You mean why can't what faith based science assumes is an ancestor of man survive? Lots of species come and go. Anyone that's seen National Geographic specials can see how much variety there is in the bone structure of existing peoples around the world. Are you going to claim that just because they have a different skull shape they're a different species? There are no shortage of "living fossils" around. And yet you failed to ask any questions that were exclusive to evolution. The answers to none of the questions would dismiss either evolution or creationism. Like I said, you suck at this. You want to know what evidence would prove evolution. I already told you: prove that two distinct and seperate line segments on a piece of paper converge. A dog is sitting in the middle of the road in the middle of nowhere. Prove where the dog came from. And then there's the problem of just because something could have happened one way, doesn't mean it did. It may be a fact that all the mechanisms exist that allow for all things to come from one single cell billions of years ago. Prove that it actually did.
You continue to weasel your way out of answering questions. If you're not going to play ball then I'm taking the bat home. Goodbye. It is as useless to argue with those who have renounced the use and authority of reason as to administer medication to the dead.
I answered your questions. I pointed out they were irrelavent and gave a short answer to them. It's ironic that you talk about reason and yet you don't even have the logic skills to ask questions that are exclusive to evolution. I even drew you a picture. It's not my fault you can't form a coherent argument to defend your position that the lines converge.
Kalvin, you are dodging several questions, and merely calling "fairy tales" the method scientists employ to go about their work. That is not discourse. Additonally, your above line is a bad analogy, in my opinion, since the road tracks are quite extensive when looking at speciation. Nevertheless, to look for truth in terms of the origin of the dog, a scientist would start looking for tracks. Finding none, he might look for other patterns, suggesting that such tracks were effaced by wind and time. And so forth. With respect for your beliefs, Kalvin, religious folks, in the absence of tracks, might ascribe the dog's presence to divine placement. Nothing wrong with it, just an end to the empirical search - there is no scientific method to it. At the end of the day, science and faith may lead to the same road. How they get there, however, is just a different path. Rick, evolutionary theory accounts for a multiplicity of related gene structures existing at the same time, so not sure how your point weakens the evolutionary argument. Evolution is blind; it is also ongoing.** Even now, both monkeys and humans are evolving to other species, at least from my confidence in evolutionary theory; but in our limited frame it is impossible to see. Those individuals with certain gene traits that tend to survive into procreation will express their genes in tandem with other individuals into the population pool. By your question, the question should rather be "why monkeys?" "why parrots?" Because parrots cannot breed with monkeys, we have the two. ** One thing that intrigues me, though, is the relationship of geographic isolation to punctuational development. In the past, species were isolated, just because there were few individuals around. I would expect punctuational development - very roughly, expressed recessive and mutative traits - to have been far greater in the past than now. Now, species are so uniformly distributed, relatively speaking, that I would expect punctuational development to have been considerably hampered...evolutionary folks, what say ye?
What he said. The idiocy is in fighting over questions of faith, whether over the presence or absence of the divine. By definition, faith should end with "OK," not "but...."
I'm not arguing over the existance of evolution. It's just a bit perplexing how that all worked-out. Some suggest that some of our ancestors died off because they couldn't survive enviromental changes, and even homosapiens were suggested to be on the brink. I just find it odd that animals lower-down on the evolutionary pole are almost uneffected.
What animals are you referring to? You've mentioned monkeys, but we did not evolve from monkeys. We came from prehistoric prosimians which, as the name suggests, are all extinct.
I'm just refering to why we're the only one. Every other animal seems to be blissful stupid and living. Sure some have left this planet, but we seem to be only ones really advancing. Some of them might change in certain ways, but they're woefully inferior to us. Why is our evolution so different from there's? Why are they so primative? Why isn't there another intelligent being on our planet? These are just questions in my mind...not assertions of whether not evolution exists. http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/05/17/AR2006051702158.html So we left Chimps and they're still stupid. I know this seems all like benign opinions on my part, but it's like genetics took a shot in the dark and selected one group to advance greatly...and said...well, fuck just give that chimp a little more weight, strength, and/or useless primative shit. It just reminds me of a poker game. Everyone at the tournament plays all day, yet there's only one winner and a few people in the background that are remotely in comparison. At the end of the day it's all a matter of luck, circumstance and bit of skill. That's how we came to be?...yet there's only one? ----------------------------------------- Yeah...we're said to come from lemur-like animals.
Good questions. The fact that we share a common ancestor does not mean that we are of the same species. We have developed different qualities in order to adapt to different ecological environments. You have implied that we are superior to apes. However, we are far inferior in terms of our physical abilities. Furturemore, our intelligence may successfully prove ourselves to be the most inferior animals on the planet if we extinct ourselves by engaging in a nuclear warfare.
It's not that I disagree. I just think it's all incredibly lucky. If the universe was just us, I would say it's 'mind-numbly lucky'. I'd say the best way to prove the bible to be at odds with reality, is not evolution...but space. If existance on other planets is true, then the favored few are no-longer true. That and you'll find Tom Cruise jumping on a coach saying that Scientology is now proven true. Lol.. Yes, but our vices don't limit us...almost to anything. And I mean that in a literal sense. With our mind, I think it's almost possible to do anything.. given time. I tend to think war is part of our primitive-self. The alpha male must dominate the group then, and still does now. I guess the trick is to limit the power's of the alpha-male. Hillary anyone...lmao.
Funny you should post this, Ferret. Earlier came across this in the same vein: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Milford_Wolpoff
There is no set agenda for any knowledge. People in science could dedicate their life to learning why an insect flies a certain way or they can dedicate their life to disproving religion. Anythings open, actually. I'm not really in favor of the latter agenda, because I think some things are naturally concluded with time... I believe... That science should not try to change society by intent, but offer what it finds through voluntary exchange and benefit. The conclusions/benefits will be absorbed over time. Our worst science (eg the nuke) came through government agenda and force. No real market demands them...only the worst of man needs it. Although generally, evolutionary theory or fact...seems rather meaningless at this point in time. Perhaps I'm just being jaded, but I think natural biological evolution will not be the influencing factor in human existance. I tend to think (if we survive each other), evolution will occur by human intervention ie we'll improve our self through science. But perhaps in knowing how we worked, we'll get a perception of how we would best work...*shrug*
I dont think we are advancing, We are moving towards destruction. Starting with Iraq and poor iraqi people, where thousands of women and innocent kids/babies were killed by the Americans
"We a------------ll live in a yel-low submarine, a yel-low submarine, a yel-low submarine, We a------------ll live in a yel-low submarine, a yel-low submarine, a yel-low submarine..."
Heaven/Hell is in another dimension (or whatever the term is) where time does not exist. That is why eternity. However I have a feeling this is not what the author wants to portray.
There's no need to disprove that the lines converged. It's never been proven to begin with. It's just an assumption based on the assumption that God does not exist. It's circular reasoning. God doesn't exist. Therefore the lines must have converged. Since the lines converge, God doesn't exist. It doesn't matter how much you study the dog, the best you can come up with is a plausible story about how it got there. Because you can neither observe the truth nor recreate it, you can't possibly prove anything. You can just assume an alien didn't just drop it off because you don't believe in aliens. Your personal assumptions don't change facts however and it's still entirely possible that it was in fact dropped off by an alien.