Human Evolution

[SeekingUnderstanding]

The willfully ignorant label can go both ways here.  It seems to me the macro-evolutionists do willfully ignore a great deal.  For the inevitable CFR go back to the last time this topic made the rounds through this board and find my answers.

ERayR, the only evidence I have seen you present is about 3 artifacts reportedly found in coal.  Is this the evidence you'd like to see addressed? Do you have other evidence to present? You have never to my knowledge outlined a detailed theory that explains the fossil record, dna evidence, geographic distribution of species, multiple dating methods that provide consistent answers   Where is your theory? You continually state that we are rudely shoving God aside (or other similar comments), while it is you that ignores the evidence of God's handiwork that he has left for us to study.  

[danielwoods]

Macro-evolution is just micro-evolution on fast-forward.

 

If that was true then there wouldn't be any controversy, because we could simply watch it happen. 

 

Where is the mechanism in organisms that prevent microevolution from eventually resulting in macroevolution?  It doesn't exist.  If one accepts microevolution and the antiquity of organisms on this planet, one must also accept macroevolution because it is inevitable.  Pair that with what we know from genetic studies and the fossil record and we have macroevolution.  It is common sense.

 

Where is the mechanism that forces an organism to create new hearts and lungs? The mechanism doesn't exist. Instead organisms that are pushed too far beyond there ability to adapt, they die. This is what we observe directly, everyday. Common sense is only science if it can be supported by observations and repetition. Macro changes can't. 

 

There may well need to be some working with Evolutionary Theory as there appears to be periodic surges, I am told, in the fossil record.  However, there is a major flaw in the notion that one specied does not evolve into another if we are clinging to that explanation out of some religious motivation.  The flaw is that in order to have it correlate with the fossil record you would have to have multiple creations staggered in time in order to account for why there is no fossil record of many, if not quite all, modern species.

 

If macro-evolutionary changes can't be demonstrated to even exist, then something is going to have to change in our view of the fossil record. That's true.

 

This is patently false and demonstrates your ignorance of the evidence. There is ample evidence today of speciation, of changes that lead to two very similar animals not being able to procreate.

 

Right, I did say that speciation occurs, because of it's definition being the loss of the ability to procreate. However, this a macro-change it doesn't make. Why? Because, the arbitrary definition leads to nothing new. The loss of an ability is not a macro level change. Let's say for example, that you have 40 billion DNA points to start with. Then over time your progeny has only 30 billion DNA points that are working. Is that evidence of macro changes that would create say an Eye, or the ability to fly for example? No. The loss of an ability isn't an increase in DNA code.

 

In essence, a cow is still a cow. Nothing new there.  

[SeekingUnderstanding]

Do those that reject macro evolution because we can't create a new species in our lifetime also reject the study of linguistics? What about scientific theories on the formation of stars? I have never observed a new language form, but by studying the historical record, I can determine that language has evolved.  Indeed look at the minor differences that have formed over the last few hundred years between UK English and American English. Look at the language used in the King James version of the bible versus language used today. In the heavens we observe stars at all different points in their life cycle.  By putting these together, we can make predictions about our own stars.  In nature we see species at all different points of creation.  It is no more of a stretch to connect these dots than it is connect the dots and say that language evolves, or that stars from nebula clouds and eventually go nova.

[thesometimesaint]

The point is that no matter how logical it appears, it's not observed and hasn't ever been observed, ever. Not even once. That's the point. What is logical to you is based on what you believe, not what science can demonstrate and observe directly. 

 

No one has ever directly observed the electron. So no electron theory.

No one has ever directly observed atomic decay. So no radiation theory.

No one has ever directly observered a single germ causing disease. So no germ theory of disease.

No one has ever directly observed gravity. So no theory of gravity.

 

Now what is it you believe?

[Stone holm]

ERayR, the only evidence I have seen you present is about 3 artifacts reportedly found in coal.  Is this the evidence you'd like to see addressed? Do you have other evidence to present? You have never to my knowledge outlined a detailed theory that explains the fossil record, dna evidence, geographic distribution of species, multiple dating methods that provide consistent answers   Where is your theory? You continually state that we are rudely shoving God aside (or other similar comments), while it is you that ignores the evidence of God's handiwork that he has left for us to study.  

 

ERayR does not engage in presenting factual or logical arguments to us mere mortals.

[ERayR]

ERayR, the only evidence I have seen you present is about 3 artifacts reportedly found in coal.  Is this the evidence you'd like to see addressed? Do you have other evidence to present? You have never to my knowledge outlined a detailed theory that explains the fossil record, dna evidence, geographic distribution of species, multiple dating methods that provide consistent answers   Where is your theory? You continually state that we are rudely shoving God aside (or other similar comments), while it is you that ignores the evidence of God's handiwork that he has left for us to study.  

 

Ancient technologies throw a wrench into macro-evolution by just being there.  According to Macro-evolutionary theory man developed step by step and as he did so did his knowledge, understanding and ability to utilize the knowledge and understanding finally reaching the present pinnacle of modern science.  If their were to be an acknowledgement of ancient technologies, some of which surpassed - in some ways - our present abilities then they would have to explain how superior technologies developed before our recorded history and out of place in the evolutionary timeline.  This means these things have to be dismissed, ridiculed and or discarded.  Note that in the past when I have brought it up it has been dismissed as myth or answered with little green men remarks along with a link to a presentation of evolution for beginners and dummies.  That is the simple answer to your question.

 

Evidences for these advanced technologies are many and scattered.  The ancient alien crowd has made good use of those that fit their scenario but not all of them.  Just a couple of things for you to look at, if you are so inclined.

 

Precession machined stone in Egypt and South America as well as other places.  The fact that the only mummies found in the pyramids were put in their centuries after they were built.  Evidences of ancient nuclear blasts at several ancient sites.  Intricately fashioned artifacts in three hundred million year old coal strata.  Stone spheres across Costa Rica.  The designs on the plains of Nasca in Peru.  Space flight and futuristic war descriptions in the many thousands of years old Rig Veda books from India.

 

That is just a very small sample of things that don't fit with macro-evolution.  To start your search I offer a couple of suggestions.  First an old book by Ivan T. Sanderson called Things (if you can still find a copy).  Also a book called the Giza Power Plant by Christopher Dunn.  Then go through a few of the Ancient Alien books .  They have done a good job gathering up some of these things.  I would read it for the technological information not for the conclusions of the authors. 

 

This is by no means an exhaustive list.

[ERayR]

ERayR does not engage in presenting factual or logical arguments to us mere mortals.

 

ERayR does not worship at the alter of macro-evolution any more and thus incurs your wrath and scorn for apostatizing and not capitulating. 

Edited September 24, 2013 by ERayR

[thesometimesaint]

Ridiculous. The Fossil Record does not support evolution. Even Charles Darwin agreed. He wrote chapters making up excuses for the lack of that record. Here's a quote from Chapter 6 of his The Origin of Species:

"These difficulties and objections may be classed under the following heads:-Firstly, why, if species have descended from other species by insensibly fine gradations, do we not everywhere see innumerable transitional forms? Why is not all nature in confusion instead of the species being, as we see them, well defined?"

http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/origin/chapter6.html

He then makes conjectures to ignore the record of well-defined species.

The fossil record and the living record of well-defined species, supports Creation, not evolution.

 

You need to read the rest of the article.

[SeekingUnderstanding]

Ancient technologies throw a wrench into macro-evolution by just being there.  According to Macro-evolutionary theory man developed step by step and as he did so did his knowledge, understanding and ability to utilize the knowledge and understanding finally reaching the present pinnacle of modern science.  If their were to be an acknowledgement of ancient technologies, some of which surpassed - in some ways - our present abilities then they would have to explain how superior technologies developed before our recorded history and out of place in the evolutionary timeline.  This means these things have to be dismissed, ridiculed and or discarded.  Note that in the past when I have brought it up it has been dismissed as myth or answered with little green men remarks along with a link to a presentation of evolution for beginners and dummies.  That is the simple answer to your question.

 

Evidences for these advanced technologies are many and scattered.  The ancient alien crowd has made good use of those that fit their scenario but not all of them.  Just a couple of things for you to look at, if you are so inclined.

 

Precession machined stone in Egypt and South America as well as other places.  The fact that the only mummies found in the pyramids were put in their centuries after they were built.  Evidences of ancient nuclear blasts at several ancient sites.  Intricately fashioned artifacts in three hundred million year old coal strata.  Stone spheres across Costa Rica.  The designs on the plains of Nasca in Peru.  Space flight and futuristic war descriptions in the many thousands of years old Rig Veda books from India.

 

That is just a very small sample of things that don't fit with macro-evolution.  To start your search I offer a couple of suggestions.  First an old book by Ivan T. Sanderson called Things (if you can still find a copy).  Also a book called the Giza Power Plant by Christopher Dunn.  Then go through a few of the Ancient Alien books .  They have done a good job gathering up some of these things.  I would read it for the technological information not for the conclusions of the authors. 

 

This is by no means an exhaustive list.

And what conclusion do you draw from this evidence? What theory do you present that accounts for it?

[ERayR]

And what conclusion do you draw from this evidence? What theory do you present that accounts for it?

 

 

I conclude that macro-evolution is discarding a lot that does not fit their mold or further their cause. 

[thesometimesaint]

If that was true then there wouldn't be any controversy, because we could simply watch it happen. 

 

 

Where is the mechanism that forces an organism to create new hearts and lungs? The mechanism doesn't exist. Instead organisms that are pushed too far beyond there ability to adapt, they die. This is what we observe directly, everyday. Common sense is only science if it can be supported by observations and repetition. Macro changes can't. 

 

 

If macro-evolutionary changes can't be demonstrated to even exist, then something is going to have to change in our view of the fossil record. That's true.

 

 

Right, I did say that speciation occurs, because of it's definition being the loss of the ability to procreate. However, this a macro-change it doesn't make. Why? Because, the arbitrary definition leads to nothing new. The loss of an ability is not a macro level change. Let's say for example, that you have 40 billion DNA points to start with. Then over time your progeny has only 30 billion DNA points that are working. Is that evidence of macro changes that would create say an Eye, or the ability to fly for example? No. The loss of an ability isn't an increase in DNA code.

 

In essence, a cow is still a cow. Nothing new there.  

 

Macroevolution.

 

[Vance]

I have never observed a new language form, . . .

I take it that you don't have children.

[SeekingUnderstanding]

I take it that you don't have children.

I take it your children grew up and started speaking a language unintelligible from English? That must create communication problems at home. What do you call their language? Is it written or just spoken?

[halconero]

Okay...I want to understand everyone here.

 

Putting macroevolution aside for a moment. Does anyone here oppose the theory of natural selection?

[Mola Ram Suda Ram]

I take it your children grew up and started speaking a language unintelligible from English? That must create communication problems at home. What do you call their language? Is it written or just spoken?

At first it was more just mumbles. Later it evolved into english.  And yeah it does create communication problems. Even now my youngest sometimes says a word in a sentance that makes no sense. And we end up just saying "yeah" because if we try to figure it out we keep getting it wrong and she just gets upset.

[Mola Ram Suda Ram]

Okay...I want to understand everyone here.

 

Putting macroevolution aside for a moment. Does anyone here oppose the theory of natural selection?

Nope.

[thesometimesaint]

Danielwoods:

 

Evolution of the eye.

See

[thesometimesaint]

Okay...I want to understand everyone here.

 

Putting macroevolution aside for a moment. Does anyone here oppose the theory of natural selection?

 

Natural selection is just the engine of evolutioin.

[Stone holm]

Natural selection is just the engine of evolutioin.

 

Its unfortunate that the Fundamentalists denial, is, I believe, causing some Darwinians to dig in their heels and not consider some possible tweakings.  There has been some speculation as to whether the interaction of random mutation and the environment -- in other words natural selection -- tells the whole story, or whether there might be changes programmed into the genes which are activated by future changes which would allow for sporadic bursts in speciation.  But with the Texas Board of Education trying to teach religion instead of science, I sense a reluctance in scientists to explore such tweakings which is an unfortunate side-effect of people wanting to return to the 1700's

[SeekingUnderstanding]

At first it was more just mumbles. Later it evolved into english. And yeah it does create communication problems. Even now my youngest sometimes says a word in a sentance that makes no sense. And we end up just saying "yeah" because if we try to figure it out we keep getting it wrong and she just gets upset.

I'm confused. You are saying your kids spontaneously started there own language or they merely took a bit to learn yours. If the latter, how does it address my point of the origin of new languages?

[cdowis]

I take it your children grew up and started speaking a language unintelligible from English? That must create communication problems at home. What do you call their language? Is it written or just spoken?

 

I seem to remember there was case ot twins who had their own language when conversing with each other. 

Edited September 24, 2013 by cdowis

[danielwoods]

Do those that reject macro evolution because we can't create a new species in our lifetime also reject the study of linguistics? What about scientific theories on the formation of stars? I have never observed a new language form, but by studying the historical record, I can determine that language has evolved.  Indeed look at the minor differences that have formed over the last few hundred years between UK English and American English. Look at the language used in the King James version of the bible versus language used today. In the heavens we observe stars at all different points in their life cycle.  By putting these together, we can make predictions about our own stars.  In nature we see species at all different points of creation.  It is no more of a stretch to connect these dots than it is connect the dots and say that language evolves, or that stars from nebula clouds and eventually go nova.

 

Languages aren't alive. It doesn't have to have a heart rate and blood pressure, with the right amount of Oxygen to stay alive. So their "evolution" is not based on biology, rather intelligent influences, hence nothing is similar to the claims of Macro-evolutionary changes. 

 

Stars are observed in all different points of their life cycle, as you stated. Sure wish we could do that with macro level evolution. In fact, if it were true, you'd think that we'd be able to at least observe it once somewhere. 

 

No one has ever directly observed the electron. So no electron theory.

No one has ever directly observed atomic decay. So no radiation theory.

No one has ever directly observered a single germ causing disease. So no germ theory of disease.

No one has ever directly observed gravity. So no theory of gravity.

 

Now what is it you believe?

 

What one believes isn't important in science. Rather, what can be demonstrated? 

 

All these phenomena that you mention are observed by directly observing the effects they have on other things. What exactly is directly observed in connection to macro-level evolution? 

 

 

Okay...I want to understand everyone here.

 

Putting macroevolution aside for a moment. Does anyone here oppose the theory of natural selection?

 

no

[cdowis]

Macroevolution.

 

 

Can you give us a summary rather than one hour video?

Edited September 24, 2013 by cdowis

[thesometimesaint]

Its unfortunate that the Fundamentalists denial, is, I believe, causing some Darwinians to dig in their heels and not consider some possible tweakings.  There has been some speculation as to whether the interaction of random mutation and the environment -- in other words natural selection -- tells the whole story, or whether there might be changes programmed into the genes which are activated by future changes which would allow for sporadic bursts in speciation.  But with the Texas Board of Education trying to teach religion instead of science, I sense a reluctance in scientists to explore such tweakings which is an unfortunate side-effect of people wanting to return to the 1700's

Minute changes in DNA over time is part and parcel of evolution by natural selection. I don't know as changes per say are programmed into it. But changes do occur, and genes do get turned on and off even within the individual organism. As scientist I can't posit any God or Intelligent Designer into my science. I most strenuously object to anyone trying to do so. If it wasn't so disasterous to the innocent the Texas Board of Education can live in 1700's if it wants to.

[Mola Ram Suda Ram]

I'm confused. You are saying your kids spontaneously started there own language or they merely took a bit to learn yours. If the latter, how does it address my point of the origin of new languages?

Not sure. Other than kids are not born speaking english. You clearly have not ever had kids.