Creation "Science" And The Flood of Noah.

[ranskaldan]

Mmm i think (but i'm not sure about this) that several million years ago, the jungles of Central Africa cleared due to climatic changes. The apes in that area were therefore unexpectantly dumped into the savannah, a totally new environment that they weren't evolved to fit in.

The evolutionary pressure from the environment was huge since apes can't run very fast (and indeed human beings are among the slowest large animals on the ground.)

Other animals probably took a different route. The earliest human beings had features that were, by luck, already in the 'direction' of the evolution of intelligence. For example:

- Apes, in the jungle, were already capable of limited upright movement. This freed up the forelimbs and thus hands.
- The fingers of primates are very well developed for grasping branches. On the savannahs, there were no branches to grasp. Thus human beings learnt to manipulate other objects with their agile fingers.
(Animals which were already on the savannah, on the other hand, had hooves/paws on their forelimbs because they had long ago evolved to move on the savannahs. It was the most efficient way to run, but it wasn't conducive to using tools.)

Tool manipulation is obviously very intelligence-intensive, and the lives of the earliest humans depended on these tools, because every part of their body was evolved for the jungle, not the savannah. Thus the pressure to evolve intelligence.

Now i'm not totally sure about this but this is my understanding.

[Zealot]

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Aaaahhh! I'm being dragged in!

Originally posted by Osweld
Unless we are talking about life on earth, in specific. In which case, I don't think it really matters. Either the life developed here, or it developed somewhere else and came here - you are left with the same essential question, either way.

(...)

I don't think it's impossible that life was created out of the matter of the universe, rather then put together by... er... what exactly could put it together with out being alive itself? Of course, that is no more of a paradox then the question of how the universe (and thus the matter required for spontaneous creation of life) was created in the first place.

That's why we call it God!
The reason why I'm comfortable with this idea is because I really don't think that God hasn't talked to humans. I think He did. But that's a whole new story.

[Dauphin]

The Model T approach to evolution

How does that explain "mathematical" intelligence?

Is the ability perform complex mathematical calculations really that essential to the human species. In a pre-historic world it would be a waste of resources to have a brain that could calculate those sort of things. It was not selected against though.


(Model T approach of Ford refers to "If it does a job too well, then find something cheaper that does it adequately")

[ranskaldan]

I don't think there's such a thing as 'mathematical' intelligence.

Only "logic and reasoning" intelligence. which would have been very beneficial in a crude toolmaking society.

Math beyond finger-counting and stone-counting was invented later, long after the human form has already been evolved into its present form.

[Dauphin]

OK, so how does the ability to comprehend the mathematics behind quantum mechanics

a) not constitute intelligence?
b) derive benefit for the species?

The logical reasoning abilility to understand the mathematics of QM or General Relativity is way beyond any form of logic/reasoning intelligence required to make crude tools.

[ranskaldan]

what we ponder have changed

how we ponder have not.


the logic/reasoning ability of General Relativity is not way beyond that of making tools.

its General Relativity itself, which is way beyond making crude tools.


it's like running on a track.

you might be running at the 10-m mark a few seconds ago, now you are running at the 20-m mark.

the place where you run and the advancement you have made is different.
but the way you run remains the same.

[Zealot]

Originally posted by ranskaldan
What Evolution Isn't:

"Humans evolved from chimpanzees/monkeys."
None of todays species ever, EVER evolved from each other. They all are evolved from common ancestors.

Jack was one evolutionist who claimed with quite certainty that above. Not my fault.

Originally posted by ranskaldan
"Early giraffes strained their necks in reaching for the trees." OR
"People in hotter countries are darker because they got tanned so much."
and my favorite:
"If you look at the sun too much, your eyes will mutate"
Straining your neck will make it longer. Sitting under the sun will tan you. Looking at the sun will burn your eyes.
However, NONE of these features are EVER passed to your offspring, because none of them has affected your GENES. Thus these are not part of evolution.
People in hotter countries are darker, and giraffes have longer necks for a different reason.

Of course, we all would like to know why, because if butterflies can change their wings colours, why couldn't humans?

Originally posted by ranskaldan
"Evolution is just a theory."
Great, so is gravity. Your point being?

It needs scientific evidence, with universal applyance, to start being a fact. The Theory of Gravity only needs to be "seen" to stop being called a theory. Although I don't find any reason to still call theory to Newton's gravity theory, I do on the theory of evolution.

Originally posted by ranskaldan
"Evolution is a strive for perfection. Thus, if evolution is true, all organisms will be perfectly formed organisms, like human beings. There won't be flatworms or slugs or rhesus monkeys."
Grrrrr! Evolution isn't a strive for 'perfection'. Evolution is adapting to whatever the environment offers. If the environment doesn't call for much improvement on the anatomy of the slug, then it will remain a slug for the next billion years. If the environment doesn't call for the rhesus monkey population to evolve that much intelligence, then it won't.

The problem with this is that you assume that the flora is immutable (when you should be the first to say that a local flora can be severely replaced just by ONE season weather conditions), and that there is no fauna migration, when we now know that there are birds who flight over 2000 miles in a specific season. I also wonder who do they know about "greener pastures" so far away, but I don't want to be accused of changing the subject.

Originally posted by ranskaldan
That's all there is to it. A beneficial mutation step which is not as rare as you think, and the natural selection step which is totally inevitable.

As I stated before, you strictly presume that there was no flora development or change. Just let me remind you that the first dinossaurs to fade away were the herbivores, and the carnivores followed them. Now you tell me where's that beneficial mutation, or a natural selection step.

Originally posted by ranskaldan
There are no neck-stretching exercises for giraffes involved. That is a misconception commonly used by creationists to attack "evolution".

No, it was one of the first evolutionist concept about evolution. (XIX century to be honest)
Pretty ridiculous, huh?
But since that there are several evolutionist factions (ie: those who say man evolved from simians, like Jack the bodiless, and those evolutionists like yourself who don't agree), I really don't give a damn...

[Joe R. Golowka]

Originally posted by Sagacious Dolphin
The logical reasoning abilility to understand the mathematics of QM or General Relativity is way beyond any form of logic/reasoning intelligence required to make crude tools.

If you ask me we don't truly understand quantum mechanics, and one of the reasons for that may be that we lack the high degree of intelligence needed for it.

[Joe R. Golowka]

Originally posted by Zealot
It needs scientific evidence, with universal applyance, to start being a fact. The Theory of Gravity only needs to be "seen" to stop being called a theory. Although I don't find any reason to still call theory to Newton's gravity theory, I do on the theory of evolution.

This proves you don't have a clue what your'e talking about and don't understand science. A scientific theory is one that has a signifigant amount of evidence backing it up, it's not a "theory" in the sense of just being a guess. Like gravity, evolution has been observed. The theory of evolution has much more evidence supporting it then Newton's Theory of Gravity. Newton's theory was disproven almost a century ago.

But since that there are several evolutionist factions (ie: those who say man evolved from simians, like Jack the bodiless, and those evolutionists like yourself who don't agree), I really don't give a damn...

More proof that you don't understand science, biology or evolution. You should really stop attacking strawmen. There are no "evolutionists." That's a nonsense word made up by creationists. There are people who believe in the established theories of biology.

[ranskaldan]

Originally posted by Zealot
Of course, we all would like to know why, because if butterflies can change their wings colours, why couldn't humans?

what?!
what does that have to do with mutation?!

It needs scientific evidence, with universal applyance, to start being a fact. The Theory of Gravity only needs to be "seen" to stop being called a theory. Although I don't find any reason to still call theory to Newton's gravity theory, I do on the theory of evolution.

They call it a theory because it's not universally proven. No theory has enough evidence to ensure 'universal appliance'. You notice that human beings haven't observed every single instance of gravity, yet they conclude gravity is true because there is more evidence for it than against it. Same goes for evolution.

The problem with this is that you assume that the flora is immutable (when you should be the first to say that a local flora can be severely replaced just by ONE season weather conditions), and that there is no fauna migration, when we now know that there are birds who flight over 2000 miles in a specific season. I also wonder who do they know about "greener pastures" so far away, but I don't want to be accused of changing the subject.

what?
I was talking about adapting to specific environments...

As I stated before, you strictly presume that there was no flora development or change. Just let me remind you that the first dinossaurs to fade away were the herbivores, and the carnivores followed them. Now you tell me where's that beneficial mutation, or a natural selection step.

what what what?????
are you even replying to my points?
btw, the extinction of the dinosaurs was because of a cataclysmic event, probably a meteor or intense volcanic activity or both, which dinosaurs simply couldn't adapt to - there wasn't enough time to produce enough beneficial mutations so that the dinosaurs could survive.

No, it was one of the first evolutionist concept about evolution. (XIX century to be honest)
Pretty ridiculous, huh?

finally something we agree on. It is rather ridiculous. That's why it's not part of modern evolutionist theory.

But since that there are several evolutionist factions (ie: those who say man evolved from simians, like Jack the bodiless, and those evolutionists like yourself who don't agree), I really don't give a damn...

note that you are arguing not against our opinions, but against a theory. Some of us might get the theory wrong, but the basics of the theory itself is there. and that's what you're arguing against.

[KrazyHorse]

Originally posted by Sagacious Dolphin
OK, so how does the ability to comprehend the mathematics behind quantum mechanics

a) not constitute intelligence?
b) derive benefit for the species?

The logical reasoning abilility to understand the mathematics of QM or General Relativity is way beyond any form of logic/reasoning intelligence required to make crude tools.

Really? I think it took a genius to come up with the concept of a lever, while the ability to do inner products and calculate geodesics can be taught to even the stupidest undergraduate. Human beings got a generalised intelligence, and it has proven a very useful trait indeed. Primates are already pretty high up on the animal intelligence scale. They're tool-makers, for God's sake. When a particularly bright ape made the first flint knife, then all of sudden what had been merely a useful weapon in an ape's arsenal became their most important aspect. Once an animal makes the leap to tool-making and invention as a fundamental part of their behaviour (as opposed to the merely incidental behaviour of termite-twiddling we've seen in our evolutionary cousins) then there's an enormous evolutionary pressure put on them to further develop this ability.

[Jack the Bodiless]

"Humans evolved from chimpanzees/monkeys."
None of todays species ever, EVER evolved from each other. They all are evolved from common ancestors.

Jack was one evolutionist who claimed with quite certainty that above. Not my fault.

No, I have NEVER claimed that humans evolved from ANY currently-existing primate. This is further proof that you have not been paying attention.

But since that there are several evolutionist factions (ie: those who say man evolved from simians, like Jack the bodiless, and those evolutionists like yourself who don't agree), I really don't give a damn...

There are no "evolutionist factions" who believe that man evolved from simians: EVERYBODY who understands evolution accepts that man evolved from (other) simians. Humans are apes, and we evolved from other apes (which are no longer around), just as other modern ape species did. We didn't evolve from chimps, but chimps are our closest relatives: chimps are more closely related to us than they are to gorillas, closer than African elephants are to Indian elephants.

[aaglo]

Ohh, how much people can talk about this matter in just one night...

It seems to me that some people are willing to believe in creation (by some totally irrational super-being) which hasn't got any evidence and disbelieve a theory with a lot of supporting facts... well its not my job to educate/convert people to think the way I think...

The furry animals living in savannah... the fur is not only for heat-retaining. It is also for protection from sun and physical strain (rocks, branches, beasts). And believe me, they do have body fat also. And the body fat, both for savannah animals and humans are not for heat retaining, it is an extra energy supply. For the mammals like seals the fat is for heating, but that fat is totally different from human fat.

One other evidence for evolution. The newborn babies have this simian-grip; if you lift up a young baby, put his hands on a rope (the baby grips the rope) and let go, the baby will stay there as long as you take them down again. This ability is gone when the baby gets older. Why does a species which always (?) lived in the ground has this kind of grip?

EDIT: typing

[Lars-E]

[QUOTE] Originally posted by Tolls
"I have never mentioned intermediates on Apolyton yet a certain individual know how much I know of this. Is he a psychic or a prophet or a mindreader or just have an attitude? "

I shall quote you:
"Anyways there are millions of focciles and many have been found. Mammals, insects, etc. But where are the intermediates? None has been found."

I was replying to this comment...there are "intermediates".

You're pulling tricks here Tolls. IIRC the last line was my 2nd comment on intermediates. The 1st line one you didnt want to answer and was my 1st comment.

ICR's credentials are nice, but how many of them have published creationist articles in peer reviewed literature?

Let me guess: 1? (se below)
I'm sure there are few, but that's no big surprise. Why would evolutionist magazines bring in something that oppose their views. Be rational.

They have nice credentials, for instance:

...and Ph.D. in Geology (Paleontology) from Harvard University where Stephen J. Gould was his principal advisor. Dr. Wise has published in the Journal of Paleobiology, received the Certificate of Distinction in Teaching two years in a row from the Harvard-Danforth Center for Teaching and Learning, Harvard University, and is a member of the National Center for Science Education and the Paleontological Society.

Now to some of you 'evolutionists' in here Stephen J. Gould most be a moron advising a creationist scientist cos creationism isn't science. And as some of you claim creationists have no education.
Harvard University must stink big time.

PS I said "I rest my case" in a former post. Why won't you just leave it at that?

[Lars-E]

Originally posted by Jack the Bodiless
Yes, we do. There are thousands of transitional fossils throughout the fossil record. Denying their existence won't make them go away. The creationist view is "the Bible is the Word of God, therefore Genesis is true, therefore there cannot be any tansitional fossils, therefore there ARE no transitional fossils". Dogmatic thinking at its finest.

I didnt bring up the bible. And is that the creationist view? Their is a difference of opinion on the transitional fossiles. Some actually think those found are not transitional.

"Creation scientists" are notorious for inventing degrees. Having been caught out so many times, some have decided to study for real degrees, and a few have made it. But nobody has ever become a creationist by being convinced by genuine scientific evidence for it (because there isn't any). Without exception, every "creation scientist" is a religious fundamentalist who denies scientific knowledge which contradicts his religious beliefs: it's just that some have learned a bit of genuine science (usually unrelated to biology).

Stephen J. Gould is made a moron again. See my other post.

Creatures evolve to adapt to their environment. If the environment changes, the fly will change.

We just know that. No experiments needed. Dogma at it's finest.

To refute the claim that "there are no beneficial mutations", it is only necessary to produce examples of beneficial mutations. This has been done, therefore the claim is FALSE. End of argument.

Yeah, and turn a blind eye to the ones that fail and they are many, but who cares, right? We must keep our dogmas!

You have stated that "We don't see transitional fossils". Again, this claim is FALSE.

So claiming something is false makes you right without providing any evidence?

Correction: You have pointed out a vast difference of opinion on evolution theory between religious fundamentalists and people in this thread.

You lose your case.

So I'm a religious fundamentalist? Where did I state that? Again you state things you're not sure of - have not any evidence of. Seems to me you're the big 'dogmatist' in here.

PS I rested my case above so just leave it at that. It's getting tiresome answering such as "this is false, this is right" and providing no more. Also the same arguments keep repeating. It's not gonna become true just because you repeat it or is this an attempt of indoctrination.