Evolution?

[Blaze]

The burden of proof falls on whoever wants to disprove the other side. Here, you make the claim that all we see in evolution is the sole cause of where we are as a life supporting planet today.

Prove it.

Prove NOT that evolution happened, but that it happened in a logical, probable direction, and required NO outside intervention to cause it to get to where it is.

Likewise, I don't have to prove my side till you ask me to. As far as I'm concerned, the concept that evolution was intelligently driven to where it is now is by far the most logical and obviously correct answer. And I can offer lots of proof.

There are only one species of "Homo" genus beings left alive on the planet. All others died out as evolutionary dead ends. OTHER Genuses have dozens, possibly hundreds of species subclassed therein. Why should it be different for us than for them? It shouldn't be. That makes NO sense whatsoever. All the subspecies and genus that came before evolved so that they became those species, indicating those species were stronger than those that came before. Why did they die out when others did not? ALL of them. Records show there were dozens of homo-genuses at one time or another. It stands to reason that the ONLY reason species that had evolved for that long, that were so SIMILAR to the now dominant organism on the planet, should die out is because something or someone declared for them to.

[Schmuck]

[quote="Blaze";p="500562"]As you ALL know, the simplest explanation tends to be the most correct. So, what's more simple, I ask you? That evolution just happened, over a couple billion years of life-form development, to go to EXACTLY where we are today? Exactly, compared to the nearly infinite other possibilities that exist? Or is it more simple to suppose that a creator working through the means of evolution caused us to come to where we are?

To be honest, the latter sounds much more likely to ME. A 1 in 2 chance rather than a 1 in infinity.
[/quote]

I haven't trawled through the entire thread, so apologies if this has already been refuted.
How is a creator simple? For a creator to direct evolution, you need evolution. You also need a means by which the creator can interfere. then you would need to ask why the creator is doing it. Also, where did the creator come from in the first place. It seems quite complex to me.

Posted Tue May 31, 2005 10:44 am:

[quote="Blaze";p="502626"]The burden of proof falls on whoever wants to disprove the other side. Here, you make the claim that all we see in evolution is the sole cause of where we are as a life supporting planet today.

...

Likewise, I don't have to prove my side till you ask me to.
[/quote]

The burden of proof falls on whoever is making any claims. as soon as you hypothesise the existence of a creator, you should be putting forward evidence to support that.

[Blaze]

So I should be preaching to all the converted?

[Martin Blank]

The great "Lucy" was shown to be actually a combination of cow, pigs, and a variety of other such bones, but you won't here top professors say that.

Can you show that this first-discovered -- and not unique -- example of Australopithecus afarensis is not what it is claimed? I can't find anything that talks about this idea. Lucy looked fairly humanoid to my admittedly-untrained eye, but perhaps you can see a cow or a pig in there? Perhaps in the jawbone, or in the apelike hip structure?

There is no way to prove PE since it is also a "theory" which can't be scientifically proven, yet evolutionist hold to it.

Theories cannot be proven. They may have observational evidence which strongly supports them, even to the point where they are essentially 'fact' in practical terms, and yet they can all be disproven. Your quoting of the word suggests that you do not understand the meaning of it.

You can't test evolution because it took millions of years, right, so how is that science and not a new type of faith, a believe without evidence.

I think that since you can't conceive of a test that would satisfy your doubt, you therefore believe that it cannot be tested. However, there are others who believe that observational evidence in the fossil record provides a great deal of evidence in favor of evolution.

Microevolution has been observed, and in fact many creationists accept its presence. Macroevolution is harder to show. The trouble is that it takes place, as you say, over tens or hundreds of thousands of years, and many creationists demand what seems to be daily evidence of the transition. If one were to trace the expected lineage of humans back to Lucy, or even earlier, and place the skeletons side-by-side where the changes over time can be seen, that will usually not be enough evidence for them.

[quote="Blaze";p="502626"]The burden of proof falls on whoever wants to disprove the other side. Here, you make the claim that all we see in evolution is the sole cause of where we are as a life supporting planet today.[/quote]
The burden of refuting disproof falls on those who defend a particular theory. As I have stated already, no theory can be proven, only disproven.

As far as I'm concerned, the concept that evolution was intelligently driven to where it is now is by far the most logical and obviously correct answer. And I can offer lots of proof.

I submit that much of the reason that it makes more sense to you is that it is more comforting to believe in a benevolent, all-known, all-powerful entity that looks over you and directs things in your best interest, and has personally guided things in such a way as to produce you, rather than to believe that you were either the result of chance, or that you are the result of a series of complex chemical reactions.

There are only one species of "Homo" genus beings left alive on the planet. All others died out as evolutionary dead ends.

Or evolved into other forms.

OTHER Genuses have dozens, possibly hundreds of species subclassed therein. Why should it be different for us than for them? It shouldn't be. That makes NO sense whatsoever.

Why does it not make sense? You're using a false generalization. The majority of the moving multi-celled creatures on this planet have more than four limbs -- why not the rest of us? The majority of organisms on this planet live underwater -- why not the rest of us? Because we evolved separately to handle our specific environments.

Having few, or even a single member of a given genus is not unique to the genus Homo. The elephant genus Elephas (E. maximus, the Indian elephant) has only a single species, and so does the African elephant (genus Loxodonta, sp. L. africana).

All the subspecies and genus that came before evolved so that they became those species, indicating those species were stronger than those that came before. Why did they die out when others did not? ALL of them.

Correction: They were better suited for their environments than those that came before. There's a difference. When circumstances change, the needs of the resident life of an area must adapt. Those that cannot adapt will not survive.

Records show there were dozens of homo-genuses at one time or another.

There have been a mere nine species of genus Homo identified thus far: rudolfensis, habilis, ergaster, erectus, floresiensis, heidelbergensis, neanderthalensis, and sapiens.

Edit: Yes, I really can count above eight. -- Martin

It stands to reason that the ONLY reason species that had evolved for that long, that were so SIMILAR to the now dominant organism on the planet, should die out is because something or someone declared for them to.

As I said above, as circumstances shifted, the creatures would need to adapt or perish. As the evolution of what would eventually become H. sapiens continued, it adapted to various realities, some of which I have heard anecdotal evidence of being sighted in the wild.

As the forests receded to be replaced by savannah, hominids learned to walk more upright to present a smaller surface area to the sun -- something seen occasionally in apes living on the savannah (anecdotal). Foods shifted from berries to nuts, which required a gradual reshaping of the jaw to handle the tougher materials. These nuts, however, provided additional fats and proteins that would be used to improve the brain. Along the way, the use of tools developed, and so did the idea of using furs from other creatures to deal with cold weather. A few tools and some furs were all that were required to start humans out on a journey that would send them all over the planet over the course of a few tens of thousands of years.

And even after that journey began, yet another isolated species -- H. floresiensis, the 'hobbit-man' discovered recently -- would develop on its own, only to die out, perhaps from inbreeding, perhaps from lack of resources, perhaps from disease, or perhaps from something else unexpected.

Had trade routes and the like not been established, then perhaps the men that migrated to the Americas may have developed into a new subspecies on their own. There are visible differences in the peoples that developed in Africa, Europe, Asia, and the Americas that cannot be denied. It's hard to study these differences without being labeled a racist, but you can't deny that they exist. Asians have epicanthic folds; Africans tend to have shorter, curly hair; Europeans have almost pigmentless skin. These had to have developed for a reason, whether saving energy (shorter hair, or not creating more melanin than necessary for the environment) or having some practical use based on the climate (epicanthic folds perhaps were better-suited for windy areas).

[Blaze]

Alright, I will submit that there are only 9 species of Homo-genus hominids. (Sapiens Sapiens for modern man). The remainder were all Australopithicus.

Or evolved into other forms.

If that's the case, then where are they? We can't have evolved from more than one other ancestor, and all the evidence shows that not ALL Homonid species are directly related. Some of the Australophithicus sprang up from one genetic line, others from another. The only times in history where we see dieoffs of some species of a genus line, pretty much the ENTIRE genus line has been killed off. That's why we don't still have SOME dinosaurs (Barring Crocodiles, as I said, pretty much) still running around today. It has not really been until the evolution of man that SELECTIVE SPECIES dieoff, among a varried genus, has been seen. Nothing else seems to cause it. Yet it happened.

Note: That's not to say it never happened. But it's not common. Certianly not to the point that we should be the ONLY Homonid to have survived.

Correction: They were better suited for their environments than those that came before. There's a difference. When circumstances change, the needs of the resident life of an area must adapt. Those that cannot adapt will not survive.

I could have SWORN that's what the "all powerful" evolution was there for. To protect species lines by allowing only those members of the species that can survive to adapt. But NONE of them? Now that's just odd. We still have living examples of the most ARCHAIC bacteria on the planet. But a few examples of a living, breathing, evolved species couldn't last a couple dozen millenia?

[Schmuck]

[quote="Blaze";p="502695"]
The only times in history where we see dieoffs of some species of a genus line, pretty much the ENTIRE genus line has been killed off. That's why we don't still have SOME dinosaurs (Barring Crocodiles, as I said, pretty much) still running around today. It has not really been until the evolution of man that SELECTIVE SPECIES dieoff, among a varried genus, has been seen. Nothing else seems to cause it. Yet it happened.

[/quote]

well crocodiles weren't dinosaurs anyway. but it's pretty much accepted now that birds evolved from dinosaurs.

thinking out loud now, could it be that humans are the only surviving homo species because those doing the classifying intitially thought we were special? would it be feasible to reclassify humans in the same genus as bonobos and other chimps?

[Blaze]

Not really. None of them go on two legs, have anything near our cranial size, have similar teeth or jaws, hands different from feet, or any one of a thousand other features. Yeah, we're similar, but not THAT similar.

well crocodiles weren't dinosaurs anyway. but it's pretty much accepted now that birds evolved from dinosaurs.

Yeah, crocodiles are indeed dinosaurs. They evolved from beings which lived durring the Triassic, and were in full swing durring the late Mezozoic.

But anyway, you just proved my point. If all the dinosaurs either died off (as they did) or evolved (as they also did), it's because changing conditions no longer suited such a being. How is it that changing conditions didn't suit neighbors so CLOSELY related to us, but were just fine for us? Since they all died, it stands to reason that the conditions were no good for large brained bipedal beings like us.

And before any of you say, "well, look at your example of the Crocodile", consider a few things. Point 1, the crocodile is FAR from unchanged from it's earlier forms. Point 2, the sheer abundance of dinosaur life meant that one species might get lucky and survive, that being the Crocodile. There being 9 Homonid species, that's a drastically different scenario.

By all rights, we should either be dead with the rest of our homonid ancestors, or drastically different, as those of us that survived whatever it was that killed off the others bred while the rest didn't. And yet we are identical to how we were at the time that the others were dying out.

[Grumlen]

Blaze, you're starting to make a great deal of braod sweeping generalizations with no support at all.

Why has the crocodile stayed essentially unchanged? Probably because the environment that it lived in has always been around. Plus, the crocodile could actually have changed a great deal throughout history, but all we can study is the bone structure and a few other things via fossils. There may have been a great deal of physiological changes.

Also, if I remember correctly, we evolved from Homo Erectus, so there goes that complaint. Also, it's Homo Erectus that survived when most of the other members of our genus were dying out, and he evolved into us. In addition, Homo Erectus lived in a seperate part of the world from the other species, and there weren't any world-changing effects going on at the time, so it's possible that conditions where Erectus was were just fine for survival while the rest encountered unfavorable conditions.

[Deacon]

Where are the Homo Erectus today? We have both Sundew and Venus Flytraps, so why not them? And if it's because we evolved from them, why are there still apes around? I realize and understand the answers to these questions, but I hope you can admit that you have to take some creative liberties to explain away the inconsistencies and gaps in the theory of evolution.

[Seraphim]

But anyway, you just proved my point. If all the dinosaurs either died off (as they did) or evolved (as they also did), it's because changing conditions no longer suited such a being. How is it that changing conditions didn't suit neighbors so CLOSELY related to us, but were just fine for us? Since they all died, it stands to reason that the conditions were no good for large brained bipedal beings like us.

By all rights, we should either be dead with the rest of our homonid ancestors, or drastically different, as those of us that survived whatever it was that killed off the others bred while the rest didn't. And yet we are identical to how we were at the time that the others were dying out.

I'm a little late joining this discussion, but I'll add what I can.

Well, what mainly survived the catastrophe that killed off the dinosaurs were small creatures preferably that could live underground, and creatures that could live under water. The water example, obviously takes care of the crocodiles you're bringing up. They could obtain they're biological living in water, as opposed to the dinosaurs who had to remain on land, and couldn't burrow properly. Another thing, the small creatures don't need as much relative sustenance. When food is severely scarce a rat stand a better chance than a dinosaur.

This world wide problem didn't last too long (relatively speaking) so in short order the small mammals could surface. That's right, most modern day mammals are descended from small rodents. Now, since there were significantly less animals, and the dominant group was deceased there was plenty of room to grow. As proven through observation in "Darwin’s Dream pond" by Tijs Goldschmidt, when there are many niches left unfilled, one single species can evolve into many different species (admittedly not too different; just different enough to be different species and have different niches) in what would be considered an evolutionary blink of the eye. 1 could become 50 in a few centuries time.

Keeping in mind that after the dinosaurs died and the world cleared up, there were far more than 1 mammal left alive, and respectively even more niches open to them. This resulted in a mammalian, and bird species explosion. Evolution happened remarkably fast considering. They changed to fit all the niches available. A few key genetic changes, and you have one rodent that's just enough naturally bigger, and more aggressive than its closest relatives, and you have two new species, one predator, and one prey. These are all just minute examples. For a detailed analysis of everything... well read a book, don't wait for it all to be posted on a message board.

Prove NOT that evolution happened, but that it happened in a logical, probable direction, and required NO outside intervention to cause it to get to where it is.

Well, no human was around recording events when all this was happened. So unless someone invents a time machine, we’ll never be able to PROVE it beyond any shadow of a doubt. But we can observe the world today, and make observations that evolution without a creator is most likely. For this read anything by Richard Dawkins. His books are dedicated to "Why the evidence of evolution reveals a universe without design." Universe was maybe too broad. Since he only deals with biology, but I believe you can deduce what he's trying to say. Two of his best books are "The Blind Watchmaker" and "Climbing Mount Improbable." The first deals primarily with the whole design issue, the second dealing with explaining why certain things in biology thought to be improbable are really pretty inevitable. In both books he uses computer programs to demonstrate his points. They're rudimentary because when it comes to trying to simulate evolution, technology is pretty rudimentary. But from these programs he'll pick a specific trait, and allow every aspect of it to change by a certain minute amount in every generation. Eventually you arise with something remarkably similar to what we have today. My favorite simulation is the eye one. I'm starting to ramble, and this post is long enough as it is.

[Grumlen]

Deacon, it's not necessarily the SAME type of apes that are still around. Chimpanzees and gorillas are not necessarily our genetic ancestors. They just share a common ancestry with us.

The biggest problem people have is they assume that evolution means we evolved from chimps or gorillas. That is NOT what it means. It means that chimps, gorillas, and us evolved from the same species.

Evolution isn't perfect, no, but at least it tries to reason out it's problems at some level instead of just saying "Evolution exists. Period." the way religion says "God exists. Period." We don't throw up the brick wall of omnipotence and claim it proves everthing. Like it or not, 99.9% of arguements for the existance of God, from my experience, are either circular (bible says god exists and is never wrong, and god wrote the bible, so god must exist) or boil down to saying God is omnipotent.

[Deacon]

The problem is that even if God were to do something miraculous for you to prove he exists, you'd probably just chalk it up to some unknown natural phenomenon. Heh, it's lose-lose until it's too late to go one way or the other, I guess.

Posted Tue May 31, 2005 1:11 pm:

[quote="Seraphim";p="502900"]Well, what mainly survived the catastrophe that killed off the dinosaurs were small creatures preferably that could live underground, and creatures that could live under water. The water example, obviously takes care of the crocodiles you're bringing up.[/quote]
What about all the rest of the aquatic animals, specifically the aquatic dinosaurs?

They could obtain they're biological living in water, as opposed to the dinosaurs who had to remain on land, and couldn't burrow properly.

I'm sorry, but could you please reword that? It honestly makes no sense to me as it is

[Blaze]

[quote="Deacon";p="502892"]Where are the Homo Erectus today? We have both Sundew and Venus Flytraps, so why not them? And if it's because we evolved from them, why are there still apes around? I realize and understand the answers to these questions, but I hope you can admit that you have to take some creative liberties to explain away the inconsistencies and gaps in the theory of evolution.[/quote]

THIS is my point. Just because one species has evolved from another in the past does not mean the previous species disappeared. Not in the least. But that seems to be the case ENTIRELY for any Australophithicus or Homo genus beings.

I submit that much of the reason that it makes more sense to you is that it is more comforting to believe in a benevolent, all-known, all-powerful entity that looks over you and directs things in your best interest, and has personally guided things in such a way as to produce you, rather than to believe that you were either the result of chance, or that you are the result of a series of complex chemical reactions.

I didn't want to comment on this earlier, because I was kinda miffed. But I'm calmed down now, so I'm going to ask.

MB- now, you're a reasonably intelligent guy. You've met me, and known me quite a while. Are you HONESTLY going to pull a Jesse Ventura on me, and the rest of the religious? Do you want to call me a drug addict? Because make no mistake, that's what you're doing.

You're saying to me you believe me to be so weak, I require something to survive which you do not. I require an artificial substance. A drug. Even worse, since you don't believe in God, you believe I require a placebo.

I'm offering you a chance to take back your statement that the religous are weak, and make their selection because they don't feel they can survive otherwise. I, and any truly religous person, believe what they do because they believe in it. They think it's right, and they want what's right. They, nor I, do not need it. I've spent my whole life, and continue to do so, questioning my decisions, not the least among them my decision to be religous.

So, you can either take that back, or be officially labeled a moron and an asshole in my book. To make a claim that someone is a dependant addict on something you know NOTHING about... honestly.

Please, I don't want to think of you as a moron and an asshole. Take it back.

[Seraphim]

Deacon wrote (View Post):
Where are the Homo Erectus today? We have both Sundew and Venus Flytraps, so why not them? And if it's because we evolved from them, why are there still apes around? I realize and understand the answers to these questions, but I hope you can admit that you have to take some creative liberties to explain away the inconsistencies and gaps in the theory of evolution.


THIS is my point. Just because one species has evolved from another in the past does not mean the previous species disappeared. Not in the least. But that seems to be the case ENTIRELY for any Australophithicus or Homo genus beings.

It's because we hunted the hell out of them. We constantly went to war with them (if you can even call it that) and always came out on top. Countless remains of our hominid brethren can be analyzed and it can be conclusively stated that their cause of death was homo sapien tool related. They came at us with large heavy spears. We shot them full of arrows. We became the dominant species by wiping out anything that could ever become any kind of competition before it got to a point where it would have been a real threat. Also, we wanted their hunting grounds.

[ajaxrynu]

I didn't think that he was calling you weak. It seemed to me that you just need a different answer than other people. Just because you believe in a higher power dosen't make you weak. Unless you let it.