Human Evolution

[danielwoods]

Exactly.

 

So how do you know you should follow the bible and not the Avesta?

 

Can you see that this does not answer my question above?

But why should we follow the words of Christ and not Zoroaster?

 

General revelation does not answer that- it only shows us (as I understand Protestant theology) that God exists- SOME supreme being.  Nature does not tell us that Christ is preferable to Zoroaster.

 

It must always come down to personal revelation, or the argument is circular.  "I know because the bible tells me it's so because the bible tells me it is so".  It's an infinite regress going no where.

 

It seems you do not understand that problem, and this is not the first time I have tried to discuss it with you.  The answer is always the same.

 

You claim that it always comes down to personal revelation. That's fine. I agree to a point as I said. 

 

You think it's circular to appeal to the authority of the word of God? 

 

Why believe Christ and not Zoroaster? Because has John said, Christ has the words of God. 

[mfbukowski]

You claim that it always comes down to personal revelation. That's fine. I agree to a point as I said. 

 

You think it's circular to appeal to the authority of the word of God? 

 

Why believe Christ and not Zoroaster? Because has John said, Christ has the words of God. 

Well that is clear then.

 

You believe the bible because the bible tells you to believe the bible. 

 

Who am I to argue with someone's religion?   It makes no sense to me whatsoever, but it's not my religion.

[danielwoods]

Well that is clear then.

 

You believe the bible because the bible tells you to believe the bible. 

 

Who am I to argue with someone's religion?   It makes no sense to me whatsoever, but it's not my religion.

 

Your characterization of my position isn't accurate, but who am I to argue with your characterization. 

[mfbukowski]

Your characterization of my position isn't accurate, but who am I to argue with your characterization. 

Congratulations, you won't have to deal with me anymore.

[katherine the great]

And macro-evolutionary theory only flourishes because its adherents put in earplugs, don blinders and sit around patting themselves on the back.  It does result in a lot of dislocated shoulders.

Hey there ERay!  Just to clarify, there is no such thing as "macro-evolutionary" theory.  Macroevolution is just a part of evolutionary theory.  I am finishing up my second degree in Anthropology and am just really beginning to wrap my mind around macroevolution.  I thought for a long time that macroevolution and speciation are the same thing--not so.  Microevolutionary changes can eventually (but don't always) result in speciation.  Macroevolution encompasses further diversification of species--sometimes into new families, genera, etc.  We have to zoom out substantially to see Macroevolution but if one "believes" in microevolution, one must accept macroevolution because given enough time, it is inevitable.  I am working on cladistics now and when we group similar species together and look at them, their age and environment, we can get a pretty clear picture of how they are related.  DNA science lends even further support to what we could already see with our eyes.  And I have no earplugs or blinders.

[thesometimesaint]

Long time no see KtG.

 

I'll disagree slightly here. Micro-evolution is below the species level, and macro-evolution is above the species level. TBS it is all evolution.

[Freedom]

There is a challenge with below and above the species level because there is no clear way to define what constitutes a species. For example, one could argue that a new species emerges when a male from one cannot produce offspring from a  female from another. This would not apply, however, to plants or animals that reproduce asexually as with ameba's. I think micro and macro debates are splitting hares and distract from the issue of hand: how long has life been on the earth and how did humans come to be.

[katherine the great]

Long time no see KtG.

 

I'll disagree slightly here. Micro-evolution is below the species level, and macro-evolution is above the species level. 

Haha!  I believe that is what I said.    It all evolutionary theory.  Macro-evolution is not its own theory apart from Evolutionary theory.

[katherine the great]

There is a challenge with below and above the species level because there is no clear way to define what constitutes a species. For example, one could argue that a new species emerges when a male from one cannot produce offspring from a  female from another.

This is true.  There are some gray areas with very closely related species.  The gray areas are few and far between though.

[mfbukowski]

What has been made into a grand theory is really just common sense.

 

What survives, survives.   If the environment changes, you either adapt or die.  If you adapt well, you make more babies than those who do not adapt well.

 

So profound. 

 

It's like companies, like Apple or Blackberry.  You adapt or the company goes under. 

 

Communism either works or it doesn't - it it doesn't, it goes under.

 

Over time the memes or genes that work stay and the others die.

 

heavy, man 

Edited September 20, 2013 by mfbukowski

[bcuzbcuz]

I think micro and macro debates are splitting hares 

 

I hate it when they split hares. It's so messy, all that blood and guts. lol

[bcuzbcuz]

Hey there ERay!  Just to clarify, there is no such thing as "macro-evolutionary" theory.  Macroevolution is just a part of evolutionary theory.  I am finishing up my second degree in Anthropology and am just really beginning to wrap my mind around macroevolution.  I thought for a long time that macroevolution and speciation are the same thing--not so.  Microevolutionary changes can eventually (but don't always) result in speciation.  Macroevolution encompasses further diversification of species--sometimes into new families, genera, etc.  We have to zoom out substantially to see Macroevolution but if one "believes" in microevolution, one must accept macroevolution because given enough time, it is inevitable.  I am working on cladistics now and when we group similar species together and look at them, their age and environment, we can get a pretty clear picture of how they are related.  DNA science lends even further support to what we could already see with our eyes.  And I have no earplugs or blinders.

As I understand it, micro-evolution is a term adopted by the creationists to  be able to "allow" their heads to get around the concept of changes within species without accepting the general theory of evolution. Micro-evolution allows for generational differences in fruit flies, evolutionary changes in bacteria, etc. while at the same time saying that evolution in the big picture doesn't exist.

[danielwoods]

As I understand it, micro-evolution is a term adopted by the creationists to  be able to "allow" their heads to get around the concept of changes within species without accepting the general theory of evolution. Micro-evolution allows for generational differences in fruit flies, evolutionary changes in bacteria, etc. while at the same time saying that evolution in the big picture doesn't exist.

 

Or a way differentiate between evolution that is based on evidence that is directly observable and repeatable, and evolution that is based on evidence that is inferred, because it isn't directly observed or repeated. 

[cdowis]

Or a way differentiate between evolution that is based on evidence that is directly observable and repeatable, and evolution that is based on evidence that is inferred, because it isn't directly observed or repeated. 

 

I would say that the evidence is directly observed, but the interpretation of that evidence is based on opinion and assumptions.  The family tree of human evolution was a very common assumption that has been replaced by the family bush.

 

http://darwiniana.org/trees.htm

 

[cdowis]

 

We normally like to see nice solid lines drawn that say "this is how things really happened." Unfortunately, even though many fossil hominids have been discovered since Darwin's day, we cannot yet be absolutely certain as to the best evolutionary arrangement of these species. Fossils do not usually give us DNA or highly preserved organs. Scientists have less to work with than in the case of living species such as Darwin's Finches. In this diagram you'll see both H. sapiens and H. neanderthalensis branching from Homo heidelbergensis. On other cladograms you might not even see the name heidelbergensis in use. Please note the question marks here. These are honest statements of science. They are data too. The authors of this cladogram even included an hypothesized species not yet known. This is science at its best.

[ERayR]

As I understand it, micro-evolution is a term adopted by the creationists to  be able to "allow" their heads to get around the concept of changes within species without accepting the general theory of evolution. Micro-evolution allows for generational differences in fruit flies, evolutionary changes in bacteria, etc. while at the same time saying that evolution in the big picture doesn't exist.

 

I never heard that Berkley was a hotbed of creationism.

 

http://evolution.berkeley.edu/evolibrary/article/evo_47

 

Read the origin of the term here:

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Macroevolution

 

or here:

 

http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/macroevolution.html

 

It appears that you don't have a firm understanding of it. 

[thesometimesaint]

There is a challenge with below and above the species level because there is no clear way to define what constitutes a species. For example, one could argue that a new species emerges when a male from one cannot produce offspring from a  female from another. This would not apply, however, to plants or animals that reproduce asexually as with ameba's. I think micro and macro debates are splitting hares and distract from the issue of hand: how long has life been on the earth and how did humans come to be.

Species:

 

spe·cies

ˈspēsēz,-SHēz/

noun

noun: species; plural noun: species; noun: sp.; plural noun: spp.

1.

Biology

a group of living organisms consisting of similar individuals capable of exchanging genes or interbreeding. The species is the principal natural taxonomic unit, ranking below a genus and denoted by a Latin binomial, e.g., Homo sapiens .

synonyms: type, kind, sort

 

About 3.5 Billions of years.

 

We are descendents of our common ancestor with modern day apes.

[ERayR]

Species:

 

spe·cies

ˈspēsēz,-SHēz/

noun

noun: species; plural noun: species; noun: sp.; plural noun: spp.

1.

Biology

a group of living organisms consisting of similar individuals capable of exchanging genes or interbreeding. The species is the principal natural taxonomic unit, ranking below a genus and denoted by a Latin binomial, e.g., Homo sapiens .

synonyms: type, kind, sort

 

About 3.5 Billions of years.

 

We are descendents of our common ancestor with modern day apes.

 

 

Oh so instead of being your uncle the monkey is your cousin.  I've got a couple of cousins like that too.

[thesometimesaint]

Apes yes; monkeys no.  Human see; human do.

[Stone holm]

And of course we were all out riding around on dinosaurs, which ate up all the evidence of modern mammals.

[mfbukowski]

I have written a few macros in excel and not one of them ever evolved.

[katherine the great]

i like this diagram.  Hominid fossils are slightly problematic because there is often no consensus on the classification of new hominid discoveries.  This is mainly because there can be so much variation in the same species.  We moderns went through a very severe bottleneck in our population that decimated many lineages.  The entire human population now has fewer genetic differences than troops of Chimps living across the river from each other!  So we can look at Ergaster and Erectus fossils and think they are different species, but those differences could also be a reflection of variation within a species.  Without dna it's sometimes hard to tell.  I personally think that heidelbergenis was a common ancestor of neanderthal and moderns, but I always reserve the right to change my mind.  

[Stone holm]

I have written a few macros in excel and not one of them ever evolved.

I don't know, I downloaded some stuff and the viruses seemed to evolve.

[thesometimesaint]

And of course we were all out riding around on dinosaurs, which ate up all the evidence of modern mammals.

 

I thought all the dinosaurs were vegetarian. Or was that only the cuddly purple T-Rex Barney my grandkids watched on TV. 

[Stone holm]

I thought all the dinosaurs were vegetarian. Or was that only the cuddly purple T-Rex Barney my grandkids watched on TV. 

 

Only while they were romping around in the Garden.