Originally posted by ThePittman
Snake with legshttp://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2000/03/000317051940.htm
The whole snake-with-legs subject does more to confirm the Bible than to refute it. Genesis 3:14 records God pronouncing a curse on the serpent (i.e. satan) that on his belly he should go. Perhaps the serpent originally had legs but was cursed to travel on its belly.
Originally posted by ThePittman
Then why didn’t you answer any of my questions if you want to stay mature, how do you explain the examples of animals showing reasoning, problem solving and learning? 😉
First, animals do not reason. Second animals share some things in common with humans, but that does not mean that they share a common ancestry. Third, can an animal psychoanalyze a human? Can an animal perform heart surgery? Can an animal hold a job and negotiate a raise? Can an animal earn a college degree?Human beings are the only ones who can answer yes to all of these questions.
I explain those instances this way: animals are capable of learning (I never said that they were not capable), but that level of learning is greatly limited compared to humans. What most animals learn is "conditional" type, learned behavior (e.g. dogs learning how to fetch, sit, attack, etc.) But that is not the same as what humans are capable of learning. Humans can learn and then take what the've learned and apply it to a situation "rationally." Animals do things that are not necessarily rational or indicative of them having reason. But they can do things that "we" consider intelligent. Animals do need some degree of intelligence depending on their God-designed purpose in this world. But animals still lack characteristics that easily separate us from them. This will always be the case.
Originally posted by JesusIsAlive
First, animals do not reason. Second animals share some things in common with humans, but that does not mean that they share a common ancestry. Third, can an animal psychoanalyze a human? Can an animal perform heart surgery? Can an animal hold a job and negotiate a raise? Can an animal earn a college degree?Human beings are the only ones who can answer yes to all of these questions. I explain those instances this way: animals are capable of learning (I never said that they were not capable), but that level of learning is greatly limited compared to humans. What most animals learn is "conditional" type, learned behavior (e.g. dogs learning how to fetch, sit, attack, etc.) But that is not the same as what humans are capable of learning. Humans can learn and then take what the've learned and apply it to a situation "rationally." Animals do things that are not necessarily rational or indicative of them having reason. But they can do things that "we" consider intelligent. Animals do need some degree of intelligence depending on their God-designed purpose in this world. But animals still lack characteristics that easily separate us from them. This will always be the case.
Does that make neandertals animals too?
Originally posted by JesusIsAliveYou really don't understand animal behavior or biology, some animals can not understand cause and effect but some can and even problem solve which takes reason, intellect and cause and effect. Case in point birds using tools to get to their food and not only using tools but also modifying the tool to make it more effective, another example of problem solving is an octopus that was given a clear glass jar with some food in it and sealed with a normal screw top lid and it figured out how to get the lid off and get to the food. This wasn't a repeated experiment and done with multiple subjects with the same result every time, so tell me when did octopuses use glass jars? I can site even more examples.
First, animals do not reason. Second animals share some things in common with humans, but that does not mean that they share a common ancestry. Third, can an animal psychoanalyze a human? Can an animal perform heart surgery? Can an animal hold a job and negotiate a raise? Can an animal earn a college degree?Human beings are the only ones who can answer yes to all of these questions.I explain those instances this way: animals are capable of learning (I never said that they were not capable), but that level of learning is greatly limited compared to humans. What most animals learn is "conditional" type, learned behavior (e.g. dogs learning how to fetch, sit, attack, etc.) But that is not the same as what humans are capable of learning. Humans can learn and then take what the've learned and apply it to a situation "rationally." Animals do things that are not necessarily rational or indicative of them having reason. But they can do things that "we" consider intelligent. Animals do need some degree of intelligence depending on their God-designed purpose in this world. But animals still lack characteristics that easily separate us from them. This will always be the case.
As a side note if we could life 500 times our weight would we have invented forklifts? If we could have run 60 miles an hour would we have invented bicycles? If we could see at night would we have invented night vision? There are myriad of things that we can't do that animals can so just because they can't go to law school doesn't mean a thing and it is laughable that you even bring it up.
Originally posted by ThePittman
That is just one example of showing the stages that you wanted proof of. As for it being an amphibian that is correct but do you know what an amphibian means? Simply put it is a cold blooded animal that live both in water and on land. Many amphibians are directly linked to their fish “cousin” by genetics and fossil records. Whales are an example of aquatic life that are born with pseudo legs that are not part of any function of the animal but is linked back to being an amphibian. You really need to watch more Discovery Channel and Animal Planet. 😉
Like I said before: the tetrapod fossil was never a fish, it has always been an amphibian.
Yes I know what "amphibian" means which is why I reiterated to you this fact: amphibians can live in water and on land, so the tetrapod is not a fish. Fish live only in water because they do not have a lung system.
There is no evidence that whales were ever linked to being an amphibian. Whales have always been whales.
None of these examples that you have cited are evidence of evolution.
Originally posted by ThePittman
You really don't understand animal behavior or biology, some animals can not understand cause and effect but some can and even problem solve which takes reason, intellect and cause and effect. Case in point birds using tools to get to their food and not only using tools but also modifying the tool to make it more effective, another example of problem solving is an octopus that was given a clear glass jar with some food in it and sealed with a normal screw top lid and it figured out how to get the lid off and get to the food. This wasn't a repeated experiment and done with multiple subjects with the same result every time, so tell me when did octopuses use glass jars? I can site even more examples.
This subject is becoming more and more moot and it is has already started to digress from my original premise. I have acknowledged that animals do have certain levels of what "we" might construe as intelligence, but there is a huge gap between what animals are capable of intellectually that fails to rival what we as humans are capable of (there just simply is no comparison between the animal kingdom and humans). Yes, you have proven one thing: some animals are more intelligent than other animals--that is it. My original premise is that humans are not animals. An intelligent octopus is still an animal (i.e. an octopus). Can an octopus write an intelligble book? Can it read? How about give a speech about underwater life? No? None of the above?
No animal on the face of the earth is as intelligent as a human. Humans are without peer with respect to the animal kingdom. Animals think only in "concrete" terms. No animal can write poetry, or form a hypothesis about where it came from. No animal has ever thought about traveling to the moon? No animal has ever tried to get into a car and drive off in it. They don't have the capacity to understand life in those terms (that is why they are animals). When was the last time an "animal" designed a bomb and threatened to detonate it where there were many people (so that it could do the most harm)? Never? Well, why not? Because animals don't have reason. When was the last time an animal robbed a bank? When was the last time an animal stole something of yours and took it to a pawn shop to sell it for cash so that it could get some beer? Never in your wildest imaginations? Really, every example that I gave has been committed by a human being at some point in time. But not one example has been perpetrated by an animal. Do you know why? They don't have reason. They can only do what they are programmed to do instinctively. When was the last time you saw an animal at an art exhibit or wine tasting event? When was the last time an animal told you that it wanted to start a business so that it can make its own money and move out of its parent's jungle, ocean, lake, pond, desert, burrow, dam, nest, tree, or master's home? Never? Hmm, well why not? I thought that animals and humans were one and the same? Humans are far superior to the most intelligent animal, and this has always been true. Humans will never be subservient to animals. But animals have always been subordinate to humans.
So it does not matter how many examples that you cite, all of your examples fail to prove that humans are animals. The facts show otherwise, that humans are not animals, and that we are far superior to animals of every genre. Actually, the fact that we are even having this discussion is absurd. Why would anyone want to be equal with an animal? It makes no sense.
Originally posted by AngryManatee
so he cursed snakes by giving them the necessary anotomical features to travel without legs as well, with some snakes still having little vestigial claws on the the sides of their body where legs used to be?
Perhaps those snakes that still exhibit legs don't use them for traveling. I do not know for sure. But the fact is that snakes with legs is not proof of that evolution occurred. It could be a defect or perhaps God created that particular species that way.
Originally posted by JesusIsAlive
Perhaps those snakes that still exhibit legs don't use them for traveling. I do not know for sure. But the fact is that snakes with legs is not proof of that evolution occurred. It could be a defect or perhaps God created that particular species that way.
I didn't say that they exhibit legs, I said they showed vestigial remnants of limbs, such as single small toes or claws that are left over. These features are more prevalent in the older species of snakes, namely constrictors.
Also why would they be so well adapted for traveling on their stomachs if losing their legs was meant to be punishment?
Originally posted by Nellinator
Neanderthals are looking like they are actually human right now.
Yes except for the difference in proportions in certain parts of the brain, and also the lack of chin on neandertal along with the presence of an occipital bun and a bone structure that is twice as strong as a human's.
Originally posted by JesusIsAliveI never said that an amphibian was a fish, and how do you know that it was always an amphibian? Yes some whales do have vestigial legs and are a close kin to hippos, so why would to "different" species and environments be so similar?
Like I said before: the tetrapod fossil was never a fish, it has always been an amphibian.Yes I know what "amphibian" means which is why I reiterated to you this fact: amphibians can live in water and on land, so the tetrapod is not a fish. Fish live only in water because they do not have a lung system.
There is no evidence that whales were ever linked to being an amphibian. Whales have always been whales.
None of these examples that you have cited are evidence of evolution.
Just as many things that you can say that animals can't do I can name 10 that "humans" can't do. So for you definition of a non-animal is that they must be able to think in abstract thought, they must be able to commit a crime and write just to name a few? You have said nothing that proves that humans are not animals.
Humans need to consume food so do animals.
Humans have DNA so do animals.
Humans reproduce so do animals.
Humans care for their offspring so do animals.
Humans teach their offspring so do animals.
Humans have emotions so do animals.
Humans grow old and die so do animals.
If humans and animals are so different then why is the medicine we use on ourselves the same stuff that vets use? The biology of most manuals is very similar to our own, your level of zoology and animal behavior is best the level of a 5th grader and this is getting pointless at best. The plain and simple fact is that humans are animals and part of the animal kingdom the only difference is that we are at the top only due to the use of tools.
Another question for you, if things never evolved as you say and a dolphin was always a dolphin then why are there no fossils of them 10,000 years ago, where did they come from if not evolving from something else?
Originally posted by AngryManatee
I didn't say that they exhibit legs, I said they showed vestigial remnants of limbs, such as single small toes or claws that are left over. These features are more prevalent in the older species of snakes, namely constrictors.Also why would they be so well adapted for traveling on their stomachs if losing their legs was meant to be punishment?
Perhaps losing their legs was not the punishment, traveling on their belly was.