U.S. CitiesCity-Data Forum Index
Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Great Debates
 [Register]
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
View detailed profile (Advanced) or search
site with Google Custom Search

Search Forums  (Advanced)
 
Old 02-21-2009, 04:36 PM
 
681 posts, read 2,499,812 times
Reputation: 526

Advertisements

Quote:
Originally Posted by nevergoingback View Post
Now I've heard it all on this thread. Big shocker you don't support decriminalization. Ignorance is bliss. Your "beliefs" are painting a pretty funny picture.
Also not surprised about your profession.
I could disprove evolution for you but maybe you should look at OhioUberAlles' post right above this one that you posted. The whole "there are no intermediate stages of evolution observable today" is half of my argument.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message

 
Old 02-21-2009, 04:47 PM
 
19,081 posts, read 21,198,868 times
Reputation: 13392
Quote:
Originally Posted by OhioUberAlles View Post
My chemistry professor spent most of one class talking about how the Big Bang is a hoax and how God made the Universe. He explained that most scientists have very few answers and they just want to use some terms such as "Big Bang" as a cop-out to avoid having to answer tough questions about their ideas.
Again, you don't seem to understand the difference between the big bang and the theory of evolution (ToE) . I'm not a physicist so I can't really speak of the big bang but I know there is much controversy surrounding it. OTOH, from what I've been reading, it seems like a reasonable model. I would very much enjoy a point by point discussion if you're up for it. Maybe there are some physicists on the board that could pipe in.

Either way, IRT to controversy, this is not the case with the theory of evolution. It is an accepted reality within the scientific community. Theistic evolution is what you will largely find with theist scientists. The ToE does not demand a rejection of your deity of choice nor does it require mechanisms of abiogenesis. It's a matter of adaptation via mutation.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 02-21-2009, 04:49 PM
 
19,081 posts, read 21,198,868 times
Reputation: 13392
Quote:
Originally Posted by NWPAguy View Post
I could disprove evolution for you but maybe you should look at OhioUberAlles' post right above this one that you posted. The whole "there are no intermediate stages of evolution observable today" is half of my argument.
I'll ask the same of you. What do you think of the argument IRT chromosome 2 fusion?
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 02-21-2009, 05:06 PM
 
19,081 posts, read 21,198,868 times
Reputation: 13392
Quote:
Originally Posted by OhioUberAlles View Post
Because we wear nice clothing, we shave, keep our hair neat and trimmed, and we live in houses as opposed to caves.

This idea that cave-men were a separate species is simply junk science. There is no merit to that view.

Do you have any substantive proof that cave-men were physically different from modern men aside from the dirty and hard look that comes from living in a cave?
I'm not sure what constitutes caveman but you might appreciate this.

http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/comdesc/images/hominids2.jpg (broken link)

Entries are:
A) Pan troglodytes, chimpanzee, modern
B) Australopithecus africanus, STS 5, 2.6 My
C) Australopithecus africanus, STS 71, 2.5 My
D) Homo habilis, KNM-ER 1813, 1.9 My
E) Homo habilis, OH24, 1.8 My
F) Homo rudolfensis, KNM-ER 1470, 1.8 My
G) Homo erectus, Dmanisi cranium D2700, 1.75 My
H) Homo ergaster (early H. erectus), KNM-ER 3733, 1.75 My
I) Homo heidelbergensis, "Rhodesia man," 300,000 - 125,000 y
J) Homo sapiens neanderthalensis, La Ferrassie 1, 70,000 y
K) Homo sapiens neanderthalensis, La Chappelle-aux-Saints, 60,000 y
L) Homo sapiens neanderthalensis, Le Moustier, 45,000 y
M) Homo sapiens sapiens, Cro-Magnon I, 30,000 y
N) Homo sapiens sapiens, modern
http://www.anth.ucsb.edu/projects/human/

I hit submit before I was finished posting and I'm going to add to it, just give me a minute...

eta: any way, this information is pretty easy to get given the many forums that discuss creation vs evolution and I frequent a forum with some bright scientists that provide great, already collected, information.

The above was compiled by thedreadedathiest and I'll quote him out of laziness...

"With the exception of the first skull, a modern chimpanzee for comparison purposes, all the skulls are arranged in chronological order. The blue pieces in the skulls are reconstructions, everything else is original fossil material. The progression should be obvious. Decreasing upper jaw protrusion, increasing brain cavity size, the changing brow ridges… on some other skulls (examples below) where dental records are more intact changing size of the canines is also evident.
...
I should also mention that the consensus view today is that the Neanderthal were not direct ancestors to modern humans but more like cousins. A very recent branch off of the hominid line which subsequently went extinct."

Last edited by Braunwyn; 02-21-2009 at 05:16 PM..
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 02-21-2009, 05:11 PM
 
Location: Ohio
1,008 posts, read 640,290 times
Reputation: 250
Quote:
Originally Posted by Braunwyn View Post
I'm not sure what constitutes caveman but you might appreciate this.



Entries are:
A) Pan troglodytes, chimpanzee, modern
B) Australopithecus africanus, STS 5, 2.6 My
C) Australopithecus africanus, STS 71, 2.5 My
D) Homo habilis, KNM-ER 1813, 1.9 My
E) Homo habilis, OH24, 1.8 My
F) Homo rudolfensis, KNM-ER 1470, 1.8 My
G) Homo erectus, Dmanisi cranium D2700, 1.75 My
H) Homo ergaster (early H. erectus), KNM-ER 3733, 1.75 My
I) Homo heidelbergensis, "Rhodesia man," 300,000 - 125,000 y
J) Homo sapiens neanderthalensis, La Ferrassie 1, 70,000 y
K) Homo sapiens neanderthalensis, La Chappelle-aux-Saints, 60,000 y
L) Homo sapiens neanderthalensis, Le Moustier, 45,000 y
M) Homo sapiens sapiens, Cro-Magnon I, 30,000 y
N) Homo sapiens sapiens, modern


Strong delusions that they should believe a lie...

You never answered the issue of why we aren't seeing evolution right now... Surely some monkeys would have started evolving in a staggered fashion... If you believe we are the product of evolution, say the monkeys that became what we are today began evolving 150,000 years ago, and some other monkeys started about 149,000 years ago. Shouldn't the ones that got the late state be catching up by now? We should be able to see it, right? Unless you believe in punctuated equilibrium, which is really something of a cop-out.

Once I was beyond the junior high level, I've never encountered a science teacher, science professor, or a scientist who actually believed in evolution. My Chemistry professor did not believe in evolution and neither did my Physics professor. As for high school, my chemistry teacher remarked I was the best chemistry student of all of his chemistry students of all of his classes. The last science professor/teacher/etc (who I interacted with/had teach a class I was in) I recall who believed in evolution was a biology teacher from high school.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 02-21-2009, 05:38 PM
 
Location: The Netherlands
8,567 posts, read 14,518,646 times
Reputation: 1573
Originally Posted by fungame
Quote:
You can't become addicted to weed for the 50th time.....
Dh, next you'll be tellin' me that it also is impossible to become addicted to sex or food.
Since addiction is a-priori not relevant to a species' survival becoming addicted can only be a sign of stupidity.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 02-21-2009, 05:54 PM
 
19,081 posts, read 21,198,868 times
Reputation: 13392
I lost my last post! I hate that.

Quote:
Originally Posted by OhioUberAlles View Post
Strong delusions that they should believe a lie...
So, what specific issue are you taking with this fossil record?

Quote:
You never answered the issue of why we aren't seeing evolution right now... Surely some monkeys would have started evolving in a staggered fashion...
What do you mean evolving in a staggering fashion? Evolution takes thousands of years for higher animals. That is why geneticists study fruit flies. They have a short life span. Same goes for bacteria. One of the links I provided earlier covers bacteria quite well.

Quote:
If you believe we are the product of evolution, say the monkeys that became what we are today began evolving 150,000 years ago, and some other monkeys started about 149,000 years ago. Shouldn't the ones that got the late state be catching up by now? We should be able to see it, right? Unless you believe in punctuated equilibrium, which is really something of a cop-out.
Monkeys are our cousins, not our predecessors. We share a common ancestor. This graphic might help...




Quote:
Once I was beyond the junior high level, I've never encountered a science teacher, science professor, or a scientist who actually believed in evolution. My Chemistry professor did not believe in evolution and neither did my Physics professor. As for high school, my chemistry teacher remarked I was the best chemistry student of all of his chemistry students of all of his classes. The last science professor/teacher/etc (who I interacted with/had teach a class I was in) I recall who believed in evolution was a biology teacher from high school.
I don't know what to tell you about your experiences. I suspect your recal might be off since you don't really grasp the differences between ToE and the big bang model. The scientific community has sided with evolution, despite what you think your HS chem teachers position is/was. I'm glad you did well in your chem class though. Again, a majority of scientists agree. You may not believe it, and that's fine. Talk about the science if you have an issue with it. If you don't understand it, or are unaware, check out the links I provided. The evidence for evolution is in the literature. There's a wealth of information at your finger tips.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 02-21-2009, 05:59 PM
 
Location: Ohio
1,008 posts, read 640,290 times
Reputation: 250
Quote:
Originally Posted by Braunwyn View Post


What do you mean evolving in a staggering fashion? Evolution takes thousands of years for higher animals. That is why geneticists study fruit flies. They have a short life span. Same goes for bacteria. One of the links I provided earlier covers bacteria quite well.
Imagine there is a race going on, some people start when the pistol is fired, some start 20-30 seconds later. Eventually everybody should make it past the finish line, right? Why aren't the primitive men and/or apes that you suggest are our ancestors, who began the evolution process a bit later in the game, catching up and arriving at where we are now? If they were 1,500 years or 2,000 years late in regards to mutations, shouldn't they be catching up by now? We should be able to witness some amount of apes and primitive men arriving at the point where we are now at, or at the point where we were at 1,500 years ago (or however far ahead of them we presently are, they should be X years behind us, so they should now be where we were at X years ago), right?
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 02-21-2009, 06:00 PM
 
19,081 posts, read 21,198,868 times
Reputation: 13392
I'm taking this from TheDreadedAtheist as well. Thanks, TDA. I would just link to the forum, but I don't know if that's allowed on this site. If someone knows, tell me, and I'll just link the thread I'm drawing from. I know these quotes are long, but it's far better than I could do.

"The Nested Hierarchy.

This is one of the most fundamental concepts which needs to be properly understood if you want to properly grasp the evidence for evolution. It describes the structure of the pattern of biological diversity produced by an evolutionary process. Evolution is the only process which predicts and explains such a pattern.

The nested hierarchy is a consequence of the way in which genetically heritable traits are transmitted from generation to generation. For an illustration, see the following (animated gif):

http://img267.imageshack.us/img267/4...nimated0in.gif

“NGT” represents a point at which a new genetic trait is introduced to a population which through natural selection comes to be spread throughout that population to the point where it reaches fixation in the genome. From that point on it will be heritable by all the future generations of that population. Such an event can occur at any time, in any group, but due to the nature of biological reproduction and genetic heritability it can be propagated only “downstream” of the point at which it is introduced. So, the earlier in the process a new trait is acquired, the wider a cross-section of the final population it will be present in. Any traits acquired after that point will be found grouped into smaller and smaller cross-sections of the population and always completely contained within the groupings of earlier acquired traits. For example, in an evolutionary scenario we never expect to see something like this:

http://img278.imageshack.us/img278/4569/phylozoomednever0gf.gif (broken link)

There is no way an “ABCF” combination could coexist with the other final products listed there. There is no evolutionary pathway for producing both that combination and the others shown. (That red dotted line does not happen in an evolutionary framework)

To contrast, if we were examining the products of a common design process we not only could, but would expect to see such outcomes all the time. If while working it’s way along those branching design paths a designer came up at some point with the “C” trait and noticed… “hey, this works better than anything I’m using over on that “AF” development line” then of course any designer would utilize that knowledge in his other designs. For example: The human eye vs. the octopus eye. The eyes on an octopus are far superior in design to our eyes. Their optic nerves attach in a manner which does not produce a blind spot in their vision, that same attachment anchors their retinas, and because all the nerve connections come in through the rear of the eye they do not degrade visual acuity. In our eyes the optics nerve pokes through the back of the eye causing a blind spot which our brains must constantly correct for, because our retinas are not anchored by the nerve attachments a sharp blow to the head can detach them, and because the nerve attachments are in the front they get in the way of incoming light screwing up our visual acuity. Any designer who knew how to build an octopus eye would know there was a better way to design an eye than that. The evidence indicates however that the octopus evolutionary path simply experienced optical development which was superior to anything that occurred in human ancestry after the two branched off from each other… and after that branching occurred there was no way in which to share the advances experienced on one line with the other. Not within an evolutionary framework.

Now, what do we see when we look at the pattern of biological diversity present today? Here’s an example using 30 major examples (animated gif, modified from the universal phylogenetic tree diagram in Doug Theobald’s “29 evidences for macroevolution”. Takes a little while to cycle through.)

http://i82.photobucket.com/albums/j243/gco...al_Animated.gif

http://i82.photobucket.com/albums/j243/gco...l_Animated2.gif

As you can see, a distinctive nested hierarchical pattern, precisely what is predicted and explained by an evolutionary development process. No other process has ever been proposed that would produce that particular distinctive pattern. I am quite aware that someone can now come along and say “well a designer could have designed it so that it made that pattern on purpose” but the point is that it doesn’t matter what pattern was found you could always say the same thing. It’s an unfalsifiable hypothesis... which is another way of saying a completely useless answer. It tells us nothing. At all. It’s the same as saying “I hereby predict we will find… something!” and then when we do find “something” pointing out how the findings are completely consistent with your “theory”.

Evolution on the other hand makes a very specific prediction which is a necessary consequence of the mechanisms it describes… a prediction which, if the theory were wrong, could very easily be disproven. That prediction is however specifically confirmed by the data. That’s considered very powerful evidence that a theory has it right.

What is considered even more powerful evidence is that the fossil record overlays the nested hierarchical pattern created by the phylogenetic groupings of modern species which is shown above to an extremely high degree of accuracy. The innermost (and therefore within an evolutionary framework, latest to be introduced) groupings of genetic characteristics are the latest to have representation within the fossil record… etc…

This excellent cross-correlation of data between modern biological diversity and the fossil record is known as the twin nested hierarchy. "

~TDA
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 02-21-2009, 06:02 PM
 
Location: Ohio
1,008 posts, read 640,290 times
Reputation: 250
Quote:
Originally Posted by Braunwyn View Post
I don't know what to tell you about your experiences. I suspect your recal might be off since you don't really grasp the differences between ToE and the big bang model. The scientific community has sided with evolution, despite what you think your HS chem teachers position is/was. I'm glad you did well in your chem class though. Again, a majority of scientists agree. You may not believe it, and that's fine. Talk about the science if you have an issue with it. If you don't understand it, or are unaware, check out the links I provided. The evidence for evolution is in the literature. There's a wealth of information at your finger tips.

I am saying that the Big Bang and Evolution are both bunk. I've only encountered one or two scientists/teachers/professors who believed in either, saying nothing of both. My Chemistry professor did not believe in either, I don't believe my Physics teacher believed in either, my Chemistry teacher believed in both (if I recall correctly), and my Biology teacher certainly believed in evolution.

My Physics professor kept a bible with him and he and I used to discuss scripture, read from Revelation, Genesis, etc.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.

Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.


Reply
Please update this thread with any new information or opinions. This open thread is still read by thousands of people, so we encourage all additional points of view.

Quick Reply
Message:

Over $104,000 in prizes was already given out to active posters on our forum and additional giveaways are planned!

Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Great Debates
Follow City-Data.com founder on our Forum or

All times are GMT -6.

2005-2018, Advameg, Inc.

City-Data.com - Archive 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35 - Top