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.
Your lack of understanding of the mechanism of DNA mutation as the driver for all evolution makes communicating with you (and people like the narrator) impossible. The ignorance is too great. There is no such thing as a " difference in "kind." The artificial labels we impose on the different degrees of DNA change are irrelevant to the mechanism of evolution itself. Organisms become different because their DNA changes. When you have a big enough change in DNA you get what you want to call a change of "kind" . . . but it is nothing more than a change in DNA over a longer time period than we can observe. The changes over a time period we can observe validate the MECHANISM. It is just a matter of extrapolating to the longer time frames. There is nothing different happening during the longer time periods . . . just more of the same. We are all organisms based on DNA and our differences are the result of changes in that DNA, period. There are no "kinds" that are different . . . just DNA differences.
Why don't apply the same standard of evidence to your religious beliefs? There is infinitely more evidence for evolution than for god.
Not from my perspective. If evolution was real, food shouldn't be so enjoyable, (food is only necessary for survival, in fact, making food enjoyable would make humans more likely to overeat, natural selection should have weeded out that trait) sex wouldn't have an element of intimacy and pleasure, and other animal species would have developed uniquely human characteristics like the ability to use our vocal cords, tongue and palette to create speech and language.
All your evidence for evolution still can't explain how or why human language evolved. Not on that, but drastically different languages within the same species.
Location: In a little house on the prairie - literally
10,202 posts, read 7,959,569 times
Reputation: 4561
Quote:
Originally Posted by jeffbase40
Difference between your examples and evolution is that your examples are observable in the present. Unless you have a film camera documenting the varying stages of human evolution and hominid species through thousands of year then you can not state with 100% certainly that man evolved.
There is a plethora of scientific evidence that points towards evolution, and each new finding reinforces the previous ones.
But then you don't understand science, you have admitted that.
The bible you cherish so much as a true accounting of an ancient, bronzed aged, wandering, superstitious desert tribe can't even be substantiated on some its major points, like millions of Jews living in Egypt.
Didn't happen, never did, no record, either written or archaeological.
Oh, BTW, the Nile never dried up as predicted either.
Not from my perspective. If evolution was real, food shouldn't be so enjoyable, (food is only necessary for survival, in fact, making food enjoyable would make humans more likely to overeat, natural selection should have weeded out that trait) sex wouldn't have an element of intimacy and pleasure, and other animal species would have developed uniquely human characteristics like the ability to use our vocal cords, tongue and palette to create speech and language.
All your evidence for evolution still can't explain how or why human language evolved. Not on that, but drastically different languages within the same species.
This has got to be one of the most idiotic posts I have ever read on C-D. Please refrain from posting opinions on any science what so ever.
There is a plethora of scientific evidence that points towards evolution, and each new finding reinforces the previous ones.
But then you don't understand science, you have admitted that.
The bible you cherish so much as a true accounting of an ancient, bronzed aged, wandering, superstitious desert tribe can't even be substantiated on some its major points, like millions of Jews living in Egypt.
Didn't happen, never did, no record, either written or archaeological.
Would you honestly consider for a second any evidence that discounts evolution? I don't think so because it is in your best interest for evolution to be true. Likewise, I suspect that this plethora of evidence is taited by biased atheist scientists. It doesn't matter how many fossils you found. You still can't prove that evolution is real.
As for the Bible, there are hundreds of archaeological finds which support, never disprove the Bible. Isn't that a wee bit concidential if it is just a book of myths? Furthermore, I find it remarkable that an isolated desert tribe of people were able to create stories with accurate intricate details regarding Egyptian culture and social structure as seen with the story of Joseph. That is if I went with your perspective that it is just a work of fiction.
I also find it amusingly hypocritical that atheists will gladly use the field of archaeology as a talking point whenever it fits their agenda. If there is a lack of evidence, oh yea, this field is a measure of evidence, but if there are archaeological finds that support the Bible then the same atheists will say oh well, Spiderman lived in real cities etc....
Quote:
Originally Posted by cupper3
Oh, BTW, the Nile never dried up as predicted either.
Funny stories that book tells sometimes.
Did the Bible specifically say the Nile would dry up?
Not from my perspective. If evolution was real, food shouldn't be so enjoyable, (food is only necessary for survival, in fact, making food enjoyable would make humans more likely to overeat, natural selection should have weeded out that trait) sex wouldn't have an element of intimacy and pleasure, and other animal species would have developed uniquely human characteristics like the ability to use our vocal cords, tongue and palette to create speech and language.
All your evidence for evolution still can't explain how or why human language evolved. Not on that, but drastically different languages within the same species.
Wait a second... So you're basing the truth or false of evolution on your own perspectives and assumptions as to what you think should or shouldn't be true about our likes and dislikes? There are several problems in this line of reasoning as well as several other chief flaws in your argument.
1. You insist that things like food shouldn't be enjoyable because humans would be more likely to overeat. The problem with this is that it's a very narrow minded view of the forces that shape our affinity for taste. Tastebuds most likely developed as a way to root out rotten, poisonous, or tainted foodstuffs. If we were to place an imaginary scale down and lump all the benefits of having this ability to taste perished foodstuffs against not being able to taste perished foodstuffs, the survival advantage of being able to taste the good and bad would most likely outweigh not being able to taste the good and bad. This does not mean our tastebuds are perfect specimens able to detect small specimens of E. coli but rather, generally speaking, whether a food is safe to eat or not. As well, our tastebuds probably do have some small way of telling our bodies we are getting the right nourishment or what we need to be looking out for to get the right nourishment. This probably outweighs the scenario where a million years from their development, food would become over-abundant and we'd all be walking fat bodies.
2. I don't understand why you say sex wouldn't be pleasurable and intimate? The responsibilities of sex are not necessarily strictly for procreation in many different types of species, including humans. Sure, it is the cause of reproduction but some would argue that, especially in humans (and bonobos too), that sex is more about bonding and creating intimate relationships than it is about procreation. The overwhelming majority of humans, if not all humans, suffer when they have no human relationships and no deep connections. It is very obvious that sex, for all its misperceptions by society, is a method for developing some of the deepest connections amongst fellow humans.
3. You don't explain why other animals species would have developed the use of speech and language. You just insist that it should have happened and because it didn't, evolution isn't true.Things happen evolutionary because there are environmental pressures that select for the minor variations in living things. Those... things... come at a cost which is sometimes prohibitive and sometimes acceptable. One would have to be an ignorant fool to insist that we are the only beings with a form of communication amongst our own species. My three dogs probably have a better understanding of the English language than most eighth graders (based on our recent scores on the world scene, I believe they may be better at science too). Their ability to communicate amongst themselves is uncanny. But aside from my anecdotal experiences with my own dogs, one only has to look at the whoops of the bonobos, the howls of the wolves, the wails of the whales, and the chipper chirping of dolphins to see that we are not the only ones with a language and ability to communicate.
Maybe because the dolphins aren't speaking a language you find comfortable with from your own perch as a lofty human being, you frown upon it, but that only points out your own faults as a shallow thinking individual.
The development of palettes and language and all that other good stuff comes at a cost. What that cost is depends on the environment in which it develops. As hunter-gatherers, our need to communicate would have been very important. As well, it was very much likely that our ancestors' invention of fire allowed us to diminish our jaw size while increasing our brain cases - allowing room for larger frontal lobes (the reasoning centers of our brains).
While we have evidences for all of these things, we can surely debate the intricacies of why something developed or didn't develop. Maybe our brains could have been slightly bigger and we wouldn't be off killing each other so much if only the increased size of our heads would fit through the birth canals of our mothers. Maybe if we had asbestos lined lungs and chambers in our throats for mixing flammable chemicals, we could breathe fire and cook our own food quickly - like dragons. Costly, sure, but how cool would that be?! The results of the shaping of evolution have nothing to do with what you THINK should have happened to prove it true. It happened. Because it didn't line up with your opinion of what should have happened, only makes your opinion irrelevant and ineffectual.
Location: In a little house on the prairie - literally
10,202 posts, read 7,959,569 times
Reputation: 4561
Quote:
Originally Posted by jeffbase40
Would you honestly consider for a second any evidence that discounts evolution? I don't think so because it is in your best interest for evolution to be true. Likewise, I suspect that this plethora of evidence is taited by biased atheist scientists. It doesn't matter how many fossils you found. You still can't prove that evolution is real.
Yeah, it's pretty well been proven, evolution is real, but then, you don't understand that science.
Quote:
As for the Bible, there are hundreds of archaeological finds which support, never disprove the Bible. Isn't that a wee bit concidential if it is just a book of myths? Furthermore, I find it remarkable that an isolated desert tribe of people were able to create stories with accurate intricate details regarding Egyptian culture and social structure as seen with the story of Joseph. That is if I went with your perspective that it is just a work of fiction.
Where is the archaeological or written record, outside of the bible, that millions of Jews lived in Egypt as slaves, and then wandered around for a substantial period of time in the Sinai?
It just doesn't exist.
Quote:
Did the Bible specifically say the Nile would dry up?
Get to know your bible.
Ezekiel 30:12, Isaiah 19:5, and indirectly, in Zechariah.
That's the first problem right there. Science is not a matter of perspective.
Quote:
Originally Posted by jeffbase40
If evolution was real, food shouldn't be so enjoyable, (food is only necessary for survival, in fact, making food enjoyable would make humans more likely to overeat, natural selection should have weeded out that trait)
If you ate only what is to be found in nature, food would NOT be so enjoyable. The average person doesn't gorge themselves on vegetables, after all. Food only seems enjoyable because we've invented things like chocolate cake, pizza, and donuts ... but you're not going to find a tree growing donuts or be able to plant cake seeds to get a crop of cake. Most foods that are entirely natural are bland, boring, and even taste like crap with the exception of certain fruits.
Quote:
Originally Posted by jeffbase40
sex wouldn't have an element of intimacy and pleasure,
Why wouldn't it? If sex is the means through which we continue the species, enjoyable sex is a fantastic evolutionary advantage - because we would have sex more often thus providing greater chances of producing offspring. How intimate sex is depends on the person - it is a contrivance considering not all sex is intimate. Just ask any prostitute or nymphomaniac.
Quote:
Originally Posted by jeffbase40
and other animal species would have developed uniquely human characteristics like the ability to use our vocal cords, tongue and palette to create speech and language.
Evolution doesn't flow like a pyramid - all of the diverse species trying to evolve into the same, singular species. There's no reason to believe that any species at all would ultimately develop vocal chords let alone humans. And there are many animals that have evolved traits that would have been really keen for humans to have. Sure would be nice to fly, don't you think? Or sprint at 60 mph? Or to hold your breath like a dolphin? Even teeth that grow back would be a big help.
The bottom line is that there is no reason to believe that evolution is going to produce one singular super-creature that has all of the good benefits of an organic creature while possessing none of the bad ones. Everything is a trade-off. For instance, our big brains require big heads. Skulls are heavy and need to be strong enough to prevent easy brain damage. That means we're too heavy to effectively fly. We trade flight for intelligence - in a manner of speaking.
Quote:
Originally Posted by jeffbase40
All your evidence for evolution still can't explain how or why human language evolved. Not on that, but drastically different languages within the same species.
So does that mean we should just believe, then, that languages are the result of some god getting angry (wow, an angry god, who'd've thunk it?) over a bunch of idiots getting together to build a tower to Heaven? I mean, gee whiz, it's not like we don't have skyscrapers now that are pushing half a mile tall, far FAR taller than anything people in the Bronze Age could have ever constructed, but you don't see good ol' angry-pants getting upset over that.
That's the first problem right there. Science is not a matter of perspective.
Right cuz every scientist ALWAYS agrees on findings as one big unit, and there is never any debate, huh?
Quote:
Originally Posted by Shirina
If you ate only what is to be found in nature, food would NOT be so enjoyable. The average person doesn't gorge themselves on vegetables, after all. Food only seems enjoyable because we've invented things like chocolate cake, pizza, and donuts ... but you're not going to find a tree growing donuts or be able to plant cake seeds to get a crop of cake. Most foods that are entirely natural are bland, boring, and even taste like crap with the exception of certain fruits.
Funny how our bodies are drawn to the things that are damaging, even in food. Sounds more like sin nature to me.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Shirina
Why wouldn't it? If sex is the means through which we continue the species, enjoyable sex is a fantastic evolutionary advantage - because we would have sex more often thus providing greater chances of producing offspring. How intimate sex is depends on the person - it is a contrivance considering not all sex is intimate. Just ask any prostitute or nymphomaniac.
Wow it almost is sounding like evolution has a brain. It decided one day that just creating a mechanism to fertilize an egg wasn't good enough. So it re-engineered the body to make it pleasurable. Also, if people would obey God's laws on sex, intimacy would not be lost. Obviously, if you share your body with multiple partners, intimacy goes away. No wonder the divorce rate is high.
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.
