

Hello guys,
Your discussion about evolution is just amazing. When I was a boy like many of you, I believed in Darwin’s theory of natural selection, I also believed in Engel’s who told that it was labor that changed a monkey into human being. Even then I wondered why monkeys needed labor, and what kind of labor it was.
Then I started believe in God and came to a conclusion that it was God who created both man and woman, as well as all the other living creatures. But every time I heard about dreadful atrocities which human beings performed here and there, I had strong doubts that such a perfect personality as God could create such a beast like animal who, however, looks like a human being. Of course, according to the Bible, the human nature had been perverted by the omnipresent “enemy” who turned out stronger and more resourceful than God himself. After terrible events of September 11, 2001, and tragic events of small Russian town Beslan where hundreds of children were taken hostages I couldn’t believe either in divine originality of human being or in omnipresent “enemy.”
Investigating the hidden causes of terrorism I discovered very interesting theory of anthropogenesis by Russian professor Porshnev. He claimed that not all the human beings are really human. In the result of evolution, having evolved up to the level of Homo sapiens, the kind of troglodytes broke up, according to Porshnev’s classification, to four subspecies:
superanimals who keep all the attributes of adelphophagia;
suggestors who lick the boots of superanimals and carry out the role of a conductor of their man-hating theories, which they impose to
a diffusive type, or grey human mass, which is the third type; and, at last,
neoanthropus – human beings, with their inherent good nature, ideas about good, justice and humanity, which make them the sole applicants for the rank of Homo sapiens.
“But Homo sapiens could not leave the animal world “cleanly,” without “having get themselves dirty.” The straight offspring of those first murderers have remained among the humankind (which were very close to biological paleoanthropus-troglodytes) together with offspring of their imitators - suggestors-manipulators.
As a result of all these processes of anthropogenesis (or to be more exact, anthropomorphosis) taking place in the unstable transitive world of early humankind formation, a very specific family of intelligent beings consisting of four kinds that were very unfriendly towards each other have been formed. In the process of further development these kinds deferred more and more by their behavior.
These kinds have different morphology of their cerebrum cortex. Two of them are predatory kinds with orientation toward people! Thus, the mankind represents by itself not a uniform kind, but family consisting of four kinds, two of which must be recognized to be predatory, and with unnatural orientation of this predation (utmost aggressiveness) toward other people.
Predation is determined here, as the inherent aspiration for utmost or monstrously sublimated aggressiveness in relation to other human beings. And it was this unnatural orientation that did not allowed to form natural habitats of different kinds that resulting in occurrence of tragic symbiosis, which was transformed with course of time in present social order.
The tragedy of Beslan has proven the terrible fact that not all the human beings became humans, for the atrocities performed in that Russian town could be performed only by beast like superanimals but not by human beings. To accept this fact means deny the divine originality of human being, to reject it means to acknowledge that God is not omnipotence if he allows children to underwent such tortures and mockery. What do your think of it?
Thank you.
Vladimir Ratis.

 

Vladamir

Exactly. An individual may be of species homo SapiensSapiens.
That does not mean he/she is a 'human being'.
That status is a function of ACT. Not words or physicallity.


Occam [aka Nikolai]

 

First, let me make my position clear.

Evolution is a FACT. Evolution is a FACT in the same way gravity is a FACT, it is possible that its god hands keeping us from floating off into space, but it would be ridiculous to assume that when looking at the current evidence.

Evolution is in the same boat.

Note that this isn't my opinion, this is accepted by the vast majority of the scientific community.

What is up for debate is the Theory of Evolution. The mechanism behind the FACT that is evolution.

Just another quick point about "survival of the fittest" - fittest in this context is talking about ability to reproduce, no more, no less - the more able a species is to reproduce the more successful they will be.

Nothing else comes into it (although there are lots of factors in how successful reproduction will be!!)

Ok - i'll start here.

Well you are immediately wrong here. Vestigial organs do not necessarily have no function, the function is reduced or different than it was originally - but a function can still exist (example, penguin wings are vestigial, but they still have a function - they help it swim)

 

I have not read the entire thread but I thought I'd add anyway.

We don't know, and for those of you who say you do, I say blah!!!!

Newton from his biography, "I do not know what I may appear to the world, but to myself I seem to have been only a boy playing on the sea-shore, and diverting myself in now and then finding a smoother peble or a prettier shell than ordinary, whilst the great ocean of truth lay all undiscovered before me."

He also gave us 4 rules of reasoning in science.

1) restatement of Okcam's Razor, a little more poetic than William
Nature does nothing in vain, and more is vain when less will serve; for Nature is pleased with simplicity, and affects not the pomp of superfluos causes.

2)to the same natural effects we must, as far as possible, assign the same causes.

3)qualities of bodies which are found to belong to all bodies within the reach of our experiments are to be steemed the universal qualities of all bodies whatsoever.

the most important to Newton
4)In experimental philosophy (the term for science at his time) we are to look upon propositions inferred by general induction from phenomena as accurately or very nearly true notwithsatnding any contrary hypotheses that may be imagined, till such time as other phenomena occur, by which they may either be made more accurate, or liable to exceptions.

or induction may not be evaded by hyptheses.

Newton would not frame a hypotheses for the cause of gravitation because....... "whatever is not deduced from the phenomena is to be called an hypotheses" and hypotheses "have no place" in science.

Newton did not know why gravity acts as it does, he did not know what it is, nor do we. He only knew how it acted.

Why all of this about Newton? Surely the scientist among you would agree that Newton was at least the equal of Darwin in the field of science, and philosophy. The problem is not the theory of evolution the problem is the theory of evolution as a first cause for life. If Newton refused to propose a theory as to the why of gravity, wouldn't he refuse to accept the theory of evolution as first cause for life on the same grounds?

Also chance is a real problem, I can't find my references right now and dare not attempt an explanation without them, if anyone can help explain the chance problem I would be in debted.

 

tangent warning !@!@!@

Gravity works like this: all matter distorts the space around it. On the smallest level of matter (sub-quark), matter is simply a distortion in space with photons running in a never ending pattern (circle, mobius, whatever) until the matter distortion is interrupted and the photons go their merry way. The constant motion of the photons within matter is what causes matter to travel towards other matter:

There is a warp around a large mass of matter (the matter distortion field) that makes everything that moves through the warp alter the direction of its momentum towards the warp central point. Since matter is made up of zillions of photons constantly moving, everything has a "rest mass" which is the momentum of the photons moving within it (in whatever patterns they are moving). You take the rest mass of 2 objects, the gravitational constant (matter distortion field constant), and the distance between the 2 objects and you get the gravitational attraction between the 2 objects.

 

I am no scientist as I am sure is painfully obvious, apologies. Any scientific mis statements are not intentional. These still seem to be observations of whatness, not whyness. Reduced to a mathematical formula for calculation. If it does go to why my point holds, you know this by deduction from direct observation.

Newton did not have access to observe what I assume you are able to observe or have read that others have observed. Still the point was that he was not willing to postulate theories about that which he could not deduce from his observations at that time, a first cause for gravity, if that makes any sense. Darwin however had no such problems with putting forward a hypotheses that his observations were an answer to the first cause for life itself, quite different from deducing that natural selection occurs, which was known before Darwin by animal breeders.

 

I wasn't aware that Darwin claimed evolution to be the first cause of life. I would say that evolution is the first effect of life's existence within a framework of absolute physical laws.

 

Point accepted, I suppose I was attributing to Darwin that which should more accurately be attributed to those who have evolved his theory into a sufficient argument against creation in the context of the origin of life, not the origin of species.