Originally posted by ushomefree
Just read the article (at your leisure): The Origin of Man. And it contains of bibliography for further research.I didn't write the dang thing.
again, I'll take the bait
you do realize that fossil evidence is probably the worst evidence of evolution?
Originally posted by inimalist
brain tissue is incredibly expensive, with regards to resources and energy consumption, when compared to other tissue.In situations where food, especially sugars, are scarce, the development of brain areas for higher intelligence could be disadvantageous (which is seen in Africa at the same time as human evolution; most other animals in that time and place were losing brain size).
The same goes on an individual basis. If there were that bad of a food scarcity on the planet, people with more brain tissue would require more, thus being more likely to die off.
So . . . one condition where being smarter is a liability. And even then if you're smart enough it ceases to be one.
Originally posted by inimalist
however, intelligence allows one to try and compensate, so it would be a really interesting experiment to run.... I need like 2000 volunteers...
And an icepick?
Originally posted by Shakyamunison
Not at all. Nature does not care if you are smart unless that intelligence allows you to survive. If tomorrow something happened on the Earth that made being smart a disadvantage, humans would soon be gone.
Originally posted by Shakyamunison
Count me in only if it requires a steady regiment of breeding with beautiful females. 😆
hmmmm
that brings up a good point....
should we control for sexual selection or would it be part of the equation? it would better simulate a natural context, but .... wow I'm taking this too far...
Originally posted by Digi
I <3 xkcd. After gorging myself on web comics at one point, I simplified down to about 3. Xkcd was among them. It's always a good time.
I love it
I've sort of exhausted the "random" button, which gave me a few days of joy, so I should just start following it.
I used to read PA all the time, but I sort of fell off the wagon....
web comics are more about piracy for me these days. T'yarrrr
Originally posted by inimalist
I love itI've sort of exhausted the "random" button, which gave me a few days of joy, so I should just start following it.
I used to read PA all the time, but I sort of fell off the wagon....
web comics are more about piracy for me these days. T'yarrrr
Hey! Stop derailing this worthless thread. 😛
Originally posted by Da PittmanThis is one of the main reasons that I think a lot of people have issues with evolution is that they think that a dog will change into a frog all of a sudden which has nothing to do with evolution. It is easy to see what the smallest of changes to the DNA can do just by looking at a man and a chimp, our DNA is almost 99% the same and you see all the vast differences between the two. Most mammals have very similar DNA and it only takes a change of a few strands to completely change an animal to “something else”.
Originally posted by ushomefree
Not so fast! The skeletal and brain structure between man and "ape" are fundamentally different. For starters, apes do not build super-computers and cannot walk upright. Their knee joints are entirely different. What constituted this? The fossil record doesn't even associate the two. But let's not look at things from an eagle's eye-view. Life exists on the molecular level, and that is what makes you and I possible. This all boils back to DNA information. Without "new information," the end result is no "new raw material." Genetic mutation is destructive. DNA information is just as complex and sensitive as binary code. Disturbing it, does not introduce new information -- information needed to assemble/build joints for walking upright). I understand your point, but it is wholly false.
Give "The Origin of Man" a fair read, please.
Originally posted by Da Pittman
How is my information false, it is well proven that our DNA is 99% similar to that of a chimp. It is also well proven that just a simple change in just one strand of DNA will have great effects on the organism, so how is this wrong? The differences between a man and chimp you just proved, that this 1% change between our DNA and that of a chimp has such a HUGE difference in biological appearance and function. Even with the banana quote shows the difference in just 40%, so why would a designer of all things make the DNA the same for a plant as they do for animals and much less humans?
As for the latter portion of your statement, I'm not willing to speculate; it's irrelevant besides. What does a "designer" have to do with this conversation/debate to begin with?!
The point that I was trying to make, is that, biological information (DNA) has values pertaining to all organisms. And those values are incredibly sensitive (like binary code). You can't take the DNA of organism (A) and replicate, delete and/or re-arrange its DNA to create a new organism -- organism (B).
In other words, you can't take "cat" DNA and create a dog or an earth worm. THE INFORMATION NEEDED TO PROVIDE A DOG OR AN EARTH WORM (DOES NOT EXIST IN CAT DNA)!
As previously stated, Darwinists, commonly use examples of "genetic mutation" to circumvent the issue. Genetic mutation, regardless of how you look at it, does not provide "new" information to create new organisms. Genetic mutations, and I've said this before, are merely errors within "existing" biological information. As with my analogy, and this applies to organisms too, you can't take building instructions of a bicycle and create a motorcycle, regardless of how similar they may be.
Yes, Evolution is true, but only on the "micro" scale. All variation is "limited in scope," thanks to DNA. I'm sorry if this doesn't fuel your imagination, but it is true.
I'm not trying to come off as superior to all on the forum. I find it amazing, that not one member of the KMC thanked Shakyamunison for his effort, but to put a lid on it. The man actually compared Molecular Biology to erosion. When we talk about "high profile" issues, it is easy to get lost in the conversation/debate and lose site of the fact that you and I are people (simply in disagreement)! I mean no harm, and I hope the same applies to you. For instance, I said that I would buy Shakyamunison a beer, if we ever met in person, and I meant it!!
Shaky... this is for you brother 🍺
Originally posted by inimalistushomefree:
could you put in simple, yet specific terms, what exactly would constitute evidence of evolution?
you say the "appearance" of "new information", but these are ambiguous, to me at least.
also, were you to engage in a debate, what would be your hypothesis?
Please read the post I provided above; it touches base on the questions you presented.
Originally posted by ushomefree
...I'm not trying to come off as superior to all on the forum. I find it amazing, that not one member of the KMC thanked Shakyamunison for his effort, but to put a lid on it. The man actually compared Molecular Biology to erosion. When we talk about "high profile" issues, it is easy to get lost in the conversation/debate and lose site of the fact that you and I are people (simply in disagreement)! I mean no harm, and I hope the same applies to you. For instance, I said that I would buy Shakyamunison a beer, if we ever met in person, and I meant it!!Shaky... this is for you brother 🍺 ...
And I will take you up on that, one day.
I really don't know if Molecular Biology compares to erosion, but it was a damn funny line. I laugh my butt off, and it shut you up. 😆
Originally posted by ushomefreeStop with the childish large font if you want to be taken seriously. I will take your bait.
As for the latter portion of your statement, I'm not willing to speculate; it's irrelevant besides. What does a "designer" have to do with this conversation/debate to begin with?!The point that I was trying to make, is that, biological information (DNA) has values pertaining to all organisms. And those values are incredibly sensitive (like binary code). You can't take the DNA of organism (A) and replicate, delete and/or re-arrange its DNA to create a new organism -- organism (B).
In other words, you can't take "cat" DNA and create a dog or an earth worm. THE INFORMATION NEEDED TO PROVIDE A DOG OR AN EARTH WORM (DOES NOT EXIST IN CAT DNA)!
As previously stated, Darwinists, commonly use examples of "genetic mutation" to circumvent the issue. Genetic mutation, regardless of how you look at it, does not provide "new" information to create new organisms. Genetic mutations, and I've said this before, are merely errors within "existing" biological information. As with my analogy, and this applies to organisms too, you can't take building instructions of a bicycle and create a motorcycle, regardless of how similar they may be.
Yes, Evolution is true, but only on the "micro" scale. All variation is "limited in scope," thanks to DNA. I'm sorry if this doesn't fuel your imagination, but it is true.
I'm not trying to come off as superior to all on the forum. I find it amazing, that not one member of the KMC thanked Shakyamunison for his effort, but to put a lid on it. The man actually compared Molecular Biology to erosion. When we talk about "high profile" issues, it is easy to get lost in the conversation/debate and lose site of the fact that you and I are people (simply in disagreement)! I mean no harm, and I hope the same applies to you. For instance, I said that I would buy Shakyamunison a beer, if we ever met in person, and I meant it!!
Shaky... this is for you brother 🍺[/size]
[size=4]Please read the post I provided above; it touches base on the questions you presented.
First off the article that you posted is nothing new in the camp to disprove evolution and has as many flaws as it ever did. Your article doesn't say anything about DNA and keeps harping on the fossil record theory which is laughable at best.
"But despite all the research that has been carried out, the claim of "human evolution" has not been backed up by any concrete scientific discovery, particularly in the fossil field."
I was going to stop reading just after this quote alone but decided to give what you call a "good read". If what they say is true let us look at it this way, they say there should be fossil records for every stage of mankind but they say there have been over 6,000 species of apes so that would mean that there is 6,0000 fossil records of apes. Last time I checked there were not that many, do you have an idea how rare fossils are?
"And William Fix, the author of an important book on the subject of paleoanthropology, makes this comment:" 😆
I would ask you to define what you mean by "new" information, several have asked you to define this which (if you did) I have not seen it. Let me ask you this, if our DNA is 99% that of a chimp why are we so "different".
Some reading for you
http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2008/03/080305144221.htm
http://www.genetichealth.com/g101_changes_in_dna.shtml
Originally posted by inimalistI think it should be...
"We haven't seen (goalpost a) turn into (goalpost b)"?I only hope you apply this level of absolute empiricism to all of your firmly held convictions 😉
a
a.1
a.2
a.3
a.4
a.5
a.6
a.7
a.8
a.9
b
😉
A little more reading for you ushomefree
Transitional Fossils
http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CC/CC200.html
Genetic Mutations
http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CB/CB101.html
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/mutations.html
A little more info about your "William Fix, the author of an important book"
"In summary, Fix's criticisms of the fossil record have no validity. Although creationists occasionally like to promote Fix as someone who is skeptical of evolution from a non-creationist viewpoint, his criticisms appear to have been mostly borrowed from creationist literature. Fix's book has, in fact, sunk into almost total (and well-deserved) oblivion. A web search for it found no references to it except for the occasional creationist web page."
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/homs/bonepeddlers.html
Originally posted by Da Pittman
I think it should be...a
a.1
a.2
a.3
a.4
a.5
a.6
a.7
a.8
a.9
b
😉
😂
its weird though, were ushomefree a radical philosophical skeptic, he might have a point. Post-modernism tells us that we can't be absolutely sure of anything in history, so we cannot rely on reconstructions from present evidence, as they are skewed by dominant narratives of the time. So, ya, we have never seen a single cell organism become multicellular, so in that absolute sense, we don't know it is possible.
Unfortunately, ushomefree is not a radical skeptic, and his argument against evolution is equally damning of his own religious faith.
Originally posted by ushomefree
Not so fast! The skeletal and brain structure between man and "ape" are fundamentally different. For starters, apes do not build super-computers and cannot walk upright. Their knee joints are entirely different. What constituted this? The fossil record doesn't even associate the two. But let's not look at things from an eagle's eye-view. Life exists on the molecular level, and that is what makes you and I possible. This all boils back to DNA information. Without "new information," the end result is no "new raw material." Genetic mutation is destructive. DNA information is just as complex and sensitive as binary code. Disturbing it, does not introduce new information -- information needed to assemble/build joints for walking upright). I understand your point, but it is wholly false.Give "The Origin of Man" a fair read, please.
Genetic mutation in itself isn't inherently destructive in terms of phenotypic expression. It only gives a final outcome. Whether or not the final outcome results in death is largely due to the external factors. It is the combination that drives change in species.
Take a simplistic example. If a species competes within itself for food from a bush and most of the species within a habitat are roughly between a certain size range then the availability of food within their reach is a factor determining how many of their population can exist in a certain area. Now if a genetic mutation results in 1 member of that species to fall outwith the normal size range, even to a small degree, and there is access to a food source that can be accessed only by that member of the species, then it is likely that member of the species will survive and it is likely that individual will pass on its genes including the mutation which enables it to access that food.
In other words, you can't take "cat" DNA and create a dog or an earth worm. THE INFORMATION NEEDED TO PROVIDE A DOG OR AN EARTH WORM (DOES NOT EXIST IN CAT DNA)!
Actually it does. Given that all life is based on 4 bases and 21 Amino acids but these are the basis for a possible 50,000 protein coding genes in humans alone.
Regardless. We're now at the stage of creating life ourselves. Some researchers are even designing new forms of life away from the standard DNA based life that everything we know is based on. Others are about to remove the genetic code from one bacteria and replace it with an entirely human designed DNA code.
Creationists need to stop fixating on Darwin anyway. His work was carried out 250 years ago. You don't judge any other science on research from that long ago so don't do it with evolutionary biology.
Yes, Evolution is true, but only on the "micro" scale. All variation is "limited in scope," thanks to DNA. I'm sorry if this doesn't fuel your imagination, but it is true.
You do realise that macroevolution is considered simply compounded microevolution. You do also realise that macroevolution has been shown to occur over single generation in plants due to polyploidy genomic reproduction?
Your continual insistance that "new information" is neccessary isn't true, as i've shown already because genomic expression is all done on the basis of a very small set of bases and amino acids.
Of course, If it's new information you are seeking then you should monitor the results of these researchers closely
http://www.newscientist.com/article/mg20126990.300-second-genesis-the-search-for-shadow-life.html