Skeptic Friends Network

Username:
Password:
Save Password
Forgot your Password?
Home | Forums | Active Topics | Active Polls | Register | FAQ | Contact Us  
  Connect: Chat | SFN Messenger | Buddy List | Members
Personalize: Profile | My Page | Forum Bookmarks  
 All Forums
 Our Skeptic Forums
 Creation/Evolution
 The Argument
 New Topic  Topic Locked
 Printer Friendly Bookmark this Topic BookMark Topic
Next Page
Author Previous Topic Topic Next Topic
Page: of 4

Patrick Hennessey
New Member

USA
33 Posts

Posted - 11/10/2005 :  02:18:55  Show Profile Send Patrick Hennessey a Private Message
Both propositions can simultaneously be true.

You can have evolution within the structure of intelligent design.

As to Darwin's 'theory' (emphasis on theory), there is no evidence that man is descended from the ape and no one has found a 'missing link'. What strikes me as odd that is, given the current state of genetics, no one has compared simian dna to homo sapien. The differences should be obvious and radical.

filthy
SFN Die Hard

USA
14408 Posts

Posted - 11/10/2005 :  02:57:11   [Permalink]  Show Profile Send filthy a Private Message
quote:
Posted - 11/10/2005 : 02:18:55
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Both propositions can simultaneously be true.

You can have evolution within the structure of intelligent design.

As to Darwin's 'theory' (emphasis on theory), there is no evidence that man is descended from the ape and no one has found a 'missing link'. What strikes me as odd that is, given the current state of genetics, no one has compared simian dna to homo sapien. The differences should be obvious and radical.


Nope, not correct. The DNA studies have been done. I'll let someone more versed in the science than I elaborate.

Further, the fossil record clearly shows our ancestory.

Evidently, you don't know exactly what a scientific theory is. What it is not is any sort of guess. A theory is an hypothesis that is so well supported by emperical evidence that there is no doubt as to it's accuracy. But it is not stated as fact because there is always a chance new evidence might change it. The Theory of Evolution is, for all pratical purposes, a stone fact.

On the other hand, the speculation for ID has no evidence in it's support beyond brash statements, hand waving, and argument from incredualty.

Here's a site that you might want to check out:

http://www.talkorigins.org/

There, many if not all of your questions will be answered.


"What luck for rulers that men do not think." -- Adolf Hitler (1889 - 1945)

"If only we could impeach on the basis of criminal stupidity, 90% of the Rethuglicans and half of the Democrats would be thrown out of office." ~~ P.Z. Myres


"The default position of human nature is to punch the other guy in the face and take his stuff." ~~ Dude

Brother Boot Knife of Warm Humanitarianism,

and Crypto-Communist!

Go to Top of Page

Starman
SFN Regular

Sweden
1613 Posts

Posted - 11/10/2005 :  03:09:06   [Permalink]  Show Profile Send Starman a Private Message
quote:
Originally posted by Patrick Hennessey
Both propositions can simultaneously be true.

You can have evolution within the structure of intelligent design.
This is true (that evolution could be the design tool). But that is not what the argument is about.
quote:
As to Darwin''s ''theory'' (emphasis on theory),
Do you know what theory means in this context?
quote:
there is no evidence that man is descended from the ape and no one has found a ''missing link''.
Oh dear...
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/homs/
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/comdesc/section4.html#retroviruses
There you have something to begin with.
quote:
What strikes me as odd that is, given the current state of genetics, no one has compared simian dna to homo sapien. The differences should be obvious and radical.
Who says that this has not been done?

Why to you think your uninformed opinion is of any value to anybody else?

Touting your ignorance will not give you any respect here.
Read, think, learn!

http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/comdesc/


"Stupidity has a certain charm - ignorance does not."
-- Frank Zappa(1940 - 1993)
Go to Top of Page

Patrick Hennessey
New Member

USA
33 Posts

Posted - 11/10/2005 :  03:12:06   [Permalink]  Show Profile Send Patrick Hennessey a Private Message
I would ask you to provide information about this simian/human dna comparison, as i have had considerable trouble finding it, or the results of the comparison (and the implications of this supposed comparison which you didnt bother to mention).

How does the fossil record "clearly" show our ancestry?

you did not address my proposition that both creationism and evolution can both occur simultaneously.
Go to Top of Page

Patrick Hennessey
New Member

USA
33 Posts

Posted - 11/10/2005 :  03:16:25   [Permalink]  Show Profile Send Patrick Hennessey a Private Message
The timeline speaks for itself.

http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/homs/species.html#timeline

so brain sizes can suddenly and inexplicably leap from small to large, if i am to believe this timeline (which admits to a great deal of insufficient evidence in some pretty important areas).
Go to Top of Page

Starman
SFN Regular

Sweden
1613 Posts

Posted - 11/10/2005 :  03:21:16   [Permalink]  Show Profile Send Starman a Private Message
Your claim was :
quote:
there is no evidence that man is descended from the ape and no one has found a ''missing link''.
Enough said.

"Any religion that makes a form of torture into an icon that they worship seems to me a pretty sick sort of religion quite honestly"
-- Terry Jones
Go to Top of Page

filthy
SFN Die Hard

USA
14408 Posts

Posted - 11/10/2005 :  05:13:51   [Permalink]  Show Profile Send filthy a Private Message
quote:
Originally posted by Patrick Hennessey

The timeline speaks for itself.

http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/homs/species.html#timeline

so brain sizes can suddenly and inexplicably leap from small to large, if i am to believe this timeline (which admits to a great deal of insufficient evidence in some pretty important areas).


You did, of course, note the text of your link, which in part reads:
quote:
The word "hominid" refers to members of the family of humans, Hominidae, which consists of all species on our side of the last common ancestor of humans and living apes. Hominids are included in the superfamily of all apes, the Hominoidea,

Hominid or hominin?
Some scientists use a broader definition of Hominidae which includes the great apes, and instead call the group I am discussing "hominins". For a good discussion of the hominid/hominin terminology issue, read this article by Lee Berger.
the members of which are called hominoids. Although the hominid fossil record is far from complete, and the evidence is often fragmentary, there is enough to give a good outline of the evolutionary history of humans.
The time of the split between humans and living apes used to be thought to have occurred 15 to 20 million years ago, or even up to 30 or 40 million years ago. Some apes occurring within that time period, such as Ramapithecus, used to be considered as hominids, and possible ancestors of humans. Later fossil finds indicated that Ramapithecus was more closely related to the orang-utan, and new biochemical evidence indicated that the last common ancestor of hominids and apes occurred between 5 and 10 million years ago, and probably in the lower end of that range (Lewin 1987). Ramapithecus therefore is no longer considered a hominid.

The field of science which studies the human fossil record is known as paleoanthropology. It is the intersection of the disciplines of paleontology (the study of ancient lifeforms) and anthropology (the study of humans).


Hominid Species
The species here are listed roughly in order of appearance in the fossil record (note that this ordering is not meant to represent an evolutionary sequence), except that the robust australopithecines are kept together. Each name consists of a genus name (e.g. Australopithecus, Homo) which is always capitalized, and a specific name (e.g. africanus, erectus) which is always in lower case. Within the text, genus names are often omitted for brevity. Each species has a type specimen which was used to define it.

And it continues with a list of known hominids. I'm sure that you further noted that these hominids were not sequential. Our family tree is not a tree at all, but a bush with numerous stalks.

As to brain size, I might mention that H. neandertalisis (Neandertal Man), which lived cheek by jowl with our own ancestors, had a brain a bit larger than our own.

I rather disagree with Starman in that if ID (lets face it: a god[s] of some sort) could have used evolution as a tool. If such were the case, our spines would not be those of a quadraped, and our testicals would not be so vulnerable. And we would not be carrying a potential time bomb in our abdomins. Unless, of course, the designer was utterly incompetent.

I will, however, grudgingly concede that some sort of being could have created the first, miniscule life and then let it evolve in it's own way. But then, this begs the question of: who/what created that being....?


"What luck for rulers that men do not think." -- Adolf Hitler (1889 - 1945)

"If only we could impeach on the basis of criminal stupidity, 90% of the Rethuglicans and half of the Democrats would be thrown out of office." ~~ P.Z. Myres


"The default position of human nature is to punch the other guy in the face and take his stuff." ~~ Dude

Brother Boot Knife of Warm Humanitarianism,

and Crypto-Communist!

Go to Top of Page

Siberia
SFN Addict

Brazil
2322 Posts

Posted - 11/10/2005 :  05:38:19   [Permalink]  Show Profile  Visit Siberia's Homepage  Send Siberia an AOL message  Send Siberia a Yahoo! Message Send Siberia a Private Message
quote:
Originally posted by Patrick Hennessey

I would ask you to provide information about this simian/human dna comparison, as i have had considerable trouble finding it, or the results of the comparison (and the implications of this supposed comparison which you didnt bother to mention).

How does the fossil record "clearly" show our ancestry?

you did not address my proposition that both creationism and evolution can both occur simultaneously.


They did it and found human and simian DNA to be 98% similar (give or take 1%). It was on the news recently. I'll try to find it.




Found it. Was the first result for human ape DNA in Google.

quote:

Scientists say a rough draft of the chimpanzee genome shows that Darwin was right when he said that African great apes and humans share common ancestors. The genome also shows key areas where humans and chimps differ. And researchers believe it will help them understand how subtle genetic changes have made human brains very different from chimp brains.


http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=4826786

And one more, in fuller detail: http://www.gate.net/~rwms/hum_ape_chrom.html

Yet more:
quote:

Any discussion of the genomic origins of humankind must necessarily include a comparison of our closest living relatives, the chimpanzees. This paper discusses our current state of knowledge about the DNA gene sequences currently available for humans and chimpanzees. We have found that of the genes that have been sequenced humans and chimpanzees share more than 99% of their genetic material.


http://www.uchicago.edu/aff/mwc-amacad/biocomplexity/conference_papers/goodman.pdf

It's all there.

"Why are you afraid of something you're not even sure exists?"
- The Kovenant, Via Negativa

"People who don't like their beliefs being laughed at shouldn't have such funny beliefs."
-- unknown
Edited by - Siberia on 11/10/2005 05:46:04
Go to Top of Page

filthy
SFN Die Hard

USA
14408 Posts

Posted - 11/10/2005 :  06:21:50   [Permalink]  Show Profile Send filthy a Private Message
If I may:



quote:
TM 266-01-060-1, "Toumaï", Sahelanthropus tchadensis
Discovered by Ahounta Djimdoumalbaye in 2001 in Chad, in the southern Sahara desert (Brunet et al. 2002, Wood 2002). Based on faunal studies, it is estimated to be between 6 and 7 million years old, and more likely in the older part of that range. This is a mostly complete cranium with a small brain (between 320 and 380 cc) comparable in size to that of chimpanzees.
No bones below the skull have been discovered yet, so it is not known whether Toumai was bipedal or not. Brunet et al. say that it would be a not unreasonable inference that it was a habitual biped because it shares characteristics with other hominids known to be bipedal. Other scientists have pointed out the foramen magnum (the hole through which the spinal cord exits the skull) of Toumai is positioned towards the back of the skull as in apes, indicating that the skull was held forward and not balanced on top of an erect body.

Brunet et al. consider Toumai to be a hominid, that is, on our side of the chimp-human split and therefore more closely related to us than to chimps. This is not at all certain. Some scientists think it probable; others have suggested that it may come from before the point at which hominids separated from chimps, while Brigitte Senut (one of the discoverers of Orrorin tugenensis, "Millennium Man") has suggested that it may be an early gorilla. It is, I think, impossible to know how Toumai is related to us until other fossils can be found from the same time period.

Whatever it is, all scientists have been in agreement with its finders that Toumai is a find of major significance.


The references to this article are well worth looking at. This skull is still under review, which demonstrates beautifully how science works. If no more examples of it are found, it might never be classified. I say might, because there is always a chance that it's own ancestor(s) could be discovered.


"What luck for rulers that men do not think." -- Adolf Hitler (1889 - 1945)

"If only we could impeach on the basis of criminal stupidity, 90% of the Rethuglicans and half of the Democrats would be thrown out of office." ~~ P.Z. Myres


"The default position of human nature is to punch the other guy in the face and take his stuff." ~~ Dude

Brother Boot Knife of Warm Humanitarianism,

and Crypto-Communist!

Go to Top of Page

Dave W.
Info Junkie

USA
26001 Posts

Posted - 11/10/2005 :  09:04:07   [Permalink]  Show Profile  Visit Dave W.'s Homepage Send Dave W. a Private Message
So, Patrick, you're a believer when it comes to UFOs, but deny what is probably the most well-supported theory in all of science. Why am I not surprised?

Sure, ID and evolution aren't strictly incompatible, but ID adds absolutely nothing to our scientific knowledge. It is, after all, a religious doctrine, and so has no place within biology. And since you've equated ID with creationism, there's no point in denying that fact.

- Dave W. (Private Msg, EMail)
Evidently, I rock!
Why not question something for a change?
Visit Dave's Psoriasis Info, too.
Go to Top of Page

BigPapaSmurf
SFN Die Hard

3192 Posts

Posted - 11/10/2005 :  10:02:50   [Permalink]  Show Profile Send BigPapaSmurf a Private Message
Just look at he brain size difference in modern humans, we have some folks with brains twice as heavy as others. So to have a difference in size to the not missing links is not strange at all.

"...things I have neither seen nor experienced nor heard tell of from anybody else; things, what is more, that do not in fact exist and could not ever exist at all. So my readers must not believe a word I say." -Lucian on his book True History

"...They accept such things on faith alone, without any evidence. So if a fraudulent and cunning person who knows how to take advantage of a situation comes among them, he can make himself rich in a short time." -Lucian critical of early Christians c.166 AD From his book, De Morte Peregrini
Go to Top of Page

Cuneiformist
The Imperfectionist

USA
4954 Posts

Posted - 11/10/2005 :  10:16:56   [Permalink]  Show Profile Send Cuneiformist a Private Message
quote:
Originally posted by Patrick Hennessey

I would ask you to provide information about this simian/human dna comparison, as i have had considerable trouble finding it, or the results of the comparison (and the implications of this supposed comparison which you didnt bother to mention).

How does the fossil record "clearly" show our ancestry?

you did not address my proposition that both creationism and evolution can both occur simultaneously.

Hey, Patrick. A long time ago on SFN there was discussion of a debate about evolution to be held on another site. One of the participants gave some of his arguments here. It's one of my favorite threads here, as until then I didn't know about any of this evidence. However, when seriously considered it's hard to get around the notion of common ancestry. Have a look!
Go to Top of Page

Ricky
SFN Die Hard

USA
4907 Posts

Posted - 11/10/2005 :  10:44:08   [Permalink]  Show Profile  Send Ricky an AOL message Send Ricky a Private Message
quote:
Originally posted by Patrick Hennessey

The timeline speaks for itself.

http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/homs/species.html#timeline

so brain sizes can suddenly and inexplicably leap from small to large, if i am to believe this timeline (which admits to a great deal of insufficient evidence in some pretty important areas).



Because fossils are so rare and so hard to find, we would expect a lack of intermediate steps, if evolution is true. But we would also expect the same from ID, no?

This is why evolution has other evidence. DNA comparisons, retro viruses as previously mentioned. But also, we see evolution still happening today, from bacteria to fruit flies, to humans. We don't see intelligent design happening.

We have fossils which show large steps in the evolutionary time line, and we see the small steps occurring today. Is it that hard to imagine that small steps also occurred in the past?

Why continue? Because we must. Because we have the call. Because it is nobler to fight for rationality without winning than to give up in the face of continued defeats. Because whatever true progress humanity makes is through the rationality of the occasional individual and because any one individual we may win for the cause may do more for humanity than a hundred thousand who hug their superstitions to their breast.
- Isaac Asimov
Go to Top of Page

Kil
Evil Skeptic

USA
13462 Posts

Posted - 11/10/2005 :  10:50:33   [Permalink]  Show Profile  Visit Kil's Homepage  Send Kil an AOL message  Send Kil a Yahoo! Message Send Kil a Private Message
When I hear words like “missing link” all I can do is hang my head. I have no interest anymore in personally debating creation science vs. evolution, or the creationist's bastard child, intelligent design. Unless we are fighting to keep their stupidity out of science classrooms I have better ways to spend my time.

But I have thought of a solution to the problem of my continuing frustration over how to deal with this, ummmmm, debate. We talked about it a bit in chat last night. I am recommending that, whenever possible, rather than be drawn into the debate, lets just seek out and kick the shit out of the anyone who suggests that evolution is “only a theory” or mentions “missing links.” That's right! Cold cock the bastards. It may not resolve the debate that has already been resolved for like, oh, 100 years, but it sure would feel good…

I deeply regret that when I met and talked with Duane Gish, I didn't take that opportunity to challenge him to an arm wrestling match, winner take all…

Uncertainty may make you uncomfortable. Certainty makes you ridiculous.

Why not question something for a change?

Genetic Literacy Project
Go to Top of Page

Patrick Hennessey
New Member

USA
33 Posts

Posted - 11/10/2005 :  12:53:01   [Permalink]  Show Profile Send Patrick Hennessey a Private Message
"So, Patrick, you're a believer when it comes to UFOs, but deny what is probably the most well-supported theory in all of science"

People jump to conclusion here a lot.

I never denied evolution. I merely suggested its lack of evidential foundation on certain key areas. i am not an ID advocate. i just like to poke skeptics.

It is indeed a silly argument, ID. its purely speculation, usually along the lines of: random chemical reactions assembling into the primary biological components to form the first cellular lifeforms is as ridiculous as a tornado hitting a junkyard and assembling a leer jet.

the pre-cambrian explosion was an odd period.
Go to Top of Page

Cuneiformist
The Imperfectionist

USA
4954 Posts

Posted - 11/10/2005 :  12:56:34   [Permalink]  Show Profile Send Cuneiformist a Private Message
Hey, Patrick-- earlier you said you couldn't find much onf DNA comparisons between humans and chimps (or apes, or whichever). A number of us have posted some links detailing some of those comparisons. Have you looked at them yet? Now that you have this information, what do you think?
Go to Top of Page
Page: of 4 Previous Topic Topic Next Topic  
Next Page
 New Topic  Topic Locked
 Printer Friendly Bookmark this Topic BookMark Topic
Jump To:

The mission of the Skeptic Friends Network is to promote skepticism, critical thinking, science and logic as the best methods for evaluating all claims of fact, and we invite active participation by our members to create a skeptical community with a wide variety of viewpoints and expertise.


Home | Skeptic Forums | Skeptic Summary | The Kil Report | Creation/Evolution | Rationally Speaking | Skeptillaneous | About Skepticism | Fan Mail | Claims List | Calendar & Events | Skeptic Links | Book Reviews | Gift Shop | SFN on Facebook | Staff | Contact Us

Skeptic Friends Network
© 2008 Skeptic Friends Network Go To Top Of Page
This page was generated in 0.39 seconds.
Powered by @tomic Studio
Snitz Forums 2000