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.
And you just shrug your shoulders. Not surprised that you haven't put forward an explanation.
I asked for you to give some evidence for a common ancestor, and cannot be interpreted either way. You gave me a specific prediction made my evolutionary theory that doesn't rule out a common ancestry or multiple ancestors. It's just a fruitfull prediction.
The theory of evolution has had to be revised, as we've learned more and more. Ask yourself why creationism doesn't have to be revised. The answer is because creationism isn't science.
Do you see me talking about ID or Creationism? We're discussing evolution, I'm agnostic.
I asked for you to give some evidence for a common ancestor, and cannot be interpreted either way. You gave me a specific prediction made my evolutionary theory that doesn't rule out a common ancestry or multiple ancestors. It's just a fruitfull prediction.
Yet you haven't interpreted it in another way. Conclusions drawn from scientific theories are always held tentatively, and if you can present an alternative that addresses these observations better, that you should have been at the Dover trial, because even the top IDist couldn't come up with anything, I am sure they would have appreciated your help nonetheless, being an agnostic. So step up and start presenting. Give me a scientific reason to conclude otherwise.
Actually, most animals do communicate with one another. The fact that humans don't understand the languages of other animals doesn't mean that those languages don't exist. Animals communicate with each other. And other animals use tools. And other animals have complex social structures. We don't actually know the degree that other animals are self-aware. We don't actually understand the complexity that might exist in other animals' methods of communication. The fact that animals do communicate, though, indicates that communication provides an evolutionary advantage, and for humans, with their physical limitations, communication skills probably had to be developed to ensure evolutionary survival.
Communication is not the same as language. A language involves rules of syntax and structure, and it is completely unique to humans. If we arrived via evolution, I would expect all humans to speak the same language.
Do you see me talking about ID or Creationism? We're discussing evolution, I'm agnostic.
And evolution is science. The fact that theories have to be revised is key to science. That's how science works. Evolution has an extraordinary amount of evidence to support the theory. The fact that you are saying that it is insufficient is irrational. Scientific theory only has to be sufficient to explain what we currently know. It doesn't have to explain EVERYTHING. As we add more discovery to what we know, our scientific theories have to explain the new information, or the theories have to change. Just as we've added to our understanding of the nature of light, of energy itself. Theories themselves evolve. To criticize the process of how science evolves is pointless, unless you can offer up another methodology for humans to understand the world around us. And the ONLY alternative methodology I see being offered in this thread is Religion. Agnostic, or not, if that's your alternative, then you have to defend the alternative. And if it isn't your alternative, then what is?
Communication is not the same as language. A language involves rules of syntax and structure, and it is completely unique to humans. If we arrived via evolution, I would expect all humans to speak the same language.
Unless of course, population groups became separated during development.
Creationists on this board really seem to think they're in an intellectual groove right now. The stuff I'm hearing on this topic is so farcical I could literally never distinguish a troll post from a real one.
edit: why do I even share this stuff with indoctrinated fools who lack the cranial capacity to look beyond what they've been told is true? I like to think when the awakening first begins to occur, it's a frightening experience for many creationists. It's unlikely they'd have the intestinal fortitude to fess up and admit they'd seen the light.
Please give an argument why EVR require a shared common ancestor.
Here it is... and notice that it's math.
Retroviruses for the most part attack randomly along the genome. They do tend to go for 'comfort zones' however those are spread across approximately half the 3 billion-base genome. Ergo the chances of us sharing just 1 of these with chimps alone (not even counting gorillas and orangutans) is about 1 in 1.5 billion. To share two would be 1 in 2.25 quintillion. To share 10 would be 1 in... a number larger than all the particles in the entire visible universe.
As of 2000 (the last time I checked) we shared more than a dozen.
The technical term for this to be explained any other way than common ancestry is, "impossible."
It gets worse... the nested pattern of ERVs across living mammals correspond exactly to the pattern indicated by orthodox genetic comparisons, by comparative anatomy, and by the fossil record. If evolution were not true, there is no reasonable explanation (including "intelligent design") as to why the pattern of ERVs should match the others.
Now... the converse in terms of creationism is this.
All you need do to disprove common ancestry is find some ERV's in humans and another organism (any single one on the planet you like) that share any of these genetic markers with humans in a manner inconsistent with nested hierachies and genetic drift. For example, if you found a bunch of ape-specific ERV's *at orthologous positions* in a cat, or maybe a cactus, then evolution would be falsified.
Communication is not the same as language. A language involves rules of syntax and structure, and it is completely unique to humans. If we arrived via evolution, I would expect all humans to speak the same language.
Language is nothing more than a framework to explain how communication is accomplished. We've already discovered that whale song has syntax and structure, so evidently language isn't completely unique to humans. I doubt you could explain the syntax and structure of Russian. Because you don't speak Russian. And I can't explain the language of ants. Because I don't speak that language. And your last sentence is just not logical. Even humans in the same country, growing up speaking the same language, develop regional differences that are distinct to linguists. Everytime I go to Miami, I have to develop my ear to understand the English being spoken around me. If I'm listening to someone from Australia, I am entranced by the rhythm of the speech, but the meaning often escapes me.
Creatures of all varieties communicate, and those that are unaware of that, are just not very informed. Even individual cells communicate.
To try and equate the chemical communication of cells with a human language is to demonstrate an ignorance so profound as to be downright funny.
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.
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.
