[_ Old Earth _] The Evolution Lie

[Barbarian]

These are different species. In fact Arturia isn't even the same genus as Nautilus.

This Aturia is a long-lived species that has been found in rocks 30 to 15 million years old.
http://www.burkemuseum.org/paleontology/marine_cephalopods

Surprise.

The jellyfish appears to be of an order than hasn't been seen since the dinosaurs died out, or thereabouts. If you do find a species tht's been alive for hundreds of millions of years, you're going to be famous.

But not very likely to happen.

 

[TOG]

If you do find a species tht's been alive for hundreds of millions of years, you're going to be famous.

There are many different definitions for the word "species", which are used, not according to different contexts, as is the case with other words with multiple meansings, but depending on what suits the person using it at that particular time. I challenged you in another thread to come up with a single definition and stick to it while defending evolution on only a small subset of species. You refused. As long as people can get away with saying basically "This is a different species because I decided that it is, and I get to decide because I went to school and got a piece of paper and a funny hat and you didn't", any discussion of species is really meaningless. Nobody will ever find a 500 million year old fossil of something that is still alive, not because it doesn't exist, but because, if they do, and even if it's absolutely identical to a living organism, somebody with a funny hat will come along and say "No, that's a different species".

One example of this is Neanderthal man. I once stated (I think it was even to you, but I'm not sure), that I believed that Neandrethals were no less human than anyone alive today, and that I knew a man who looked just like a typical artist's conception of Neanderthal man. I was told that I was wrong and that Neanderthal man was a completely different species. Genetically speaking, there is only a 0.12% difference between Neanderthal man and modern humans. ¹ The variability among modern humans is more than 4 times that much, or 0.5%.² But someone with a funny hat says it's a different species, so it must be a different species.

¹ Eran Meshorer, Liran Carmel, et al. (2014). "Reconstructing the DNA Methylation Maps of the Neandertal and the Denisovan". Science. doi:10.1126/science.1250368

² "First Diploid Human Genome Sequence Shows We're Surprisingly Different". Science Daily. 4 September 2007. Retrieved 2011-09-05

The TOG​

The TOG​

 

[turnorburn]

No not surprised what surprises me are people who believe that Jesus descended from a creature that looked like this..

tob

 

[Barbarian]

There are many different definitions for the word "species", which are used, not according to different contexts, as is the case with other words with multiple meansings,

It is, as noted above, often misused by creationists, who think that if two organisms are in the same class or order it's O.K. to assume that they are the same "species." As we discussed in another thread, this is an insurmountable problem for creationism, which claims all organisms were created individually, and that there should therefore be no intermediate cases of half-species. On the other hand evolutionary theory, from Darwin on, has predicted that such cases must exist., if species evolve. This difficulty for creationism is why so few scientists accept creationism today. The fact of intermediate cases directly refutes the belief.

I challenged you in another thread to come up with a single definition and stick to it while defending evolution on only a small subset of species.

As you know, evolutionary theory denies that such a thing is possible. Let the creationists support their own beliefs.

Nobody will ever find a 500 million year old fossil of something that is still alive, not because it doesn't exist, but because, if they do, and even if it's absolutely identical to a living organism,

So far, no one has ever found such a thing. Notice your two genera are quite different. Look up the two genera and learn about

One example of this is Neanderthal man.

Good example. They are genetically different enough from anatomically modern humans to be considered a separate species of human, but the evidence indicates that they did occasionally interbreed with

I once stated (I think it was even to you, but I'm not sure), that I believed that Neandrethals were no less human than anyone alive today, and that I knew a man who looked just like a typical artist's conception of Neanderthal man.

They are just a different species of human, albeit close enough to have occasionally interbred with anatomically modern humans. I, for example, have a good number of Neandertal traits.

I was told that I was wrong and that Neanderthal man was a completely different species.

"Completely" is a creationist concept. As you know, Darwin pointed out that evolving populations would necessarily have intermediate steps on the way to speciation.

Genetically speaking, there is only a 0.12% difference between Neanderthal man and modern humans.

You've cited two different things in your links. One is how much individual variation there is in anatomically modern humans and the other is how much group variation there is between groups. So apples and oranges. Show us with the same yardstick.

And if you have an explanation for the fact of intermediate species, predicted by evolutionary theory, but denied by creationism, I'd like to hear it.

 

[Barbarian]

No not surprised what surprises me are people who believe that Jesus descended from a creature that looked like this..

tob

I'm always astonished to learn what odd beliefs creationists have about human ancestry. Do you honestly think a highly-evolved and specialized primate like a gorilla would resemble a human ancestor? Do you honestly believe that scientists suppose human ancestors were like gorillas?

Seriously?

 

[jay55]

Do you honestly believe that scientists suppose human ancestors were like gorillas?

The intelligent ones don't.

 

[turnorburn]

tob

*edit: this is what they were teaching in school, so i don't understand your comment, supposedly public schools are teaching what the public is supposed to believe?

Highly evolved? Seriously?

 

[TOG]

As you know, evolutionary theory denies that such a thing is possible. Let the creationists support their own beliefs.

I don't know why you seem to have such a hard time understanding me. I'm not talking about defining whether a specific individual is the same or different species than another idividual, but simply what the word means. If you can't define the word, then the word is useless, as people you talk to can never be sure what you mean. Let me show you what I mean...

Suppose you have a quizzleblorg and a gortzin. Could you tell which is which?

The TOG​

 

[Barbarian]

Barbarian chuckles:
Do you honestly believe that scientists suppose human ancestors were like gorillas?

The intelligent ones don't.

No kidding evolutionary theory pretty much rules out a gorilla ancestor. What a weird idea. Our primate ancestors were, other than skull and faces, very, very much like us. No gorillas. That's pretty much creationist imaginings.

 

[TOG]

Definitely not a gorilla. Looks much more like a chimpanzee, but not quite.

The TOG​

 

[Barbarian]

I don't know why you seem to have such a hard time understanding me.

I understand. You're concerned that there are many cases where it's unclear whether two populations are a single species or two different ones. As Darwin wrote, evolution would require that such case exist, and indeed, his prediction has been confirmed. It's a huge problem for creationism, since it requires that such things don't exist. I'm aware that some creationists have changed their doctrines to allow for a certain amount of evolution, perhaps up to the family level. However, that brings in its own problems, since it supposes some kind of imaginary barrier to variation that no one can find.

In evolutionary theory, there are no discrete things as species; they are merely categories that involve reproductive isolation of genes. Hence, evolution could change the genes of two populations to prevent them from reproducing with each other, or could also change the genes of two species to make them able to reproduce with each other (much less likely).

You might want to read Darwin's book, or (although quotes can lead you deeply astray, if you don't get the context) you could go here.
http://www.ucl.ac.uk/taxome/jim/Mim/darwin_on_spp.html

I'm not talking about defining whether a specific individual is the same or different species than another idividual, but simply what the word means.

What does "success" mean? Are there any cases where it might be difficult to say whether a venture was a success or a failure? If so, does that mean "success" is not a useful word? "Species", when applied to sexually-reproducing organisms, is a population of interbreeding individuals. As a graduate bacteriologist, I can tell you that it's hugely more complicated with bacteria, and my 1988 Bergey's Manual is useful only as an historical curiosity these days. Molecular genetics and gene sequencing pretty much turned things upside down.

If you can't define the word, then the word is useless, as people you talk to can never be sure what you mean.

As you see, it's a useful word, but like "success", depends on things.

Suppose you have a quizzleblorg and a gortzin. Could you tell which is which?

First, we'd make sure that they wouldn't mate in nature and produce viable offspring. Then gene sequencing, to see how close they are. If they turn out to be reproductively isolated in nature, we'd know they were species. Otherwise, they would likely be subspecies, perhaps in the process of speciation.

 

[TOG]

I understand. You're concerned that there are many cases where it's unclear whether two populations are a single species or two different ones.

No, that's not what I'm concerned about. Try this... Imagine that you are writing a dictionary. You get to the word "species". What do you put for a definition? You don't have to consider whether, for example, the Pacific gull and the California gull are the same species, until you have a definition. Then you use that defintion to determine whether they are the same species.

You made the same mistake in your analogy about "success". You looked at a doubtful example before you determined a definition. You make the definition first, then you look at the thing and determine whether it fits the definition. If you look at doubtful examples first and then make a definition that fits those examples, it kinda looks like you have an agenda and are not being objective.

The TOG​

 

[TOG]

Soon as you see one of those linear "evolution of man" cartoons, you know it's not a scientist who did it. (unless he's having a little fun)

Then why is it in so many science text books?

The TOG​

 

[turnorburn]

We don't understand you because you sound like this.. Evolution is a doctrine of the new world order its a doctrine of man, the world wants absolutely nothing to do with Jesus Christ in their blindness their throwing things up against the wall to see if they stick all in order to deny Gods creation.. God himself says he hates this world, want the reason?

James 4:4 Ye adulterers and adulteresses, know ye not that the friendship of the world is enmity with God? whosoever therefore will be a friend of the world is the enemy of God.

tob

 

[Barbarian]

Barbarian chuckles:
Soon as you see one of those linear "evolution of man" cartoons, you know it's not a scientist who did it. (unless he's having a little fun)

Then why is it in so many science text books?

I review science texts sometimes, for adoption. Never saw that. You have a current science textbook to show us, with that therein, other than as and example of misconceptions?

 

[Barbarian]

We don't understand you because you sound like this..

If you think so, you've not been reading any of my posts. As usual, in this thread, I'm showing you all sorts of details. You seemed a little surprised that what creationists thought was the same species, wasn't even in the same genus.

Evolution is a doctrine of the new world order its a doctrine of man, the world wants absolutely nothing to do with Jesus Christ in their blindness their throwing things up against the wall to see if they stick all in order to deny Gods creation..

Sounds a bit irrational, given that Darwin himself attributed the origin of life to God:

There is grandeur in this view of life, with its several powers, having been originally breathed by the Creator into a few forms or into one; and that, whilst this planet has gone cycling on according to the fixed law of gravity, from so simple a beginning endless forms most beautiful and most wonderful have been, and are being evolved.
Charles Darwin, last sentence of The Origin of Species.

God himself says he hates this world, want the reason?

Hmm... God says:
John 3:16 For God so loved the world, as to give his only begotten Son; that whosoever believeth in him, may not perish, but may have life everlasting.

Doesn't sound like hate to me. Giving up His own Son for us sounds like the ultimate act of love for the world, as God tells us.

 

[TOG]

Barbarian chuckles:
Soon as you see one of those linear "evolution of man" cartoons, you know it's not a scientist who did it. (unless he's having a little fun)



I review science texts sometimes, for adoption. Never saw that. You have a current science textbook to show us, with that therein, other than as and example of misconceptions?

I'm not in high school and don't have any children that age, so I don't have any actual text books lying around which I could scan and show you, but here's what I found after just a couple of minutes on Google.

The picture is from an Australian science textbook. The article I found this in quotes an article in New Scientist by psychologist Jennifer Eberhardt of Stanford University: "Biology textbooks would do well to replace the classic Victorian depiction of human evolution as a progression from dark skinned, broad-nosed australopithecines to a European-looking Homo sapiens with one that makes it clear that dark skinned, broad-nosed Homo sapiens are no less highly evolved."

Note that she didn't say that evloution is wrong or that the series depicted in the picture is wrong, but that the picture, which appears in may biology textbooks, is racist. That's her complaint. She obviously believes in evolution, since she talked about different people being "no less highly evolved" and she didn't say that the evolution shown in the picture was wrong.

You can read the article here

The TOG​

 

[Free]

Please keep to the topic and avoid making it personal.

 

[Barbarian]

So it was presented as incorrect, as I predicted. Of course, it's wrong. That's why you won't see in in textbooks, except as an illustration of the errors of doing so.

The reason is, that orthogenesis is not the way evolution works, and a linear progression of species is exceedingly rare. For example, the evolution of hominins is very bushy, not at all the way it is presented in such a fashion. I should point out that this book appears to be at least 30 years old, and dates from the time when Australian whites were still often very racist.

How do I know this? Because proconsul is presented as being on the line leading to humans, and because Australopithecus is presented as having a postcranial skeleton unlike that of anatomically modern humans. My point has been demonstrated quite adequately by this evidence.

I should also note that the reviewer is wrong about the nature of the "broad-nosed" dark skinned humans. Their noses, although broader than those of human populations living in colder areas, are broad in a different way than those of Australopithecines, and are not derived from them.

Oh, and it's not a high school textbook. It's an elementary school book, and either very old, or the author was really, really incompetent.

 

[Vaccine]

It's interesting we learn from a textbook, not nature, about our shared ancestry with apes.

Nature screams shows us stasis:

Here are some annelids (worms) from pre-cambrian, which still look the same today.
http://www.fossilmuseum.net/Fossil_Sites/Lebanese-Lagerstatt/Annelida/Polychaetes-L.jpg


Here is a brachiopod from the cambrian, which still look the same today.
http://www.ucmp.berkeley.edu/cambrian/house.html

Here is a starfish from (supposedly) 420 million years ago, which still look the same today.
http://museumvictoria.com.au/discoverycentre/infosheets/marine-fossils/echinoderms/

One of those is (supposedly) 420 million years old and the other is a modern starfish. Not much change.

“See to it that no one takes you captive through philosophy and empty deception, according to the traditions of men, according to the elementary principles of the world, rather than according to Christ.” - Col 2:8

Darwin's ideas are based on nature,. the "elementary principles of the world", not according to Christ or the bible.