| Author |
 Topic Search  Topic Options
|
Equality 7-2521 
Forum Senior Member
Joined: August 11 2005
Location: Philly
Status: Offline
Points: 15784
|
 Posted: April 28 2012 at 16:35 |
 Dean wrote:
Ambient Hurricanes wrote:
Anyway,
Equality 7-2521 wrote:
People didn't evolve from apes.
|
Yup.
|
I'm guessing I know what Pat was getting at... However, rather than guess that you're not thinking the same thing, would you care to enlighten us? |
I meant that he evolved along with apes from a common ancestor. I assumed he meant ape in the modern sense. I suspect that what you think I was getting at.
|
|
"One had to be a Newton to notice that the moon is falling, when everyone sees that it doesn't fall. "
|
 |
stonebeard
Forum Senior Member
Joined: May 27 2005
Location: NE Indiana
Status: Offline
Points: 28057
|
Posted: April 28 2012 at 17:43 |
Humans are a species included in the term "ape". Humans are apes.
Anyway, it's impossible to answer really, because most bird have very low-functioning brains, perhaps slightly more sophisticated than reptiles. Only corvids are comparably intelligent to, say, a dolphin or other mammal.
But really, all I'm thinking of it this surreal pterodactyl gangbang porn .gif I found on 4 chan a few years ago. That's all that this thread really brings to mind, if I'm being honest.
|
|
|
|
Ambient Hurricanes
Forum Senior Member
Joined: December 25 2011
Location: internet
Status: Offline
Points: 2549
|
Posted: April 28 2012 at 20:34 |
Dean wrote:
Ambient Hurricanes wrote:
Dean wrote:
Ambient Hurricanes wrote:
Anyway,
Equality 7-2521 wrote:
People didn't evolve from apes.
|
Yup.
|
I'm guessing I know what Pat was getting at... However, rather than guess that you're not thinking the same thing, would you care to enlighten us? |
I don't believe in macro-evolution. I accept micro-evolution (change within kinds) as a scientific fact, but don't think that one kind can change into another. |
Macro evolution is micro-evolution seen from a distance - if you accept one from the evidence (no belief necessary) then the other follows as a consequence.
Imagine this as a representation of the evolutionary timeline from fish to birds:
 Each wavelength of light represents a creature on that timeline, the creature to the left is its parent, the creature to the right is its offspring so at any single point on the spectrum the creature is directly related to its neighbours - it is a different colour because of micro-evolution. No matter where you pick all the neighbours in the local neighbourhood are similar colours but each are different colour because of micro-evolution - the creature at 500nm is green, but all the creatures from 492 to 577 are green ... but the creature at 491.99999 is also greenish because its offspring at 492 is called green ... the two are the same species because one is the parent of the other. And the same is true at 577.00001, it is also greenish because its parent was green ... the two are the same species because one is the offspring of the other. However, the blue-green creature at 491.99999 is nothing like the green-yellow creature at 577.00001, the first could be an archosauria and the second an ornithosuchia - two distinctly different species of creature along the unbroken line from fish to birds.
People struggle with macro-evolution because of there is no step-function from one species to the next... we cannot observe speciation because everywhere we look all we can see is micro-evolution and every species that exists to day is the result of a divergence from a common ancestor way, way back along the evolutionary time line. Fish do not turn into birds, apes do not turn into humans - apes are apes and humans are humans - the common ancestor of apes and humans was not an ape or a human.
For example, birds are not related to crocodiles, yet the creature at 491.99999 is a common ancestor of birds and crocodiles - the "spectrum" example just doesn't show the branch that produced crocs and gators.
Ambient Hurricanes wrote:
I'm a creationist, so I draw this opinion from Scripture and I am convinced that science supports it. |
As you can gather, I'm not a creationist and cannot draw any opinion from scripture, however as someone who is interested in science (and, in passing, religion) I would be interested in how science supports scripture on this. |
That's a good explanation of how macro and micro evolution could be related, but it doesn't prove that they are. The theory of macro-evolution was essentially an extrapolation from micro-evolution, and a grossly invalid one by the law of extrapolation. Going from observations concerning change within species and genus to an assumption that all life evolved from common ancestors is a huge, unwarranted leap. Darwin's theory was an interesting one, but it was just that: a theory, and modern scientists have gone on to base all of their research on an unproven theory. Modern science makes sense in the light of evolution because we've conducted modern science on the basis of evolution, but it really makes just as much sense when approached with a belief in intelligent design. Evolution has yet to explain the Cambrian explosion, or the fact that the human body contains parts, such as ATP generators, that could not possibly have evolved according to Darwinian or neo-Darwinian theory because they would not in any way function unless all parts were present.
|
|
I love dogs, I've always loved dogs
|
|
ClemofNazareth
Special Collaborator
Prog Folk Researcher
Joined: August 17 2005
Location: United States
Status: Offline
Points: 4659
|
Posted: April 28 2012 at 20:59 |
Equality 7-2521 wrote:
People didn't evolve from apes.
|
What is this "evolution"?
|
|
"Peace is the only battle worth waging."
Albert Camus
|
|
stonebeard
Forum Senior Member
Joined: May 27 2005
Location: NE Indiana
Status: Offline
Points: 28057
|
Posted: April 28 2012 at 22:12 |
Ambient Hurricanes wrote:
Dean wrote:
Ambient Hurricanes wrote:
Dean wrote:
Ambient Hurricanes wrote:
Anyway,
Equality 7-2521 wrote:
People didn't evolve from apes.
|
Yup.
|
I'm guessing I know what Pat was getting at... However, rather than guess that you're not thinking the same thing, would you care to enlighten us? |
I don't believe in macro-evolution. I accept micro-evolution (change within kinds) as a scientific fact, but don't think that one kind can change into another. |
Macro evolution is micro-evolution seen from a distance - if you accept one from the evidence (no belief necessary) then the other follows as a consequence.
Imagine this as a representation of the evolutionary timeline from fish to birds:
Each wavelength of light represents a creature on that timeline, the creature to the left is its parent, the creature to the right is its offspring so at any single point on the spectrum the creature is directly related to its neighbours - it is a different colour because of micro-evolution. No matter where you pick all the neighbours in the local neighbourhood are similar colours but each are different colour because of micro-evolution - the creature at 500nm is green, but all the creatures from 492 to 577 are green ... but the creature at 491.99999 is also greenish because its offspring at 492 is called green ... the two are the same species because one is the parent of the other. And the same is true at 577.00001, it is also greenish because its parent was green ... the two are the same species because one is the offspring of the other. However, the blue-green creature at 491.99999 is nothing like the green-yellow creature at 577.00001, the first could be an archosauria and the second an ornithosuchia - two distinctly different species of creature along the unbroken line from fish to birds.
People struggle with macro-evolution because of there is no step-function from one species to the next... we cannot observe speciation because everywhere we look all we can see is micro-evolution and every species that exists to day is the result of a divergence from a common ancestor way, way back along the evolutionary time line. Fish do not turn into birds, apes do not turn into humans - apes are apes and humans are humans - the common ancestor of apes and humans was not an ape or a human.
For example, birds are not related to crocodiles, yet the creature at 491.99999 is a common ancestor of birds and crocodiles - the "spectrum" example just doesn't show the branch that produced crocs and gators.
Ambient Hurricanes wrote:
I'm a creationist, so I draw this opinion from Scripture and I am convinced that science supports it. |
As you can gather, I'm not a creationist and cannot draw any opinion from scripture, however as someone who is interested in science (and, in passing, religion) I would be interested in how science supports scripture on this. |
That's a good explanation of how macro and micro evolution could be related, but it doesn't prove that they are. The theory of macro-evolution was essentially an extrapolation from micro-evolution, and a grossly invalid one by the law of extrapolation. Going from observations concerning change within species and genus to an assumption that all life evolved from common ancestors is a huge, unwarranted leap. Darwin's theory was an interesting one, but it was just that: a theory, and modern scientists have gone on to base all of their research on an unproven theory. Modern science makes sense in the light of evolution because we've conducted modern science on the basis of evolution, but it really makes just as much sense when approached with a belief in intelligent design. Evolution has yet to explain the Cambrian explosion, or the fact that the human body contains parts, such as ATP generators, that could not possibly have evolved according to Darwinian or neo-Darwinian theory because they would not in any way function unless all parts were present. |
....therefore Jesus.
|
|
|
|
Ambient Hurricanes
Forum Senior Member
Joined: December 25 2011
Location: internet
Status: Offline
Points: 2549
|
Posted: April 28 2012 at 22:53 |
stonebeard wrote:
Ambient Hurricanes wrote:
That's a good explanation of how macro and micro evolution could be related, but it doesn't prove that they are. The theory of macro-evolution was essentially an extrapolation from micro-evolution, and a grossly invalid one by the law of extrapolation. Going from observations concerning change within species and genus to an assumption that all life evolved from common ancestors is a huge, unwarranted leap. Darwin's theory was an interesting one, but it was just that: a theory, and modern scientists have gone on to base all of their research on an unproven theory. Modern science makes sense in the light of evolution because we've conducted modern science on the basis of evolution, but it really makes just as much sense when approached with a belief in intelligent design. Evolution has yet to explain the Cambrian explosion, or the fact that the human body contains parts, such as ATP generators, that could not possibly have evolved according to Darwinian or neo-Darwinian theory because they would not in any way function unless all parts were present. |
....therefore Jesus. |
...Therefore an intelligent designer. Science can't prove Christianity, or else there would be no need for faith (well, actually there would. But that's another story). I don't claim to prove my faith by attempting to disprove evolution, only to validate it. Not even all intelligent design proponents are Christian. The Discovery Institute, in particular, is very careful to stay away from speculation on who the designer might be, because they want to rely on the scientific method, not on religion.
|
|
I love dogs, I've always loved dogs
|
|
progresssaurus
Forum Senior Member
Joined: March 08 2012
Location: Czech Republic
Status: Offline
Points: 1884
|
Posted: April 29 2012 at 02:12 |
Back from childish scientific bickering to our serious scholarly "just to fun" problems!!!!
Smurph wrote:
This idea is taken from another thread about Ryan Seacrest. But I felt this could be a fun topic.
If people evolved from birds instead of apes... what would we all look like, talk like, etc.
How else would culture be different?
These important questions should be answered . And feel free to ask any others. |
Before all we must resolve most important question:
Holy Scripture schould to be a little different than now. For example:
Mt 6,26 Behold the fowls of the air people of the earth: for they sow not, neither do they reap, nor gather into barns; yet your heavenly earthly Father feedeth them. Are ye not much better than they?
1 Kr 14,11 Him that dieth of Jeroboam in the city shall the dogs eat; and him that dieth in the field shall the fowls of the air people of the earth eat: for the LORD hath spoken it.
|
|
stonebeard
Forum Senior Member
Joined: May 27 2005
Location: NE Indiana
Status: Offline
Points: 28057
|
Posted: April 29 2012 at 02:26 |
Ambient Hurricanes wrote:
stonebeard wrote:
Ambient Hurricanes wrote:
That's a good explanation of how macro and micro evolution could be related, but it doesn't prove that they are. The theory of macro-evolution was essentially an extrapolation from micro-evolution, and a grossly invalid one by the law of extrapolation. Going from observations concerning change within species and genus to an assumption that all life evolved from common ancestors is a huge, unwarranted leap. Darwin's theory was an interesting one, but it was just that: a theory, and modern scientists have gone on to base all of their research on an unproven theory. Modern science makes sense in the light of evolution because we've conducted modern science on the basis of evolution, but it really makes just as much sense when approached with a belief in intelligent design. Evolution has yet to explain the Cambrian explosion, or the fact that the human body contains parts, such as ATP generators, that could not possibly have evolved according to Darwinian or neo-Darwinian theory because they would not in any way function unless all parts were present. |
....therefore Jesus. |
...Therefore an intelligent designer. Science can't prove Christianity, or else there would be no need for faith (well, actually there would. But that's another story). I don't claim to prove my faith by attempting to disprove evolution, only to validate it. Not even all intelligent design proponents are Christian. The Discovery Institute, in particular, is very careful to stay away from speculation on who the designer might be, because they want to rely on the scientific method, not on religion. |
The only thing worth concluding from the whole debacle is that humans don't know everything about the universe. Fancy that. There's no good reason whatsoever to posit a designer for the universe.
|
|
|
|
Gerinski
Prog Reviewer
Joined: February 10 2010
Location: Barcelona Spain
Status: Offline
Points: 5154
|
Posted: April 29 2012 at 03:14 |
Ambient Hurricanes wrote:
That's a good explanation of how macro and micro evolution could be related, but it doesn't prove that they are. The theory of macro-evolution was essentially an extrapolation from micro-evolution, and a grossly invalid one by the law of extrapolation. Going from observations concerning change within species and genus to an assumption that all life evolved from common ancestors is a huge, unwarranted leap. Darwin's theory was an interesting one, but it was just that: a theory, and modern scientists have gone on to base all of their research on an unproven theory. Modern science makes sense in the light of evolution because we've conducted modern science on the basis of evolution, but it really makes just as much sense when approached with a belief in intelligent design. Evolution has yet to explain the Cambrian explosion, or the fact that the human body contains parts, such as ATP generators, that could not possibly have evolved according to Darwinian or neo-Darwinian theory because they would not in any way function unless all parts were present. |
Macro-evolution has been proven even on humanly comprehensible timescales by the domestication of animals and plants by humans. Modern rice, wheat, dogs or pigs are effectively different species than their original wild forms.
A scientifically plausible mechanism for the evolutionary development of AMP synthesis from ribose-5-phosphate (the apparently irreducibly complex step in the ATP synthesis) has been proposed in the theory of Quantum Evolution (see the book by the same title by Johnjoe McFadden). It invoques the power of quantum superpositions and it's speculative but at least it's plausible in principle, quantum superposition has been experimentally proven in other contexts.
Even without getting into such speculative ideas, it is very well possible that the apparent irreducible complexity of some metabolical pathways is simply result of our current ignorance. Several wich seemed irreducibly complex some time ago have been found to have plausible explanations even in classical evolutionary steps.
There are also plausible explanations for the Cambrian Explosion. A God of the Gaps has been proven to be a wrong motivation so many times before.
Edited by Gerinski - April 29 2012 at 03:49
|
|
refugee
Forum Senior Member
VIP Member
Joined: November 20 2006
Location: Greece
Status: Offline
Points: 7026
|
Posted: April 29 2012 at 05:56 |
|
Hitchcock would have made a scary movie called The Humans, introducing the actress Tippi Heron. He wouldn’t have made Vertigo, though.
The Eagles would have been more famous than The Beatles. Hotel California would use the same chords as a song by Jethro Bullfinch, who would have made another very nice song called Weatherman.
Music would be mostly vocal (or "beakal"), and probably microtonal. One of the biggest religions would claim that Phoenix was/is the son of God, and the capital of Arizona would be Jesus Christ. Water polo would be the most popular sport among anseriformes, though quidditch would be even more popular overall.
We wouldn’t have invented the bridge. There would be no use for stairs or ladders.
There would be no nations like we know today. Still I’m quite sure that there would have been wars, murders and rapes. After all it’s only human (or maybe "avian").
|
|
He say nothing is quite what it seems;
I say nothing is nothing
(Peter Hammill)
|
|
Icarium
Forum Senior Member
VIP Member
Joined: March 21 2008
Location: Tigerstaden
Status: Offline
Points: 34055
|
Posted: April 29 2012 at 06:02 |
|
what about the fish-people dont discrimitate the fish-folks, they will soon take over AND WE ALL WILL BE IN CHAINS, FOR CRIMES AGIANS OVERFISHING
|
|
|
|
Dean
Special Collaborator
Retired Admin and Amateur Layabout
Joined: May 13 2007
Location: Europe
Status: Offline
Points: 37575
|
Posted: April 29 2012 at 06:04 |
Ambient Hurricanes wrote:
That's a good explanation of how macro and micro evolution could be related, but it doesn't prove that they are. The theory of macro-evolution was essentially an extrapolation from micro-evolution, and a grossly invalid one by the law of extrapolation. |
Macroevolution isn't extrapolated microevolution it is extended microevolution - macroevolution is microevolution over long time-spans, microevolution is macroevolution over short time intervals - they are the same thing and there is no boundary between them.
I would have called macroevolution interpolation of (discrete) microevolution (events) rather than extrapolation as interpolation is more reliable, easier to predict and harder to refute. Evolution did not extrapolate fish to birds, it interpolated fish to amphibians to reptiles to dinosaurs to birds and when it found new data, such as archosauria, ornithosuchia and archaeopteryx, it fitted within those interpolated points, confirming the interpolation rather than refuting it.
btw: What is the "law of extrapolation"?
Ambient Hurricanes wrote:
Going from observations concerning change within species and genus to an assumption that all life evolved from common ancestors is a huge, unwarranted leap. Darwin's theory was an interesting one, but it was just that: a theory, and modern scientists have gone on to base all of their research on an unproven theory. |
Now you've lost me - scientific theories are not the same as philosophical theories, if you confuse the two by use of the phrase "just that: a theory" then you do not understand the significance of the distinction between them. No scientific theory can be proven conclusively - they stand because they haven't been disproven, the models work for all known data.
Ambient Hurricanes wrote:
Modern science makes sense in the light of evolution because we've conducted modern science on the basis of evolution, but it really makes just as much sense when approached with a belief in intelligent design. |
For thousands of years we conducted "science" on the basis of creationism and in the light of creationism none of it made sense. Substituting ID for creationism doesn't change anything and still fails the scientific method.
ID requires belief whereas evolution does not. If ID proposes data that fails the evolutionary model then the theory is disproven, but if scientific experts refute or explain that data using the theory of evolution (which to date they have done) then the theory is not disproven and ID becomes even less tenable as an alternative.
Ambient Hurricanes wrote:
Evolution has yet to explain the Cambrian explosion,...] |
Life was evolving during the Precambrian period, the fossil evidence is sparse because many Precambrian rock strata are metamorphic, a process of rock formation that destroys fossils, but those that have been found show that life was becoming more complex and multicellular during the later eras of this period - the Precambrian saw the evolution of the genetic toolkit that resulted in the Cambrian explosion. The Cambrian explosion did not occur over a short time span (explosion is a poetic misnomer) - it was 80 million years, a longer time interval than between us and the dinosaurs (the time interval where all birds and mammals evolved to where we are today), and enough time for all the phyla groups that appeared during the Cambrian period to have evolved. The explanation given is called punctuated equilibrium - periods of rapid changed caused by dramatic environmental change followed by long periods of stability- what we do know is the oxygen levels in the atmosphere where significantly higher than at any other time in earth's history, a condition that results in higher metabolic rates, larger body sizes and shorter reproductive intervals, the super-continent Pannotia was breaking up, resulting in warm shallow seas where life could propagate and the oxygen in the atmosphere could be absorbed into the water - ideal conditions for life (as anyone with a garden pond can tell you) - the land at that time was barren and could not support life, all life that emerged during this period was aquatic. From an evolutionary perspective what is interesting about the Cambrian period is the of number lifeforms that did not survive - the evolutionary dead-ends that failed to be part of the continuing tree of life. For me the defining difference between evolution and creationism is extinction.
Ambient Hurricanes wrote:
[...]or the fact that the human body contains parts, such as ATP generators, that could not possibly have evolved according to Darwinian or neo-Darwinian theory because they would not in any way function unless all parts were present. |
ATP is composed of functionally independent subunits and exists in complex and simpler forms - microbiologists (which I am not) understand the evolution of ATP - it's complicated microbiology that I won't even pretend to understand, but because I don't understand it doesn't make it impossible or inexplicable or require divine intervention.
Ambient Hurricanes wrote:
...Therefore an intelligent designer. Science can't prove Christianity, or else there would be no need for faith (well, actually there would. But that's another story). I don't claim to prove my faith by attempting to disprove evolution, only to validate it. Not even all intelligent design proponents are Christian. The Discovery Institute, in particular, is very careful to stay away from speculation on who the designer might be, because they want to rely on the scientific method, not on religion. |
You shouldn't need to disprove evolution to validate your beliefs and your faith, evolution is not a threat to faith and science is not out to disprove christianity or any other religious faith.
Faith and science can coexist, but ID is not that coexistence, ID is unscientific, it's a fudge and it's creationism and it's wholly religion-based (not all theistic religions are christian but ID is wholly theistic) - the Discovery Institute carefully avoids the Flying Spaghetti Monster that does not make their methods scientific or their philosophical ideas scientific theories.
/edited for grammar errors.
Edited by Dean - April 29 2012 at 07:10
|
|
What?
|
|
Dean
Special Collaborator
Retired Admin and Amateur Layabout
Joined: May 13 2007
Location: Europe
Status: Offline
Points: 37575
|
Posted: April 29 2012 at 06:14 |
Equality 7-2521 wrote:
I meant that he evolved along with apes from a common ancestor. I assumed he meant ape in the modern sense. I suspect that what you think I was getting at.
|
Yup.
|
|
What?
|
|
The T
Special Collaborator
Honorary Collaborator
Joined: October 16 2006
Location: FL, USA
Status: Offline
Points: 17493
|
Posted: April 29 2012 at 19:09 |
|
I guess we would have KFH
|
|
|
|
Flyingsod
Forum Senior Member
Joined: March 19 2006
Location: United States
Status: Offline
Points: 564
|
Posted: April 29 2012 at 22:41 |
refugee wrote:
Music would be mostly vocal (or "beakal"), and probably microtonal. One of the biggest religions would claim that Phoenix was/is the son of God, and the capital of Arizona would be Jesus Christ. Water polo would be the most popular sport among anseriformes, though quidditch would be even more popular overall.
We wouldn’t have invented the bridge. There would be no use for stairs or ladders.
There would be no nations like we know today. Still I’m quite sure that there would have been wars, murders and rapes. After all it’s only human (or maybe "avian").
|
After all it's only sapien. Beakal...heh.
|
|
This space intentionally left blank
|
|
/PAlogo_v2.gif "Progarchives.com Homepage")
Bird People
