Evolution!! Did we come from monkeys?

[MerlinsByte]

BWAAAAAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA. What ignorance!

Merlin responds to gallo...The only ignorance I see is your assumptions. I will take your critiques one by one and give you a chance (24 hr., that should be enough for even you) to answer.

MerlinsByte then raises a straw man and doesn't do a particularly good job of knocking it down. Merlin expects that evolutionary biology should be able to name every ancestor of man back to a virus.

Merlin wearily replies...Where did I say that? I said dear fellow I expect you and any other evolutionists to (1) give me proof that live first arose here on earth or in the early universe from inorganic chemicals. If you fail to do that I said to (2) give me proof that life become self replicating from amino acids, failing that (3) give me proof that after life came all together from random events (hahahahah)(4) give me proof of sexual reproductive species coming from a virus or even a bacteria. Failing that I said give me proof that ... get the picture there Gallo?

there! four easy questions. I require proof dear child not assumptions or guesses to believe in a tired old theory. Do your homework and come back when you know something other than the indoctrinated bullshit that you have had crammed down your throat from K1.


mb

[Matt W]

I require proof dear child not assumptions or guesses to believe in a tired old theory. Do your homework and come back when you know something other than the indoctrinated bullshit that you have had crammed down your throat from K1.

Same applies to you, mb. Until then, I fear we are at an impasse.

[Pooeypants]

Quote by: MerlinsByte Merlin wearily replies...Where did I say that? I said dear fellow I expect you and any other evolutionists to (1) give me proof that live first arose here on earth or in the early universe from inorganic chemicals. If you fail to do that I said to (2) give me proof that life become self replicating from amino acids, failing that (3) give me proof that after life came all together from random events (hahahahah)(4) give me proof of sexual reproductive species coming from a virus or even a bacteria. Failing that I said give me proof that ... get the picture there Gallo? there! four easy questions. I require proof dear child not assumptions or guesses to believe in a tired old theory. Do your homework and come back when you know something other than the indoctrinated bullshit that you have had crammed down your throat from K1. mb

The first three questions are completely irrelevant to Evolution.
Science doesn't prove anything, proof constitutes 100% certainty and therefore it is infallible. Nothing in science is infallible.
You keep saying that presume life came from "random" events, well, it is random in a sense but so is the formation of unique snow flakes. That is order out of disorder, do you propose that God did it as well?
I fail to under question number 4, once again it seems like you think viruses can be our ancestors. Might you clarify please?

[Samildanach]

Viruses are not our ancestors, never have been , never will be......well not never will be because they would be a great way to enable immortality in the long run for the human race but....at our current stage of evolution....no.

[RickSp]

Having watched the science versus creationist debate with some interest, I think that the creationists have demonstrated conclusively that evolution can indeed run backwards.

[RickSp]

Quote by: lahokamal Most of the pagan philosophers in ancient Greece defended the idea of evolution. When we take a look at the history of philosophy we see that the idea of evolution constitutes the backbone of many pagan philosophies.

I believe this gentleman is working very hard to prove my point. Evolution can run backwards.

I'm perfectly willing to wager that the best philosophers in ancient Greece might not have even heard of Jesus Christ, (maybe because Jesus wouldn't be born for several hundred years.)

Suggesting that evolution forms the backbone of pagan belief is merely surreal. Perhaps Darwin, Wallace and the rest were time travelers.

[MerlinsByte]

by matt w...Same applies to you, mb. Until then, I fear we are at an impasse.

I am not asking you to believe or no in my theroy . You may or may not believe cherished myth such as the world view of evolution. I just express my ideas and defend them. The evangelistic evolutionist demand that I learn their theory as a matter of fact and teach my children this crap there is a difference dear fellow, and I have been at an Impasse with the evolutionist from the time that I could think for myself. thanks for your response Matt W.

mb

[MerlinsByte]

Having watched the science versus creationist debate with some interest, I think that the creationists have demonstrated conclusively that evolution can indeed run backwards.

It would not matter if evolution ran backwards at light speed for 300,000+ years when you got there a man would still be a man. So we are in agreement RickSp thanks for your comment. Now the evolutionist might be a man of the Neanderthal species most of the ones I know somewhat resemble them, look at darwin himself. Yes, they do resemble brutish, knuckle dragging and dumb looking "cave men".in their thought processes and physical appearance.....While the creationist are upright damned handsome looking fellows, like me for example...hope you can take the jab of a little comic relief at your expense there mr RickSp

mb

[RickSp]

Paganwizard, your delivery needs work.

I wonder who is more evolved.

[Pooeypants]

This thread is sort of spiralling out of control. Let's leave it at that okay?

[gallo]

How strange. Merlin demands "proof" of what he doesn't like and yet accepts the mythology of ancient, nomadic, herdsmen as true without any evidence to support it.

[Starboy]

I think if you were to press MB on this he would claim to have proof. But you could easily show him up again. It is extremely likely that any proof he could offer would be no better than for other claims that he would not accept. At the root of it, most supernaturalist must practice a double standard to hold to their beliefs. They must protect their pet beliefs from the same standards of enquiry that they would subject any other claim to. They must be dishonest. MB is no exception and has supplied ample examples.

Starboy

[gallo]

Thanks. That certainly explains Merlin's position.

[Capitalist Pig]

First off: Good morning, or whichever is appropriate. It's good to be posting occasionally, even if semi-frequently. Secondly; there is not much for me to add to this thread that was not already perfectly summarized, and cogently articulated, by poster Gallo. However, I will add my 2 cents, in the spirit of debate.

Quote by: lahokamal i ask for a brief answer; can you build a building without ground floor? you cannot. how can you build a theory without explaining the origin of first living organism? Add the lack of transitional forms, invalid evolution mechanisms to this.

This would be an appropriate demand if we were discussing an entire history of life as we know it on Earth. For the purposes of validating evolution, however, the processes which brought about the creation of life on this planet, are entirely irrelevant. There's your brief answer.

Quote by: Samildanach Viruses are not our ancestors, never have been , never will be......

Of course not, anyone who purports that a viral strain somehow gave birth to the human race is out of their minds. Actually, the only instance I ever recall hearing about viruses in the context of the evolution of humans were the remains of endogenous retroviruses within our genome -- thousands and thousands of them, in fact, occupying just 1% of the human genome overall. These remnants are what is left of a previous viral infection, their retrogenes passed on throughout the generations. Modern day examples of retroviruses include the Human Immunodeficency Virus (HIV), or even the strain which can cause conditions such as T-cell leukemia or various incarnations of non-Hodgkins lymphoma.

Anyway, to the point: Certain retrogenes, identified as the offspring of several past retroviral infections that we have discovered thus far, are cognate of similar retrogenes found in primates (such as chimpanzees, orangutans, and gorillas), in the same relative chromosomal positions. What this suggests is a schism somewhere along the line, of each species breaking off from their "branch," if you will, and creating their own unique genetic path (speciation). This is a strong indication toward not just evolution itself -- and more specifically, macroevolutionary events; inheritable changes above the species level -- it lends strong credence toward common descent. The belief that humans and our primates share a common ancestor.

This is not the first time a genetic link has been made using retroviruses. A superorder of species, paenungulata, including the orders of elephants (Proboscidea), the hyrax (I forget their order), manatees, and dugongs (the latter two belonging to Sirenia), were all linked in some way through the examination of "retrovirus-like elements" that traced their lineage all the way to the ancient woolly mammoth. Due to the environment and regional distribution of mammoth remains, genetic material is rather well preserved. Discovering retrogenes across entire orders that occupy similar seats within the chromosomes is not an all too common thing.

If anyone's interested, I'm prepared to provide the literature. Either respond to this post or shoot me a PM. :) You can probably find some online sources, too.

I tracked down the mammoth article on PubMed, because I'm sure that will probably generate some interest amongst fellow evolution proponents, and skeptics as well. They have a link to the full text there.

[Lycan]

At the root of it, most supernaturalist must practice a double standard to hold to their beliefs. They must protect their pet beliefs from the same standards of enquiry that they would subject any other claim to. They must be dishonest.

This is not alway true... I believe in several things I cannot prove but do not deny hard facts to justify those beliefs. I do not claim proof of my gods nor do I expect it, it is through my experiences that I believe in my gods. I am not "protecting my pet beliefs" from anything, the standards of enquiry you speak of are only necessary if I claim absolute truth, which I do not. It is not dishonest, nor is it a double standard to admit lack of objective evidence in a belief, but still hold worldly 'truths' to expectation of proof. I do agree however that people tend to disregard facts to try and validate their beliefs and this is wrong.

[Prometheus]

Why is it assumed that the theory of evolution and the existance of God must be antagonistic of oneanother? Religious texts give only metaphorical descriptions of how the world was created, so no description of how the universe was created ought to contradict the scientific evidance. I see no logical fallacy in a religious person accepting that god (or what have you) created the animal life on earth through the process of evolution. With this in mind, why do religion and science have to continue bickering over this.

[Starboy]

Quote by: Lycan This is not alway true... I believe in several things I cannot prove but do not deny hard facts to justify those beliefs. I do not claim proof of my gods nor do I expect it, it is through my experiences that I believe in my gods. I am not "protecting my pet beliefs" from anything, the standards of enquiry you speak of are only necessary if I claim absolute truth, which I do not. It is not dishonest, nor is it a double standard to admit lack of objective evidence in a belief, but still hold worldly 'truths' to expectation of proof. I do agree however that people tend to disregard facts to try and validate their beliefs and this is wrong.

Are there any gods that you would say do not exist? If so what criterion have you used to make that statement? Have you honestly applied that same criterion to the god(s) you choose to believe in?

The only honest theist is one that believes in all gods, which not only includes the ones they know about but also the ones they do not know about. It is an untenable position. It cannot be honestly held.

Starboy

[Capitalist Pig]

Quote by: Prometheus Why is it assumed that the theory of evolution and the existance of God must be antagonistic of oneanother? Religious texts give only metaphorical descriptions of how the world was created, so no description of how the universe was created ought to contradict the scientific evidance. I see no logical fallacy in a religious person accepting that god (or what have you) created the animal life on earth through the process of evolution. With this in mind, why do religion and science have to continue bickering over this.

I absolutely agree, and made this very point on page one of my own creationism vs. evolution thread, which is probably linked to at the bottom of this thread with ~500 replies. What is also amusing is the false dichotomy of creationists, that it is either evolution or their take on the whole thing. Why aren't the alternative creation theories of other religious denominations and cultures acceptable for consideration?

[Starboy]

Quote by: Prometheus Why is it assumed that the theory of evolution and the existance of God must be antagonistic of oneanother? Religious texts give only metaphorical descriptions of how the world was created, so no description of how the universe was created ought to contradict the scientific evidance. I see no logical fallacy in a religious person accepting that god (or what have you) created the animal life on earth through the process of evolution. With this in mind, why do religion and science have to continue bickering over this.

Because ToE is a scientific explanation. All scientific explanations are atheistic, "no magic allowed". Science explains reality in purely natural terms. Religion explains reality in basically magical terms. That is a fundamental conflict and it is not just restricted to evolution. It includes all science from astronomy to geology. If is a clash between explanations of reality.

However the clash is purely on the side of the supernaturalists. Science has already won. People just haven't figured it out yet.

Starboy

[Prometheus]

I think this point (the compatability of religion and evolution) needs to be understood by more people, because as soon as a person beleives that the views that someone is expressing are contrary to their religion, they develop an emotional block which does not hear reason. Those attempting to teach people about religion need to be less confrontational, because as soon as you challenge someones religion, it is impossible to get anywhere.

That said, I still beleive that it is religion that needs to make the concessions for coexistance with science, not the other way around.