Evolution 101

timberlandko wrote:

gungasnake wrote:

I assume if there were any sort of a logical case for you to try to make (as opposed to the stupid ad hominems), you'd try to make it.

Gunga, I submit that the overwhelming consensus of the academic, scientific, legal, and mainstream theologic communities is that the postulates you forward are demonstrated absurdities. I submit further that failure to realize, acknowledge, and accept that is itself a compounding absurdity. I submit yet further, in that demonstrated fact provides absolute defense, that while ad hominem has been employed in this discussion, you misattribute its source.

Is it just me, or is there actually a total lack of anything resembling a reasoned argument in any of that?

0 Replies

xingu wrote:

Creationist claim;

Quote:
Most mutations are harmful, so the overall effect of mutations is harmful.
Source:
Morris, Henry M. 1985. Scientific Creationism. Green Forest, AR: Master Books, pp. 55-57.
Watchtower Bible and Tract Society. 1985. Life--How Did It Get Here? Brooklyn, NY, pg. 100.

Response:
1. Most mutations are neutral. Nachman and Crowell estimate around 3 deleterious mutations out of 175 per generation in humans (2000). Of those that have significant effect, most are harmful, but a significant fraction are beneficial. The harmful mutations do not survive long, and the beneficial mutations survive much longer, so when you consider only surviving mutations, most are beneficial.

Believe it or not, that does not impact or affect the statement I made.

EVEN ASSUMING THE EVOLUTIONITES' FANTASY WORLD in which there could be such a thing as a "beneficial mutation" which led in the direction of becoming a new KIND of animal, if a creature undergoes enough mutations to try to get more than one "beneficial mutation" at a time, he will also be getting enough to be getting lots of the harmful/fatal ones, and he will DIE before he ever gets to become a stepping stone in the process of becoming a new kind of animal.

0 Replies

If I can insert something into this scintillating discussion, I would like to direct your attention to the rest of the following article. What I have quoted is just a teaser.

http://www.nytimes.com/2006/05/18/science/18evolve.html?pagewanted=print

"May 18, 2006
Two Splits Between Human and Chimp Lines Suggested

By NICHOLAS WADE

The split between the human and chimpanzee lineages, a pivotal event in human evolution, may have occurred millions of years later than fossil bones suggest, and the break may not have been as clean as humans might like.

A new comparison of the human and chimp genomes suggests that after the two lineages separated, they may have begun interbreeding.

The analysis, by David Reich, Nick Patterson and colleagues at the Broad Institute in Cambridge, Mass., sets up a serious conflict between the date of the split as indicated by fossil skulls, about 7 million years ago, and the much younger date implied by genetic analysis, as late as 5.4 million years ago.

The conflict can be resolved, Dr. Reich's team suggests in an article published in today's Nature, if there were in fact two splits between the human and chimp lineages, with the first being followed by interbreeding between the two populations and then a second split.

The suggestion of a hybridization has startled paleoanthropologists, who nonetheless are treating the new genetic data seriously. The earliest human-lineage fossil remains, like Sahelanthropus, seem clearly to have been bipeds, walking on two feet, but the ancestors of chimps presumably walked on their two feet and the knuckles of their hands, as do modern chimps.

"If the earliest hominids are bipedal, it's hard to think of them interbreeding with the knuckle-walking chimps ?- it's not what we had in mind," said Daniel E. Lieberman, a biological anthropologist at Harvard.

Hybrid populations often go extinct because the males are sterile, Dr. Reich pointed out, so hybrid females may have mated with male chimps to produce viable offspring. The human lineage finally re-emerged from this hybrid population, Dr. Reich suggests, explaining the younger genetic dates, while the very early fossils with humanlike features may come from the earlier period before the hybridization.

David Page, a human geneticist at the Whitehead Institute in Cambridge, said the design of the new analysis was "really beautiful, with all the pieces of the puzzle laid out." Whether the hybridization will turn out to be the right solution to the puzzle remains to be seen, "but for the moment I can't think of a better explanation," he said.

These crucial events in early human evolution are hard to judge dispassionately, Dr. Page noted. "We'd like to have a more Victorian view of our genome," he said, "and this reminds us that we are really animals and gives us a glimpse of our past and of a story that we might like to have told in a different way." "

0 Replies

gungasnake wrote:

timberlandko wrote:
Gunga, I submit that the overwhelming consensus of the academic, scientific, legal, and mainstream theologic communities is that the postulates you forward are demonstrated absurdities. I submit further that failure to realize, acknowledge, and accept that is itself a compounding absurdity. I submit yet further, in that demonstrated fact provides absolute defense, that while ad hominem has been employed in this discussion, you misattribute its source.

Is it just me, or is there actually a total lack of anything resembling a reasoned argument in any of that?

Its just you, gunga ... which, by the evidence your history of commentary here at a2k provides, should come as no surprise to most.

0 Replies

suman, Your post explains the reasons why the writers of the bible had no clue; their inability to study their environment as we are able to two thousand years later with more science and technology now available. Their ignorance was really not their fault; they just created a god without understanding how in later years, humans will be able to look back thousands of years to determine what happened from the earliest time of this universe.

Even with increased knowledge about our environment that negates the bible, I doubt humans will accept the information provided. Humans are too comfortable with a invisible god out there to provide for their security.

0 Replies

Agreed, c.i. It appears that every culture has come up with some kind of conception of god or gods, which I think says more about humans' need to understand within a cause and effect framework than anything else.

0 Replies

Quote:

suman, Your post explains the reasons why the writers of the bible had no clue; their inability to study their environment as we are able to two thousand years later with more science and technology now available.

You have to remember that these guys thought the earth was flat, heaven was a dome supported by pillars and the sun moved around the earth. Why God even stopped the sun for a day!

What a miracle!

0 Replies

Ackshully, while the really, really ancient ancients - including the writers of the Pentateuch - in all likelyhood conceived the Earth as flat, by around 2500 years ago it was generally accepted, at least by Western literates, that the Earth was a sphere. Pythagoras, in the late 6th Century BCE, on the basis of the congruence of varied observations, determined and taught the logic of a spherical Earth. Aristotle further expanded on Pythagoras' observations and postulations, and in the 3rd Century BC, Eratosthenes, using Euclidian geometry, proved the theorem through observation of the properties of shadow and sunlight at various locations, coming up with a calculation of the Earth's circumference that was within a few percent of what we know today to be the case. Considerable evidence exists that the ancient Chinese, at roughly the same time, had through similar reasoning and calculation arrived at more or less the same conclusions. Pliny the Elder, in his 1st Century Natural History (which work provided essentially the basis and foundation of all Western science from thence through over a millenia, right up to the Rennaisance), stated that the spherical shape of the Earth was common knowledge. The concept is quite evident throughout essentially contemporary and later Roman and Greek writings.

Interestingly, however, resistance to the notion, while not universal, was not uncommon among the early formers of Christian thought. Though the 5th Century Eastern Roman (or Byzantine) Emperor Theodosius II, a Christian, of course (and quite influential in institutionalizing Anti-Semitism as a Christian principle), issued coins depicting the Earth as a sphere - more of an oblate globe, really - surmounted by a cross, Augustine (late 4th-early 5th Centuries) was skeptical at least, while Church Fathers Severian of Galba, Cyril of Jerusalem, John Chysostom, and Diodorus of Tarsus (all roughly 4th/5th Centuries), more or less held the notion of Earth as anything other than flat (though perhaps circular, bounded by oceans) was antithetical to Scripture. Similarly, early Christian leaders and shapers-of-thought Boethius of Rome and Isidore of Sevile (5th/6th Centuries) taught that the Earth was wheel-shaped. Bede, (6th/7th Centuries), however, wrote unambiguously of a round or spheroid Earth, but Boniface of Spain a bit later taught that the notion of "the rotundity of the Earth was contrary to Scripture". All held the Earth to be the center of the cosmos, whatever its shape.

0 Replies

Where do I send the pencils and notepads Gunga ?

0 Replies

Seems we have a parallel discussion/digression going on over HERE - what goes 'round comes 'round, I guess Laughing

0 Replies

timber wrote-

Quote:

Ackshully, while the really, really ancient ancients - including the writers of the Pentateuch - in all likelyhood conceived the Earth as flat, by around 2500 years ago it was generally accepted, at least by Western literates, that the Earth was a sphere.

It is fairly easy to accept that illiterate peasants, and suchlike, could have been led to believe by the wise men of their day that the earth was flat or sausage shaped but one has to be very gullible to believe that the wise men thought so. The curvature of the earth can be seen now so it is fair to assume it could have been seen then.

But timber has raised the literate/illiterate dichotomy here which is something he has consistently refused to address in relation to modern society. This is why he has left the term "literate" undefined. One presumes it teeters on the edge of his own valuation of his own literacy.

It is a scientific question whether the illiterate and the literate can usefully be educated in the same way given that timber has admitted the two classes exist despite a ragged edge between them in the same way that there's a ragged edge between rich and poor known as the middle-class.
If knowledge is a good there will be rich and poor in knowledge. Shamans,priests and priestesses, gurus, an elite group to which c.i. aspires to belong, boffins, savants,mystics, scientists, diplomats etc will be rich in knowledge and the rest less so. Even veterans will be richer in knowledge than novices.

In 2000 years, if all goes well, I would expect that they will laugh at our notion of individually owned property as it is enshrined in our own sciptures and the less literate of them might possibly presume that we all share such a silly, but useful faith.

0 Replies

bookmark

0 Replies

spendi, Here you go again with your rants that contains nothing except your own delusions. Whatever titles given me by a2k is not self-assigned. Simple concepts seems to escape you. Try to stay sober once-in-awhile.

0 Replies

Now, now ... mind the sticks, kids; don't want anybody to get a poke in the eye, do we?

On the other hand, if anyone really feels a deepdown need to pick a fight with someone, I'm always available. In fairness, I s'pose I first should mention consequences of less-than-rewarding nature have befallen some who have chosen to do so.

0 Replies

Why on earth would anyone wish to pick a fight.

My posts are constructed with a view that they might have a value for some people whilst accepting that they might not for others. It is a quite normal process and is one of the primary features of conversation dynamics at all levels of society and might be seen as classless.

Why a fight should ensue, assuming one avoids insulting someone else, is beyond me and must explain why people who so readily insult others and offer vague threats of violence, which is all a "less-than-rewarding" outcome can possibly mean, are so prone to believe that religion is a cause of war. I think it is called projection but in this case the whole human race is having one view projected upon it.

For those who experience has taught that my posts are worthless might I suggest that they don't read them in a similar way that they don't read much of the vast sum of readable material available in various places. I hope such people will have the manners to allow that those who might find some value in my posts, small though it be, ought to be able to see them if they feel like it and irrespective of whether I'm pissed or not at the time of composition.

0 Replies

spendi, What you say is all well and good, but I would recommend you stay away from making ridiculous claims of posters on a2k if you don't appreciate rebuts. In this regard, sobriety would be of benefit for you.

0 Replies

spendi, there's generally no good reason to pick a fight, but that doesn't stop some folks. "Value", as alluded to in your post above is subjective, a matter of personal perspective and preference.

Straw man arguments, red herrings, broadbrush characterizations, outright falsehoods, and general inanity should, IMO, be considered more qualifiable/quantifiable attributes of postings than the ephemeral "Value" descriptor you've employed, but again, thats just my opinion; your mileage may vary.

Oh, and while I from time to time will present a gentle, if pointed, reminder, I believe you would be hard pressed to find on A2K any example of my having offered "vague threats" of anything, or of otherwise stepping beyond the bounds of this website's Terms of Service and Debate Guidelines, or practicing anything other than civility and, at a minimum, acceptable decorum. I could be wrong about that - I'm sure I've posted "while under the influence" of something or other at one or another time or times, though while the possibility exists and must be acknowledged, I doubt any such example may be found on these boards. I readilly admit that elswhere on the web, and in the meat world, my behavior has been known to be somewhat less circumspect.

0 Replies

timber wrote-

Quote:

spendi, there's generally no good reason to pick a fight, but that doesn't stop some folks. "Value", as alluded to in your post above is subjective, a matter of personal perspective and preference.

Straw man arguments, red herrings, broadbrush characterizations, outright falsehoods, and general inanity should, IMO, be considered more qualifiable/quantifiable attributes of postings than the ephemeral "Value" descriptor you've employed, but again, thats just my opinion; your mileage may vary.

I agree that value is subjective. If it wasn't everybody would read posts as they would a bus timetable.

It is all I look for in anything. If you took the trouble to read Mr Richards' Principles of Literary Criticism you might come to agree. It would depend if there was value for you in it.

Value is often found buried. One is looking for the nuggets in the slurry.

I was reading Mailer once and he said something to the effect that if anybody looked to be offering to do you some good you should run. But it's a complex point actually because it's only a rule of thumb and not a sweeping statement meant to cover all instances. Others have said something similar. It had value for me. All good books and other arts have some value. Veblen saved me a fortune and a great deal of wasted effort. Might even have saved my life. I've found that once you learn how to extract value from art you get better at it and in choosing which art to expose yourself to most. And it is always something that doesn't flatter you like advertising signs that con/ You into thinking you're the one/That can win what's never been won etc

In the event that I produce any-

Quote:

Straw man arguments, red herrings, broadbrush characterizations, outright falsehoods, and general inanity

I apologise and am happy to have them pointed out to me in order that I might learn to avoid them.

So you see c.i. I don't mind rebuts at all. (Thesis-anti-thesis-new thesis type of thing). I value them. All that is in your head not mine.

0 Replies

spendi, But we already know you too well; you'll resort back to your "old" ways soon. We don't even have to hold our breath. LOL

0 Replies

While Richards perhaps does represent the "state of the Art" for criticism as it applied nearly a century ago, spendi, much has developed since. See McLuhan, Sontag, Auerbach, and Roger Ebert, for example. Do try to catch up.

0 Replies

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know