Theism

[BeardofPants]

Originally posted by Nariel Starshine
Not to mention that I am a science major and therefore I am studying this stuff.

Just wondering, what field of science are you majoring in? My boyfriend is majoring in science as well, and he doesn't know much about carbon dating. Wanna know why? Because he is a computer scientist. So, what's YOUR field?

[BeardofPants]

Originally posted by Eärniel
P.S. My sister read that part over my shoulder, she turned red and said: 'Let me at them! Let me at them!'

LOL! Exactly how I feel! I can't wait til I'm too jaded to argue about this stuff anymore!

[BeardofPants]

Originally posted by markedel


Well there's my big picture, and your picture, and his big picture...its all one and the same. I can use the beginning of Genesis to prove evolution. I can use it prove the world was created 6000 years ago.

There is no reason why it can not be considered to be the one and the same. The facts are that the earth is billions of years old. The facts are that Men have evolved from an earlier ancestor. BUT as of yet, there has been no conclusive proof on how life began. It's possible that our creation was a divine one (I don't believe it as yet, but it's one of many possibilities). But, while I can concede that there may have been divine creation, I can not accept that the earth is young, nor that man was created just as is. Dogs have evolved, look at the varieties that exist, dog was even helped along by H. sapiens to specialise into niches! Cats have evolved, horses have evolved, Great Eru, even insects have evolved! And what about dinosaurs? They evolved too! So why can't Man?

[Brimvalir]

I believe that if there is a God then we are very presumptious indeed to assume that we know what he/she is thinking and where we stand in the grand sceme of things. Life is to be explored but lets not go putting lables on Divine beings

[emplynx]

Originally posted by BeardofPants
Dogs have evolved, look at the varieties that exist, dog was even helped along by H. sapiens to specialise into niches! Cats have evolved, horses have evolved, Great Eru, even insects have evolved! And what about dinosaurs? They evolved too! So why can't Man?

Microevolution and macroevolution are two very different things. Most (all?) christians believe in micro. Species can change, but they can't make different species!!! Mutants are sterile, if we were mutated from monkeys we couldn't reproduce!

[Wayfarer]

BeardofPants

You've stated several things you purport to be fact. Normally I'd argue with you about it, but according to the page at the other end of Afro-Elf's link, the burden of proof rests on the claimant.
So we'll sit here and you try to convince us. We're reasonable people, so if what you're saying is in fact true you should have no problem showing us.

[BeardofPants]

Originally posted by emplynx
Mutants are sterile, if we were mutated from monkeys we couldn't reproduce!

Eh?? Where do you get this from? Facts please. Mutations are happening all the time in the DNA sequence, so why aren't we sterile? And let I remind you that 99% of mutations are neutral.

[Wayfarer]

To help Emplynx out a bit;

Originally posted by BeardofPants
The facts are that Men have evolved from an earlier ancestor. BUT as of yet, there has been no conclusive proof on how life began. It's possible that our creation was a divine one (I don't believe it as yet, but it's one of many possibilities). But, while I can concede that there may have been divine creation, I can not accept that the earth is young, nor that man was created just as is. Dogs have evolved, look at the varieties that exist, dog was even helped along by H. sapiens to specialise into niches! Cats have evolved, horses have evolved, Great Eru, even insects have evolved! And what about dinosaurs? They evolved too! So why can't Man

You're making assumptions.

For example, granted that man did evolve from an earlier ancestor, what evidence is there to say that this earlier ancestor was not also a human?

A christian says that all humans have common ancestors in Adam and Eve. Humanity has changed and 'evolved' to better fit certain environments, true. Since you freely admit that the origin of life is open, is it not as feasable to assume that humans evolved from humans as it is say that they evolved from lower promates?

Equally so, we have seen dogs evolve from dogs, and cats from cats. These are completely useless for showing that dogs and cats evolved from lizards.

[BeardofPants]

Oh, and we are not DESCENDED from Apes, we SHARE a common ancestor with them.

[BeardofPants]

Originally posted by Wayfarer

A christian says that all humans have common ancestors in Adam and Eve. Humanity has changed and 'evolved' to better fit certain environments, true. Since you freely admit that the origin of life is open, is it not as feasable to assume that humans evolved from humans as it is say that they evolved from lower promates?

If you can stop from trying to imagine that we came from apes, for just one second... I'll try and explain. Evolution does not suggest that we are descended from apes. All it says, that somewhere along the 'Tree of life', there is a common ancestor that we share with the ape family. The human branch is separate from the monkey branch, and the ape branch. In the same way that the domestic cat branch, is different from the wild cat branch.

The reason that the 'human' that is Homo sapiens did not 'evolve' from earlier H. sapiens, is because that is not macro evolution. That is microevolution, which is a baby step towards the process of macroevolution. Secondly the fossil record has produced individuals who are different from us, and have different adaptive mechanisms. For instance, the robust Australopithecines have big jaws and molars; this is a specialisation to eating hard nuts. Neanders were cold adaptated, and had lower heavier skulls, and also a bigger brain capacity than us. You only have to look at Lucy, to see how much, our species has evolved over time.

[emplynx]

Originally posted by BeardofPants
All it says, that somewhere along the 'Tree of life', there is a common ancestor that we share with the ape family.

So you are saying that your great-grandmother mated with an ape and had your grandfather?

Originally posted by BeardofPants
For instance, the robust Australopithecines have big jaws and molars; this is a specialisation to eating hard nuts. Neanders were cold adaptated, and had lower heavier skulls, and also a bigger brain capacity than us. You only have to look at Lucy, to see how much, our species has evolved over time.

My friend had a joking explination for this that could be quite true. They weren't "pre-man" they were ugly!

[BeardofPants]

Originally posted by emplynx

Microevolution and macroevolution are two very different things. Most (all?) christians believe in micro. Species can change, but they can't make different species!!!

Excuse me, but last time I checked, the lion was separate from the tiger, and the common moggie. They can't interbreed, therefore they are a separate species. Voila, evolution, macrobiotically. Ditto for a Wolf, and a fox, and a labrador.

[BeardofPants]

Originally posted by emplynx
So you are saying that your great-grandmother mated with an ape and had your grandfather?

No, but you're not even going to listen to this either! I said, that we share a common ancestor. Evolution is a process of steps. Somewhere back along the process, there was a branching off between apes and hominids.

Since my Great-grandmother is a H. sapiens, and recent, then no, she did not mate with an ape.

And beauty is all in the eye of the beholder. You are just being Homo-sapiens-centric.

[markedel]

My Tanach teacher would say you're watching the movie and the missing the point...

[BeardofPants]

I'm not claiming to know the point of all this, so yes, I aggree with you there. It's nice that you think you know the point, well done. Kudos to you. I don't. That's why I'm trying to watch movie, to try and get my own point of view.

[Wayfarer]

Originally posted by BeardofPants
If you can stop from trying to imagine that we came from apes, for just one second... I'll try and explain.

I'll make you a deal. I won't start claiming that humans are descended from apes, if you stop assuming that I'm going to. The word 'ape' has not appeared in any of my posts. You're setting up a straw man. Another fallacy which you can look up at A-Elf's linked site.

Originally posted by BeardofPants
All it says, that somewhere along the 'Tree of life', there is a common ancestor that we share with the ape family. The human branch is separate from the monkey branch, and the ape branch. In the same way that the domestic cat branch, is different from the wild cat branch.

Once again, you're faced with the burden of proof. You make a rather radical assumption. Even if Big and Little Cats evolved from a common ancestor, it's a huge leap from there to 'all cats evolved from lizard-like ancestors'

Originally posted by BeardofPants
The reason that the 'human' that is Homo sapiens did not 'evolve' from earlier H. sapiens, is because that is not macro evolution. That is microevolution, which is a baby step towards the process of macroevolution.

Now that is just prescious *gollum!* My entire argument was in support of Emplynx's statement that Microevolution is not Macroevolution and does not provide any evidence of it.

Originally posted by BeardofPants
Secondly the fossil record has produced individuals who are different from us, and have different adaptive mechanisms. For instance, the robust Australopithecines have big jaws and molars; this is a specialisation to eating hard nuts. Neanders were cold adaptated, and had lower heavier skulls, and also a bigger brain capacity than us. You only have to look at Lucy, to see how much, our species has evolved over time.

Ok, accepting that different varieties of humans have appeared and dissapeared over the years, how does that support humans evolving from something else?

It's Darwin's finches. Some have big beaks, some have small beaks, some are green and some are yellow. It's perfectly reasonable to say that they likely had a common ancestor. It's completely ridiculous to say that they all evolved from... what's your critter, Therapods? Tree-Crocodiles? They're all finches.

I'm not fully convinced A. or N. are part of the human tree, but even if they were it's easy to see how they could have split off through microevolution. You can still go back to an original human, just like you can go back to an original finch. But you get into trouble when you try to go beyond that.

[BeardofPants]

Originally posted by Wayfarer
I'll make you a deal. I won't start claiming that humans are descended from apes, if you stop assuming that I'm going to. The word 'ape' has not appeared in any of my posts. You're setting up a straw man. Another fallacy which you can look up at A-Elf's linked site.

Lower Primates then, ie Monkeys.

Once again, you're faced with the burden of proof. You make a rather radical assumption. Even if Big and Little Cats evolved from a common ancestor, it's a huge leap from there to 'all cats evolved from lizard-like ancestors'

If you can imagine all life, as an analogy, on a tree. The more recent offshoots are further out, on the new branches. The older ones are closer to the base of the tree. If, in one branch you have all primates, including us, on another you may have all cats, and on yet another, you may have all marsupials. These three branches will trace back eventually to the 'common mammal'. On another area, you may have the 'common reptile' branch. If you trace these two back further enough, you may find the common ancestor. Until, eventually, you will come to single-cell organisms.

It's Darwin's finches. Some have big beaks, some have small beaks, some are green and some are yellow. It's perfectly reasonable to say that they likely had a common ancestor. It's completely ridiculous to say that they all evolved from... what's your critter, Therapods? Tree-Crocodiles? They're all finches.

Darwins finches were an example of speciation. They are/were a sub-species. Some could interbreed, some could not. Part of a defination of species (which is problematic), is that Species A can not interbreed with Species B, therefore they are sexually incompatible, therefore, they are a separate species. But I digress, some of these finches were reproductively isolated, therefore, they became separate species. Furthermore, these finches had a common ancestor from the mainland (sth america), from whom the galapagos finches evolved from.

Ok, accepting that different varieties of humans have appeared and dissapeared over the years, how does that support humans evolving from something else?

Reproductive isolation.

I'm not fully convinced A. or N. are part of the human tree, but even if they were it's easy to see how they could have split off through microevolution. You can still go back to an original human, just like you can go back to an original finch. But you get into trouble when you try to go beyond that.

Neanders are considered to be either a side branch from us. Afarensis is an earlier species in H. sapiens evolution. They were reproductively, and geographically isolated. Thus, separate species. The finch had evolved in a shorter time frame than hominids. Plus, the finches were speciated, into specialised niches, separated by space. Hominids were speciated both spatially, and temporally. H. sapiens did not exist circa Australopithecus africanus, or A. robustus, or H. rudolphensis.

[Wayfarer]

Originally posted by BeardofPants
If you can imagine all life, as an analogy, on a tree. The more recent offshoots are further out, on the new branches. The older ones are closer to the base of the tree. If, in one branch you have all primates, including us, on another you may have all cats, and on yet another, you may have all marsupials. These three branches will trace back eventually to the 'common mammal'. On another area, you may have the 'common reptile' branch. If you trace these two back further enough, you may find the common ancestor. Until, eventually, you will come to single-cell organisms.

Yeah. Right. Heard it before. That schpiel seems a lot less appealing the more I hear it.

You can also Imagine life as a bunch of trees. At the bottom you have original, created man. Moving up you see different varieties and flavours of man, some of which die off. Eventually, at the top, you come to present day humanity.

Now that we've got that straight, there's still the matter of proof. It's fairly well established that all humans have a common ancestor. So my scenario makes sense. I have yet to hear a convincing arguement to convince me to move from this to what you believe.

Originally posted by BeardofPants
Darwins finches were an example of speciation. They are/were a sub-species. Some could interbreed, some could not. Part of a defination of species (which is problematic), is that Species A can not interbreed with Species B, therefore they are sexually incompatible, therefore, they are a separate species. But I digress, some of these finches were reproductively isolated, therefore, they became separate species. Furthermore, these finches had a common ancestor from the mainland (sth america), from whom the galapagos finches evolved from.

Yeah. I get it. Now explain to my how this is supposed to convince us of birds evolving from non-birds? I don't see anything here that would support that conclusion.

Originally posted by BeardofPants
Reproductive isolation.

Erm... yeah.

Let me put it this way: a pit bull cannot breed with a saint Bernard (although i doubt it's ever been tried). But they're still dogs and not some other animal.

We know that there are different strains in all types of animals. Humans have different hair colours, eye colours, height, weight, build, features, etc. It is conceivieble that, if we were to breed humans for certain traits the way we do animals, we could create people that look a lot like neandrethals, or hobbits, or whatever. They would still be fundamentally human.

What you could not do is take a cat and breed it for traits that will eventually produce a dog. Or even something like it. That would require a substantial addition of genetic marterial.

Originally posted by BeardofPants
Neanders are considered to be either a side branch from us. Afarensis is an earlier species in H. sapiens evolution. They were reproductively, and geographically isolated. Thus, separate species. The finch had evolved in a shorter time frame than hominids. Plus, the finches were speciated, into specialised niches, separated by space. Hominids were speciated both spatially, and temporally. H. sapiens did not exist circa Australopithecus africanus, or A. robus

I knew that. (Wait... I have this unexplainable urge to say 'twit'. let me try this again...)

I knew that, you twit! ...that was fun. ]: )

It's all very well for you to say that. However, you still haven't attempted to convince me that these specimens are any more than different races of human, or species of primate.

Now, I have a question for you. It's all very well for you to say that 'evolution takes time'. But humans haven't changed much more in the last 100000 years than they have in the last 100. In fact, I have a sneaking suspiscion that if I took Mr. Neandrethal, cleaned him up, and sent him out into the world, he wouldn't be particularly easy to distinguish.

Another problem with your time arguement is that fossils of seemignly modern humans have been found, and 'dated' at older than neandrethal. I'm going to go kill myself now for my inability to remember citations, but I hope you'll forgive me. My clone should be educated and ready to continue this arguement by the end of the week.

[BeardofPants]

Originally posted by Wayfarer
Yeah. Right. Heard it before. That schpiel seems a lot less appealing the more I hear it.

You can also Imagine life as a bunch of trees. At the bottom you have original, created man. Moving up you see different varieties and flavours of man, some of which die off. Eventually, at the top, you come to present day humanity.

Now that we've got that straight, there's still the matter of proof. It's fairly well established that all humans have a common ancestor. So my scenario makes sense. I have yet to hear a convincing arguement to convince me to move from this to what you believe.

That is a form of evolution, you --- not gonna call names ----

[Khadrane]

All you people who believe in Theism, they are trying to murder me (well, not quite that bad) in the anti-Theism thread. Could you guys help me out? My brain is starting to go dead. THANKS!!!