Questions on the Flood for TWD39 (or any theist)

GodsUseForAMosquito
Moderator
GodsUseForAMosquito's picture
Posts: 404
Joined: 2008-08-27
User is offlineOffline
Questions on the Flood for TWD39 (or any theist)

This thread is mainly for TWD39, though other people who believe the flood, Noah and so on really happened are welcome to chime in. It is an extension of the other thread discussing language and the tower of Babel, which started some questions about Noah's flood.

If you believe that the Flood happened as the Bible states, then you must have rational answers to the following questions:

 

 

1 Were babies also killed in the flood? Were they deemed sinful, or just collateral damage? What about the unborn? (in case you think people are born with sin..) Is God an innocent baby killer?

2 If the flood covered the whole earth, where did the water come from, and where did it go afterwards?

3 If the flood was caused by rain for 40 days and nights, and rain covered the earth, then it would need to rain 112 million cubic kilometers each day. The water vapour that’s needed to be suspended in the air to achieve this would render the air unbreathable - people would have drowned by breathing this air. How did Noah and his family survive this?

4 How did the animals get to the arc? If Noah gathered them, how did he get around the world so quickly? If the animals came of their own accord, how did the giant tortoises get there in time? How did animals that can’t swim cross seas to get there?

5 How did Noah feed the animals? Some animals have very specific diets (pandas eat only bamboo, koalas eat only eucalyptus, for example) so how did Noah get these foods, which don’t grow in Mesopotamia?

6 How did Noah keep meat fresh for the hungry carnivores?

7 How did the freshwater fish survive? Did the arc carry fresh water? How were these fish collected and stored?

8 The flood would have killed all plant life. What would the ‘saved’ herbivores eat? What about those that feed only on adult trees that take a long time to grow?

9 What about the carnivores? They must have had to eat the herbivores – they were on the arc for over a year, so any corpses would be completely rotten, as well as being buried under sediment.

10 Where would the animals find fresh water to sustain themselves?

11 How did the plants survive being underwater for more than a year? Some might have seeds that survive, but vast numbers of plant species would have become extinct. How come the are still here today?

12 When the flood ended, only 6 people survived that would go on to breed. The bible indicates that the tower of Babel happened 100 years after the flood. How were there enough people to build the tower, which must have been massive?

13 How did the Native Americans, and Australian Aboriginals get to their continents (Which don’t have land bridges with Asia) after the flood?

14 How did God ‘create’ the rainbow as part of the promise he’d never flood the whole world again? If there was refracted sunlight and rain ever before the flood, there must have been rainbows.

15 Why did god change his mind about how many of each type of animal had to be taken into the arc? Genesis 6 says take 2 of each, Genesis 7 says take up to 7.

16 Lastly, why did god go to all the trouble?

 

 

 


Beyond Saving
atheist
Beyond Saving's picture
Posts: 5448
Joined: 2007-10-12
User is offlineOffline
caposkia wrote:Beyond Saving

caposkia wrote:

Beyond Saving wrote:

You don't even understand the argument being made from your own source. Go back and read it again. He didn't find new evidence, he reinterpreted existing evidence and his interpretation absolutely relies on the Earth being roughly 6,000 years old. If the Earth is older, than his interpretation is disproven.

Do you see what you're doing?  You are so distracted from the dating that you forget to look at what he was looking at... first and foremost he was claiming the evidence found proves such floods are possible... that point has not been disputed... He went to the next level and tries to claim that is evidence of that very flood from Noah's time, which is obviously flawed...  I need from you the reasoning that his claim of the magnitude of the flood in question is not evidence that floods of Noahs' time could happen.  Don't use dating in your response because it has nothing to do with evidence of such a flood being possible.  

No, go back and read the YEC'ers argument. His ENTIRE FUCKING POINT is that the layers of sediment are less than 6,000 years old. There are two theories, one states that the sediment layer built up over billions of years and hence the Earth is billions of years old. The other is that the sediment appeared over a short time period (via a gigantic flood) and therefore the sediment is less that 6000 years old. The two are mutually exclusive. The sediment cannot be both 6,000 years old and billions of years old. If you believe the Earth is billions of years old, you cannot believe the sediment layer developed over the course of a year. (Well you can believe it, but your beliefs are contradictory). If the Earth is billions of years old, his theory about how the sediment layer formed is false. How long it took the sediment to form is an integral part of his argument and you can't just seperate it out because you like that part of it.

  

caposkia wrote:
 

You also forgot to look at my link posted from AIG, how worldly the flood likely could have been... sounds like you really aren't doing the courtesy of reading my posts.    If you still feel I have not provided evidence.. I want direct comments on issues you have with references to the link... it's an extensive article so I'll need to know as to which part you'd be talking about.  

Yeah, AIG, two links to them now even though you say you don't believe them. I already pointed out my issues with the first one. The second one, I linked to a legitimate research article pointing out that the entire idea that fusion is impossible is bullshit. Which quite frankly, is more respect than the loons at AIG deserve, they are about as credible as Scientologists. 

 

Caposkia wrote:

Beyond Saving wrote:

It isn't incredible at all. Not every human gets drunk. In fact, the only people who get drunk are people who drink alcohol. Some of us do that very often, many others never drink it at all. Even in modern society where alcohol is cheap and easy to come by, some people live their whole lives without tasting alcohol. We have fairly solid evidence of approximately when alcohol production was started in various cultures. Alcohol production requires certain things, most notably the invention of some sort of vessel to hold the alcohol. You do know that people haven't always had the tools to make jars?

So... becasue not every human gets drunk.. that is proof that people couldn't get drunk???

No, it is proof that people not getting drunk is in no way "incredible".

 

Caposkia wrote:

Also, you do understand that in all the Bibllical stories, wine wasn't in created vessels right?  What do you think wine skins are?

Yes, once again you are making a foray into an area where I have extensive knowledge. Until recently, I was in the wine industry. Wine was created in vessels- clay ones to be precise. Wineskins were not used for making wine- they were used after the wine was made for consumption (drinking from a giant clay jar isn't very practical). Wine was brewed in clay jars until about 300AD when the Romans started using the wooden barrel (invented around 350 BC). The practice of using wood barrels instead spread throughout Europe and today is the most common.

Trying to brew wine is a wineskin would be impractical, the process releases CO2 which needs to be vented out. The most common use of wineskins was either to store unfermented wine (grape juice) and PREVENT it from fermenting, or to store already fermented wine. 

Regardless, wineskins were not invented until long after clay. You can't just skin an animal and make a wineskin. You have to learn the process of tanning, which wasn't discovered until a good 4,000 years AFTER the invention of clay jars. And as far as we know, it was several thousand years after that when the Greeks figured out how to make leather waterproof and use it to carry liquids. 

 

Caposkia wrote:

YEC's have one flaw... they're YEC's... it does not automatically make everything they present false.  These sources just happen to do a lot of homework on the subject and I find them very thorough where it counts... You will find (if you look for their dating reasoning) that they talk much less about how they conclude the dating than they do for the evidences of the subject at hand.  

The thing is, because they're YEC's they feel that science does have the proof for what they believe... Our knowledge in science today must have the proof because the Earth is so young and we've been able to uncover so much from our past.  Their dating is if you haven't noticed, not very scientific... rather they have a math problem they do based on scripture that really doesn't have much ground IMO.   

YEC's have one flaw, they don't use the scientific method on any of their bullshit. Nothing they do is scientific, they use scientific terms to obfuscate and rationalize their preconceived answers. Which is why in every single field they decide to talk about, the YEC'ers disagree with the mainstream scientists. Whether it is genetics, geology, archaelogy or whatever, their "science" is consistently debunked by their peers. Which is why you never find them published in any scientific articles outside their own. So yeah, since I KNOW they spout bullshit about every topic I am informed on, I am not going to take them as a credible source for any topic I am ignorant about. If they pretend to be experts on geology and genetics and I know they are flat out lying about those, then I am not going to trust them about meteorology even though I personally don't have the knowledge to recognize their bullshit as bullshit. 

 

Caposkia wrote:

We have covered so much that has made your statement above false.  I know you haven't stated "I'm right, you're wrong"... that's not what I said... this is what you've been doing the whole time.. you take one thing and you manipulate it to make it sound like i said something I didn't.   Then you go on to claim I didn't provide this or that... I don't know if your'e hoping we all forgot that I had posted the links or refuted the point or whether you had forgotten, but either way it's getting very redundant with you.

Let's just say I can tell you haven't gone beyond your bookmarks... it shows in your posts.

What links? Two links to YEC'ers? That is your evidence? I thought you read "all kinds of science", how about linking to one of those? 

 

Caposkia wrote:
 

let's summarize using this paragraph;

we have concluded...

flood not impossible at magnitude discussed in this thread (link was provided to prove the magnitude in question)

No, we have not. You have posted ONE source of a YEC geologist, whose argument requires the Earth to be 6,000 years old. Shortly after posting the link, you said you didn't believe the Earth is 6,000 years old. If you don't believe it is 6,000 years old, how can you believe that the entire sediment layer was created in a single flood? The only way to believe that, is to throw out everything that the vast majority of geologists believe and all of their dating methods (ALL of which indicate the sediment layer was NOT created in a single major event- like a flood).

 

Caposkia wrote:

No evidence of its place in history (very true)

Story itself discusses technologies occuring later than 5,000 BC... this has also been discussed. it is a common theme among writings of the time and earlier who write about their history to use current technoloiges in the story despite the fact that they may not have existed in the date the story is to have taken place.   Thus you cannot infer based on the techologies discussed what time period the story takes place in, rather the technologies reveal when the story was written.

What other "writings of the time" do you have to prove that it was a common theme? You can't just assert that it was common, because quite frankly I doubt it. I suspect that you are just making that up like you did about the wineskins. 

 

 

Caposkia wrote:

Beyond Saving wrote:

Well, then why don't you fix some of my ignorance? I haven't seen you present any evidence that such a flood is meteorologically possible, although those questions were brought up in the OP. Why don't we go that direction, because quite frankly I am sick to death of beating the dead horse with the problems regarding the dating and it is obvious you either don't have or won't share any evidence supporting your hypothesis that it occurred 2mya.

.... there's a link... I really don't feel like hunting it down now, but you complained about the guy being a YEC so much you likely forgot to look at the evidence presented.

The link yuou presented was by a "geologist" (using the term VERY loosely). I am moving on from the geology, to a very different discipline. You claimed to have knowledge about meteorology- which I don't believe you have linked to a single source on. 

 

Caposkia wrote:

Considering that we established that it likely wasn't the whole entire world earlier in this thread, it's quite an irrelevant statement, but it would depend on many factors.  Not only would rain have to occur, but there would also have to be a major global warming even taking place that would dramatically melt the ice caps.  Meteorologically speaking if the ice caps were to dramatically melt.. I mean to the degree beyond where we are now, water levels would rise dramatically world wide without rain.    according to USGS, if just Antartica melted, water levels would rise 240 ft. world wide.  That would set up a perfect barrier in all water tables for any rains to dramatically flood out land areas.

That is a pretty big "if". Is there any evidence that such significant global warming existed? Also, those hypotheticals are based on all the ice melting instantaneously. Over time, no doubt a significant amount of that water would find its way to our underground water tables, and hence contribute far less to the depth of the ocean. 

 

Caposkia wrote:
 

It is said that it rained 40 days and 40 nights.  that's 960 hours of rain.  World record rainfall in 1 day was in Foc Foc, La Re'unio'n in 1966 at 72 inches.  40 days of that would = ironically another 240 ft.   So we'd hit 480 Ft. ground water over a 40 day period if these scenarios played out... not including all the ice at the North Pole.

So if it rained at the world record for a single location across the entire world.... we get to 240 feet. Okay, that is alot, and probably deadly. Is it meteorlogically possible? That kind of sustained downpour requires exponentially more evaporated water than there was above Foc Foc in 1966.

 

Caposkia wrote:
 

I think I covered where the water could have come from above... as far as clouds forming... It's a factor of latent cooling and volume of moisture in the air.  God would only have to manipulate how much water is evaporating by raising temperatures and strengthening convections in particular parts of the world, than manipulating the jet streams to channel all that moisture to an area.  It's why tropical rainforests measure rainfall in feet, not inches.    Those factors are why some parts of the world can be in severe drought while other parts can be flooding excessively at the same time.    Again I'm guessing the flood was more localized, so I'm thinking there might have been a good chunk of uninhabited Earth that had a severe drought... (just a theory though)

How much water would have to be suspended to sustain 40 days of 72 inches of water? Let's give you the benefit of the doubt and assume the flood only occurred in an area of 400,000 square miles and every human in the world was in that area. 

 

Caposkia wrote:

Beyond Saving wrote:

3. Is there any meteorlogical evidence that suggests such a thing is possible? 

There is evidences of excessive rainfall in a 24 hour period as I mentioned above and compiling that over 40 days would bring large amounts of water... consider slow drainage areas and you have more than just a major flood on your hands.    Consider the effects of tides and how Boxing in water volume can magnify a problem and like I theorized, floods of that magnitude tend to work in waves, kind of like tsunami's where they can come, then go and come back again.

Yeah, I am ignorant of meteorology, but I am not a fucking idiot. Sustained rain over 40 days is a completely different animal than record rainfall over a 24 hour period. Is there ANY evidence that such sustained rainfall might be possible? I want links to actual meteorology research papers examining the formation of clouds and their maximum rainfall potential. 

 

 

 

If, if a white man puts his arm around me voluntarily, that's brotherhood. But if you - if you hold a gun on him and make him embrace me and pretend to be friendly or brotherly toward me, then that's not brotherhood, that's hypocrisy.- Malcolm X


Beyond Saving
atheist
Beyond Saving's picture
Posts: 5448
Joined: 2007-10-12
User is offlineOffline
caposkia wrote:Based on the

caposkia wrote:

Based on the links BS posted, a fused chromosome does not bode well for the creature as far as reproduction is concerned.  I didn't see anywhere were they had proof that it not only modified a creature into a whole new creature, but that it was of any benefit for the species in question.  This would defy the purpose of evolution if in fact this is the proof of a connection.   

so to answer it directly.  I accept the reasoning AIG has.. I also accept the possibility that it could have fused, but likely not from a chimp, rather 2 similar chromosomes fused from an already human ancester.    The key words I'm finding are that they are "similar" not exact or not identical to that of a chimp.  

It creates reproduction problems with people who have different numbers of chromosomes. That is why you can have sex with a chimp every single day and never get her pregnant. Then number of chromosomes a species has is a major determinent of whether or not they can crossbreed with another species. Which is exactly why chromosome fusion can lead to a completely new branch of a species- ie a new species that can no longer interbreed with the old or other descendants of the original species. ALL the links said in regards to proving it, is that we cannot yet prove that this is what happened in humans a couple million years ago, because we have no DNA that old.

What we can prove is

1. Chromosome fusion is possible and while rare, not outlandishly rare. 

2. Humans with some types of chromosome fusion can live regular healthy lives.

3. Many other animals also experience chromosome fusions.

4. Animals with different numbers of chromosomes have difficulty interbreeding and in some cases become a completely isolated subspecies: for example trout and bumble bees.

5. Some animals experience chromosome fusions at such high rates we can actually witness new isolated species being created, such as grasshoppers or we can actually stimulate chromosome fusions and create new species artificially. 

6. We know that chromosome fusion happens at predictable rates and we know that the odds of a sub-species can be calculated if we know the variables such as the size of the population and the chromosome fusion rate of the species.

7. We know that in small populations with substantial inbreeding rates, genetic mutations are more likely to spread to the population at large. This has been confirmed over and over again with genetic testing of species that breed quickly like insects, bacteria and small mammals. 

From these facts, we can conclude these:

1. Humans with fused chromosomes have difficulty breeding with people who don't have fused chromosomes, however, based on our experiences with 4,5 and 6 it is reasonable to conclude that two humans who both have fused chromosomes would not experience the same difficulties and would have a child who had a reduced number of chromosomes. That child would be unable to have any children unless they bred with someone with fused chromosomes or also had the reduced number.

2. The odds of a human have fused chromosomes are 1:1000. The odds of that human breeding with another human with fused chromosomes are 1:1,000,000 for each sexual partner. Long odds? Sure. Right now there are likely about 5 or 6 couples on the planet who had sex and both people have fused chromosomes. Roughly, for about every billion people who survived long enough to have sex, one couple had fused chromosomes- and that is assuming that they all had only one sexual partner which is obviously not the case but I'm giving your AIG guy here as much help as I can.    

3. We know that small populations with inbreeding spread such mutations faster. We know this through testing as pointed out above, but also just consider the reality: a 1:1,000,000 chance of a couple with fused chromosomes breeding, suddenly becomes much less when it is brother/sister, father/daughter, mother/son. Rather than 1:1,000,000 happening twice in a row The odds become much higher since once the initial couple of father/mother beat the 1:1,000,000 odds then all of the children will have the reduced chromosomes, so you aren't dealing with having to find a random stranger with fused chromosomes.  

4. We know that historically, and even today despite strong social taboos against it, that humans engage in incest. We also know that many human cultures have engaged in practices where a single male breeds with many (sometimes even hundreds) of females during their lives. History has recorded several men who have had hundreds of children.   

5. Therefore, it is very plausible that at some point in history, a man with fused chromosomes was the head of a small social group. Perhaps he got lucky and hit the 1:1,000,000 odds right away, or maybe he did what many men did in history- get a new woman everytime his current woman failed to give him a child. Until he started raising a family where everyone had 46 chromosomes. That group managed to survive and in short order became isolated (the genetic term for a sub-species that can no longer breed with the parent species).

Now when we look at the available evidence- fewer chromosomes than the species that are most closely related to us, combined with the fact that our chromosomes look fused. And we look at what we know is possible. It is reasonable to conclude that chromosome fusion is a probable explanation. It is even more probable when we introduce the evidence we have of ancient hominids, which suggests that they typically lived in small family groups. When we do computer models to predict the evolution of bacteria- something which evolves fast enough for us to witness- we find that the models match fairly closely to what actually happens. If we were to do a model of human evolution, it would involve many small groups becoming increasingly genetically divergent when the population is small and spread out. As those sub-species started comingling, which inevitably happens when populations expand, we would expect them to interbreed or be so genetically divergent that they could no longer reproduce and be two completely different species. Eventually, the species becomes more homogenous to the point where there is no longer a significant genetic difference and as it grows larger, the rate of genetic mutations successfully spreading throughout the population drops. That is how the models predict it, whether it is bacteria, grasshoppers or mice and when we study those animals, we find the models are dead accurate. We could prove it with humans, if we were willing to take humans and isolate them from the rest of the population and force them to breed. But those things called morals get in the way. So until we can find a way to extract DNA from bones that are millions of years old that is high enough quality to analyze, we have to use indirect methods of proof. Fortunately, we have mice, which are useful in all sorts of ways. 

In summation: No we don't have absolute proof. What we do have, is a ton of evidence and a plausible model that is supported by it that can also be applied to other species and proven to work with them. It works for literally thousands of animal species that we have studied as well as plant species. There is no logical reason to believe that humans are someone different.

On the other hand, we have an ancient book and a theory that relies on nothing but "what ifs" and "well you can't prove it didn't happen that way" with no evidence that it is even plausible. Guess what, you can't prove that our chromosomes didn't fuse. 

 

 

If, if a white man puts his arm around me voluntarily, that's brotherhood. But if you - if you hold a gun on him and make him embrace me and pretend to be friendly or brotherly toward me, then that's not brotherhood, that's hypocrisy.- Malcolm X


caposkia
Theist
Posts: 2701
Joined: 2007-05-15
User is offlineOffline
Jabberwocky wrote:caposkia

Jabberwocky wrote:

caposkia wrote:

Beyond Saving wrote:

Jabberwocky wrote:

I don't know enough about the details of chromosomes to be able to tell you what is inaccurate in that link regarding the possiblity and/or probability of a chromosome fusion. I just don't know. However, I think it's far more likely that the majority of the scientific community (with an even bigger majority in the discipline of biology) is correct that such a fusion is indeed possible. 

There is absolute proof that it is possible, and it isn't even that rare. Approximately 1 out of 1000 people are born with fused chromosomes. It is called Robertsonian translocation. And if two people with the same chromosomes fused have a child, that child will have 44 chromosomes. In a large population, it is unlikely that such a mutation is going to take over given the higher than average rates of miscarriages. However, genetic mutations spread much faster in small populations, especially small populations with high levels of inbreeding which raises the odds of two people with the same mutation breeding. It is completely reasonable to believe that a small colony of one of our ancestors developed this mutation. Denisovans and Neanderthals both shared our chromosome structure, so it is believed to have happened before we split from our common ancestor. Which ancestor is an issue open to speculation and debate.  

http://genetics.thetech.org/original_news/news124

http://biomedres.info/yahoo_site_admin/assets/docs/171-174-Bo_Wang.1584046.pdf

It does seem that science has proven that fusion is possible, but they've also added multiple times in both articles that the fusion likely hurts the affected ones ability to reproduce negatively.  The first link talks about the history and link between humans and chimps, but when it discusses the direct link and proof of it they add; "unfortunately, there is no evidence to support this"  

IN conclusion, a fused chromosome that "is similar" to that of another species does not provide evidence of a link.  

Except it DOES provide evidence of a link. If we did have the DNA of a 4-6 million year old specimen that is thought to be a common ancestor of humans and chimpanzees, then we would have all of the evidence. Of course we don't have it all, nor do we expect to ever find it all. In perfect conditions, the oldest DNA we have found dates to 450 000 to 800 000 years old (and that was preserved by being in cold, cold Greenland...source: http://mentalfloss.com/article/48815/how-long-does-dna-last ). The thing is, far before we had the ability to examine DNA, it was predicted that other primates were our closest ancestors. The examination of the DNA corroborated this. It's not just chromosome #2. It's that the other 22 pairs are also startlingly similar. If we found those 22 similar ones, but then had no explanation for the discrepancy in chromosome numbers, that is yet another thing that would disprove the theory of evolution. The other 22 pairs line up very well. It's not like we lined up the 22 then said "well, we have to devise an explanation for the 2 chimp/1 human chromosome we have leftover. This is gonna be a tough, TOUGH one!" What happened, is in examining chromosome 2 in humans, we find that extra large out of place telomere, and the extra (inactive) centromere. It's like having a few pieces of a 100 piece puzzle, then drawing the cover of the box. Every time we find a new piece, we find the drawing on the box to be pretty damn close to what's on that piece. What do you believe is the explanation for all 24 chimp/23 human chromosome pairings being so extremely similar, fusion and all? 

Also, to address your assertion that hurts the ability to reproduce, where is your evidence? Here is some that that is indeed not the case at all:

http://pandasthumb.org/archives/2009/02/the-rise-of-hum-1.html

There is a reason why it is officially a theory.  there has to be some sort of reason to adhere to a link.  Therefore, the possibility is there... but there is no evidence truly connecting the link.  Considering where my evidence is about my "assertion that hurts the ability to reproduce"... that was not my assertion.. I was just reading the links posted.  I didn't know that bit of information before.  

I see your link stating the experiments done on mice.  It seems there is some give or take, but there still is no link to the complete speceal change.  


caposkia
Theist
Posts: 2701
Joined: 2007-05-15
User is offlineOffline
Jabberwocky wrote:Nope! To

Jabberwocky wrote:

Nope! To show that the understood science is wrong is to win a guaranteed nobel prize. Einstein proved Newtonian physics to be quite inaccurate (to the point that if it made it this far without that revision, our GPS systems would suck I am to understand). Of course, one might try to create a GPS system and figure out the issues at that point. However, Einstein figured it out before that level of testing was available. The theory of evolution makes predictions, and new findings corroborate the predictions, rather than disprove them. This happens all the time. You're suggesting some sort of monolithic opposition here. I don't buy it. Hell, the Vatican have an observatory, and they accept evolution because it's simply foolish not to at this point (As they're more international than just the USA where that's prevalent). Even in Bill Maher's movie Religulous (which I have no problem saying did a bad job of fact-checking), he goes to the Vatican observatory only to be told there that creationism is ridiculous in just about every way. 

nope?  it's exactly what you've been claiming about believers this whole time and you're answer is nope?  I only opened it up to the whole gallery.  

the problem with a nobel prize is the understanding has to be addressed and understood... if no one wants to address it, then it will not win.  period.  This peice of science does not have enough concrete evidence to solidify either side, which is why it's still theory.  Thus it's unlikely that either side will "prove" the other wrong to the degree needed and therefore it's why many avoid addressign the issue in the first place.  

jabberwocky wrote:

You failed to address the point. As I said about speciation, you can have 3 distinct groups where group 2 is reproductively compatible with all 3, whereas groups 1 & 3 are not compatible with one another. Now, let's kill off group 2 (which happens ALL the time). What mechanism prevents groups 1 & 3 from genetically diverging further and further indefinitely? We've proven they diverge enough to not be reproductively compatible. What prevents this from going further? 

not sure what prevents it... I think it's just the DNA code.  There is absolutely no evidence that a species from one genus can reproduce with a species from a completely different genus.. it's possibly the distance from common ancestors if you're looking at it from the darwinistic POV, or Christians would say that's how it was designed.  

 

jabberwocky wrote:

Also, define "kind"...wait scratch that. To say "what is a species" is kind of stupid. The answer is the same as the answer to "what is a phylum" "what is a genus" and "what is a 'kind'". The answer to all of those questions is "It is a word used to classify a certain group of life on Earth". The question "what separates one species from another" is well defined. The same goes for genus, family, order, class, phylum, and kingdom. What separates one 'kind' from another? You seem to put it at the genus level. Ken Ham states it's approximately at the family level. Which is it, and what do you have to support it? On the other end of it (same crazy level as Ham, but just sounding WAY dumber) is Ray Comfort in his stupid evolution vs. God video, where he says "They're still finches, they're the same kind" followed by "They're still birds, they're the same kind" (thereby jumping freely from family to class where he sees fit). I hope you're better than that. Can you give me a proper specific description of what separates "kinds"?

I likened kind to genus based on my own quick homework done specifically for this thread.  I could be wrong and Ham could be right... I'm not sure.  either way, I don't know if I could accurately give you a proper specific description of what separates Kinds.  I am not an expert in the field and have not really thought about it.  My explanation would be based moreso in scripture and that line will not work for you.  The general consensus is there never was and there never will be cross breeding or evolution between kinds, rather they will evolve and reproduce within their own.  

Jabberwocky wrote:

The fertility problem doesn't necessarily occur with all chromosome fusions. http://pandasthumb.org/archives/2009/02/the-rise-of-hum-1.html

The above link describes testable examples of that. Now, would you address any of the points I made above? Let me re-iterate them in list form. 

Are all Australopithecines either human or ape? Or are the fossils thought by biologists to be links divided elsewhere? So that you don't have to root through a bunch, let's go one by one. Answer this here: Is Australopithecus Afarensis a human fossil, or an ape fossil (Assuming you disagree that humans are apes)?

How come every time we DO find a fossil, it's nothing that is far removed from what we expected to find when it came to fossils we haven't found anything similar to?

Regarding chromosome 2, the time between what I believe to be our common ancestor with chimps will easily account for discrepancies in the chromosome. Why is so much of it similar? 

I'll ignore the logistics of coralling animals onto the boat from the whole world. Free pass for you, because I desire an answer more to a more specific question:

How do you account for geographic distribution?

How did they feed everything?

ok, if I understand you correctly, you want to focus just on the last 2 questions and just forget about the above questions for now?   Just to answer some of the above quickly, similarities are common with the same creator.  

moving on

Geographic distribution?  HOw do I account for that?  Is this a trick question?  Honestly, migration.  What else?  If plants, then by all the means we can observe today of seeds spreading, animal, winds, spores, etc...

How did they feed all the animals.  Don't know.  the story doesn't say.  Though if it was just 2 of each kind.. I'm not sure how many Kinds there would have been at the tiem... or how many there are now, but there likely wouldn't have been an excessive number of animals on the ark and thus they'd have plenty of space to store the appropriate amount of food for the duration.  

 

jabberwocky wrote:

You see, every time you propose a problem, I at least address it, even if you don't accept my answer (typically dismissing it without much thought). I asked you several questions here, and all you said is that there is a problem with fusion. I addressed it immediately, and asked a few more questions. Any good answers for these?

I've attempted to address everything you've brought to the table... if I missed something, it wasn't because I was ignoring it.   I believe I answered the questions you wanted me to here.  I even addressed one of the above questions that you claimed I'd get a free ride for.  If I missed something, just point it out.   I am only 1 person trying to answer everyones questions on a story that has little information to go on.  


caposkia
Theist
Posts: 2701
Joined: 2007-05-15
User is offlineOffline
Beyond Saving wrote:No, go

Beyond Saving wrote:

No, go back and read the YEC'ers argument. His ENTIRE FUCKING POINT is that the layers of sediment are less than 6,000 years old. There are two theories, one states that the sediment layer built up over billions of years and hence the Earth is billions of years old. The other is that the sediment appeared over a short time period (via a gigantic flood) and therefore the sediment is less that 6000 years old. The two are mutually exclusive. The sediment cannot be both 6,000 years old and billions of years old. If you believe the Earth is billions of years old, you cannot believe the sediment layer developed over the course of a year. (Well you can believe it, but your beliefs are contradictory). If the Earth is billions of years old, his theory about how the sediment layer formed is false. How long it took the sediment to form is an integral part of his argument and you can't just seperate it out because you like that part of it.

if I remember correctly, he pointed out a specific area where a dramatic flood had happened... Granted he claims the layers above that were less than 6000 years old, but there was still evidence of a flood.  Not THEE flood, but a flood to a great magnitude from what I could tell.  

I see why we weren't seeing eye to eye on this though... thank you for clarifying.  

Let's forget this YEC's claim then.  He's not the only one claiming a flood to the magnitude of Noah's time could happen, see:  Discover

It not only addresses another location with the evidence, but addresses the grand canyon as well like the YEC.  Regardless of what he believed about the age of the rocks, the evidence of such drastic flood are there in history.  

Beyond Saving wrote:

Yeah, AIG, two links to them now even though you say you don't believe them. I already pointed out my issues with the first one. The second one, I linked to a legitimate research article pointing out that the entire idea that fusion is impossible is bullshit. Which quite frankly, is more respect than the loons at AIG deserve, they are about as credible as Scientologists. 

what of the sources?  AIG didn't write that on their own.  

Beyond Saving wrote:

No, it is proof that people not getting drunk is in no way "incredible".

riiiight.... I guess I don't get how proof of people not getting drunk and the credibility of that proof has anything to do with proof that people couldn't get drunk at the time of Noah.  

Beyond Saving wrote:

 

Caposkia wrote:

Also, you do understand that in all the Bibllical stories, wine wasn't in created vessels right?  What do you think wine skins are?

Yes, once again you are making a foray into an area where I have extensive knowledge. Until recently, I was in the wine industry. Wine was created in vessels- clay ones to be precise. Wineskins were not used for making wine- they were used after the wine was made for consumption (drinking from a giant clay jar isn't very practical). Wine was brewed in clay jars until about 300AD when the Romans started using the wooden barrel (invented around 350 BC). The practice of using wood barrels instead spread throughout Europe and today is the most common.

Trying to brew wine is a wineskin would be impractical, the process releases CO2 which needs to be vented out. The most common use of wineskins was either to store unfermented wine (grape juice) and PREVENT it from fermenting, or to store already fermented wine. 

Regardless, wineskins were not invented until long after clay. You can't just skin an animal and make a wineskin. You have to learn the process of tanning, which wasn't discovered until a good 4,000 years AFTER the invention of clay jars. And as far as we know, it was several thousand years after that when the Greeks figured out how to make leather waterproof and use it to carry liquids. 

how are we aware of when wine skins were invented?  Also is there evidences of certain cultures discovering something, losing that discovery and other cultures later rediscovering it?  How do we know how advanced people were before the flood?  

I honestly want to know especially seeing as this is your foray.  

Trying to brew it in wineskin is impractical.. unless that's all you've got.  It seems a bit strange to me that the discovery of wine making came into play after clay pots were invented.  I'd also be under the impression that wine making was discovered by accident when trying to (possibly impractically) store grapes or grape juice.  If that discovery happened long before clay pots, it's even harder for me to believe that people said; 'awe screw it, we don't have the means to be doing this'.  

beyond Saving wrote:

YEC's have one flaw, they don't use the scientific method on any of their bullshit. Nothing they do is scientific, they use scientific terms to obfuscate and rationalize their preconceived answers. Which is why in every single field they decide to talk about, the YEC'ers disagree with the mainstream scientists. Whether it is genetics, geology, archaelogy or whatever, their "science" is consistently debunked by their peers. Which is why you never find them published in any scientific articles outside their own. So yeah, since I KNOW they spout bullshit about every topic I am informed on, I am not going to take them as a credible source for any topic I am ignorant about. If they pretend to be experts on geology and genetics and I know they are flat out lying about those, then I am not going to trust them about meteorology even though I personally don't have the knowledge to recognize their bullshit as bullshit. 

of course they have to disagree with mainstream science... science goes against their Young Earth delusion.  They ahve good excuses for it, but not backed up in science... nor scripture actually.  Considering what they do look at in science... they do their homework... just everyone gets stuck on the YEC part of it... including them.  
 

Beyond Saving wrote:

What links? Two links to YEC'ers? That is your evidence? I thought you read "all kinds of science", how about linking to one of those? 

just did above... most science I read is not about evidence of floods or DNA.  

Beyond Saving wrote:

What other "writings of the time" do you have to prove that it was a common theme? You can't just assert that it was common, because quite frankly I doubt it. I suspect that you are just making that up like you did about the wineskins. 

every single writing during that time from any source that tried to portray a history and was not writing about current events.  AS far as ancients were concerned, historical people were using or donig the same things they were.  I don't have specific titles or links, but I remember going through many docmuments on the subject not connected to the bible.  

Beyond Saving wrote:

The link yuou presented was by a "geologist" (using the term VERY loosely). I am moving on from the geology, to a very different discipline. You claimed to have knowledge about meteorology- which I don't believe you have linked to a single source on. 

I hadn't, just used meteorological explanation of how it's possible.. I did just put a link up though.

Beyond Saving wrote:

That is a pretty big "if". Is there any evidence that such significant global warming existed? Also, those hypotheticals are based on all the ice melting instantaneously. Over time, no doubt a significant amount of that water would find its way to our underground water tables, and hence contribute far less to the depth of the ocean. 

it's a big "if" to suggest the flood literally covered the whole planet too, so I figured that big if was appropriate.  

The water tables would be the true factor... nowhere for water coming in to drain magnify floods.

Beyond Saving wrote:

So if it rained at the world record for a single location across the entire world.... we get to 240 feet. Okay, that is alot, and probably deadly. Is it meteorlogically possible? That kind of sustained downpour requires exponentially more evaporated water than there was above Foc Foc in 1966.

yes in theory.  It would be likened to the channeling of moisture kind of like El Nino.  where it would constantly suck moisture from tropical locations and drop it in the cooler climate.  There would have to be a dramatic shift in the jet streams and a convergence over a specific location for such a dramatic flood to occur, but it is theoretically possible.   

Beyond Saving wrote:

How much water would have to be suspended to sustain 40 days of 72 inches of water? Let's give you the benefit of the doubt and assume the flood only occurred in an area of 400,000 square miles and every human in the world was in that area. 

Suspended... like in clouds?  Not as much as you think.  It would be a cycle where the rain would constantly fall on teh location and continuously draw up more water from a tropical location and carry it to the location in question.  Think of it as an assembly line.  a small number of people can bring 1000's of items from one point to another if given 40 days to do it... same with atmospheric winds and water.  

Lets look at it from an observable standpoint... I'm not saying it happened this way, but this might put it into perspective... Think of one moderately strong hurricane and how much flooding occurs just from the rain falling from it...  now imagine a chain of those moderately strong hurricanes being channeled to the same location so they drop constant rain for 40 days.   Each previous hurricane would wind down over several days, but there'd be an equally strong hurricane to follow up.   What kind of flooding do you think we'd see if that happened?  I think there would be very little left in the wake.  Depending on the elevations and proximities, it could take even less than those to wipe out life... consider Katrina and New Orleans... that was just one storm.  

Beyond Saving

Yeah, I am ignorant of meteorology, but I am not a fucking idiot. Sustained rain over 40 days is a completely different animal than record rainfall over a 24 hour period. Is there ANY evidence that such sustained rainfall might be possible? I want links to actual meteorology research papers examining the formation of clouds and their maximum rainfall potential. 

[/quote wrote:

no, you're not a fucking idiot, you just don't think sometimes Eye-wink   The point here is, we have never observed a Noah like flood, so we have to go with what we have.  The fact that such a dramatic amount of rain could fall over a 24 hour period of time opens doors to the possibility that such a rainfall could last longer if that particular weather pattern did not change.  

If you look at weather patterns as a whole, they work in lines or chains.  They follow the jet streams which are strong wind patterns in our atmosphere.  Storms will follow those winds wherever they go.  If the situation came up where a jet stream was set up perfectly to spawn such a strong storm and rain it down on a particular place... and did not move or change for a long period of time, there is no reason to think the dramatic rainfall wouldn't repeat consistently until jet stream moved.  

Other factors involved are convections and how strong they are... the stronger the convections, the more rain can be held in the atmosphere before dropping it.  If a weather pattern stalls (which we have observed many times even in our lifetimes)  the same thing will keep happening... maybe not even stopping.   The floods and droughts we observe today are in some instances casued by such a stall in the jet stream.  either it stalls too far to teh north or south and leaves a place without rain for extended periods of time, or it stalls over a particular place channeling storm after storm into the same location causing flooding.  

Again, i tried to answer your questions thoroughly... if you feel I didn't, please just let me know where you need more information.


caposkia
Theist
Posts: 2701
Joined: 2007-05-15
User is offlineOffline
Beyond Saving wrote:It

Beyond Saving wrote:

It creates reproduction problems with people who have different numbers of chromosomes. That is why you can have sex with a chimp every single day and never get her pregnant. Then number of chromosomes a species has is a major determinent of whether or not they can crossbreed with another species. Which is exactly why chromosome fusion can lead to a completely new branch of a species- ie a new species that can no longer interbreed with the old or other descendants of the original species. ALL the links said in regards to proving it, is that we cannot yet prove that this is what happened in humans a couple million years ago, because we have no DNA that old.

What we can prove is

1. Chromosome fusion is possible and while rare, not outlandishly rare. 

2. Humans with some types of chromosome fusion can live regular healthy lives.

3. Many other animals also experience chromosome fusions.

4. Animals with different numbers of chromosomes have difficulty interbreeding and in some cases become a completely isolated subspecies: for example trout and bumble bees.

5. Some animals experience chromosome fusions at such high rates we can actually witness new isolated species being created, such as grasshoppers or we can actually stimulate chromosome fusions and create new species artificially. 

6. We know that chromosome fusion happens at predictable rates and we know that the odds of a sub-species can be calculated if we know the variables such as the size of the population and the chromosome fusion rate of the species.

7. We know that in small populations with substantial inbreeding rates, genetic mutations are more likely to spread to the population at large. This has been confirmed over and over again with genetic testing of species that breed quickly like insects, bacteria and small mammals. 

From these facts, we can conclude these:

1. Humans with fused chromosomes have difficulty breeding with people who don't have fused chromosomes, however, based on our experiences with 4,5 and 6 it is reasonable to conclude that two humans who both have fused chromosomes would not experience the same difficulties and would have a child who had a reduced number of chromosomes. That child would be unable to have any children unless they bred with someone with fused chromosomes or also had the reduced number.

2. The odds of a human have fused chromosomes are 1:1000. The odds of that human breeding with another human with fused chromosomes are 1:1,000,000 for each sexual partner. Long odds? Sure. Right now there are likely about 5 or 6 couples on the planet who had sex and both people have fused chromosomes. Roughly, for about every billion people who survived long enough to have sex, one couple had fused chromosomes- and that is assuming that they all had only one sexual partner which is obviously not the case but I'm giving your AIG guy here as much help as I can.    

3. We know that small populations with inbreeding spread such mutations faster. We know this through testing as pointed out above, but also just consider the reality: a 1:1,000,000 chance of a couple with fused chromosomes breeding, suddenly becomes much less when it is brother/sister, father/daughter, mother/son. Rather than 1:1,000,000 happening twice in a row The odds become much higher since once the initial couple of father/mother beat the 1:1,000,000 odds then all of the children will have the reduced chromosomes, so you aren't dealing with having to find a random stranger with fused chromosomes.  

4. We know that historically, and even today despite strong social taboos against it, that humans engage in incest. We also know that many human cultures have engaged in practices where a single male breeds with many (sometimes even hundreds) of females during their lives. History has recorded several men who have had hundreds of children.   

5. Therefore, it is very plausible that at some point in history, a man with fused chromosomes was the head of a small social group. Perhaps he got lucky and hit the 1:1,000,000 odds right away, or maybe he did what many men did in history- get a new woman everytime his current woman failed to give him a child. Until he started raising a family where everyone had 46 chromosomes. That group managed to survive and in short order became isolated (the genetic term for a sub-species that can no longer breed with the parent species).

Now when we look at the available evidence- fewer chromosomes than the species that are most closely related to us, combined with the fact that our chromosomes look fused. And we look at what we know is possible. It is reasonable to conclude that chromosome fusion is a probable explanation. It is even more probable when we introduce the evidence we have of ancient hominids, which suggests that they typically lived in small family groups. When we do computer models to predict the evolution of bacteria- something which evolves fast enough for us to witness- we find that the models match fairly closely to what actually happens. If we were to do a model of human evolution, it would involve many small groups becoming increasingly genetically divergent when the population is small and spread out. As those sub-species started comingling, which inevitably happens when populations expand, we would expect them to interbreed or be so genetically divergent that they could no longer reproduce and be two completely different species. Eventually, the species becomes more homogenous to the point where there is no longer a significant genetic difference and as it grows larger, the rate of genetic mutations successfully spreading throughout the population drops. That is how the models predict it, whether it is bacteria, grasshoppers or mice and when we study those animals, we find the models are dead accurate. We could prove it with humans, if we were willing to take humans and isolate them from the rest of the population and force them to breed. But those things called morals get in the way. So until we can find a way to extract DNA from bones that are millions of years old that is high enough quality to analyze, we have to use indirect methods of proof. Fortunately, we have mice, which are useful in all sorts of ways. 

In summation: No we don't have absolute proof. What we do have, is a ton of evidence and a plausible model that is supported by it that can also be applied to other species and proven to work with them. It works for literally thousands of animal species that we have studied as well as plant species. There is no logical reason to believe that humans are someone different.

On the other hand, we have an ancient book and a theory that relies on nothing but "what ifs" and "well you can't prove it didn't happen that way" with no evidence that it is even plausible. Guess what, you can't prove that our chromosomes didn't fuse. 

What you say makes a lot of sense... until the very end about the Bible.  

Anyway, even you had to admit extreme circumstances in the human animal for that change to be successful.  I see you have faith in the idea that because it is observed in populatinos that produce much quicker that makes it more possible that it happened with humans.  The only issue I have with that, is the populatinos that reproduce quicker would likely have much better odds of finding another of the same because so many reproduce so quickly.  Humans ultimately became humans because of a lucky hit somewhere in history, is that what you're basically saying?  

I find the isolation of people groups would make the odds even worse for this to succesfully happen.  even so, as we've also observed, the change in Chromosomes does not necessarily create a new species, but it can, which means we got even luckier.  Not only did we have to have the initial mating of the modified Chromosome carriers, but then there had to be a consistent progress through a long evolutionary process to make it actually work.  What are the odds of that?  

Still not sure if i buy the fused chromosome in humans theory, but I'm listening.  


Jabberwocky
atheist
Posts: 411
Joined: 2012-04-21
User is offlineOffline
caposkia wrote:Jabberwocky

caposkia wrote:

Jabberwocky wrote:

Using the bible to prove the bible mostly here. Nothing to see here.

no, using the Bible to prove the power of word in history.  Regardless whether you think the Bible is true or not, it still is a reflection of the cultures of the times and is viewed by all historians as a compilation of historical documents.  That's not to say all historians believe its claims, they don't, but they do accept how it opens a window into the culture of the time.  The question at hand for this link wasn't, how do you prove the Bible, it's the level at which spoken word was held.  

I won't deny that the Bible does prove itself, but you can't use that excuse here.  

No, it is exactly what I said. You said and I quote "except through the written word that had started... Let's use the bible as an example"

The reason you are saying that the power of word in history is important, is because you believe that the old testament stories occurred before the written word. For you to be right, then, it would require that word of mouth indeed be reliable in order for the bible stories to be accurate. You then go ahead to cite the bible as the reason when you say "Within most of scripture, there is a great emphasis on the 'word' of others". This is a circular argument that reads as so:

The old testament stories are reliable because spoken word used to be passed down more carefully in those times. 

We know spoken word was passed down more carefully in those times because the bible emphasizes this point. 

You have to be able to see what's wrong with this, you simply have to....right?

On your last point, I would argue that the bible does not prove itself, and in fact, its internal inconsistencies rule it out as 100% true that's for sure. 

caposkia wrote:

Jabberwocky wrote:

As far as the actual evidence, a person named Jesus was written, but only after his death. If there was a large group of people claiming that he did exist pre-Pauline epistles (which I don't think is the case, unless my timelines are wrong), if people hadn't made up a person out of whole cloth before, it may have been reasonable to take their word for it. 

However, that's not even important. Most of the references to Yeshua/Jesus (if not all) mentioned nothing of crucifixion. References to Christus/Christos did. Was there anything aside from the testimonium Flavianum (understood by essentially ALL scholars to be at least part forgery) that linked the 2 people together? The best part is if the answer to all these questions is "Yes" is doesn't prove a damn thing. If there was a historical Jesus who was known by his followers as the saviour, and that was who Paul spoke of, and that is who the early Christians based their religion on, it doesn't mean he performed a single legitimate miracle. 

Funny story is that Hitchens elaborated well on why he thought that it was more likely that he WAS a historical person. Because he's mentioned in the bible as "Jesus of Nazareth" so many times, it seems to be someone who had to be from Nazareth (and if he was made up, they could have made him from anywhere). The birth in Bethlehem (which was necessary for theological reasons) was a clear fabrication. The census by Quirinius has absolutely 0 records. Also, Quirinius was not governor of Assyria in a time within the range of dates that the story could have taken place. These are parts of the new testament that are demonstrably wrong. 

I never claimed everything you're posting here in that last thread, only that Jesus is generally considered an actual person in history.  The miracles He performed and exactly what He did is not as clear to many scholars who don't accept scripture.  

Also, if you read the gospels, you might see why the census might not have had Jesus in it... at least not the proper census.  

And this is where the problem is. The existence of a historical Jesus from who Christianity may have been mythologized out of does nothing to prove that he was the son of god, or born a virgin, or came back from the dead, or performed a single miracle. 

I didn't say that the census lacked a Yeshua. I said it didn't happen as written. 

This passage has long been considered problematic by Biblical scholars, since it places the birth of Jesus around the time of the census in 6/7, whereas both this Gospel and the Gospel of Matthew, which makes no mention of the census, indicate a birth in the reign of Herod the Great, who died in 4 BCE, at least ten years earlier.[12] In addition, no historical sources mention a census of the Roman world which would cover the entire population. Those of Augustus covered Roman citizens only,[13] and it was not the practice in Roman censuses to require people to return to their ancestral homes.[14][15][16][17][18] James Dunn wrote: "the idea of a census requiring individuals to move to the native town of long dead ancestors is hard to credit".[19] E. P. Sanders points out that it would have been the practice for the census-takers, not the taxed, to travel, and that Joseph, resident in Galilee, would not have been covered by a census in Judaea

It seems that if you're not ignoring history, (something which you have accused me of) you find that the account of the census in the gospel of Luke has a few problems. So the census might not have had Jesus in it because his family wasn't subject to it anyway. There wasn't a practice saying that people had to return to their hometowns, but even if there was, the census applied to Roman citizens only, so they wouldn't have gone to Bethlehem anyway! 

caposkia wrote:

Jabberwocky wrote:

Was everyone there of adult or at least adolescent age then? Or did god kill infants/toddlers? I've asked this before, but your arguments all exist in a vacuum ignoring all prior information. Of course, that's nothing unique as religious arguments must necessarily do that, since religions are incoherent. 

I'm sure there were people of all ages.  I've also addressed this before and talked about how even today the actions of the adults in our culture directly affect the innocent children.  Innocent babies die every day because families even in the United States can't afford either proper health care, food, etc.... that's not to include other reasons... so why have we not overthrown the government for those babies deaths?  That was unjust wasn't it?  It's not fair that the government killed those babies!

*sigh*. Because a government revolt often isn't the solution. Do people attempt to take steps to remedy this? Yes! Universal healthcare is coming whether right wing Americans like it or not. Guess what, it works just fine here in Canada! It has its problems, but the idea that one can go bankrupt if they (or a family member) get sick is absurd to the rest of the 1st world. I do think that what you wrote there is something that is wrong and should be fixed. Also, you're comparing humans trying to govern themselves to a being you describe as perfect. You really allow a lot of leeway for your perfect being.

caposkia wrote:

Jabberwocky wrote:
 

"something tells you". That might be the most accurate thing you said. It's a hunch, a feeling, and nothing more. 

Also, creating something doesn't mean you're just in destroying it. It just isn't. 

it was meant to be a statement of sarcasm to emphasize the obviousness of the situation... but I guess it wasn't that obvious to you.

Perhaps. But I disagree with what you have to say anyway. If I were able to create something that is actually sentient, it would have its own rights. I would not have dominion over it (including permission to kill it) because where something or someone came from does not mean that someone has the right to destroy them! 

caposkia wrote:

Jabberwocky wrote:

Gen 6:3 is vague, and has been used as an argument that the bible predicted human lifespan. The doctrine of the holy spirit is stupid.

If you believe in it, you must believe the following. We all have this knowledge, 100%, but we choose to deny it (as I've mentioned before, knowing the consequences), but we're fucking idiots. This is what you're asserting. You are also asserting that the people back then had the same evidence (but Noah was said to have been literally spoken to by god, thereby seemingly getting better evidence than the rest of humanity at the time, and certainly better than what we get today). I will keep saying the following BTW, but once again, your story has more gaps than you propose that biology has. 

I hope you can reflect on your own posts... I mean you would walk all over me if I tried a response like that... Basically I show you Gen 6:3 and your defense is, the doctrine of the Holy Spirit is stupid. 

I'm glad you read the first 2 sentences. I don't even have an inkling that Christianity can possibly be true. You claim that I am simply suppressing it deliberately if you believe in the doctrine of the holy spirit. That is why it's stupid. You claim to know what is going on in my mind and my thoughts, something which you couldn't possibly know without being told by me. It's an argument from personal experience which simply never counts. 

caposkia wrote:

Jabberwocky wrote:

Nope. You haven't. You showed how they could circumnavigate the globe, not cover all populated areas. 

...with time to spare... and it is logical to conclude that humanity and even possibly any other wildlife had not spread across the globe yet... in other words, not only would a single person have the time to circumnavigate the globe, but they would have plenty of time to cover all the settlements within a more confined area of the globe... This is also to assume that literally one person went around telling people as if they didn't know what they were doign in the first place, which is quite a stretch in and of itself.

Again all addressed before... every single word of it.  

No you haven't. We have a large disagreement on what it takes to reach people spread across a large land mass. You seem to think that travelling in a straight line is enough. I don't. I believe that people didn't settlle along some line and ignore the rest. 

caposkia wrote:

jabberwocky wrote:

Did you give me a good reason to believe that what you're saying is true? If you did, I would probably refrain from drawing such stick figures. EVEN if you did, are these killers righteous in killing me? Are they commiting a moral good by doing it? 

Once again, your argument only works in a vacuum, ignoring all prior details. Also, you're asserting that in the flood story that people knew, without supporting it, for probably at least the 20th time. 

no, it's very simple... I tell you there are people who will kill you for doing something, whether you think it's a good reason or not, you will die for it.  Do you do it?  if so do you not understand why you died moral or not?  

No, I probably wouldn't were I certain that that is the case. I would see if there is a way around it because such a threat is evil, and the people making it should be stopped. But if I couldn't find a way at the moment, I would probably obey them, yes. I also think that most people would do the same. The question is, why were the people in that time willing to disobey god if they actually DID know?

caposkia wrote:

Jabberwocky wrote:

So you're saying that obedience is all that matters? Totalitarianism under any other name is still...

if you view Laws as totalitarianism then sure... We all live under laws.  If we are disobedient to any of those laws we live under, there are consequences... soem small some big depending on what law you broke and how many times... and to what degree... God is not as subjective when it comes to consequences for Law breakers.  

Yes, but when we have laws that are indeed unjust, they get examined. We don't have commandments to kill our children though (like Jephthah). We don't have commandments to slaughter a whole group of people (like the Amalekites). You simply say that these things are just because god commanded them, so they must be. Would you stone to death a woman because she wasn't a virgin on her wedding night? Whether Jesus did or didn't supersede those laws, the fact remains that in the old testament, this was given as a law by god. How is that ok? How is it not appropriate to put into question the goodness of the being which gives such hideous commandments?

Theists - If your god is omnipotent, remember the following: He (or she) has the cure for cancer, but won't tell us what it is.


Jabberwocky
atheist
Posts: 411
Joined: 2012-04-21
User is offlineOffline
caposkia wrote:I haven't

caposkia wrote:

I haven't forgotten where you're from... and you should know first hand that just becasue you believed it and read scripture doesn't mean you understood it and followed it appropriately.  

No it doesn't. However, if scripture has to be treated differently than any other book when one is trying to verify the authenticity of its claims, then that is special pleading by default. When you pick up any science book in the world, you use the same methodology of testing to verify its claims. If you insist that a different methodology must be adopted to test the claims in the bible, well I would ask, why? The bible has verses that 100% contradict one another. The skeptics annotated bible online for instance has a contradiction detector that's a little over-sensitive in my opinion, but it will list for you the relevant verses one against the other to compare and check. It's a great place to begin when looking for such contradictions. If the bible says that someone has seen the face of god (which it does) and says later that nobody has seen the face of god (which it does), that is a contradiction. One of those phrases must be untrue. This is one example. I can probably provide a hundred. 

Science books do not contradict themselves internally in this way. A newer book may contradict an older book. The newer books often address findings made in error (or findings that were somewhat correct, but previously less accurate) as well. The bible does not. The bible asserts things, some of which are in direct conflict with one another. That to me makes it impossible that it is 100% true. 

caposkia wrote:

jabberwocky wrote:

What the hell does that even mean? How does that close any case? You didn't address anything I said there, and instead offered up gibberish. 

I didn't address it because it was subjective... I'm ignoring "true fact"... both sides can and have made that claim about the other side and it has gotten them nowhere.  True fact is dependent in your statement on what you accept as truth, not what might actually be true.   I and all other Bible thumpers can and do claim that the Bible is True fact, but that's not gonig to make you accept it any more than you do now...  Same with me for any focus.  

First of all, the reason I put "true fact" in quotations is because it's a redundant phrase, much like "single bachelor" or "scared coward". The noun is all the description required, and does not require the verb to supplement it. Bible thumpers love to introduce into conversations the idea that there is a difference between "truth" and "fact" when there really isn't. All facts are true. If something is the truth, it is a fact. There is never any reason to put those words together. Let's read a sentence from above again "True fact is dependent in your statement on what you accept as truth, not what might actually be true."...what? I understand that facts are facts whether you agree that they're facts or not. 

You believe the bible to be 100% true it seems. The bible contains internal contradictions, which makes that actually impossible. 

Now the topic at hand is that this particular quote-block was myself calling you on your evasion of the language complexity vs. population spread problem. When you got backed into a corner, you implied something along the lines of "well they knew they were sinning anyway, etc. they knew they had to repent, etc. etc.". Why not start with that? I believe that you didn't start with that because you knew that that wouldn't be sufficient argument, so you tried to explain it away in a way involving less direct supernatural intervention. Now when I called you on all of this, you ended up spouting some crap about "true fact." and said "case closed". No it's not. Why didn't you start with "people knew they were sinning?" Why go through the trouble of saying "they must have told everyone about the impending calamity"?

caposkia wrote:

Jabberwocky wrote:

Did Noah's family spread the word so long ago that language wasn't develped enough to explain it (impossible)? or

Did Noah's family spread the word once language was sufficient to explain it (at which point people would have been spread too far apart)?

These are the possibilites we have come up based on things you said. "Of course people were warned" (to paraphrase you) you said. The two things just listed above are absolute logical problems with the assertion that people were warned. Let's continue.

You believe that they already knew and didn't need to be warned? Then why did you hilariously try to prove that they did? I guarantee you if this was real and I knew it, I wouldn't be doing this. 

IF you look back in the thread, people had difficulty accepting that everyone knew... so I humored them by proving that even if they didn't know they still had plenty of time to find out.  

Once again, see above. No need to answer to this as I asked the same question on the first go there. 

caposkia wrote:

Jabberwocky wrote:

So you believe that I am ignoring evidence then? Name one piece of evidence I am ignoring. Just one.

The Bible.

Oh but that's not evidence right, the Bible can't prove itself.

how about eye witness accounts Biblical and extra biblical...

oh, but wait, people cannot be trusted.

How about documented cases from the Vatican that God has worked in people's lives.

Oh, but wait the Vatican is not a reliable source and despite the evidence that they take years and use unbais sources to confirm the miracle, they don't look into it thoroughly enough.

Shall I go on?  

....and yes, ignoring evidence constitutes coming up with excuses as to why it's not evidence...and lack of evidence is not evidence against evidence.  

No the bible isn't evidence. The bible is a claim. It is a claim that is internally incoherent, contains statements that can be examined scientifically (and most of those statements fail that test). It contains statements about history (some which have been disproven by Jewish archaeologists who tried to set out to prove them!). These things mean that it can't be 100% true. No book can prove itself. Every science book has content where you can experiment yourself and verify the findings. Hence the books don't actually prove themselves, but they are accurate and correct and you can verify it. The bible contains content that can be tested (which it largely fails) and content that can't (hence we can't verify the claims). 

Eye-witness accounts, biblical and extra-biblical...listen closely. We! Believe! That! The! Bible! Stories! Are! Fabricated! Myth! Why would we accept eye-witness accounts written within it? You can humour me with the extra-biblical accounts if you like though. List them with links. 

As you said, people call into the Vatican with claims that the Vatican ignores. I agree that that probably happens. The Vatican are probably wise to ignore many of them. They're waiting for something big like cancer remission, or at least a growth that may be understood as cancer in a less wealthy country. These miracles must be marketable. The Catholic Church really is into the same crap like Peter Popoff's miracle healing water, they're just far, FAR more subtle about it. 

However, I doubt the Vatican ever gets calls that go like the following. "I prayed for Mother Teresa to intercede, but my husband died anyway". These people probably live in silence and largely outnumber the rest. Also, if you read about the first miracle of mother Teresa, there are major MAJOR problems with it. The fact that the Vatican haven't reversed the ruling on that miracle suggests that they're not so interested in scientific accuracy as you claim. There are doctors who treated her who reject any sort of miraculous cure, and her husband did so initially as well, but later changed his mind.

You're calling what I say excuses? What in here is an excuse? What in here is a dismissal? The closest thing to a dismissal is the part in the last paragraph regarding the husband. However, for her husband to change his mind, it may take nothing more than immense social pressure, or one single threat. Why did the doctors and the husband all agree on the "not a miracle" explanation initially? Is it because they wanted to reject god? No. It's because the doctors diagnosed the woman's illness, and prescribed her medication for it. They are professionals, and trusted their diagnosis. She took the meds and got better. In your opinion (if you believe this to be a miracle), they got the diagnosis wrong. Her condition wasn't as deadly as thought, and they prescribed medication that was in no way effective. Then, god fixed it because mother Teresa was summoned. Now, didn't you mention before that you're no longer Catholic despite being brought up that way? Do you still believe in saintly intercession? Your view on this seems very wacky to me.

caposkia wrote:

jabberwocky wrote:

What the hell does colonies being close by have to do with it? We know humanity was spread out far. What certainty do you have that they were spread out a day max from eachother, that they weren't hostile towards one another (surely if they were evil, they would be likely to be hostile to Noah rather than receptive to his message). Ridiculous. 

which is why I don't believe they spread the word to everyone.

So you believe, to use your analogy, that the person threatening you to not draw the cartoon is real, and serious about the threat. They also believed he was righteous in doing so. Because if I were to draw a cartoon despite terrorist threats, it may be detrimental to my life, but it wouldn't be necessarily morally wrong to do so despite the threat. A universal succumbing to terrorists is not the right thing to do, as it would create a society where the most hostile and violent people are the ones who get what they want. Defiance (even if it's dangerous) is unfortunately important in such situations. You have basically likened god to a terrorist by even using that analogy. How, then, do you claim that he was righteous?

caposkia wrote:

jabberwocky wrote:

Math....circumnavigating the globe....people wouldn't have been spread that far...gibberish. Be concise. 

The final consensus of the time this story took place (as posited by yourself) is ~ 2 million years ago...language/speech itself is estimated to be only 150 to 350 thousand years old. That would be quite a gap to cross). But then....ooohhh so you DO believe that the tower of Babel story happened. Ok. Why is it bullshit? It falls into the same trap as creationism doesn. Which animals were made, and which evolved? Here, which languages were made, and which evolved? Surely you don't believe that Polish and Ukrainian both came about during that event? If so, why are they so similar? Why can I understand a good percentage of Ukrainian while never learning it? The tower of babel is also a very ridiculous story. As far as which verses say that languages existed before, it mentions it 3 times in Genesis 10, which is literally the chapter that precedes the babel story. Better yet, one mention is in the penultimate verse. So starting at Genesis 10:31, the bible reads as so: 31 These are the sons of Shem by their clans and languages, in their territories and nations.

32 These are the clans of Noah’s sons, according to their lines of descent, within their nations. From these the nations spread out over the earth after the flood.

11 Now the whole world had one language and a common speech. 

To believe that this could possibly be true is to be deluded to a degree beyond my comprehension. I never believed these things to be true, and it's learning about the bible that helped lead me to drop my irrational belief in Christianity. 

To believe one, you must believe another.  I know that's hard for you.

Drop the pronouns and explain what you mean by this. I don't want to answer the wrong question.

caposkia wrote:

What is your basis for the formation of language?  It needs to be beyond written evidence..complex language would have formed much earlier.  

Much the same as we learn language as children. We start with simple concepts, usually associating sounds with objects and people (nouns). We then go on to things like verbs that are easy to understand, and the rest comes later. It has been said that some aspects of complex language have to be learned in early childhood to be understood. It would be cruel to run tests, but in cases where feral children were found, it has been shown that the ability to develop a certain level of language has been difficult. Since parents tend to teach their children language (BTW, my parents never taught me English, I learned it all in school), one can acquire a great knowledge of their native language over the first few years of their life. When language first came about, it was important to identify objects and nouns (and probably people as well, by attaching a label to them). Verbs would be the next important thing (if we are to co-operate, we need to be able to tell people what we need them to do, and what we will do in return, etc.). Language developed as the need for language did. In the example of the feral children, we find that not learning language early on means that you won't have the ability to understand the complex parts later. Our infant and toddler brains are great sponges for such things, and allow us to cram a lot of information into it, so that we can learn more difficult concepts later. Each successive generation had the ability to expand on language. If I could learn 2 languages in ~5 and a half years, surely people could slowly expand on language over the years, and make it more complex gradually. 

So, what is your basis for language being organized into quite a similar observable tree as life in the world? The Slavic countries are all close to one another, and share a lot of grammar. There are several alphabets. Primarily, there is the roman as I'm typing in, used by the Polish (including dialects that are far removed and hard for me to understand such as Silesian and Kashubian), Czech, Slovaks and the Croatians (probably some more I'm missing) and the Cyrillic, used by Russians, Ukrainians, Belarussians, Serbians, (and some more I'm sure). You may notice that the last in each set are Croatian and Serbian. Funny as they are the same language, but use different alphabets. Do you think that's because of babel too? Let me tell you that it took me under 6 months to learn to read cyrillic 2 years ago (Russian cyrillic to be exact, but the variations are negligible and can read any of it). If god meant to confuse people, he must have not meant to do it for a very long time. I DO mean to be condescending here, because I hate when people precede a sentence with the opposite of what they mean. Don't argue with me about languages if you don't know what you're talking about. You will lose. Polish has more in common with Ukrainian, Russian, Czech, Slovakian and Serbo-Croatian than English does with any other language to my knowledge. You happen to speak a language that is on a linguistic "island" so to speak. Of course when you look at the geography of the United Kingdom, you'll find it is indeed separated from the rest of Europe by water, hence this is no surprise.

If god meant to confuse us with these languages, he did a shit job. I can speak Polish to a Czech or a Slovak person (and they can speak their language to me) and we can't have a conversation about literature, but I could go to a small town in any part of either country (where English isn't spoken) and get around without issue. 

caposkia wrote:

jabberwocky wrote:

What happened to Pangaea? If your dating is at 2 million years (which doesn't work anyway, but let's humour it for a moment), then the part of Pangaea that connected Australia to the large land mass had begun to depart 138-148 million years before. 2 million years ago, the majority of the distance covered would have already been covered. Not only how did the marsupials get there, but how did they know to go there, and only there? And how did other animals know not to? Geographic distribution can NOT be explained by creationism. I don't think they've even tried before! Under the theory of evolution, it makes perfect sense.

No I don't see the problem with my logic here, for two reasons. 1. I don't have my own logic. Logic just is. 2. When you spout crap like "what happened to Pangea?" clearly neglecting to even look up the dates, this isn't even a question of logic. It is a question of you not researching your topic before you post about it. The ignorance of logic from you comes after that. The dating problem with Pangaea I just mentioned will undoubtedly be ignored or glossed over by you. The reason for that is that you believe that the flood happened based on the bible being true. You believe the bible to be true for other reasons (which you rarely if ever address, but you did mention something recently). So even when there are dozens of easy to identify problems with the flood myth that make it logically impossible, you still stick to the story that "it happened". People can make mistakes in logic, even myself. However, the only blatant ignorer of logic in this thread (at least for the last many pages) is you Cap. 

I do believe you don't have your own logic.  And why wouldn't marsupials get to Austrailia before?  

Because you're the one proposing that all land life died, other than one parent group for each "kind" (which you've failed to define). Either you didn't read a thing I said, or you are an obvious troll now. For Pangaea to apply, you would have to push the dating for the flood back to over a hundred million years. Also, it fails to explain why the marsupials all decided to go to Australia (with no fossils in between, which suggests Marsupials evolved in Australia on their own, post-isolation). If you accept the theory of evolution, such things actually make sense. 

caposkia wrote:

I rarely ever address other reasons on this thread because the focus of this thread is the flood.  It's a circular discussion, but fun just the same.  

You seem to find logic where it doesn't lie.  You see evidence that the flood is logically impossiblee... I have addressed all of it and still you find it logically impossible... and you're confused as to why I still believe it.  Guess we're both just as stubborn.  

You addressed it badly, and with errors. Now, another point above. Geographic distribution. Specifically, marsupials are only found in Australia. Aaaand go! Give me a reason for that.

caposkia wrote:

You can claim I ignore logic all you want... I have addressed it all, which negates ignoring it.  No one has come up with logic to counter what I have addressed... if so, then it wasn't very clear.  e.g. the actual dating of complex language and how we know this beyond writings.  

See above. You've skipped parts, and offered insufficient explanations for the rest. You don't need to address each individual quote here. Explain the geographic distribution of life that makes sense in the context of a worldwide flood.

caposkia wrote:

Jabberwocky wrote:

And in the time of Noah, what book did the illiterate people have? How did THEY know? How were they to know that this was legitimately going to happen? Some guy building a floating wooden zoo is not enough, I'm sorry.

They had God in their presence according to scripture.  

Do I as well?

caposkia wrote:

jabberwocky wrote:

No, it is NOT the same reason. Myself, Beyond Saving, and others, have logically eliminated any time in history that the flood could have occurred as you claim it did. There are problems with either language or geographic dispersion (when it comes to informing the world of the impending calamity), where the water came from/went (and why no geological evidence of a massive world-wide flood exists). There are problems with homosapiens not existing yet as per your timeline. There are problems with neanderthal interbreeding. There are problems with geographic distribution of animals. There are problems with space and food on the ark. There are countless problems that you simply choose to gloss over. Each one of the problems I just posited on their own are either a major hit, or a complete knockout hit to the validity of the flood story. You are the one making a claim that an event happened. We have logically eliminated it from being possible. The reason to assert and the type of evidence between what I am presenting, and what you are presenting, couldn't be any more different. It is a hobby of yours in this thread to attempt to use our arguments against us when they don't apply, or say that we're all the same, or say that we can't disprove it in the same way that you can't prove it (even though we HAVE disproven it). 

you have not eliminated any time in history... you have tried to make guesses so as to make it look like you eliminated the times.  I have gone through each dating issue step by step and modified my understanding and guesses with it.  Thus we have come to a conclusion that it happenened much futher back... unfortunately we can try to assume people were incapable of gardening at the time or speaking to each other, but it's just an assumption because we have nothing to go on.  

You're right on one point. You HAVE gone through each dating issue step by step. You addressed the first one. Then when you addressed the second one, you ignored the implications of the first one you addressed. Your memory of the arguments doesn't ever go more than one step back in this entire thread. I am almost fully convinced at this point that you're a troll. If you are, that's sad. If not, it's even more sad.

caposkia wrote:

jabberwocky wrote:

Once again, death for disobedience. Totalitarianism. Also, with Job, did Job in the story know why his misfortune fell upon him? At the end, he felt his praising of god wasn't in vain, because all got better. Of course to prove a point to Satan, god let him kill Job's family. How is that ok? 

well, that depends on what your views of death are... if God created us, are we really his or are we our own?  If we are his, and God is real, then death only brings us back to Him, whereas if death is the end and there is no God, then death is not Ok, but you have no one to blame.  

If god kills someone for disobedience, I thought they don't GET to go back to him?

caposkia wrote:

jabberwocky wrote:

Hahahahaha what? You know several....SEVERAL people who were saved because of what Job went through? How? 

1.  They realized they weren't alone

2.  they took comfort in knowing this trial will pass

3.  If it is a test, they know their faith in God is stronger and that they can endure it becuase God will never give them more than they can handle.  

Terrible fucking lesson. My family has gone through some harsh things in the last few years. I know the most effort that they put into these problems is to pray. These are not things that are unsolveable either. They are difficult problems yes, but they are not unsolveable. My family are convinced that they simply aren't praying enough, rather than tackling the problem. If they believe they ARE praying enough, they may look to the story of Job (or worse yet, might have a priest point them to that story) and be encouraged to just be patient, instead of actually DOING something! Could it be mentally beneficial to have such thoughts vs. not having them? Sure. However, if you drop the whole god thing and actually fix the problem, you might be able to....fix the problem! If you think prayer will fix it, nothing that wouldn't have happened anyway will actually happened. 

Also, to specifically tackle point 3, that's a reprehensible thing to say. Everyone who has ever committed suicide (or attempted it) is evidence that they HAVE had more happen in their life than they are able to handle. If god is in control of it all, then he does clearly give people more than they can handle. Maybe they didn't read the book of Job, where it says that god sometimes shits on you to win a bet with the dude he orders you to never listen to. I don't know how that can help, but regardless my point stands. Everyone who has ever committed suicide (and don't you try to say that Christians never do, because I know they do), is evidence that people experience more hardship than they can handle. Do you wish to comment anything more on this? Or do you want to take the high road and ignore it? 

Theists - If your god is omnipotent, remember the following: He (or she) has the cure for cancer, but won't tell us what it is.


Jabberwocky
atheist
Posts: 411
Joined: 2012-04-21
User is offlineOffline
caposkia wrote:Jabberwocky

caposkia wrote:

Jabberwocky wrote:

Missing links in the fossil record aren't a problem. The reason we have missing links is because fossilization does not occur all the time. We should expect that there are some lineages of species that we may never find.

 Jennifer A. Clack, a Cambridge University expert on tetrapod evolution, said of Tiktaalik,"It's one of those things you can point to and say, 'I told you this would exist,' and there it is.

As this was only discovered in 2004, it shows how difficult it is to find a certain type of fossil. However, it was predicted by biologists that such an organism once indeed did exist. It was perhaps not said (although it would be hard to examine whether it was) that "one day, we will find fossil evidence suggesting something like (Tiktaalik before it was known)". This was an estimate based on what we did know. Then, 10 years ago, 145 years after Charles Darwin wrote his biggest work, and 133 years after his other, perhaps even more controversial, great work (the Descent of Man), something was found. The finding itself could have surprised biologists (that only now was something of this sort discovered, after looking for it for over a century). However, the nature of the finding, the details of it, was something that biologists all expected. This is the predictive power of evolutionary biology. Once again, the gaps are NOT a problem. Not even a little bit. If you found a fossil that was actually unexplainable, then you would have something to go on. Research which missing links actually do exist. Write them down. Save them on your computer. Screenshot modern articles from real biologists today. Learn about it. Then, every time a fossil is discovered, find me one SINGLE one that defies the possibilites of what biologists thought. 

why would a fossil have to defy biology to not have a progressive link?  I see the logic behind connecting certain ancestries, but just as one of the articles posted by BS said very explicitly, there really isn't evidence to prove it.  It's a theory based on bits and peices of information.  You may not see a problem with this, but I find its consistency among all species quite a problem for the theory.   

Creation had a plan, a very specific one... there's no reason to consider that if God created everything that there would be any "surprises" in fossil records.. rather you'd find they're very consistent because they call come from the same creator.  

Which of the 2 links and where? Clearly you've read it, and I'm too busy reading our thread to read others, and certainly too busy to read that link at least tonight. If I get to it before you respond, I'll address it here. But help me out here if you can. I doubt it states that there "isn't evidence to prove it". 

What consistency among all species make the evidence skim?

Now that's stupid. I'm not sure if we talked about vestigial structures (I think we have, but it may have been elsewhere). Our appendix is minutely beneficial to the immune system, but if you were able to redesign from the ground up, it would be more efficient. Either a mechanism more effective at replacing the appendix's helping hand to the immune system, or a smaller appendix that doesn't have the bursting problems would have been designed. It wasn't. Our eyes are wired backwards. Our genital areas are so discombobulated, that if girls don't have a pee after sex, it greatly increases the odds of urinary tract infections (and what of those who peed first? Might be hard to go again in an hour...). For those who believe gay sex is wrong, the male G-spot (basically direct prostate stimulation as I understand) is up their ass (but god says it's wrong). For those who believe it isn't wrong (where everyone SHOULD fall, and I have no problem asserting that), until the invention of condoms and lubricant, penetrative anal sex would have almost always inevitably resulted in bleeding, increasing greatly the transfer of disease. This could make it a somewhat dangerous practice. Until modern pre-natal medical practice, dying during childbirth was common for both mother and child. 

Every one of these things makes sense in biology assuming the theory of evolution to be true. They range from puzzling to really fucking stupid if you think some being (especially an intelligent one) designed it.

caposkia wrote:

jabberwocky wrote:

Now, am I reading your post correctly in that you accept that our 2nd largest chromosome is fused from an ancestral chromosome, but despite that you assert that it does not prove common ancestry between us and chimpanzees? I want to know your answer to this question before I continue further on this point, as I don't want to put any words in your mouth. 

Based on the links BS posted, a fused chromosome does not bode well for the creature as far as reproduction is concerned.  I didn't see anywhere were they had proof that it not only modified a creature into a whole new creature, but that it was of any benefit for the species in question.  This would defy the purpose of evolution if in fact this is the proof of a connection.   

so to answer it directly.  I accept the reasoning AIG has.. I also accept the possibility that it could have fused, but likely not from a chimp, rather 2 similar chromosomes fused from an already human ancester.    The key words I'm finding are that they are "similar" not exact or not identical to that of a chimp.  

One of BS's links (I skimmed them) showed that a human with 44 chromosomes, other than his genetic quirk, seems normal in every other way. I never asserted that the fusion is what made homosapiens into homosapiens. I already posted a link regarding the fertility problem (I think). If I didn't, here. http://pandasthumb.org/archives/2009/02/the-rise-of-hum-1.html . BS's link addressed that problem as well. Where in his links does it say that it "doesn't bode well for a creature"? A modern example is that not every mule is sterile. Fertile mules do occur. They are compatible with both donkeys and horses. BS's link also mentioned that it's more likely to occur in populations that engage what's known as inbreeding. If the early human population was small (or an early pre-human ancestral population was small), such a thing could, and would happen.

So your answer to my direct question is that early humans had 48 chromosomes and those fused? 

jabberwocky wrote:

As far as this, I don't have to assume that the article is credible or not. I can dismiss it immediately very easily. They assert that the differences between the human chromosome and the chimpanzee pair of chromosomes that are quite similar prove that it didn't fuse. Of course, that ignores any mutations that could (and would) have occurred in the meantime. The last common ancestors of humans and chimps is estimated by biologists to be 4-6 million years old. Can you show me the rate of genetic change from generation to generation, and show me that the differences that AiG called problematic couldn't have occurred by mutation over that many years? Until you do, you can not legitimately call that a problem, or say that the fusion between an ancestral chromosome is disproven. 

yea sure.... uh.. might want to read the link you claimed you can dismiss immediately very easily. 

It's AiG. You disagree with them on dating something major. The reason they don't even tackle the mutation problem is they don't acknowledge an earth/universe older than 6000 years old. You seem to acknowledge that possibility. So what is your education on the rate of mutation that tells you that a YEC site is correct when talking of genetics, even though the timelines between your beliefs and theirs varies greatly? 

Theists - If your god is omnipotent, remember the following: He (or she) has the cure for cancer, but won't tell us what it is.


Jabberwocky
atheist
Posts: 411
Joined: 2012-04-21
User is offlineOffline
caposkia wrote:Jabberwocky

caposkia wrote:

Jabberwocky wrote:

caposkia wrote:

Beyond Saving wrote:

Jabberwocky wrote:

I don't know enough about the details of chromosomes to be able to tell you what is inaccurate in that link regarding the possiblity and/or probability of a chromosome fusion. I just don't know. However, I think it's far more likely that the majority of the scientific community (with an even bigger majority in the discipline of biology) is correct that such a fusion is indeed possible. 

There is absolute proof that it is possible, and it isn't even that rare. Approximately 1 out of 1000 people are born with fused chromosomes. It is called Robertsonian translocation. And if two people with the same chromosomes fused have a child, that child will have 44 chromosomes. In a large population, it is unlikely that such a mutation is going to take over given the higher than average rates of miscarriages. However, genetic mutations spread much faster in small populations, especially small populations with high levels of inbreeding which raises the odds of two people with the same mutation breeding. It is completely reasonable to believe that a small colony of one of our ancestors developed this mutation. Denisovans and Neanderthals both shared our chromosome structure, so it is believed to have happened before we split from our common ancestor. Which ancestor is an issue open to speculation and debate.  

http://genetics.thetech.org/original_news/news124

http://biomedres.info/yahoo_site_admin/assets/docs/171-174-Bo_Wang.1584046.pdf

It does seem that science has proven that fusion is possible, but they've also added multiple times in both articles that the fusion likely hurts the affected ones ability to reproduce negatively.  The first link talks about the history and link between humans and chimps, but when it discusses the direct link and proof of it they add; "unfortunately, there is no evidence to support this"  

IN conclusion, a fused chromosome that "is similar" to that of another species does not provide evidence of a link.  

Except it DOES provide evidence of a link. If we did have the DNA of a 4-6 million year old specimen that is thought to be a common ancestor of humans and chimpanzees, then we would have all of the evidence. Of course we don't have it all, nor do we expect to ever find it all. In perfect conditions, the oldest DNA we have found dates to 450 000 to 800 000 years old (and that was preserved by being in cold, cold Greenland...source: http://mentalfloss.com/article/48815/how-long-does-dna-last ). The thing is, far before we had the ability to examine DNA, it was predicted that other primates were our closest ancestors. The examination of the DNA corroborated this. It's not just chromosome #2. It's that the other 22 pairs are also startlingly similar. If we found those 22 similar ones, but then had no explanation for the discrepancy in chromosome numbers, that is yet another thing that would disprove the theory of evolution. The other 22 pairs line up very well. It's not like we lined up the 22 then said "well, we have to devise an explanation for the 2 chimp/1 human chromosome we have leftover. This is gonna be a tough, TOUGH one!" What happened, is in examining chromosome 2 in humans, we find that extra large out of place telomere, and the extra (inactive) centromere. It's like having a few pieces of a 100 piece puzzle, then drawing the cover of the box. Every time we find a new piece, we find the drawing on the box to be pretty damn close to what's on that piece. What do you believe is the explanation for all 24 chimp/23 human chromosome pairings being so extremely similar, fusion and all? 

Also, to address your assertion that hurts the ability to reproduce, where is your evidence? Here is some that that is indeed not the case at all:

http://pandasthumb.org/archives/2009/02/the-rise-of-hum-1.html

There is a reason why it is officially a theory.  there has to be some sort of reason to adhere to a link.  Therefore, the possibility is there... but there is no evidence truly connecting the link.  Considering where my evidence is about my "assertion that hurts the ability to reproduce"... that was not my assertion.. I was just reading the links posted.  I didn't know that bit of information before.  

I see your link stating the experiments done on mice.  It seems there is some give or take, but there still is no link to the complete speceal change.  

Do you even know what a scientific theory actually is? It is not a guess.

I'm a musician. I had to learn musical theory. Musical theory is not "a guess" or even "the best guess" of how music works. It is a body of knowledge about music. The theory of evolution is a body of knowledge. Evolution is a fact. The theory of evolution is a gigantic collection of facts that all point to the same conclusion.

There is a law of gravity, and a theory of gravity. The law of gravity is a mathematical equation. The theory of gravity is a large body of work that includes evidence, testable claims, and a whole thwack of other things. It exists so that all people who disagree with the math involved in the "law of gravity" are able to test it. 

Evolution is a theory and doesn't contain a "law" as well, because it is simply not expressable in a mathematical equation. The rate of genetic change can be measured, but it varies. The variations are not wild, but rather somewhat predictable. I don't have time to find articles on equations of specific species' genetic change, but perhaps I'll find some later this week.

As far as your complete "speceal change"...everyone is the same species as their mother, and their children. The change is NEVER abrupt, even if a chromosomal fusion occurs. I've explained this in prior posts in the last few hours. 

Theists - If your god is omnipotent, remember the following: He (or she) has the cure for cancer, but won't tell us what it is.


Jabberwocky
atheist
Posts: 411
Joined: 2012-04-21
User is offlineOffline
caposkia wrote:Jabberwocky

caposkia wrote:

Jabberwocky wrote:

Nope! To show that the understood science is wrong is to win a guaranteed nobel prize. Einstein proved Newtonian physics to be quite inaccurate (to the point that if it made it this far without that revision, our GPS systems would suck I am to understand). Of course, one might try to create a GPS system and figure out the issues at that point. However, Einstein figured it out before that level of testing was available. The theory of evolution makes predictions, and new findings corroborate the predictions, rather than disprove them. This happens all the time. You're suggesting some sort of monolithic opposition here. I don't buy it. Hell, the Vatican have an observatory, and they accept evolution because it's simply foolish not to at this point (As they're more international than just the USA where that's prevalent). Even in Bill Maher's movie Religulous (which I have no problem saying did a bad job of fact-checking), he goes to the Vatican observatory only to be told there that creationism is ridiculous in just about every way. 

nope?  it's exactly what you've been claiming about believers this whole time and you're answer is nope?  I only opened it up to the whole gallery.  

the problem with a nobel prize is the understanding has to be addressed and understood... if no one wants to address it, then it will not win.  period.  This peice of science does not have enough concrete evidence to solidify either side, which is why it's still theory.  Thus it's unlikely that either side will "prove" the other wrong to the degree needed and therefore it's why many avoid addressign the issue in the first place.  

Once again, you misunderstand what a scientific theory is. You seem to think that biology is on some ridiculous shaky foundation. It's not. The theory of evolution is demonstrable in a lab. The theory of evolution has predictive power. The theory of evolution explains a number of things that creationism can not (vestigial organs, geographic distribution) and explains far BETTER things that creationism does a poor job of explaining (homology between organisms for example). Don't you even imply that creationism has to be proved wrong. It already is. From a scientific standpoint, it is a non-starter. Unfortunately, even if you believe that "truth" and "facts" are separable, you're wrong. The theory of evolution does a more than sufficient job of explaining the diversity of life (ALL of it, not just some of the most similar bits) and creationism explains nothing. Creationism + a global flood introduces giant problems (geographic distrubution, the complete lack of marsupial fossils between biblical-ish locations and Australia)

caposkia wrote:

jabberwocky wrote:

You failed to address the point. As I said about speciation, you can have 3 distinct groups where group 2 is reproductively compatible with all 3, whereas groups 1 & 3 are not compatible with one another. Now, let's kill off group 2 (which happens ALL the time). What mechanism prevents groups 1 & 3 from genetically diverging further and further indefinitely? We've proven they diverge enough to not be reproductively compatible. What prevents this from going further? 

not sure what prevents it... I think it's just the DNA code.  There is absolutely no evidence that a species from one genus can reproduce with a species from a completely different genus.. it's possibly the distance from common ancestors if you're looking at it from the darwinistic POV, or Christians would say that's how it was designed.  

That's not what I fucking said! Not even close! Where did I say that two animals of varying genuses (Genii?) cross-breed? Group X reproduces (I'll use a letter for the parent group). Group X has descendants in groups 1, 2 & 3. Groups 1, 2 & 3 are geographically isolated. A scientist takes them into a lab. Group 2 can produce offspring with groups 1 & 3. Groups 1 & 3 can not produce offspring. This much has been demonstrated in a lab. The reason for the reproductive incompatibility is because the genes between groups 1 & 3 have varied too far from one another (even though they share a common ancestor). What prevents from the genes getting even MORE different from one another in the descendants of groups 1 & 3? The genes changed enough to be reproductively incompatible. There is no mechanism known that prevents the genes from changing indefinitely given enough time. If you concede speciation (which can be shown in a lab, and occurs due to gene variation), what prevents further gene change? 

caposkia wrote:

jabberwocky wrote:

Also, define "kind"...wait scratch that. To say "what is a species" is kind of stupid. The answer is the same as the answer to "what is a phylum" "what is a genus" and "what is a 'kind'". The answer to all of those questions is "It is a word used to classify a certain group of life on Earth". The question "what separates one species from another" is well defined. The same goes for genus, family, order, class, phylum, and kingdom. What separates one 'kind' from another? You seem to put it at the genus level. Ken Ham states it's approximately at the family level. Which is it, and what do you have to support it? On the other end of it (same crazy level as Ham, but just sounding WAY dumber) is Ray Comfort in his stupid evolution vs. God video, where he says "They're still finches, they're the same kind" followed by "They're still birds, they're the same kind" (thereby jumping freely from family to class where he sees fit). I hope you're better than that. Can you give me a proper specific description of what separates "kinds"?

I likened kind to genus based on my own quick homework done specifically for this thread.  I could be wrong and Ham could be right... I'm not sure.  either way, I don't know if I could accurately give you a proper specific description of what separates Kinds.  I am not an expert in the field and have not really thought about it.  My explanation would be based moreso in scripture and that line will not work for you.  The general consensus is there never was and there never will be cross breeding or evolution between kinds, rather they will evolve and reproduce within their own.  

Fair enough. I'm glad you're not trying to bite off more than you can chew. However, a biologist will tell you what allows two animals to produce fertile offspring. A biologist will tell you what allows two animals to produce sterile offspring. A biologist will tell you what allows two animals to be reproductively incompatible. A biologist will tell you this in precise detail. They will tell you what has to be compatible genetically. They will tell you how much genes can change from generation to generation. They will measure how selection pressures will vary the change. They will tell you how this change can increase with a change in environment (which severely changes selection pressures). They will not cite one book and say "well this is right, because it says so."

caposkia wrote:

Jabberwocky wrote:

The fertility problem doesn't necessarily occur with all chromosome fusions. http://pandasthumb.org/archives/2009/02/the-rise-of-hum-1.html

The above link describes testable examples of that. Now, would you address any of the points I made above? Let me re-iterate them in list form. 

Are all Australopithecines either human or ape? Or are the fossils thought by biologists to be links divided elsewhere? So that you don't have to root through a bunch, let's go one by one. Answer this here: Is Australopithecus Afarensis a human fossil, or an ape fossil (Assuming you disagree that humans are apes)?

How come every time we DO find a fossil, it's nothing that is far removed from what we expected to find when it came to fossils we haven't found anything similar to?

Regarding chromosome 2, the time between what I believe to be our common ancestor with chimps will easily account for discrepancies in the chromosome. Why is so much of it similar? 

I'll ignore the logistics of coralling animals onto the boat from the whole world. Free pass for you, because I desire an answer more to a more specific question:

How do you account for geographic distribution?

How did they feed everything?

ok, if I understand you correctly, you want to focus just on the last 2 questions and just forget about the above questions for now?   Just to answer some of the above quickly, similarities are common with the same creator.  

moving on

Geographic distribution?  HOw do I account for that?  Is this a trick question?  Honestly, migration.  What else?  If plants, then by all the means we can observe today of seeds spreading, animal, winds, spores, etc...

How did they feed all the animals.  Don't know.  the story doesn't say.  Though if it was just 2 of each kind.. I'm not sure how many Kinds there would have been at the tiem... or how many there are now, but there likely wouldn't have been an excessive number of animals on the ark and thus they'd have plenty of space to store the appropriate amount of food for the duration.  

I don't mean how life got spread out when I mention geographic distribution. I mean why everything is distributed in the manner it is? Why are the marsupials exclusively in Australia? How did they get there after the catastrophe? I don't think there is any good explanation for these sorts of things under creationism. 

The Bill Nye/Ken Ham debate covered this topic well. Under creationism you are stuck in a situation where you can't fit all of the animals onto the ark. If you reduce the number of animals and state that the rest "micro-evolved", then evolution would have to occur faster and more drastically than creationist say it possibly could (and also several orders of magnitude quicker than anything we have ever observed). I think the numbers used would make for 11 new species every single day. The math doesn't work. 

caposkia wrote:

jabberwocky wrote:

You see, every time you propose a problem, I at least address it, even if you don't accept my answer (typically dismissing it without much thought). I asked you several questions here, and all you said is that there is a problem with fusion. I addressed it immediately, and asked a few more questions. Any good answers for these?

I've attempted to address everything you've brought to the table... if I missed something, it wasn't because I was ignoring it.   I believe I answered the questions you wanted me to here.  I even addressed one of the above questions that you claimed I'd get a free ride for.  If I missed something, just point it out.   I am only 1 person trying to answer everyones questions on a story that has little information to go on.  

Maybe I was unclear in my post (although I think it was pretty clear). I just gave you a free pass on how all of the animals were coralled onto the thing. I wanted the rest of it answered still. Let's ask again:

The fertility problem doesn't necessarily occur with all chromosome fusions. http://pandasthumb.org/archives/2009/02/the-rise-of-hum-1.html

The above link describes testable examples of that. Now, would you address any of the points I made above? Let me re-iterate them in list form. 

Are all Australopithecines either human or ape? Or are the fossils thought by biologists to be links divided elsewhere? So that you don't have to root through a bunch, let's go one by one. Answer this here: Is Australopithecus Afarensis a human fossil, or an ape fossil (Assuming you disagree that humans are apes)?

How come every time we DO find a fossil, it's nothing that is far removed from what we expected to find when it came to fossils we haven't found anything similar to?

Regarding chromosome 2, the time between what I believe to be our common ancestor with chimps will easily account for discrepancies in the chromosome. Why is so much of it similar? Not to mention the rest of our genome?

 

Theists - If your god is omnipotent, remember the following: He (or she) has the cure for cancer, but won't tell us what it is.


caposkia
Theist
Posts: 2701
Joined: 2007-05-15
User is offlineOffline
Jabberwocky wrote:No, it is

Jabberwocky wrote:

No, it is exactly what I said. You said and I quote "except through the written word that had started... Let's use the bible as an example"

The reason you are saying that the power of word in history is important, is because you believe that the old testament stories occurred before the written word. For you to be right, then, it would require that word of mouth indeed be reliable in order for the bible stories to be accurate. You then go ahead to cite the bible as the reason when you say "Within most of scripture, there is a great emphasis on the 'word' of others". This is a circular argument that reads as so:

The old testament stories are reliable because spoken word used to be passed down more carefully in those times. 

We know spoken word was passed down more carefully in those times because the bible emphasizes this point. 

You have to be able to see what's wrong with this, you simply have to....right?

On your last point, I would argue that the bible does not prove itself, and in fact, its internal inconsistencies rule it out as 100% true that's for sure. 

I see your perspective... but the problem with it is that despite your dislike for the Bible... the scriptures are still considered historical texts.. which means regardless whether the stories are true or not, they're based on true people, personalities, and places and would reflect the culture and manerisms of the times.  Consider that if what I just said wasn't true, then there would be no reason for anyone during that time to regard these stories as true and thus it would not have been held in such high regard and probably eventually lost in the sands of time.    

If not, I challenge you to find another document that writes of happenings before its time and show me what their alternative source was and that spoken word was not considered in its composition.  

jabberwocky wrote:

And this is where the problem is. The existence of a historical Jesus from who Christianity may have been mythologized out of does nothing to prove that he was the son of god, or born a virgin, or came back from the dead, or performed a single miracle. 

I didn't say that the census lacked a Yeshua. I said it didn't happen as written. 

This passage has long been considered problematic by Biblical scholars, since it places the birth of Jesus around the time of the census in 6/7, whereas both this Gospel and the Gospel of Matthew, which makes no mention of the census, indicate a birth in the reign of Herod the Great, who died in 4 BCE, at least ten years earlier.[12] In addition, no historical sources mention a census of the Roman world which would cover the entire population. Those of Augustus covered Roman citizens only,[13] and it was not the practice in Roman censuses to require people to return to their ancestral homes.[14][15][16][17][18] James Dunn wrote: "the idea of a census requiring individuals to move to the native town of long dead ancestors is hard to credit".[19] E. P. Sanders points out that it would have been the practice for the census-takers, not the taxed, to travel, and that Joseph, resident in Galilee, would not have been covered by a census in Judaea

It seems that if you're not ignoring history, (something which you have accused me of) you find that the account of the census in the gospel of Luke has a few problems. So the census might not have had Jesus in it because his family wasn't subject to it anyway. There wasn't a practice saying that people had to return to their hometowns, but even if there was, the census applied to Roman citizens only, so they wouldn't have gone to Bethlehem anyway! 

...and herein lies the synoptic problem and some translational issues.  

Just to clarify my explanation here.  I had to stop and do some homework.  I have not really investigated the problem with the census.  Now that i have, it turns out that the census is a problem even among Christian communities and scholars.  It is unresolved from what we can tell.  Looking into it myself.  Luke is the only Gospel that makes a direct reference to the census.  Luke was said to be written to a Roman official and thus may have used the Census as a reference to when He was born rather than to say why He was born in a particular location.  This link  goes into the details of how translation may play a role in why we think the census is as described in the English Bible.  Mind you it also mentions that we really don't know because we admit there really is no history to support such a census.   

Beyond that, if you read the other Gospels, there is a reason why Jesus birth parents might have been traveling at the time of the birth of Jesus.  Matthew talks about the kings order to kill all first borns because of the news of a "king being born".  Therefore, there is no issue as to really how or where Jesus was born or whether they were traveling or not.  It is generally understood they had a reason to be traveling.  

The synoptic problem goes into the detail about how Matthew was written referencing a lot from Mark, and that Mark was written first hand and from another unknown source we call Q.  We haven't seen the other source, but it's quite clear that there was another source that Mark was written from.  We also believe that the source if it is ever found, could shed more light on those particular things we just don't have answers to at this point.

In conclusion, I was unaware of the census issue, but it does not cause issue to the authenticity of the Gospels becasue regardless of the reason, it is clear that the family was in transition for one reason or another.   Also, much is seen to be written (based on Greek verb usage) in first hand eye-witness accounts. 

Jabberwocky wrote:

*sigh*. Because a government revolt often isn't the solution. Do people attempt to take steps to remedy this? Yes! Universal healthcare is coming whether right wing Americans like it or not. Guess what, it works just fine here in Canada! It has its problems, but the idea that one can go bankrupt if they (or a family member) get sick is absurd to the rest of the 1st world. I do think that what you wrote there is something that is wrong and should be fixed. Also, you're comparing humans trying to govern themselves to a being you describe as perfect. You really allow a lot of leeway for your perfect being.

It's interesting you do blame the government even though most states have free insurance for those who cannot afford to buy it and subsidized insurance for those who make a little more money. if parents took the proper steps to get their family covered, those children would still be alive... the problem is, they have to make the effort to do so, it's not just handed to them.  so i personally blame the families.  

If you don't want to accept that, then let's take it one step further.  I live near Boston.  I'm not sure if this is country wide, but I doubt we're the only place in the whole country that does this.  An uninsured person can walk into a hospital in the Boston area and get full care.  If they have no means of paying for the hospital bill, it is not held against them.  Granted the hospitals do their homework to make sure you really can't pay it, but the point is, if anyone's child was in need of medical care, free health insurance or not, they can walk into a hospital with that child and have that child taken care of.  Again, it's up to the parents to make that choice. 

let me guess.. the excuse is that parents probably don't know about it.  if it were me, i'd take my child to a hospital anyway and demand help.  If they want to take everythign I own to save my child's life, so be it.  IF I can't afford/don't ahve insurance, then I likely don't own my own home and don't have much of value for them to take anyway.  Also my child's life is worth more than anything I could have that is worth money.    

After all that, it's really kind of hard to still put the blame of a child's death on the government... thus it's very hard to put the blame of death of any innocent young ones on God be it that it was the adults that made the choices for the children.  

No matter what way you look at it, the children are screwed.... we talked about killing off just the adults and having the children raise themselves... or have Noah's family raise them... not very logical.  We talked about not killing anyone off and educating them... but it sounds like that probably wouldn't have worked and you're exposing more young ones to the likelihood that they'll turn out just like their parents and contiue the chaos.    We're assuming there were other ways around it, but if they were as bad as the Bible portrays them, then it was likely a matter of time before they killed themselves off anyway including Noah's family which would have left no open door for humanity to continue.  

It's easy to put blame on God when things don't go our way, but unfortunately, all alternatives look even more bleak.... unless you have one that I missed.   A "world filled with violence" probably didn't have many surviving young ones.  

Jabberwocky wrote:
 

Perhaps. But I disagree with what you have to say anyway. If I were able to create something that is actually sentient, it would have its own rights. I would not have dominion over it (including permission to kill it) because where something or someone came from does not mean that someone has the right to destroy them! 

says you.  But if you noticed, you also have the right to make that decision about your creation regardless of what they wanted.  

Honestly, I see your perspective, but it's just not how it works.  God has given people rights... and we abused those rights, so things got tough... just like it's happened many many times before.  

Honestly, I see that as more proof of my God.  So many non-believers think we follow our God because He gives us warm fuzzies and He's this big Care Bear in the sky.  Obviously not if that's how you feel.  Rather we realize how real He is and accept His ways, which are freer than being a slave to sin.  It took me starting to walk with Jesus to really understand that statement.   ...and just so you don't think i forgot where you came from, I didn't understand that growing  up in a churched family either.  I had to walk away from all of that first.  

Jabberwocky wrote:

I'm glad you read the first 2 sentences. I don't even have an inkling that Christianity can possibly be true. You claim that I am simply suppressing it deliberately if you believe in the doctrine of the holy spirit. That is why it's stupid. You claim to know what is going on in my mind and my thoughts, something which you couldn't possibly know without being told by me. It's an argument from personal experience which simply never counts. 

well, same with you.  the problem is I'm here to have a rational conversation that actually investigates the possibilities on both sides.  If every time you don't have an answer, you resort to the delusion excuse or "it's stupid" we're never going to get anywhere.  

Jabberwocky wrote:

No you haven't. We have a large disagreement on what it takes to reach people spread across a large land mass. You seem to think that travelling in a straight line is enough. I don't. I believe that people didn't settlle along some line and ignore the rest. 

I don't even think it's logical that one person literally was commissioned to tell all of humanity. I believe they already knew of their sin and again I also believe that rumor of Noah building a large floating zoo easily spread in 120 years.  The Bible states that God will not strive with man forever... Basically that means that God was with them and thus there'd be no excuse not to know.... and I mean with them like still communicating directly with them, not like we do today.  

Also, you don't need to travel in a straight line.   why would that be necessary?  If someone (in a straight line) can circumnavigate the globe, why couldn't they cover the multi-directional settlements within a confined space in 120 years?  Better yet, if God actually felt it necessary to commission someone to tell communities... fi that was going to matter, than it would make more sense to commission that person to go to the central most community and have them commission one person from each community to go to the next one and warn them.  That would be most logical in this rediculous situation thus no matter how you look at it, word could have gotten to everyone very easily if indeed they didn't actually know their problem.  

jabberwocky wrote:

No, I probably wouldn't were I certain that that is the case. I would see if there is a way around it because such a threat is evil, and the people making it should be stopped. But if I couldn't find a way at the moment, I would probably obey them, yes. I also think that most people would do the same. The question is, why were the people in that time willing to disobey god if they actually DID know?

I honestly cannot answer that.   I have no idea.  

Jabberwocky wrote:

Yes, but when we have laws that are indeed unjust, they get examined. We don't have commandments to kill our children though (like Jephthah). We don't have commandments to slaughter a whole group of people (like the Amalekites). You simply say that these things are just because god commanded them, so they must be. Would you stone to death a woman because she wasn't a virgin on her wedding night? Whether Jesus did or didn't supersede those laws, the fact remains that in the old testament, this was given as a law by god. How is that ok? How is it not appropriate to put into question the goodness of the being which gives such hideous commandments?

well, there were laws given by God, then there were other laws added because some "commandments" were vague and people were trying to work their way around them.  The Sundry Laws which you are questioning are just that, they're extra,  Beyond the Direct 10 ish commandments, it is debatable whether God literally gave all those laws or whether they were added later to suplement the laws.    The ordinances through the property rights seem to be direct.  Again, some could have been added to supplement just like we have amendments in our Constitution.  

Beyond that, let's assume God did give all those laws.  God also took very seriously the Laws He put in place.  IT is said many times in scripture that "the wages of sin is death".  In other words, to break Gods laws is to sentence yourself to death.  The problem a lot of non-believers have with this is that they view death as the end.  The Bible views death as a punishment.  A punishment isn't a punishment unless you afterwards can learn from it.  In the Bible it is very clear that when you die, you're not actually gone or done forever, rather you will live again.  With that said, we also need to reflect on the laws of the time.  General laws without God involved were just as severe and thus God was literally parallelling the laws of the time but with His own directives.  Adultery has been punishable by death in many cultures.  Not just God fearing ones.  Do we agree today with 90% of the executions that took place in history?  of course not, we run our world very differently... at least in this country.  Some such executions exist in other countries that we might not agree to.  

I guess teh real question is,how can we try to make good something that is evil?  A woman that is not a virgin by Gods law has committed adultery.  We don't see that today, but sex was supposed to be with one partner.  Is adultery ok?  If not, how should it be punished and why?  It's all a matter of perspective.  as I said, God is not subjective.  His standards never change and they're quite high.  Part of the reason the laws were put in place is because Gods people thought they were above everyone else.  God's laws were put there to prove they weren't.  

Does this make any sense to you?


caposkia
Theist
Posts: 2701
Joined: 2007-05-15
User is offlineOffline
Jabberwocky wrote:No it

Jabberwocky wrote:

No it doesn't. However, if scripture has to be treated differently than any other book when one is trying to verify the authenticity of its claims, then that is special pleading by default. When you pick up any science book in the world, you use the same methodology of testing to verify its claims. If you insist that a different methodology must be adopted to test the claims in the bible, well I would ask, why? The bible has verses that 100% contradict one another. The skeptics annotated bible online for instance has a contradiction detector that's a little over-sensitive in my opinion, but it will list for you the relevant verses one against the other to compare and check. It's a great place to begin when looking for such contradictions. If the bible says that someone has seen the face of god (which it does) and says later that nobody has seen the face of god (which it does), that is a contradiction. One of those phrases must be untrue. This is one example. I can probably provide a hundred. 

Science books do not contradict themselves internally in this way. A newer book may contradict an older book. The newer books often address findings made in error (or findings that were somewhat correct, but previously less accurate) as well. The bible does not. The bible asserts things, some of which are in direct conflict with one another. That to me makes it impossible that it is 100% true. 

why would the Bible be treated any differently than any other historical document of its time?  Granted it would be treated differently than a science text book... why?  because it's not a science text book.  I wouldn't test a biography of eye-witness accounts or a Chronology of history in a lab... it doesn't work that way.  

Also, I have had the "contradiction" conversation with many different people.  So far all the "contradictions" were misunderstood texts or sans context and thus were not accurately portrayed.  I have yet to see an authentic contradiction in scripture within itself.  

 

jabberwocky wrote:

First of all, the reason I put "true fact" in quotations is because it's a redundant phrase, much like "single bachelor" or "scared coward". The noun is all the description required, and does not require the verb to supplement it. Bible thumpers love to introduce into conversations the idea that there is a difference between "truth" and "fact" when there really isn't. All facts are true. If something is the truth, it is a fact. There is never any reason to put those words together. Let's read a sentence from above again "True fact is dependent in your statement on what you accept as truth, not what might actually be true."...what? I understand that facts are facts whether you agree that they're facts or not. 

I took your "true facts" just as you do with Bible thumpers... I apologize if i misunderstood you.  I see why you did it now.  I agree that truth and facts are one and the same.  But my point still remains that what we might think are true or are facts aren't necessarily truth or fact, rather its what we percieve.  There is an ultimate Truth though regardless of what we conclude.  e.g. gravity will keep that rock sitting on the gound over there from propelling into space without any outside help.  That one we all know, the not so obvious ones, still have just as concrete truths, but we just don't know them yet.  

jabberwocky wrote:

You believe the bible to be 100% true it seems. The bible contains internal contradictions, which makes that actually impossible. 

Now the topic at hand is that this particular quote-block was myself calling you on your evasion of the language complexity vs. population spread problem. When you got backed into a corner, you implied something along the lines of "well they knew they were sinning anyway, etc. they knew they had to repent, etc. etc.". Why not start with that? I believe that you didn't start with that because you knew that that wouldn't be sufficient argument, so you tried to explain it away in a way involving less direct supernatural intervention. Now when I called you on all of this, you ended up spouting some crap about "true fact." and said "case closed". No it's not. Why didn't you start with "people knew they were sinning?" Why go through the trouble of saying "they must have told everyone about the impending calamity"?

I believe I went with that based on the lead of others.... not because that's what I believed.  I believe they knew... but it's true, i was trying to avoid a long pointless conversation by not saying they knew they were sinning... which proved futile anyway.  

Jabberwocky wrote:

No the bible isn't evidence. The bible is a claim. It is a claim that is internally incoherent, contains statements that can be examined scientifically (and most of those statements fail that test). It contains statements about history (some which have been disproven by Jewish archaeologists who tried to set out to prove them!). These things mean that it can't be 100% true. No book can prove itself. Every science book has content where you can experiment yourself and verify the findings. Hence the books don't actually prove themselves, but they are accurate and correct and you can verify it. The bible contains content that can be tested (which it largely fails) and content that can't (hence we can't verify the claims). 

The Bible is not one book, it's many books and fragments of books, which is why it can prove itself... but as predicted....

jabberwocky wrote:

Eye-witness accounts, biblical and extra-biblical...listen closely. We! Believe! That! The! Bible! Stories! Are! Fabricated! Myth! Why would we accept eye-witness accounts written within it? You can humour me with the extra-biblical accounts if you like though. List them with links. 

as predicted....

jabberwocky wrote:

As you said, people call into the Vatican with claims that the Vatican ignores. I agree that that probably happens. The Vatican are probably wise to ignore many of them. They're waiting for something big like cancer remission, or at least a growth that may be understood as cancer in a less wealthy country. These miracles must be marketable. The Catholic Church really is into the same crap like Peter Popoff's miracle healing water, they're just far, FAR more subtle about it. 

did I call it or what!

jabberwocky wrote:

However, I doubt the Vatican ever gets calls that go like the following. "I prayed for Mother Teresa to intercede, but my husband died anyway". These people probably live in silence and largely outnumber the rest. Also, if you read about the first miracle of mother Teresa, there are major MAJOR problems with it. The fact that the Vatican haven't reversed the ruling on that miracle suggests that they're not so interested in scientific accuracy as you claim. There are doctors who treated her who reject any sort of miraculous cure, and her husband did so initially as well, but later changed his mind.

oh they do.  Just because God heals someone doesn't mean He's going to do that for everyone.  why not? So many factors and I couldn't accurately answer because I'm also not God.  The miracle of Mother Teresa's cure was highly publicized... not a typical practice of the Vatican be it that most cases are considered a family affair and personal.  I believe that later was retracted.  Again, it's a years long process.  

jabberwocky wrote:

You're calling what I say excuses? What in here is an excuse? What in here is a dismissal? The closest thing to a dismissal is the part in the last paragraph regarding the husband. However, for her husband to change his mind, it may take nothing more than immense social pressure, or one single threat. Why did the doctors and the husband all agree on the "not a miracle" explanation initially? Is it because they wanted to reject god? No. It's because the doctors diagnosed the woman's illness, and prescribed her medication for it. They are professionals, and trusted their diagnosis. She took the meds and got better. In your opinion (if you believe this to be a miracle), they got the diagnosis wrong. Her condition wasn't as deadly as thought, and they prescribed medication that was in no way effective. Then, god fixed it because mother Teresa was summoned. Now, didn't you mention before that you're no longer Catholic despite being brought up that way? Do you still believe in saintly intercession? Your view on this seems very wacky to me.

sure, despite my assuredness to my statements, you make the same claims about me.  Why should it be any different for you?  Also, see above statements by you.  

jabberwocky wrote:

So you believe, to use your analogy, that the person threatening you to not draw the cartoon is real, and serious about the threat. They also believed he was righteous in doing so. Because if I were to draw a cartoon despite terrorist threats, it may be detrimental to my life, but it wouldn't be necessarily morally wrong to do so despite the threat. A universal succumbing to terrorists is not the right thing to do, as it would create a society where the most hostile and violent people are the ones who get what they want. Defiance (even if it's dangerous) is unfortunately important in such situations. You have basically likened god to a terrorist by even using that analogy. How, then, do you claim that he was righteous?

I think we're taking this analogy to a whole other level.  the single point of stating it was the point that they were told not to do something and did it anyway full knowing the consequences of their actions.  So the analogy was put, if you knew you were going to die for doing _____________ fill in the blank.. make it moral for all I care, would you do it.  the obvious answer is no.  Some people would thinking they'd find a way around it or squeek out of the consequence somehow, or some other excuse they can come up with in their head, but the ponit is made... if we want to dig deeper, we can't be using this same analogy because we'll loose the focus.  You cannot compare it to the moral act of God.  we're not talking about an innocent act like drawing stick figures, but we are talking about the obvious consequence of doing an act in question.  

jabberwocky wrote:

Drop the pronouns and explain what you mean by this. I don't want to answer the wrong question.

basically what I stated was if I accept one story in the Bible, then I must accept that all of them are true.  If one is not, then they are all subject to question.  There's more to this than it being that cut and dry, but that's the basic point.  

jabberwocky wrote:

caposkia wrote:

What is your basis for the formation of language?  It needs to be beyond written evidence..complex language would have formed much earlier.  

Much the same as we learn language as children. We start with simple concepts, usually associating sounds with objects and people (nouns). We then go on to things like verbs that are easy to understand, and the rest comes later. It has been said that some aspects of complex language have to be learned in early childhood to be understood. It would be cruel to run tests, but in cases where feral children were found, it has been shown that the ability to develop a certain level of language has been difficult. Since parents tend to teach their children language (BTW, my parents never taught me English, I learned it all in school), one can acquire a great knowledge of their native language over the first few years of their life. When language first came about, it was important to identify objects and nouns (and probably people as well, by attaching a label to them). Verbs would be the next important thing (if we are to co-operate, we need to be able to tell people what we need them to do, and what we will do in return, etc.). Language developed as the need for language did. In the example of the feral children, we find that not learning language early on means that you won't have the ability to understand the complex parts later. Our infant and toddler brains are great sponges for such things, and allow us to cram a lot of information into it, so that we can learn more difficult concepts later. Each successive generation had the ability to expand on language. If I could learn 2 languages in ~5 and a half years, surely people could slowly expand on language over the years, and make it more complex gradually. 

So, what is your basis for language being organized into quite a similar observable tree as life in the world? The Slavic countries are all close to one another, and share a lot of grammar. There are several alphabets. Primarily, there is the roman as I'm typing in, used by the Polish (including dialects that are far removed and hard for me to understand such as Silesian and Kashubian), Czech, Slovaks and the Croatians (probably some more I'm missing) and the Cyrillic, used by Russians, Ukrainians, Belarussians, Serbians, (and some more I'm sure). You may notice that the last in each set are Croatian and Serbian. Funny as they are the same language, but use different alphabets. Do you think that's because of babel too? Let me tell you that it took me under 6 months to learn to read cyrillic 2 years ago (Russian cyrillic to be exact, but the variations are negligible and can read any of it). If god meant to confuse people, he must have not meant to do it for a very long time. I DO mean to be condescending here, because I hate when people precede a sentence with the opposite of what they mean. Don't argue with me about languages if you don't know what you're talking about. You will lose. Polish has more in common with Ukrainian, Russian, Czech, Slovakian and Serbo-Croatian than English does with any other language to my knowledge. You happen to speak a language that is on a linguistic "island" so to speak. Of course when you look at the geography of the United Kingdom, you'll find it is indeed separated from the rest of Europe by water, hence this is no surprise.

If god meant to confuse us with these languages, he did a shit job. I can speak Polish to a Czech or a Slovak person (and they can speak their language to me) and we can't have a conversation about literature, but I could go to a small town in any part of either country (where English isn't spoken) and get around without issue. 

God did a shit job huh.  did he have to make you unaware of all languages or simply a few.  I don't know one person in the world that can speak every language... maybe they're out there, but that to me sounds impossible.  In other words, there are communities out there you cannot communicate with using their language.  God did a good job.  

beyond that, i'm looking for your justification for dating complex language in history.  How can you be so certain that complex language didn't form long before evidence of written word?  

jabberwocky wrote:

See above. You've skipped parts, and offered insufficient explanations for the rest. You don't need to address each individual quote here. Explain the geographic distribution of life that makes sense in the context of a worldwide flood.

Simply put, if all happened as the Bible described, then people and animals would have originated from one central location and migrated out from there... in other words, depending on how long after the closing of the garden the flood happened is determinate on how far all had migrated.  Granted there's some discrepency there e.g. sea animals, but you get the idea.  

Jabberwocky wrote:

And in the time of Noah, what book did the illiterate people have? How did THEY know? How were they to know that this was legitimately going to happen? Some guy building a floating wooden zoo is not enough, I'm sorry.

They had God in their presence according to scripture.  

Do I as well?

from what we understand, WE (meaning you and I) don't like they did.  God's spirit does not "dwell" with us like it did then.  Rather we have the Holy Spirit and to get to God we must go through Jesus Christ.  

That's a lot to comprehend in one statement, but the jist is its' different now.  But yes, you would have the same as me as far as a relationship with God if you wanted it.  

jabberwocky wrote:

If god kills someone for disobedience, I thought they don't GET to go back to him?

In the OT, I'm not sure how that worked, becasue in the NT we have Jesus, so regardless of our disobedience, through Jesus we are saved if we are repentant.  In the OT, it was before Jesus' time.  there is much speculation as to what would happen.  Many chirstians think it's an express to Hell, but then again, were they any worse than we are today?  I see 2 resurrections in Revelation of people.. one of those saved in Christ and another of those not.  I believe all who died before Christ's time would be in the 2nd resurrection to a life of judgement.  

This really is a whole other conversation.  that's a summary though.  

jabberwocky wrote:

Terrible fucking lesson. My family has gone through some harsh things in the last few years. I know the most effort that they put into these problems is to pray. These are not things that are unsolveable either. They are difficult problems yes, but they are not unsolveable. My family are convinced that they simply aren't praying enough, rather than tackling the problem. If they believe they ARE praying enough, they may look to the story of Job (or worse yet, might have a priest point them to that story) and be encouraged to just be patient, instead of actually DOING something! Could it be mentally beneficial to have such thoughts vs. not having them? Sure. However, if you drop the whole god thing and actually fix the problem, you might be able to....fix the problem! If you think prayer will fix it, nothing that wouldn't have happened anyway will actually happened. 

Also, to specifically tackle point 3, that's a reprehensible thing to say. Everyone who has ever committed suicide (or attempted it) is evidence that they HAVE had more happen in their life than they are able to handle. If god is in control of it all, then he does clearly give people more than they can handle. Maybe they didn't read the book of Job, where it says that god sometimes shits on you to win a bet with the dude he orders you to never listen to. I don't know how that can help, but regardless my point stands. Everyone who has ever committed suicide (and don't you try to say that Christians never do, because I know they do), is evidence that people experience more hardship than they can handle. Do you wish to comment anything more on this? Or do you want to take the high road and ignore it? 

To the first paragraph... the difference between your family and Job is all the problems Job had were not solvable by him.  The bible never teaches to be idol, rather you are to pray, but then do what you can in your power to resolve the issue... God will open doors as they say... but if you just sit and stare at the door God opened, you're never going to get through it... does that make sense?  

to the 2nd paragraph.  are you telling me people don't give up early?  If there's one thing I know, it's how easily people give up before they even know their full potential.  so many times in my line of work the immediate response from people is "I can't..."  This is typically even before trying.  so once I convince them to try, suddenly, they can... did I suddenly make them a stronger person or did I just help them realize their true potential?    People who commit suicide do it becasue they see no other way out or they think they can't handle the problem anymore.. we're still alive because we've found that there are many ways out of difficult situations in our lives or know we can handle what life throws at us.  Just because God won't give us more than we can handle doesn't mean He won't allow our limits to be tested.    Don't be narrow minded with that statment either... the key word is "allowed" nowhere did i use the word "cause" .  


caposkia
Theist
Posts: 2701
Joined: 2007-05-15
User is offlineOffline
 Jabberwocky.  I dont'

 Jabberwocky.  I dont' mean to stop where I have, but I'm having trouble finding time to address all of your posts... is there any way you can summarize the specific responses you want from me?  I don't want to ignore anything you're saying.  I'll have to get back to the other posts later unless you're able to summarize.  

 


Vastet
atheistBloggerSuperfan
Vastet's picture
Posts: 13210
Joined: 2006-12-25
User is offlineOffline
Vastet wrote:caposkia

Vastet wrote:
caposkia wrote:
Choice is perfect..

No it isn't.

per·fect adjective \ˈpər-fikt\
: having no mistakes or flaws

: completely correct or accurate

: having all the qualities you want in that kind of person, situation, etc.

The flaw with choice is that any given choice can be the wrong choice. Any wrong choice is necessarily imperfect, as per the definition of perfect. Therefore choice is not perfect.

caposkia wrote:
So then should parents be partially culpable for the crimes their children commit as adults?

There is no comparison between a all knowing god and a mortal who knows almost nothing. If a parent absolutely knew in advance the crimes that their children would commit, and did nothing to prevent those crimes, then they would be culpable. Alas, we mere mortals can't see the future. We can't even see the past all that well. So no, a parent should not automatically be culpable in any way for the crimes of their children.
No omniscient god gets a free pass though. It knew the crimes and it could have prevented them. It chose not to, and therefore is nearly as guilty as the perpetrators.

caposkia wrote:
Too bad there are no solid links to such an evolution.

Too bad for you that every life form ever observed is a solid example of evolution. Your denial merely proves your ignorance.

caposkia wrote:
Let's be honest... if there were gaps in the roads, e.g. there were no roads that connected consistently from your home to your work in some way or sidewalks that likewise were consistently connected from your house to your work, i would very logically doubt that you were able to use the roads or sidewalks to get there.  That's typically not a problem for most people unless you live in Juneau AK and work out of town.

Flawed metaphor. You look for gaps in the road, and automatically assume that the road was never connected. Despite the fact that doing some basic math and extrapolation shows that every road is headed in the direction of another. And that many roads have junctions showing there was once a connection. Logically, there's no reason to build fragments of a road, it can't accomplish its function that way. Logically, the roads were once connected. Portions were simply destroyed at some point. Either through lack of maintenance or direct attempts to destroy them. Even indirect destruction that was the result of the pursuit of another goal. It is foolish to assume that fragments of roads that all point to one another does not indicate a greater road system that has since decayed. Especially when you can measure when the roads were built in the first place, and you can dig up more road fragments that support the hypothesis that there was once a road network that was completely connected.

caposkia wrote:
Right.  if I believe that, then I also have to beleive we are decendents of plants as well.

Not at all. In fact, plants and animals would have a common ancestor that was neither plant nor animal.

Proud Canadian, Enlightened Atheist, Gaming God.


caposkia
Theist
Posts: 2701
Joined: 2007-05-15
User is offlineOffline
Vastet wrote:Vastet

Vastet wrote:
Vastet wrote:
caposkia wrote:
Choice is perfect..
No it isn't. per·fect adjective \ˈpər-fikt\ : having no mistakes or flaws : completely correct or accurate : having all the qualities you want in that kind of person, situation, etc. The flaw with choice is that any given choice can be the wrong choice. Any wrong choice is necessarily imperfect, as per the definition of perfect. Therefore choice is not perfect.
caposkia wrote:
So then should parents be partially culpable for the crimes their children commit as adults?
There is no comparison between a all knowing god and a mortal who knows almost nothing. If a parent absolutely knew in advance the crimes that their children would commit, and did nothing to prevent those crimes, then they would be culpable. Alas, we mere mortals can't see the future. We can't even see the past all that well. So no, a parent should not automatically be culpable in any way for the crimes of their children. No omniscient god gets a free pass though. It knew the crimes and it could have prevented them. It chose not to, and therefore is nearly as guilty as the perpetrators.
caposkia wrote:
Too bad there are no solid links to such an evolution.
Too bad for you that every life form ever observed is a solid example of evolution. Your denial merely proves your ignorance.
caposkia wrote:
Let's be honest... if there were gaps in the roads, e.g. there were no roads that connected consistently from your home to your work in some way or sidewalks that likewise were consistently connected from your house to your work, i would very logically doubt that you were able to use the roads or sidewalks to get there.  That's typically not a problem for most people unless you live in Juneau AK and work out of town.
Flawed metaphor. You look for gaps in the road, and automatically assume that the road was never connected. Despite the fact that doing some basic math and extrapolation shows that every road is headed in the direction of another. And that many roads have junctions showing there was once a connection. Logically, there's no reason to build fragments of a road, it can't accomplish its function that way. Logically, the roads were once connected. Portions were simply destroyed at some point. Either through lack of maintenance or direct attempts to destroy them. Even indirect destruction that was the result of the pursuit of another goal. It is foolish to assume that fragments of roads that all point to one another does not indicate a greater road system that has since decayed. Especially when you can measure when the roads were built in the first place, and you can dig up more road fragments that support the hypothesis that there was once a road network that was completely connected.
caposkia wrote:
Right.  if I believe that, then I also have to beleive we are decendents of plants as well.
Not at all. In fact, plants and animals would have a common ancestor that was neither plant nor animal.
 

I responded to this one already, Post #390


caposkia
Theist
Posts: 2701
Joined: 2007-05-15
User is offlineOffline
Jabberwocky wrote:Which of

Jabberwocky wrote:

Which of the 2 links and where? Clearly you've read it, and I'm too busy reading our thread to read others, and certainly too busy to read that link at least tonight. If I get to it before you respond, I'll address it here. But help me out here if you can. I doubt it states that there "isn't evidence to prove it". 

Post #285 has the links;

The first link is quoted below.. this quote comes after the explanation and where it goes into the history and how it worked out.  You'll notice it goes through some obvious ways they mgiht take over and allow such a transformation to take place... for each obvious theory they come up with a reason why that's not likely.  They ultimately resort to "dumb luck allowed the 46 chromosome humans to win.";

"There are a couple of obvious ways that 46 chromosomes might take over. One is if there was some sort of advantage to having this number of chromosomes.

There is almost certainly no advantage in how the DNA is packaged. If anything, having a different number of chromosomes hurts someone in terms of having the most babies possible.

It might be that where the two chromosomes fused together, some new helpful gene was created. Maybe one that let our ancestor communicate more effectively or walk upright. Unfortunately, there is no evidence to support this.

An alternative is that dumb luck allowed the 46 chromosome humans to win. "

 

jabberwocky wrote:

What consistency among all species make the evidence skim?

the consistent lack of evidence on how the Chromosomal changes actually allowed the transformation of the species and didn't hurt them.

jabberwocky wrote:

Now that's stupid. I'm not sure if we talked about vestigial structures (I think we have, but it may have been elsewhere). Our appendix is minutely beneficial to the immune system, but if you were able to redesign from the ground up, it would be more efficient. Either a mechanism more effective at replacing the appendix's helping hand to the immune system, or a smaller appendix that doesn't have the bursting problems would have been designed. It wasn't. Our eyes are wired backwards. Our genital areas are so discombobulated, that if girls don't have a pee after sex, it greatly increases the odds of urinary tract infections (and what of those who peed first? Might be hard to go again in an hour...). For those who believe gay sex is wrong, the male G-spot (basically direct prostate stimulation as I understand) is up their ass (but god says it's wrong). For those who believe it isn't wrong (where everyone SHOULD fall, and I have no problem asserting that), until the invention of condoms and lubricant, penetrative anal sex would have almost always inevitably resulted in bleeding, increasing greatly the transfer of disease. This could make it a somewhat dangerous practice. Until modern pre-natal medical practice, dying during childbirth was common for both mother and child. 

Every one of these things makes sense in biology assuming the theory of evolution to be true. They range from puzzling to really fucking stupid if you think some being (especially an intelligent one) designed it.

so we go from someone like Einstein claiming that it's all too complex to be created by a being to you claiming it's all "really fucking stupid"....  

Your mistakes in your rationality are considered scientifically;

our eyes are wired backwards (if they weren't everything would appear upside down)

Genital areas are so discombubulated (most women wouldn't think of peeing before sex unless they really had to go and considering that if they pee within 2 hours of sex, the odds are still much lower and also very likely to pee, seems to work fine... plus orgasm causes the urge to pee regardless of how full the bladder is typically causing the subject to try and pee)  

Gay sex/male G-spot in prostate in ass (scientifically sex is not about the pleasure.  It's sole purpose is procreation and thus back door love negates the purpose of sex... to add to it, let's consider the infection issue you brought up with our messed up genitals, odds are much much much greater of a subject contracting a rash/infection/disease with back door sex than with genital sex)  Yes you talked about that, but modern preventions don't excuse the problem, they just help prevent it.  e.g. If i binge drink, and pound down water, my odds of alcohol poisoning go down.  does that mean it's ok for me to binge drink?  

jabberwocky wrote:

One of BS's links (I skimmed them) showed that a human with 44 chromosomes, other than his genetic quirk, seems normal in every other way. I never asserted that the fusion is what made homosapiens into homosapiens. I already posted a link regarding the fertility problem (I think). If I didn't, here. http://pandasthumb.org/archives/2009/02/the-rise-of-hum-1.html . BS's link addressed that problem as well. Where in his links does it say that it "doesn't bode well for a creature"? A modern example is that not every mule is sterile. Fertile mules do occur. They are compatible with both donkeys and horses. BS's link also mentioned that it's more likely to occur in populations that engage what's known as inbreeding. If the early human population was small (or an early pre-human ancestral population was small), such a thing could, and would happen.

So your answer to my direct question is that early humans had 48 chromosomes and those fused?

no, I don't think so.  I believe there were Chromosomal variencies throughout human history which could lead to 48 at some point, but i don't believe that links us automatically to chimps.   

jabberwocky wrote:

It's AiG. You disagree with them on dating something major. The reason they don't even tackle the mutation problem is they don't acknowledge an earth/universe older than 6000 years old. You seem to acknowledge that possibility. So what is your education on the rate of mutation that tells you that a YEC site is correct when talking of genetics, even though the timelines between your beliefs and theirs varies greatly? 

They go through why it can seem that way though it wouldn't be fused.   something along those lines.. I don't have time to check back on it right now. I doubt they made their claim up on the spot... scratch that, I doubt all their references collaborated to make up their claim.  


caposkia
Theist
Posts: 2701
Joined: 2007-05-15
User is offlineOffline
Jabberwocky wrote:Do you

Jabberwocky wrote:

Do you even know what a scientific theory actually is? It is not a guess.

I'm a musician. I had to learn musical theory. Musical theory is not "a guess" or even "the best guess" of how music works. It is a body of knowledge about music. The theory of evolution is a body of knowledge. Evolution is a fact. The theory of evolution is a gigantic collection of facts that all point to the same conclusion.

There is a law of gravity, and a theory of gravity. The law of gravity is a mathematical equation. The theory of gravity is a large body of work that includes evidence, testable claims, and a whole thwack of other things. It exists so that all people who disagree with the math involved in the "law of gravity" are able to test it. 

Evolution is a theory and doesn't contain a "law" as well, because it is simply not expressable in a mathematical equation. The rate of genetic change can be measured, but it varies. The variations are not wild, but rather somewhat predictable. I don't have time to find articles on equations of specific species' genetic change, but perhaps I'll find some later this week.

As far as your complete "speceal change"...everyone is the same species as their mother, and their children. The change is NEVER abrupt, even if a chromosomal fusion occurs. I've explained this in prior posts in the last few hours. 

I know what Theory is.. I'm pretty sure we've covered it long ago... or if not directly with you, on a few threads you were involved in.

Anyway, The point that the change is NEVER abrupt leads me further into doubt about those changes as described taking place... You're telling me they are never abrupt, which means the fusion likely happens over an extended period of time.... and we have NO actual physical proof of the transformation... not even a part of it... that to me is a problem for the theory.  


caposkia
Theist
Posts: 2701
Joined: 2007-05-15
User is offlineOffline
Jabberwocky wrote:Once

Jabberwocky wrote:

Once again, you misunderstand what a scientific theory is. You seem to think that biology is on some ridiculous shaky foundation. It's not. The theory of evolution is demonstrable in a lab. The theory of evolution has predictive power. The theory of evolution explains a number of things that creationism can not (vestigial organs, geographic distribution) and explains far BETTER things that creationism does a poor job of explaining (homology between organisms for example). Don't you even imply that creationism has to be proved wrong. It already is. From a scientific standpoint, it is a non-starter. Unfortunately, even if you believe that "truth" and "facts" are separable, you're wrong. The theory of evolution does a more than sufficient job of explaining the diversity of life (ALL of it, not just some of the most similar bits) and creationism explains nothing. Creationism + a global flood introduces giant problems (geographic distrubution, the complete lack of marsupial fossils between biblical-ish locations and Australia)

Creationism explains how things got started... evolution doesn't, it explains how things progress.  The problem does not lie in proving evolution, it's proving darwinism.  The question isn't do things evolve, it's how far does that evolution really go?  

I love how you try and use scientific theory against me here.  It is also interesting how you see what i bring up putting biology on a shaky foundation.  I merely bring up the reasons why its' still a theory and not scientific fact.  There are parts that we just don't have evidence for to really drive the theory home.  

jabberwocky wrote:

That's not what I fucking said! Not even close! Where did I say that two animals of varying genuses (Genii?) cross-breed? Group X reproduces (I'll use a letter for the parent group). Group X has descendants in groups 1, 2 & 3. Groups 1, 2 & 3 are geographically isolated. A scientist takes them into a lab. Group 2 can produce offspring with groups 1 & 3. Groups 1 & 3 can not produce offspring. This much has been demonstrated in a lab. The reason for the reproductive incompatibility is because the genes between groups 1 & 3 have varied too far from one another (even though they share a common ancestor). What prevents from the genes getting even MORE different from one another in the descendants of groups 1 & 3? The genes changed enough to be reproductively incompatible. There is no mechanism known that prevents the genes from changing indefinitely given enough time. If you concede speciation (which can be shown in a lab, and occurs due to gene variation), what prevents further gene change? 

But I got exactly what I wanted out of you here... 

now, hoestly I want to research it a bit.  Do you have any links that show the evidence in life of group 2 mating and reproducing with 1 and 3?  I mean cross genus... there would have to be a inter-genus group right?  

jabberywocky wrote:

Fair enough. I'm glad you're not trying to bite off more than you can chew. However, a biologist will tell you what allows two animals to produce fertile offspring. A biologist will tell you what allows two animals to produce sterile offspring. A biologist will tell you what allows two animals to be reproductively incompatible. A biologist will tell you this in precise detail. They will tell you what has to be compatible genetically. They will tell you how much genes can change from generation to generation. They will measure how selection pressures will vary the change. They will tell you how this change can increase with a change in environment (which severely changes selection pressures). They will not cite one book and say "well this is right, because it says so."

that's because they're experts in their field.  In my strengths I don't need to reference books either.  My issue is I have yet to see the missing links.  No one has been able to show them to me yet.  Those would be the transitional groups mating and creating with both sides on the genus level.  

Jabberwocky wrote:

I don't mean how life got spread out when I mention geographic distribution. I mean why everything is distributed in the manner it is? Why are the marsupials exclusively in Australia? How did they get there after the catastrophe? I don't think there is any good explanation for these sorts of things under creationism. 

The Bill Nye/Ken Ham debate covered this topic well. Under creationism you are stuck in a situation where you can't fit all of the animals onto the ark. If you reduce the number of animals and state that the rest "micro-evolved", then evolution would have to occur faster and more drastically than creationist say it possibly could (and also several orders of magnitude quicker than anything we have ever observed). I think the numbers used would make for 11 new species every single day. The math doesn't work. 

that problem is only for the YEC's.  

also, Creationism just like evolution never claimed to have all the answers.  There are some things we just don't know.  Migrational patterns and geological events along with weather patterns and food supplies have a part in all distribution patterns.  I'm sure if I did some homework on marsupials in Australia, there would be some event or chain of events in Earth history that directed them to that location and allowed them to get there.  

jabberwocky wrote:

Maybe I was unclear in my post (although I think it was pretty clear). I just gave you a free pass on how all of the animals were coralled onto the thing. I wanted the rest of it answered still. Let's ask again:

The fertility problem doesn't necessarily occur with all chromosome fusions. http://pandasthumb.org/archives/2009/02/the-rise-of-hum-1.html

The above link describes testable examples of that. Now, would you address any of the points I made above? Let me re-iterate them in list form. 

Are all Australopithecines either human or ape? Or are the fossils thought by biologists to be links divided elsewhere? So that you don't have to root through a bunch, let's go one by one. Answer this here: Is Australopithecus Afarensis a human fossil, or an ape fossil (Assuming you disagree that humans are apes)?

It is categorized as Hominidae or Great Ape family so no despite their upright walk.

jabberwocky wrote:

How come every time we DO find a fossil, it's nothing that is far removed from what we expected to find when it came to fossils we haven't found anything similar to?

because evolution is predictable.  Nothing has shown proof of darwinism.  

jabberwocky wrote:

Regarding chromosome 2, the time between what I believe to be our common ancestor with chimps will easily account for discrepancies in the chromosome. Why is so much of it similar? Not to mention the rest of our genome?

 

All made by the same creator, why would they be more different?  


Jabberwocky
atheist
Posts: 411
Joined: 2012-04-21
User is offlineOffline
caposkia wrote:I know what

caposkia wrote:

I know what Theory is.. I'm pretty sure we've covered it long ago... or if not directly with you, on a few threads you were involved in.

caposkia wrote:

I merely bring up the reasons why its' still a theory and not scientific fact.

Ok. Unless you quit being dishonest, I will stop answering you completely (and I understand I'm not the first one to do so). You have just blatantly demonstrated that you have absolutely NO interest in being honest and coherent in your discussions. These above two quotes occur in back to back posts. You clearly do not know what the definition of "theory" is in a scientific discussion. Under your worldview, isn't such blatant dishonesty sinful? If so, why do you engage in it?

 

Theists - If your god is omnipotent, remember the following: He (or she) has the cure for cancer, but won't tell us what it is.


Vastet
atheistBloggerSuperfan
Vastet's picture
Posts: 13210
Joined: 2006-12-25
User is offlineOffline
caposkia wrote:or is it that

caposkia wrote:
or is it that it's the choices people make that aren't perfect.

If any choice can be imperfect then choice itself is imperfect.

caposkia wrote:
Rather "choice" as in the ability to make them is perfect... and if we couldn't make bad choices, then choice would not be perfect because it would have drastic limitations.

Choice already has drastic limitations, so by my argument AND your own, choice is imperfect.

caposkia wrote:
So knowledge is the power to control others... 

That has nothing to do with anything.

caposkia wrote:
He has given US the responsibility for our actions.

Oh wonderful. So if I kill you I can give you responsibility for it.

Responsibility cannot be handed off at a whim. If there's a god, and that god created everything and knows everything, then that god is responsible for everything. Period.

caposkia wrote:
too bad you decided to generalize the term "evolution" rather than put it in context with what we were talking about.

Too bad for you that evolution is evolution, and every life form that ever existed is a demonstration of it. You don't know what qualifies a genus in the first place so you're in no position to say there are no examples of a genus evolving into another. If you did know then you'd never claim there were no examples, since you'd know that it takes more than one generation before a new genus can evolve in the first place, and therefore there cannot be any examples. You creationists think a duck should pop out a crocodile all of a sudden if evolution were true. Problem is it doesn't work that way.

caposkia wrote:
 Now would I be just as out of line as you were to claim this merely proves your ignorance?

You can say whatever you like, but only you are demonstrating ignorance.

caposkia wrote:
so how deep does the rabbit hole go?  You have to admit, you're starting to stretch a bit to prove your point.

No I don't. You made the metaphor. I just fixed it so it would fit with reality as best it could.

caposkia wrote:
If you can say with confidence that what you said is a very logical conclusion than it is just as logical to see the broken connections in the roads and conclude that the roads, though they look like they may have had paths, do not show evidence of travel through those broken areas and thus could have never been fully functional.

Except the roads do show signs of use. There are oil spots and tire fragments everywhere, and the roads have been demonstrably worn by traffic.

caposkia wrote:
precisely... and that belief takes more faith than the God following

No it doesn't.

caposkia wrote:
remember just like your gut reaction to this statement is to say there's evidence, so do those who believe in God see evidence for their belief.

Problem is that theist evidence isn't evidence. You can't point at anything and quantify why it is evidence for a god. Meanwhile all the evidence for evolution is non-contradictory and fits together perfectly.
The evidence that would convince you is impossible, because you don't want evidence for evolution. You want a turtle giving birth to an eagle. But that isn't evolution. So you'll never have it.

Proud Canadian, Enlightened Atheist, Gaming God.


Jabberwocky
atheist
Posts: 411
Joined: 2012-04-21
User is offlineOffline
I will respond here, but

I will respond here, but heed my advice and stop being dishonest. When people tell you things such as I did regarding what a scientific theory is, don't continue asserting what we know is incorrect. 

caposkia wrote:

 

Post #285 has the links;

The first link is quoted below.. this quote comes after the explanation and where it goes into the history and how it worked out.  You'll notice it goes through some obvious ways they mgiht take over and allow such a transformation to take place... for each obvious theory they come up with a reason why that's not likely.  They ultimately resort to "dumb luck allowed the 46 chromosome humans to win.";

"There are a couple of obvious ways that 46 chromosomes might take over. One is if there was some sort of advantage to having this number of chromosomes.

There is almost certainly no advantage in how the DNA is packaged. If anything, having a different number of chromosomes hurts someone in terms of having the most babies possible.

It might be that where the two chromosomes fused together, some new helpful gene was created. Maybe one that let our ancestor communicate more effectively or walk upright. Unfortunately, there is no evidence to support this.

An alternative is that dumb luck allowed the 46 chromosome humans to win. "

 

It might be dumb luck. It may have been a small difference as well that was then selected for. Also, it has been proven that our species went through a bottleneck and was nearly extinct at one point, which was the driver behind our exit from the desert climate where we had our lowly beginning. Now, irregularities in chromosomes happen quite frequently. Downs syndrome is one. Another is the extra copying of a sex chromosome, with possibilities of XXX chromosomed women, and both XXY and XYY men. XXY is the one with the most noticeable irregularities compared to those with 2 sex chromosomes. Occasionally more serious disorders can occur as the result of the translocation, but overwhelmingly, the differences are minor (a taller average height that only begins to show after puberty for instance). 

Now do we have to assume that either a small favoured trait or just dumb luck allowed the 46 chromosome humans to win? Sure. However, that is a safe assumption since we are here. You can look at it as a lottery. If you were to win the lottery, it would seem so very unlikely, and indeed it is. However, if the odds of winning are 1 in 13 million, and 15 million people play the thing, it's very likely that SOMEONE will win. While this particular occurrence (of homo-sapiens in their current form) may be statistically improbable on its own, it's important to remember that there is nothing special about our species in the grand scheme of things. This result may be unlikely, but every other result was equally unlikely as well. It just is what it is. 

caposkia wrote:

jabberwocky wrote:

What consistency among all species make the evidence skim?

the consistent lack of evidence on how the Chromosomal changes actually allowed the transformation of the species and didn't hurt them.

Addressed above

caposkia wrote:

so we go from someone like Einstein claiming that it's all too complex to be created by a being to you claiming it's all "really fucking stupid"....  

When the hell were we discussing Einstein's opinion on creation? I was talking about his theory and how it suppplemented/superseded what Newton said (and was deemed correct for a very long time!)

caposkia wrote:

Your mistakes in your rationality are considered scientifically;

our eyes are wired backwards (if they weren't everything would appear upside down)

They are wired backwards that the wiring is literally in the way of what we see. Our eye DOES see upside down, and our brain merely fixes it because it's easier than living upside down. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Perceptual_adaptation Tested with glasses. Our brain is capable of this.

caposkia wrote:

Genital areas are so discombubulated (most women wouldn't think of peeing before sex unless they really had to go and considering that if they pee within 2 hours of sex, the odds are still much lower and also very likely to pee, seems to work fine... plus orgasm causes the urge to pee regardless of how full the bladder is typically causing the subject to try and pee)  

So you're saying that god couldn't have designed separate things for this? Hell, birds only have one waste function. Imagine if all of that was relegated to one place, with the sex organs reserved for sex? That would be objectively better in every way.

caposkia wrote:

Gay sex/male G-spot in prostate in ass (scientifically sex is not about the pleasure.  It's sole purpose is procreation and thus back door love negates the purpose of sex... to add to it, let's consider the infection issue you brought up with our messed up genitals, odds are much much much greater of a subject contracting a rash/infection/disease with back door sex than with genital sex)  Yes you talked about that, but modern preventions don't excuse the problem, they just help prevent it.  e.g. If i binge drink, and pound down water, my odds of alcohol poisoning go down.  does that mean it's ok for me to binge drink?  

We don't have sex just because we want children. Some people do, but overwhelmingly the reason people have sex is because they're horny. Of course, our level of horniness increases instances of sex, which is what makes for pro-creation. Once again, I repeat. Sex is not FOR pro-creation. It simply causes procreation. We do it because it's simply fantastic. A horny couple who don't like protection or contraception are more likely to have more children than those who aren't horny. The first animals that had sex didn't have the luxury of knowing that it was needed to propogate the species. They merely had to be compelled to. 

caposkia wrote:

jabberwocky wrote:

One of BS's links (I skimmed them) showed that a human with 44 chromosomes, other than his genetic quirk, seems normal in every other way. I never asserted that the fusion is what made homosapiens into homosapiens. I already posted a link regarding the fertility problem (I think). If I didn't, here. http://pandasthumb.org/archives/2009/02/the-rise-of-hum-1.html . BS's link addressed that problem as well. Where in his links does it say that it "doesn't bode well for a creature"? A modern example is that not every mule is sterile. Fertile mules do occur. They are compatible with both donkeys and horses. BS's link also mentioned that it's more likely to occur in populations that engage what's known as inbreeding. If the early human population was small (or an early pre-human ancestral population was small), such a thing could, and would happen.

So your answer to my direct question is that early humans had 48 chromosomes and those fused?

no, I don't think so.  I believe there were Chromosomal variencies throughout human history which could lead to 48 at some point, but i don't believe that links us automatically to chimps.   

What about all of the other chromosomal similarities between us?

Also, I have another tip for any creationist who refuses to believe that we have a common ancestor with chimpanzees. Major in genetics. Just do it. Major in it, and take a bunch of other creationists with you. Young earthers, old earthers, ones with malleable and ultimately unidentifiable beliefs like Caposkia, and become powerhouses in the field of genetics. Then whether or not you believe that there was millions of years for us and chimps to evolve from a common ancestor, find out the answer to the following: IF the millions of years were available, is it possible that these 2 species shared a common ancestor? I guarantee you that if they're honest, the answer will be yes, and if they're dishonest they may say inconclusive or unlikely. However, if it is actually impossible, that CAN be proven by examining genetics. Yet no creationist has ever even tried it.

caposkia wrote:

jabberwocky wrote:

It's AiG. You disagree with them on dating something major. The reason they don't even tackle the mutation problem is they don't acknowledge an earth/universe older than 6000 years old. You seem to acknowledge that possibility. So what is your education on the rate of mutation that tells you that a YEC site is correct when talking of genetics, even though the timelines between your beliefs and theirs varies greatly? 

They go through why it can seem that way though it wouldn't be fused.   something along those lines.. I don't have time to check back on it right now. I doubt they made their claim up on the spot... scratch that, I doubt all their references collaborated to make up their claim.  

The whole article was highlighting the difference, and since they are young earthers, they don't allow for the possibility of the necessary change to go from an ancestral chromosome. They never even address that point. See the bold section above. 

Theists - If your god is omnipotent, remember the following: He (or she) has the cure for cancer, but won't tell us what it is.


Jabberwocky
atheist
Posts: 411
Joined: 2012-04-21
User is offlineOffline
caposkia wrote: Anyway, The

caposkia wrote:

 

Anyway, The point that the change is NEVER abrupt leads me further into doubt about those changes as described taking place... You're telling me they are never abrupt, which means the fusion likely happens over an extended period of time.... and we have NO actual physical proof of the transformation... not even a part of it... that to me is a problem for the theory.  

Are you deliberately trying to misunderstand this? The fusion isn't gradual. The fusion is a very specific detail. If you compare a human and a chimp chromosome, you can calculate roughly how many generations ago a common ancestor would have existed. By abrupt, I mean something like creationists typically look for (one "kind" giving birth to another "kind" where kinds are at LEAST at the genus level, and sometimes all the way up to the kingdom level in the most idiotic cases, like when Ray Comfort says "They're still bacteria!&quotEye-wink.

http://www.amnh.org/exhibitions/past-exhibitions/human-origins/understanding-our-past/dna-comparing-humans-and-chimps

Here is a little page with some information about DNA. It's very basic information, but if you read that, it says that there are about 35 million differences between human and chimpanzee base pairs. When talking of these 35 million differences, those 35 million diverged gradually. However, each single one of those 35 million changes had to happen abruptly. So if it's 6 million years, that's about 6 differences a year. If we take an age range for how long one generation was, and use a broad range like 15-35 years between each parent/child, you get between 90 and 210 differences in base pairs between parent and child. Even 210 out of 3 billion (roughly the number of base pairs that both us and chimps have total) certainly doesn't seem like a lot. All it takes is selection pressures to drive it a specific way.

 

Here is an exerpt from a different page on that same site.

Quote:

Tracing the Human-Chimp Ancestor

By comparing DNA sequences from humans and chimpanzees, experts calculated that the last human-chimp ancestor lived roughly six million years ago. Later, the discovery of a hominid fossil dating back six to seven million years supported this claim.

Why do you think that when geneticists run the math, they come up with the same numbers as geologists/archaeologists?

Theists - If your god is omnipotent, remember the following: He (or she) has the cure for cancer, but won't tell us what it is.


Beyond Saving
atheist
Beyond Saving's picture
Posts: 5448
Joined: 2007-10-12
User is offlineOffline
Caposkia wrote:But I got

Caposkia wrote:

But I got exactly what I wanted out of you here... 

 now, hoestly I want to research it a bit.  Do you have any links that show the evidence in life of group 2 mating and reproducing with 1 and 3?  I mean cross genus... there would have to be a inter-genus group right? 

 

No, there wouldn't have to be an inter-genus group. Most biologists believe that most species stem from ancestors who branched out to create new genus groups, in other words, they belonged to one genus and eventually became genetically isolated (unable to reproduce with any species other than their own) and from that point became so genetically dissimilar as to be classified as a different genus, family, order, class or even a new phylum. Ultimately, the categorizations are one of convenience rather than clear lines and changes occur in them quite often. One species that has recently been reclassified into a brand new phylum is the Xenoturbella http://www.wired.com/2011/02/new-phylum/

 

Regardless, it is certainly possible for intergeneric hybrids. Sheep and goats is a particularly common one. The cama (camel/llama) and wholphin (dolphin/whale) are other confirmed real life examples. There are also examples of inter-familial hybrids also exist such as the guineafowl. 

 

There are a few reasons why it becomes more rare as you move up the ladder- the more genetically dissimilar two species are, the less likely they are to be capable of interbreeding. Although probably the largest reason is that most animals don't even attempt to mate outside their species. Among plants, which are the bar sluts of the animal world and willing to mate with any pollen that comes along, inter-generic and inter-familial hybrids are far more common. Which gives us a great opportunity to see evolution in progress and new species being created. It shows that crossbreeding of even extremely distant relations is possible, even if it is (relatively) rare.

 http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/mec.12005/abstract

 

By now, I'm sure you have changed the definition of "kinds" once again. "But yeah, but what about reptiles and mammals- you could never get a mammal from a reptile!" Oh yeah? Meet the Saiphos Equalis, a skink which is currently transitioning from laying eggs to a live birth system very similar to mammals.

 

http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/jmor.10877/abstract;jsessionid=B7666761E2EBEC658C4B47DD712EB3C0.d02t01

 

And I will raise you one more. One animal species has figured out how to mate with plants and has actually crossed kingdoms to become the first animal/plant hybrid known to exist (assuming you don't consider plants crossed with bacterium in labs to be such a hybrid, which it technically is but yeah it is created by us rather than naturally occuring.) 

 

Say hello to the Elysia Chlorotica AKA green sea slug.  

http://www.wired.com/2010/01/green-sea-slug/

This fellow figured out how to mate with plants and steal their dna, which it actually passes on to its offspring. They are born with the ability to survive on photosynthesis. They literally don't need to eat as long as they get sunlight because they are half plant.   

 

The one thing that modern genetics has taught us is that genetic change happens much more rapidly than early evolution theory predicted and the categories we arbitrarily through species into based mostly upon their looks are not a very accurate way to categorize. It happens through random changes, it happens through environmental stress and it can even occur through external sources like bacteria. Wolbachia is a good example of a parasite that has radically transformed the genetics of modern day insects.

http://www.nature.com/hdy/journal/v99/n3/full/6800994a.html 

 

You probably have a bunch of parasites living inside you as well, and really, we don't know if any of them have similar abilities to actually affect our genetics.

 

All these things that you scoff at as absurd because they require too much "luck" have real world examples that we have observed in the last 100 years- mostly in the last 20 years- a mere snapshot of the time that life has been evolving. Speciation isn't rare at all, change isn't rare. It happens more slowly in species that have few offspring and long lives, because the rate of change is mostly determined by the rate of turnover within the species. So yeah, we are unlikely to see any major changes in humans during our lives because we will be dead before the changes are obvious and with the size and amount of crossbreeding in our population. (Although, it is important to note that we have observed many small changes over just a few generations and going back several generations, we see we are very different from our ancestors in biblical times- perhaps different enough to be considered a different species- more on that next post.) 

 

One case, of a small groups of mice transported from Europe to Madeira 600 years ago has led to six different species that can't interbreed. The new species have anywhere from 22-30 chromosomes, the original had 40.  http://www.abc.net.au/science/articles/2010/03/10/2820949.htm

 

To believe that it doesn't happen in humans, you have to believe that our reproductive systems work differently than every other animal on the planet. Which it doesn't. No doubt, when we get past our foolish notion of leaving isolated tribes isolated and genetically test them to discover that they have experienced significant genetic deviation from us- perhaps even fused chromosomes or maybe otherwise a genetically isolated species from us- you bible thumper types will come up with a new line to studiously avoid reality. There is no ignorance like willful ignorance.

  

 

If, if a white man puts his arm around me voluntarily, that's brotherhood. But if you - if you hold a gun on him and make him embrace me and pretend to be friendly or brotherly toward me, then that's not brotherhood, that's hypocrisy.- Malcolm X


Beyond Saving
atheist
Beyond Saving's picture
Posts: 5448
Joined: 2007-10-12
User is offlineOffline
It's a rainy shitty day so I will do the heavy lifting

 

Caposkia wrote:

What you say makes a lot of sense...

Of course it does. When you draw conclusions that logically follow from observable evidence, it makes sense. When you make up random hypotheses that bear no relation to observable evidence, it often doesn't make sense. 

 

 

Caposkia wrote:

Anyway, even you had to admit extreme circumstances in the human animal for that change to be successful.  I see you have faith in the idea that because it is observed in populatinos that produce much quicker that makes it more possible that it happened with humans.  The only issue I have with that, is the populatinos that reproduce quicker would likely have much better odds of finding another of the same because so many reproduce so quickly.  Humans ultimately became humans because of a lucky hit somewhere in history, is that what you're basically saying?

 

Which is why populations that breed faster have it happen very frequently, while in humans we believe it has only happened once so far. We are all who we are because of many lucky (or unlucky) hits in history. Of any one of our ancestors had sex with someone else, we would be someone else, for better or for worse. The conditions that early hominids lived in were ideal for rapid genetic change to occur. It isn't at all unlikely or really even lucky. It is just as likely or unlikely as the dozens of other genetic mutations that occurred.    

 

 

Caposkia wrote:

I find the isolation of people groups would make the odds even worse for this to succesfully happen.  even so, as we've also observed, the change in Chromosomes does not necessarily create a new species, but it can, which means we got even luckier.  Not only did we have to have the initial mating of the modified Chromosome carriers, but then there had to be a consistent progress through a long evolutionary process to make it actually work.  What are the odds of that?  

 

Exactly the same odds as any other species surviving, and that is why many species have not survived, including other hominids. And you "find" wrong. Isolation greatly increases genetic drift. That is absolutely proven. Small populations are more likely to be taken over by changes that affect breeding compatability. It is also supported by a basic understanding of statistics. Every single time a child is born, the odds of that child having a fused chromosome is approximately 1:1000. The size of the population it is born into is irrelevant. Every single time someone with a fused chromosome chooses a sexual partner, the odds are 1:1,000,000 their partner also has a fused chromosome. Regardless of how large or small the population they live in is. The sample size has no effect on the odds when the number of mutations within that sample size is unknown. Where the population size has a huge effect on the odds, is when you know you have two people with fused chromosomes. 

 

If the population is 10 people and two of them have fused chromosomes, they make up 20% of the population. When they have a baby, suddenly those with fewer chromosomes make up 27% of the population. In such a small group, the number of people who are capable of breeding is going to be rather small and it is quite probable that all the children born come from one or two couples and the offspring of those couples. In that case, once the initial 1:1,000,000 odds are hit, it is extremely probable that the mutation is going to become prevalent inside that group and eventually push out the line that doesn't have the mutation. Obviously, in a much larger group, any line that has problems breeding outside of their line is much more likely to become irrelevant and die out, because it will never make up a significant percentage of the population.      

 

The larger genetic diversity in large societies and cross breeding between historically isolated social groups, is why humans have evolved much faster over the last 5,000 years than we have over the last million (percentage wise, we are more different from humans 5,000 years ago than our ancestors were from Neanderthals), but the mutations in our genetics that have been successful have not been the type that cause isolation like in the past and if you could travel back in time, you could probably get Helen of Troy pregnant. Our population is so large and intermingled that genetic changes that cause isolation have a very small chance of surviving past a generation or two. Genetic changes that don't effect the ability to have children however, spread rather quickly- such as a tolerance to lactose. Genetic changes that are "positive" (increase your odds of surviving) spread really fast, such as those that increase resistance to diseases, which account for the majority of genetic changes between us and our most recent ancestors.       

 

If, if a white man puts his arm around me voluntarily, that's brotherhood. But if you - if you hold a gun on him and make him embrace me and pretend to be friendly or brotherly toward me, then that's not brotherhood, that's hypocrisy.- Malcolm X


Beyond Saving
atheist
Beyond Saving's picture
Posts: 5448
Joined: 2007-10-12
User is offlineOffline
Caposkia wrote:if I remember

Caposkia wrote:

if I remember correctly, he pointed out a specific area where a dramatic flood had happened... Granted he claims the layers above that were less than 6000 years old, but there was still evidence of a flood.  Not THEE flood, but a flood to a great magnitude from what I could tell.  

 

http://www.answersingenesis.org/articles/am/v2/n4/geologic-evidences-part-one

 

The basis of his entire argument is that the idea that rock formations are hundreds of millions of years old is "impossible" and that they could only be formed by a single massive flood. It is not recognized as evidence of ANY flood by most geologists. 

 

Caposkia wrote:

Let's forget this YEC's claim then.  He's not the only one claiming a flood to the magnitude of Noah's time could happen, see:  Discover

It not only addresses another location with the evidence, but addresses the grand canyon as well like the YEC.  Regardless of what he believed about the age of the rocks, the evidence of such drastic flood are there in history.

 

Yes, there is evidence of drastic floods. I have never doubted that. All it does is show that if there had been a bigger flood, we would expect to see similar evidence of it. A large flood in a portion of the world where there weren't even humans doesn't even help your theory that it was a large flood localized where every human in the world was since in locations where we know our ancestors were 2-3 million years ago, there is no similar evidence of similar massive flooding, let alone the significantly larger flood suggested in the bible. 

  

 

Caposkia wrote:

what of the sources?  AIG didn't write that on their own.  

 

No, they didn't. And if you read their writing, every time they refer to a source they call the conclusions drawn by the real scientists "ridiculous" and "impossible". The sources they site don't support their rantings. You would be far better off reading the sources because they at least have logical conclusions stemming from an examination of the available evidence. 

 

 

Caposkia wrote:

how are we aware of when wine skins were invented?  

 

Because you can't just take dried rawhide (the earliest leather used for clothing) and put a liquid in it. It won't work. Go ahead, buy some rawhide and try it, see what happens. In order to make bags capable of carrying liquid, you have to tan the hide first. Tanning is a relatively complex process which requires fine tools and some knowledge of chemicals. It is something that is typically discovered in conjunction with animal husbandry when people settle down into villages and start raising their food rather than just hunting it. Ancient methods of tanning took several months. Additionally, once you tan the hide, you have to have a method to shape the leather and sew it into the shape you want. That means metal knives and needles, you aren't doing it with stone. The earliest culture known to discover tanning was in Mehrgahr (modern day Pakistan along the India border) who discovered tanning sometime between 7500 and 5500 BC. 

http://books.google.com/books?id=GXzycd3dT9kC&pg=PA128#v=onepage&q&f=false

Evidence of using leather to carry liquids doesn't come around until the Egyptians and it was the Greeks who first created the wineskin. 

 

Caposkia wrote:

Also is there evidences of certain cultures discovering something, losing that discovery and other cultures later rediscovering it?  

 

Nowhere near to the extent you have suggested. Technological advancement tends to follow similar, and rather linear, paths since certain inventions/discoveries are required before others can even be possible (for example, until you have containers for storage and practice farming excess food you will never discover alcohol) We can compare cultures that were completely seperated and see the similar paths they take. What you have suggested is that a culture existed that was literally millions of years more advanced than anyone else, but didn't leave a shred of evidence. The reason why there is significantly more archaeological evidence from 20,000 BC on, is because that was the time period where humans really started farming and settling into areas for extended periods of time. As soon as you do that, it dramatically increases the rate of technological advancement and leads to a significantly higher level of traces left behind. If you are going to suggest that some culture in 2 million BC was that advanced, you might as well suggest that they had airplanes, spaceships and nuclear bombs, it wouldn't be any less absurd. 

 

Caposkia wrote:

Trying to brew it in wineskin is impractical.. unless that's all you've got.  It seems a bit strange to me that the discovery of wine making came into play after clay pots were invented.  I'd also be under the impression that wine making was discovered by accident when trying to (possibly impractically) store grapes or grape juice.  If that discovery happened long before clay pots, it's even harder for me to believe that people said; 'awe screw it, we don't have the means to be doing this'.

Why is it strange that wine making was discovered after clay pots? Discovering clay pots is easy. All you need is opposable thumbs, fire and mud. Then you just have to notice that the mud next to your fire is getting really hard. So you make a shape out of the mud, throw it by the fire and shazaam, you just invented pottery. It doesn't take much longer to figure out that some mud is better than others and to discover that a bowl/pot shape is pretty damn useful. You have a vessel that is fairly durable, waterproof and portable- no tools needed. Hell, put a kid at a beach with decent clay and they are going to be making all sorts of shapes out of it for fun without any prompting. The only step you really have to figure out is heating it. 

 

Making wine is a lot harder and so is making tanned leather, which is why every civilization we have ever researched created clay and ceramics thousands of years before wine, tanned leather or really any other technology with the possible exception of stone axes/hammers/crude spear points. Clay pots are virtually a prerequisite to the technological advances associated with becoming a civilization. Strange is to believe that humans discovered alcohol before they invented a means to store it, since long term storage is a requirement to create alcohol.    

 

 

Caposkia wrote:

every single writing during that time from any source that tried to portray a history and was not writing about current events.  AS far as ancients were concerned, historical people were using or donig the same things they were.  I don't have specific titles or links, but I remember going through many docmuments on the subject not connected to the bible.  

Name one. I tried googling it and I couldn't find anything. The history I have read that comes from the biblical era has been from the Romans or from the Chinese (I went through a phase where I was fascinated by Chinese history) and neither of them edited their history in that way. 

 

 

Caposkia wrote:

yes in theory.  It would be likened to the channeling of moisture kind of like El Nino.  where it would constantly suck moisture from tropical locations and drop it in the cooler climate.  There would have to be a dramatic shift in the jet streams and a convergence over a specific location for such a dramatic flood to occur, but it is theoretically possible.   

 

Are there any credible meteorologists who have posited that it is theoretically possible? 

 

 

Caposkia wrote:

Lets look at it from an observable standpoint... I'm not saying it happened this way, but this might put it into perspective... Think of one moderately strong hurricane and how much flooding occurs just from the rain falling from it...  now imagine a chain of those moderately strong hurricanes being channeled to the same location so they drop constant rain for 40 days.   Each previous hurricane would wind down over several days, but there'd be an equally strong hurricane to follow up.   What kind of flooding do you think we'd see if that happened?  I think there would be very little left in the wake.  Depending on the elevations and proximities, it could take even less than those to wipe out life... consider Katrina and New Orleans... that was just one storm.  

 

Somehow I doubt any meteorologist would agree that is possible. Do you have any sources at all? (Preferably meteorologists who are actually respected and credited with advancing their field. Not kooks who never write in peer reviewed journals and have no research that they allow their peers to see, like your favorite geologist and so-called quantum physicist Gotswami)

 

 

Caposkia wrote:

no, you're not a fucking idiot, you just don't think sometimes  The point here is, we have never observed a Noah like flood, so we have to go with what we have.  The fact that such a dramatic amount of rain could fall over a 24 hour period of time opens doors to the possibility that such a rainfall could last longer if that particular weather pattern did not change.  

 

No it doesn't. That is like saying hurricane force winds is proof that 200 mph winds could be sustained for 40 days when we know for a fact that once a hurricane makes landfall it loses its power in a predictable manner and the winds die down. Or saying that because Usain Bolt has been clocked running 27 mph that he can run to a store a mile away and back in less than 5 minutes. 

 

Proof that something can occur short term is not at all evidence it could be sustained long term and even though I am ignorant of meteorology, even I know that all weather patterns have a finite amount of energy that is expended at a more or less predictable rate. A quick check of rainfall records on wiki confirms that the record for rain over one minute is an exponentially higher rate than the record for an hour, which is an exponentially higher rate than the record for 24 hours, which is exponentially higher than the record for a week etc. which creates an exponential curve, not a linear one. It is absolutely insulting to my intelligence that you think I would believe a short term measure of the intensity of anything is proof that it could be sustained long term. And then when I call you out on such utterly blatant bullshit to suggest I'm not the one thinking? 

 

Caposkia wrote:

Other factors involved are convections and how strong they are... the stronger the convections, the more rain can be held in the atmosphere before dropping it.  If a weather pattern stalls (which we have observed many times even in our lifetimes)  the same thing will keep happening... maybe not even stopping.   The floods and droughts we observe today are in some instances casued by such a stall in the jet stream.  either it stalls too far to teh north or south and leaves a place without rain for extended periods of time, or it stalls over a particular place channeling storm after storm into the same location causing flooding.  

And yet it has never produced anything even approaching Noah's flood, so obviously a stall in the jet stream is not enough.  

If, if a white man puts his arm around me voluntarily, that's brotherhood. But if you - if you hold a gun on him and make him embrace me and pretend to be friendly or brotherly toward me, then that's not brotherhood, that's hypocrisy.- Malcolm X


Jabberwocky
atheist
Posts: 411
Joined: 2012-04-21
User is offlineOffline
caposkia wrote:Jabberwocky

caposkia wrote:

Jabberwocky wrote:

Once again, you misunderstand what a scientific theory is. You seem to think that biology is on some ridiculous shaky foundation. It's not. The theory of evolution is demonstrable in a lab. The theory of evolution has predictive power. The theory of evolution explains a number of things that creationism can not (vestigial organs, geographic distribution) and explains far BETTER things that creationism does a poor job of explaining (homology between organisms for example). Don't you even imply that creationism has to be proved wrong. It already is. From a scientific standpoint, it is a non-starter. Unfortunately, even if you believe that "truth" and "facts" are separable, you're wrong. The theory of evolution does a more than sufficient job of explaining the diversity of life (ALL of it, not just some of the most similar bits) and creationism explains nothing. Creationism + a global flood introduces giant problems (geographic distrubution, the complete lack of marsupial fossils between biblical-ish locations and Australia)

Creationism explains how things got started... evolution doesn't, it explains how things progress.  The problem does not lie in proving evolution, it's proving darwinism.  The question isn't do things evolve, it's how far does that evolution really go?  

I must split this to address this point individually. To begin with your first sentence(ish), evolution never claims to explain how things got started. That lies in other scientific fields. Creationism doesn't explain it either. It asserts it without any supporting evidence. Evolution doesn't tackle it because it's not equipped to, and doesn't claim to. On average, evolutionary biologists probably know more about abiogenesis than the average layperson, but they are certainly not deemed experts at it. So, to your next bit, proving evolution vs. proving darwinism...

The point here is that nobody has ever demonstrated that there is a limit, or a cutoff to how far it WILL go. Nobody has ever shown that genes all of a sudden stop changing. They mutate. Copying errors happen. Based on rate of genetic change that we can measure, the conclusion is that us and chimpanzees 100% could have evolved from a common ancestor. There is no odd bump in that road that is unexplainable. It is also proven that even further back a common ancestor between us and all of the other great apes, and further still, the other primates is possible as well. It is proven that a common ancestor between us and all other animals is possible. It is proven that a common ancestor between all animals, plants, AND fungii could have existed as well. No geneticist, not even a creationist one, has EVER proven that this can not happen. Isn't this puzzling, considering that creationists want so SO badly to find this? 

As far as proving evolution vs. proving darwinism, the only difference is time. More time = more change (although the rate of change does vary depending on selection pressures driven by environment). As I said in the above paragraph, we have seen that there is nothing to suggest that there is a limit to this rate of change. So what is it that prevents you from accepting this? Is it a lack of time? Do you believe that there is indeed a limit on genetic change regardless of large quantities of time (even though nobody has ever demonstrated this)? Or is it some third option I can't see at the moment? 

caposkia wrote:

I love how you try and use scientific theory against me here.  It is also interesting how you see what i bring up putting biology on a shaky foundation.  I merely bring up the reasons why its' still a theory and not scientific fact.  There are parts that we just don't have evidence for to really drive the theory home.  

I don't see it as having a shaky foundation. It appears to me that you do. You mention that it's not a scientific fact. This shows your misunderstanding. Let me list some facts. 

- No fossil has EVER been located that puzzled the scientific community as to its location in a geological column, or its location geographically

- In modern times, many previously undiscovered fossils have been found that were similar to expectations based on data we already had

- Geographic distribution of living organisms and fossils suggest that a gradual change over time has occurred

- Study of DNA and genes in general (a more recent ability we now have) has agreed 100% with all assumptions of universal common descent.

- Dating by the study of DNA has shown similar dates to dates by geologists.

- No feature has ever been located in DNA that prevents change from occurring indefinitely.

Every time a new discovery is made, it is another piece of evidence in favour of evolution, and common descent among all life on Earth. I am not saying this as a dogma. I am just saying that every time new evidence is uncovered, it fits with the explanation given. This explanation is "the theory of evolution". Could you find me any evidence in genetics that disproves this? Could you find me any evidence in the fossil record that is out of place either geographically or geologically? Could you come up with any other potential issues that could disprove the theory? Because until then, all evidence that we find just so happens to fit in with the theory of evolution. In fact, the theory of evolution in its entirety is the ONLY explanation that has been shown to work to explain what we find. The details of how we know this are very very specific, and come from several fields of science. Until you can come up with an actual competing theory that is supported by this many fields of science, and can make specific predictions, you are just saying random crap. Either address one of my points that would actually disprove evolution, or present your own specifically, get me to agree with it, and demonstrate to me something that would disprove it. That's all you need to do. 

caposkia wrote:

jabberwocky wrote:

That's not what I fucking said! Not even close! Where did I say that two animals of varying genuses (Genii?) cross-breed? Group X reproduces (I'll use a letter for the parent group). Group X has descendants in groups 1, 2 & 3. Groups 1, 2 & 3 are geographically isolated. A scientist takes them into a lab. Group 2 can produce offspring with groups 1 & 3. Groups 1 & 3 can not produce offspring. This much has been demonstrated in a lab. The reason for the reproductive incompatibility is because the genes between groups 1 & 3 have varied too far from one another (even though they share a common ancestor). What prevents from the genes getting even MORE different from one another in the descendants of groups 1 & 3? The genes changed enough to be reproductively incompatible. There is no mechanism known that prevents the genes from changing indefinitely given enough time. If you concede speciation (which can be shown in a lab, and occurs due to gene variation), what prevents further gene change? 

But I got exactly what I wanted out of you here... 

now, hoestly I want to research it a bit.  Do you have any links that show the evidence in life of group 2 mating and reproducing with 1 and 3?  I mean cross genus... there would have to be a inter-genus group right?  

I'm talking simply speciation here to begin with. Once a speciation event occurs, two animals can no longer produce fertile offspring generally, but since it's a gradual process, there are exceptions. Reproductive incompatibility between two animals with a common ancestor is caused by too much variation in the genes of 2 separate lineages of the ancestor in question. The genes just vary more and more, until they're too different to produce fertile offspring anymore. Once they vary more still, they are unable to produce offspring at all. Then, they can vary more, and more, and more. Eventually, they can vary to the point where they will be considered of a separate genus, but this is far after the speciation event. I'll attempt to find some links later. But to clarify in biology, two animals that can produce fertile offspring consistently are considered to be of the same species. Horses and donkeys can produce offspring across the species gap, however, they're almost always sterile. They belong to a separate species, but the same genus. The ability for animals to produce offspring across a gap of species depends on genetic compatibility, and this gets far more complex than just throwing out a percentage of gene similarity. 

Regardless of a model with 3 groups, the truth is that even with a model of 2 groups, speciation events occur because the genes of two lineages from one common ancestor have diverged too far. What prevents them from diverging further?

caposkia wrote:

jabberywocky wrote:

Fair enough. I'm glad you're not trying to bite off more than you can chew. However, a biologist will tell you what allows two animals to produce fertile offspring. A biologist will tell you what allows two animals to produce sterile offspring. A biologist will tell you what allows two animals to be reproductively incompatible. A biologist will tell you this in precise detail. They will tell you what has to be compatible genetically. They will tell you how much genes can change from generation to generation. They will measure how selection pressures will vary the change. They will tell you how this change can increase with a change in environment (which severely changes selection pressures). They will not cite one book and say "well this is right, because it says so."

that's because they're experts in their field.  In my strengths I don't need to reference books either.  My issue is I have yet to see the missing links.  No one has been able to show them to me yet.  Those would be the transitional groups mating and creating with both sides on the genus level.  

This description of missing links shows me that you don't seem to understand the way this works. If humans and chimps had a common ancestor, there isn't one single intermediary. There is no point where one species becomes another, as every offspring is the same species as its parent. Much like if you look at a rainbow, it's not possible to say at which point one colour becomes another. The names of colours are just arbitrary points. However, in biology, it's as if we have something quite reddish, and something quite blu-ish, but nothing really distinctly purple in most cases. In rarer cases, it's as if we have some royal blue and some blu-ish red, and they can produce these sterile offspring (such as mules). The point is, though, that the only reason we are able to classify species is because the indermediaries have died off. There is no instant at birth where one species simply births another. If we were able to go back in time, we would be able to attempt to mate one generation further and further back until we found the point where most humans were no longer reproductively compatible with an ancestor. However, we can't travel back in time, and I don't believe that anybody would be willing to participate even if time travel were possible (eww...sorry, haha)

caposkia wrote:

Jabberwocky wrote:

I don't mean how life got spread out when I mention geographic distribution. I mean why everything is distributed in the manner it is? Why are the marsupials exclusively in Australia? How did they get there after the catastrophe? I don't think there is any good explanation for these sorts of things under creationism. 

The Bill Nye/Ken Ham debate covered this topic well. Under creationism you are stuck in a situation where you can't fit all of the animals onto the ark. If you reduce the number of animals and state that the rest "micro-evolved", then evolution would have to occur faster and more drastically than creationist say it possibly could (and also several orders of magnitude quicker than anything we have ever observed). I think the numbers used would make for 11 new species every single day. The math doesn't work. 

that problem is only for the YEC's.  

also, Creationism just like evolution never claimed to have all the answers.  There are some things we just don't know.  Migrational patterns and geological events along with weather patterns and food supplies have a part in all distribution patterns.  I'm sure if I did some homework on marsupials in Australia, there would be some event or chain of events in Earth history that directed them to that location and allowed them to get there.  

On your first point, it's still a problem for you. The math Bill Nye did had 11 new species every day. So that would be 36865 new species a year. If you do the math from a flood 4000 years ago to one 2 million years ago as you posit, that's 73.73 (so almost 74) new species a year. This is simply not a rate of speciation that we observe. This is to believe that evolution occurs FAR quicker than non-creationists do. We know this does not happen right now. If you posit that it happened quicker before, then you're positing an EVEN quicker rate of speciation. Your position here is still scientifically absurd, just less so by a few orders of magnitude than Ken Ham's. Also, that's if you agree with Ham that a "kind" is more on the family level. Even if it is at the family level, there is no way the Ark could have held all of the mammals, birds, insects, aquariums full of fish (fresh-water+salt-water mix = bad for all involved here), reptiles, amphibians, etc. etc., If you put it at the genus level, this problem becomes several orders of magnitude bigger. 

So you either have to posit evolution occurring at what seems to be beyond an impossible rate, or you have to posit cramming an impossible number of animals onto a wooden boat. 

The event or chain of events that caused marsupials to end up in Australia is that they evolved there, or near there. The separation of Pangaea is likely responsible for their geographic isolation which made way for the evolution of the variety of marsupials we see today.

caposkia wrote:

jabberwocky wrote:

Maybe I was unclear in my post (although I think it was pretty clear). I just gave you a free pass on how all of the animals were coralled onto the thing. I wanted the rest of it answered still. Let's ask again:

The fertility problem doesn't necessarily occur with all chromosome fusions. http://pandasthumb.org/archives/2009/02/the-rise-of-hum-1.html

The above link describes testable examples of that. Now, would you address any of the points I made above? Let me re-iterate them in list form. 

Are all Australopithecines either human or ape? Or are the fossils thought by biologists to be links divided elsewhere? So that you don't have to root through a bunch, let's go one by one. Answer this here: Is Australopithecus Afarensis a human fossil, or an ape fossil (Assuming you disagree that humans are apes)?

It is categorized as Hominidae or Great Ape family so no despite their upright walk.

I just asked you if it's human or ape, and you answered "no". I assume, though, that you mean that Australopithecus Afarensis is not human because it is classified as a great ape? Or did I misunderstand what you meant?

caposkia wrote:

jabberwocky wrote:

How come every time we DO find a fossil, it's nothing that is far removed from what we expected to find when it came to fossils we haven't found anything similar to?

because evolution is predictable.  Nothing has shown proof of darwinism.  

There is no difference between the two. Those who make the predictions are almost exclusively those who accept darwinism. Although I have to say I would prefer to use the term "universal common descent" or something of that sort. Not because I'm necessarily adverse to the term darwinism, but because it is a term that is often later used to attempt to conflate biological theory with things that are awful such as eugenics, and the idea of social darwinism. 

caposkia wrote:

jabberwocky wrote:

Regarding chromosome 2, the time between what I believe to be our common ancestor with chimps will easily account for discrepancies in the chromosome. Why is so much of it similar? Not to mention the rest of our genome?

 

All made by the same creator, why would they be more different?  

Because even a creator of a car only uses the same parts over multiple models if it makes some sense! A car company has things to think about such as financial viability, assembly lines, parts supplying, etc. If they can design all of their cars to use the same door handles, they'll damn well try to. Most car companies have a range of engines, and they put them into many models of their cars. If funds were limitless, they would not do that. They would custom make each engine for each type or at least size of car, in order to provide the best balance of power, fuel economy, smoothness, etc. Are you suggesting that god had a resource or economy problem? 

 

Theists - If your god is omnipotent, remember the following: He (or she) has the cure for cancer, but won't tell us what it is.


caposkia
Theist
Posts: 2701
Joined: 2007-05-15
User is offlineOffline
Jabberwocky wrote:caposkia

Jabberwocky wrote:

caposkia wrote:

I know what Theory is.. I'm pretty sure we've covered it long ago... or if not directly with you, on a few threads you were involved in.

caposkia wrote:

I merely bring up the reasons why its' still a theory and not scientific fact.

Ok. Unless you quit being dishonest, I will stop answering you completely (and I understand I'm not the first one to do so). You have just blatantly demonstrated that you have absolutely NO interest in being honest and coherent in your discussions. These above two quotes occur in back to back posts. You clearly do not know what the definition of "theory" is in a scientific discussion. Under your worldview, isn't such blatant dishonesty sinful? If so, why do you engage in it?

 

I happen to agree with this definition... so how is that being dishonest?... and when have you started answering me completely?   Stop with the excuses.  Anyone can claim anyone's dishonest when they don't want to agree, but show me how I'm being dishonest.

a coherent group of tested general propositions, commonly regarded as correct, that can be used asprinciples of explanation and prediction for a class of phenomena: 


caposkia
Theist
Posts: 2701
Joined: 2007-05-15
User is offlineOffline
Vastet wrote: If any choice

Vastet wrote:
If any choice can be imperfect then choice itself is imperfect.

If every choice could NOT be imperfect, then choice itself is imperfect... Perfection includes all abilities, including the ability to do wrong.  Also choice and judgement are 2 different things.  People make choices based on bad judgement... does that make the choice imperfect or the judgement imperfect?

Vastet wrote:

 Choice already has drastic limitations, so by my argument AND your own, choice is imperfect.

like?

Vastet wrote:

 

caposkia wrote:
He has given US the responsibility for our actions.
Oh wonderful. So if I kill you I can give you responsibility for it. Responsibility cannot be handed off at a whim. If there's a god, and that god created everything and knows everything, then that god is responsible for everything. Period.

yet you're handing responsibilty to God.  

I said He has given US responsibility for OUR actions... in other words, if you kill me, the action was yours not mine, you cannot hand of your responsibility on me.  God did not make you kill me, you chose it yourself, so you cannot hand that responsibility off on God.  

Vastet wrote:

Too bad for you that evolution is evolution, and every life form that ever existed is a demonstration of it. You don't know what qualifies a genus in the first place so you're in no position to say there are no examples of a genus evolving into another. If you did know then you'd never claim there were no examples, since you'd know that it takes more than one generation before a new genus can evolve in the first place, and therefore there cannot be any examples. You creationists think a duck should pop out a crocodile all of a sudden if evolution were true. Problem is it doesn't work that way.   

Really, you brought in crocoduck. lol... wow.

ok, anyway, so you're telling me there are examples of genus evolving into other genus it seems... show me a link.  I am curious to learn about it.

...and just to put it in context, we creationists blamed you atheists for believing in crocoduck.

Vastet wrote:

 

caposkia wrote:
 Now would I be just as out of line as you were to claim this merely proves your ignorance?
You can say whatever you like, but only you are demonstrating ignorance.

so claiming someone elses ignorance demonstrates ignorance... I'm glad you're willing to admit that.

Vastet wrote:

 No I don't. You made the metaphor. I just fixed it so it would fit with reality as best it could.

see, stretching... Question, how do you know what you think is true really is true?  Do you take reality and assume the rest or do you empirically decide it all?  be honest.

Vastet wrote:

Except the roads do show signs of use. There are oil spots and tire fragments everywhere, and the roads have been demonstrably worn by traffic.

ok, so you're progressively making your metaphor work... so let's now apply that to the point... where are your tracks on the broken roads of evolution?

Vastet wrote:

caposkia wrote:
precisely... and that belief takes more faith than the God following
No it doesn't.

Well, that's easy to say now isn't it... but it does.  

Vastet wrote:
Problem is that theist evidence isn't evidence. You can't point at anything and quantify why it is evidence for a god. Meanwhile all the evidence for evolution is non-contradictory and fits together perfectly. The evidence that would convince you is impossible, because you don't want evidence for evolution. You want a turtle giving birth to an eagle. But that isn't evolution. So you'll never have it.

uh... I think you're really losing focus on my position of evolution.. it is my take that you want a turtle giving birth to an eagle, but just as you said, that's not evolution.  Moreso, you want to believe that I accept that twisted perspective.  Again, I have no problem with evolution, it's the origins I have an issue with.... and there are no paths or even broken twigs at this point to suggest the origins are as assumed by darwinists.  

I also take the position that "the evidence that would convince you is impossible, because you don't want evidence for"  God.  The thing is, you're wrong about me... I hope I'm wrong about you.... but I fear I might not be.  Please tell me I'm wrong about you honestly.


caposkia
Theist
Posts: 2701
Joined: 2007-05-15
User is offlineOffline
Jabberwocky wrote:I will

Jabberwocky wrote:

I will respond here, but heed my advice and stop being dishonest. When people tell you things such as I did regarding what a scientific theory is, don't continue asserting what we know is incorrect. 

there's a difference between being dishonest and misunderstanding.  Your dramatic conclusions to directly accuse me of being dishonest are quite suspect to your intentions on this thread with me.

Jabberwocky wrote:

It might be dumb luck. It may have been a small difference as well that was then selected for. Also, it has been proven that our species went through a bottleneck and was nearly extinct at one point, which was the driver behind our exit from the desert climate where we had our lowly beginning. Now, irregularities in chromosomes happen quite frequently. Downs syndrome is one. Another is the extra copying of a sex chromosome, with possibilities of XXX chromosomed women, and both XXY and XYY men. XXY is the one with the most noticeable irregularities compared to those with 2 sex chromosomes. Occasionally more serious disorders can occur as the result of the translocation, but overwhelmingly, the differences are minor (a taller average height that only begins to show after puberty for instance). 

Now do we have to assume that either a small favoured trait or just dumb luck allowed the 46 chromosome humans to win? Sure. However, that is a safe assumption since we are here. You can look at it as a lottery. If you were to win the lottery, it would seem so very unlikely, and indeed it is. However, if the odds of winning are 1 in 13 million, and 15 million people play the thing, it's very likely that SOMEONE will win. While this particular occurrence (of homo-sapiens in their current form) may be statistically improbable on its own, it's important to remember that there is nothing special about our species in the grand scheme of things. This result may be unlikely, but every other result was equally unlikely as well. It just is what it is. 

yet none of what you said gives me doubt that there could be a God behind any of that.  is it the erronius DNA problems throughout history that give you the doubts?  I believe God put the wheels in motion and that all choices evolve either successfully or unsuccessfully.  

jabberwocky wrote:

What consistency among all species make the evidence skim?

the consistent lack of evidence on how the Chromosomal changes actually allowed the transformation of the species and didn't hurt them.

Addressed above

right, but that still doesn't bring any further closure to the core problem of God or no God.  To me honestly, it looks like you're reasoning your way through it... sure it could be this, but it's possible because... I don't mean this as sarcastic or snobby, it just doesn't show me why God could not have been behind it.  

Jabberwocky wrote:

When the hell were we discussing Einstein's opinion on creation? I was talking about his theory and how it suppplemented/superseded what Newton said (and was deemed correct for a very long time!)

I was just pointing out the difference in opinion you and Einstein have on the complexity of the Universe.  

Jabberwocky wrote:

They are wired backwards that the wiring is literally in the way of what we see. Our eye DOES see upside down, and our brain merely fixes it because it's easier than living upside down. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Perceptual_adaptation Tested with glasses. Our brain is capable of this.

So from that you want to go with; "our brain merely fixes it because it's easier than living upside down"?

Jabberwocky wrote:

So you're saying that god couldn't have designed separate things for this? Hell, birds only have one waste function. Imagine if all of that was relegated to one place, with the sex organs reserved for sex? That would be objectively better in every way.

S

in one perspective... but in another it just opens up more places for infection and other issues to occur.  Objectively better in one way, objectively worse in others.  I can come up wtih logical arguements to design a package deal like we have and for a separate unit for both purposes.  It makes more sense to me to combine it.  Simply, stuff goes in the top, out the bottom.  Though I'm curious as to where it would be better for women to give birth from.

Jabberwocky wrote:

We don't have sex just because we want children. Some people do, but overwhelmingly the reason people have sex is because they're horny. Of course, our level of horniness increases instances of sex, which is what makes for pro-creation. Once again, I repeat. Sex is not FOR pro-creation. It simply causes procreation. We do it because it's simply fantastic. A horny couple who don't like protection or contraception are more likely to have more children than those who aren't horny. The first animals that had sex didn't have the luxury of knowing that it was needed to propogate the species. They merely had to be compelled to. 

basically with your final statement you make my point, Sex IS for procreation and you cannot empirically prove otherwise.  Science proves this statement... the purpose of the horniness, attraction, pleasure is so the species will continue to exist, nothing more.  We have made it more than it is, but only with technology to prevent it's sole purpose.  Without that technology, people would procreate.  

jabberwocky wrote:

What about all of the other chromosomal similarities between us?

what about them?  Would a creator not use some of the same tools for different jobs?

Jabberwocky wrote:

Also, I have another tip for any creationist who refuses to believe that we have a common ancestor with chimpanzees. Major in genetics. Just do it. Major in it, and take a bunch of other creationists with you. Young earthers, old earthers, ones with malleable and ultimately unidentifiable beliefs like Caposkia, and become powerhouses in the field of genetics. Then whether or not you believe that there was millions of years for us and chimps to evolve from a common ancestor, find out the answer to the following: IF the millions of years were available, is it possible that these 2 species shared a common ancestor? I guarantee you that if they're honest, the answer will be yes, and if they're dishonest they may say inconclusive or unlikely. However, if it is actually impossible, that CAN be proven by examining genetics. Yet no creationist has ever even tried it.

well, as I've said a few times, we can always reason our way out of the truth...  the thing is, possible, inconclusive, unlikely... none of that proves anything.  No evolutionist has successfully connected the link.  Sure they'd be lying to say it's not possible with the information we have at this point... why? becasue we have no genetic proof of God and there is nothing to suggest that the commonalities couldn't evolve so dramatically other than the gaps...

You and I have empirically proved something here though... that genetics will not resolve the issue on this thread.  

jabberwocky wrote:

The whole article was highlighting the difference, and since they are young earthers, they don't allow for the possibility of the necessary change to go from an ancestral chromosome. They never even address that point. See the bold section above. 

They made a point that is logical in science regardless of time.  Neither side can prove that's how it was or wasn't, but it's still possible... again, more evidence that genetics will not resolve the issue here.


caposkia
Theist
Posts: 2701
Joined: 2007-05-15
User is offlineOffline
Jabberwocky wrote:caposkia

Jabberwocky wrote:

caposkia wrote:

 

Anyway, The point that the change is NEVER abrupt leads me further into doubt about those changes as described taking place... You're telling me they are never abrupt, which means the fusion likely happens over an extended period of time.... and we have NO actual physical proof of the transformation... not even a part of it... that to me is a problem for the theory.  

Are you deliberately trying to misunderstand this? The fusion isn't gradual. The fusion is a very specific detail. If you compare a human and a chimp chromosome, you can calculate roughly how many generations ago a common ancestor would have existed. By abrupt, I mean something like creationists typically look for (one "kind" giving birth to another "kind" where kinds are at LEAST at the genus level, and sometimes all the way up to the kingdom level in the most idiotic cases, like when Ray Comfort says "They're still bacteria!&quotEye-wink.

http://www.amnh.org/exhibitions/past-exhibitions/human-origins/understanding-our-past/dna-comparing-humans-and-chimps

Here is a little page with some information about DNA. It's very basic information, but if you read that, it says that there are about 35 million differences between human and chimpanzee base pairs. When talking of these 35 million differences, those 35 million diverged gradually. However, each single one of those 35 million changes had to happen abruptly. So if it's 6 million years, that's about 6 differences a year. If we take an age range for how long one generation was, and use a broad range like 15-35 years between each parent/child, you get between 90 and 210 differences in base pairs between parent and child. Even 210 out of 3 billion (roughly the number of base pairs that both us and chimps have total) certainly doesn't seem like a lot. All it takes is selection pressures to drive it a specific way.

 

Here is an exerpt from a different page on that same site.

Quote:

Tracing the Human-Chimp Ancestor

By comparing DNA sequences from humans and chimpanzees, experts calculated that the last human-chimp ancestor lived roughly six million years ago. Later, the discovery of a hominid fossil dating back six to seven million years supported this claim.

Why do you think that when geneticists run the math, they come up with the same numbers as geologists/archaeologists?

I want to read the link before posting a reply to this, but for some reason the link brought me to an "error page"... will you try to post it again?  


caposkia
Theist
Posts: 2701
Joined: 2007-05-15
User is offlineOffline
Beyond Saving wrote:Caposkia

Beyond Saving wrote:

Caposkia wrote:

But I got exactly what I wanted out of you here... 

 now, hoestly I want to research it a bit.  Do you have any links that show the evidence in life of group 2 mating and reproducing with 1 and 3?  I mean cross genus... there would have to be a inter-genus group right? 

 

No, there wouldn't have to be an inter-genus group. Most biologists believe that most species stem from ancestors who branched out to create new genus groups, in other words, they belonged to one genus and eventually became genetically isolated (unable to reproduce with any species other than their own) and from that point became so genetically dissimilar as to be classified as a different genus, family, order, class or even a new phylum. Ultimately, the categorizations are one of convenience rather than clear lines and changes occur in them quite often. One species that has recently been reclassified into a brand new phylum is the Xenoturbella http://www.wired.com/2011/02/new-phylum/

 

Regardless, it is certainly possible for intergeneric hybrids. Sheep and goats is a particularly common one. The cama (camel/llama) and wholphin (dolphin/whale) are other confirmed real life examples. There are also examples of inter-familial hybrids also exist such as the guineafowl. 

 

There are a few reasons why it becomes more rare as you move up the ladder- the more genetically dissimilar two species are, the less likely they are to be capable of interbreeding. Although probably the largest reason is that most animals don't even attempt to mate outside their species. Among plants, which are the bar sluts of the animal world and willing to mate with any pollen that comes along, inter-generic and inter-familial hybrids are far more common. Which gives us a great opportunity to see evolution in progress and new species being created. It shows that crossbreeding of even extremely distant relations is possible, even if it is (relatively) rare.

 http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/mec.12005/abstract

After checking the link and seeing that they originally miscategorized the Xenoturbella, and are now still presuming that it's "more likely" categorized correctly... and seeing that nothing you noted is definitive, but rather presumable, it's hard for me to see this as "evidence"

 

Beyond Saving wrote:

By now, I'm sure you have changed the definition of "kinds" once again. "But yeah, but what about reptiles and mammals- you could never get a mammal from a reptile!" Oh yeah? Meet the Saiphos Equalis, a skink which is currently transitioning from laying eggs to a live birth system very similar to mammals.

 

http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/jmor.10877/abstract;jsessionid=B7666761E2EBEC658C4B47DD712EB3C0.d02t01

not so sure about your claim of getting an animal from a reptile.. i think it would depend on their ancestry and what exactly evolved.  nothing here seems to be an issue.

except for maybe your goalpost shifting with the whole "Kind" thing again.  nice try, but I've said what I've said and i told you it was an assumption due to lack of a clear definition at the time.  

Beyond Saving wrote:

 

And I will raise you one more. One animal species has figured out how to mate with plants and has actually crossed kingdoms to become the first animal/plant hybrid known to exist (assuming you don't consider plants crossed with bacterium in labs to be such a hybrid, which it technically is but yeah it is created by us rather than naturally occuring.) 

 

Say hello to the Elysia Chlorotica AKA green sea slug.  

http://www.wired.com/2010/01/green-sea-slug/

This fellow figured out how to mate with plants and steal their dna, which it actually passes on to its offspring. They are born with the ability to survive on photosynthesis. They literally don't need to eat as long as they get sunlight because they are half plant.   

so manipulating DNA from a common source to create something new is evidence that God did not create it?

Beyond Saving wrote:

 

The one thing that modern genetics has taught us is that genetic change happens much more rapidly than early evolution theory predicted and the categories we arbitrarily through species into based mostly upon their looks are not a very accurate way to categorize. It happens through random changes, it happens through environmental stress and it can even occur through external sources like bacteria. Wolbachia is a good example of a parasite that has radically transformed the genetics of modern day insects.

http://www.nature.com/hdy/journal/v99/n3/full/6800994a.html 

 

You probably have a bunch of parasites living inside you as well, and really, we don't know if any of them have similar abilities to actually affect our genetics.

probably do.  I have no problem with the rapid changes of evolution... it makes sense that a creator would make a system able to rapidly adapt to changes as necessary.  

Beyond Saving wrote:

 

All these things that you scoff at as absurd because they require too much "luck" have real world examples that we have observed in the last 100 years- mostly in the last 20 years- a mere snapshot of the time that life has been evolving. Speciation isn't rare at all, change isn't rare. It happens more slowly in species that have few offspring and long lives, because the rate of change is mostly determined by the rate of turnover within the species. So yeah, we are unlikely to see any major changes in humans during our lives because we will be dead before the changes are obvious and with the size and amount of crossbreeding in our population. (Although, it is important to note that we have observed many small changes over just a few generations and going back several generations, we see we are very different from our ancestors in biblical times- perhaps different enough to be considered a different species- more on that next post.) 

 

One case, of a small groups of mice transported from Europe to Madeira 600 years ago has led to six different species that can't interbreed. The new species have anywhere from 22-30 chromosomes, the original had 40.  http://www.abc.net.au/science/articles/2010/03/10/2820949.htm

 

To believe that it doesn't happen in humans, you have to believe that our reproductive systems work differently than every other animal on the planet. Which it doesn't. No doubt, when we get past our foolish notion of leaving isolated tribes isolated and genetically test them to discover that they have experienced significant genetic deviation from us- perhaps even fused chromosomes or maybe otherwise a genetically isolated species from us- you bible thumper types will come up with a new line to studiously avoid reality. There is no ignorance like willful ignorance.

I know all of what you said seems to be evidence supporting your perspective, but none of what you said:

1. defined a clear peice of evidence that such interspecial evolution actually occurs

2. proved that God did not create any of it

3.  showed how origins started from one source specifically beyond speculation.  

if anything, I see reason to accept it as evolution doing its job and that things still originated at their Kinds.


caposkia
Theist
Posts: 2701
Joined: 2007-05-15
User is offlineOffline
Beyond Saving

Beyond Saving wrote:

 

Caposkia wrote:

What you say makes a lot of sense...

Of course it does. When you draw conclusions that logically follow from observable evidence, it makes sense. When you make up random hypotheses that bear no relation to observable evidence, it often doesn't make sense. 

 

 

Caposkia wrote:

Anyway, even you had to admit extreme circumstances in the human animal for that change to be successful.  I see you have faith in the idea that because it is observed in populatinos that produce much quicker that makes it more possible that it happened with humans.  The only issue I have with that, is the populatinos that reproduce quicker would likely have much better odds of finding another of the same because so many reproduce so quickly.  Humans ultimately became humans because of a lucky hit somewhere in history, is that what you're basically saying?

 

Which is why populations that breed faster have it happen very frequently, while in humans we believe it has only happened once so far. We are all who we are because of many lucky (or unlucky) hits in history. Of any one of our ancestors had sex with someone else, we would be someone else, for better or for worse. The conditions that early hominids lived in were ideal for rapid genetic change to occur. It isn't at all unlikely or really even lucky. It is just as likely or unlikely as the dozens of other genetic mutations that occurred.    

 

 

Caposkia wrote:

I find the isolation of people groups would make the odds even worse for this to succesfully happen.  even so, as we've also observed, the change in Chromosomes does not necessarily create a new species, but it can, which means we got even luckier.  Not only did we have to have the initial mating of the modified Chromosome carriers, but then there had to be a consistent progress through a long evolutionary process to make it actually work.  What are the odds of that?  

 

Exactly the same odds as any other species surviving, and that is why many species have not survived, including other hominids. And you "find" wrong. Isolation greatly increases genetic drift. That is absolutely proven. Small populations are more likely to be taken over by changes that affect breeding compatability. It is also supported by a basic understanding of statistics. Every single time a child is born, the odds of that child having a fused chromosome is approximately 1:1000. The size of the population it is born into is irrelevant. Every single time someone with a fused chromosome chooses a sexual partner, the odds are 1:1,000,000 their partner also has a fused chromosome. Regardless of how large or small the population they live in is. The sample size has no effect on the odds when the number of mutations within that sample size is unknown. Where the population size has a huge effect on the odds, is when you know you have two people with fused chromosomes. 

 

If the population is 10 people and two of them have fused chromosomes, they make up 20% of the population. When they have a baby, suddenly those with fewer chromosomes make up 27% of the population. In such a small group, the number of people who are capable of breeding is going to be rather small and it is quite probable that all the children born come from one or two couples and the offspring of those couples. In that case, once the initial 1:1,000,000 odds are hit, it is extremely probable that the mutation is going to become prevalent inside that group and eventually push out the line that doesn't have the mutation. Obviously, in a much larger group, any line that has problems breeding outside of their line is much more likely to become irrelevant and die out, because it will never make up a significant percentage of the population.      

 

The larger genetic diversity in large societies and cross breeding between historically isolated social groups, is why humans have evolved much faster over the last 5,000 years than we have over the last million (percentage wise, we are more different from humans 5,000 years ago than our ancestors were from Neanderthals), but the mutations in our genetics that have been successful have not been the type that cause isolation like in the past and if you could travel back in time, you could probably get Helen of Troy pregnant. Our population is so large and intermingled that genetic changes that cause isolation have a very small chance of surviving past a generation or two. Genetic changes that don't effect the ability to have children however, spread rather quickly- such as a tolerance to lactose. Genetic changes that are "positive" (increase your odds of surviving) spread really fast, such as those that increase resistance to diseases, which account for the majority of genetic changes between us and our most recent ancestors.  

and what are the odds of all that being planned?  Created that way if you will?  And based on what?  I only ask that based on the idea that the "odds" we are talking about are quite small.

 

 

    

 


Vastet
atheistBloggerSuperfan
Vastet's picture
Posts: 13210
Joined: 2006-12-25
User is offlineOffline
caposkia wrote:If every

caposkia wrote:
If every choice could NOT be imperfect, then choice itself is imperfect... Perfection includes all abilities, including the ability to do wrong.  Also choice and judgement are 2 different things.  People make choices based on bad judgement... does that make the choice imperfect or the judgement imperfect?

Perfection does NOT include all abilities. The inclusion of all necessitates the inclusion of the imperfect, which means the inclusion of all equates only with imperfection. Choice is imperfect, period.

caposkia wrote:
like?

Like I cannot choose to fly. Like I cannot choose to be rich. Like I cannot choose to rule the world. Like I cannot choose to end war. Like I cannot choose to breath argon. Like a billion other things that we HAVE NO CHOICE in. Every thing we cannot choose to do or be is a limit on choice.
Choice is imperfect because it is limited and because not all choices are the right choice. Choice is perfect only as an example of imperfection.

caposkia wrote:
yet you're handing responsibilty to God.

Nope. Your god, if it exists, is already responsible. Was responsible before anything ever lived. Before there was a Earth, before light, before the universe. I have nothing to do with it, beyond acknowledging the truth of responsibility.

caposkia wrote:
I said He has given US responsibility for OUR actions

Your god cannot. Your god saw everything that would result from creation, and created it anyway. All of us are simply acting out the future he already foresaw. If I kill you, then god saw it before either of us were born, and decided to allow it. None of us chooses anything, none of us are responsible for anything. None of us can be anything other than what he already knew we would be millennia before we even existed. Only your god is responsible. Only your god CAN BE responsible.

caposkia wrote:
Really, you brought in crocoduck. lol... wow.

You're the one who thinks evolution is a magical phenomena. Not I.

caposkia wrote:
ok, anyway, so you're telling me there are examples of genus evolving into other genus it seems... show me a link.  I am curious to learn about it.

I said no such thing. A species can become two in a few generations. A genus takes more. Lots lots more. No species multiplies fast enough to witness a division into a new genus in a single human lifetime. The genus we belong to is about 2 and a half million years old. It is a new genus primarily because the cranial capacity is significantly larger than that of our predecessors, we being the only members of our genus who've not gone extinct.
You want a timeline of 2 and a half million years of fossils from every 30-odd years to show the minute changes over every generation that led to our species. Almost 80,000 fossils in perfect condition. You want something that is not necessary to prove evolution, and you want it because you know just enough to know that such is impossible. You're a pathetically obvious example of a theist apologist who denies reality so his fictional bullshit can still be propagated.

caposkia wrote:
...and just to put it in context, we creationists blamed you atheists for believing in crocoduck.

You theists became the joke for suggesting we believe in a crocoduck, because it shows how you attack something you don't even understand enough to properly parody it.

caposkia wrote:
so claiming someone elses ignorance demonstrates ignorance... I'm glad you're willing to admit that.

I'm glad you're willing to admit you're ignorant. It's a good first step. Your next stop should be the library. Or better yet, grade school.

caposkia wrote:
see, stretching... Question, how do you know what you think is true really is true?  Do you take reality and assume the rest or do you empirically decide it all?  be honest.

Unlike you I actually test things. When they work, not just once but ALWAYS, then I know they are true. You on the other hand twist reality and ignore everything that doesn't fit with your primitive beliefs. You don't care if it works or not. You will never know truth until you shed your dogmatic bias. You are the one stretching.

caposkia wrote:
ok, so you're progressively making your metaphor work... so let's now apply that to the point... where are your tracks on the broken roads of evolution?

Your metaphor. And I already told you.

caposkia wrote:
Well, that's easy to say now isn't it... but it does.  

Well, that's easy to say isn't it. But it doesn't.

caposkia wrote:
uh... I think you're really losing focus on my position of evolution..

Not at all. Maybe you are.

caposkia wrote:
Again, I have no problem with evolution,

I love it when theists get caught up in their own web of lies. This topic is full of your problems with evolution.

caposkia wrote:
it's the origins I have an issue with

Another critical flaw in the theist view of evolution is assuming the beginnings of life are evolution. The origin of life is a completely different theory. That one is called abiogenesis.

caposkia wrote:
I also take the position that "the evidence that would convince you is impossible, because you don't want evidence for"  God.

Typical theist projection. Just because you want the impossible and refuse to accept sufficient evidence does not mean I will do the same. I'd love to see evidence for your god. I'd be so in awe of convincing evidence that I'd probably drop to my knees and cry. Too bad you don't have any. Your keystone of evidence is a self contradictory book written by people who didn't know the basics of life on Earth that anyone in grade one today already knows. They didn't even know why the sky is, usually, blue; nor what a volcano is, or a star. They didn't understand gravity or tides, they didn't even know what the moon was or what separates a bat from a pigeon. They were primitive ignorant people one step up from living in caves and learning how to light a fire. And you take their imaginings as fact.

Ironically even they were smart enough to know that their imaginings were just that. The primitive and ignorant people of two thousand years ago were actually smarter than you.

You're a joke, and you'll always be a joke.

Proud Canadian, Enlightened Atheist, Gaming God.


caposkia
Theist
Posts: 2701
Joined: 2007-05-15
User is offlineOffline
Beyond Saving

Beyond Saving wrote:

 

http://www.answersingenesis.org/articles/am/v2/n4/geologic-evidences-part-one

 

The basis of his entire argument is that the idea that rock formations are hundreds of millions of years old is "impossible" and that they could only be formed by a single massive flood. It is not recognized as evidence of ANY flood by most geologists. ]

 

Yes, there is evidence of drastic floods. I have never doubted that. All it does is show that if there had been a bigger flood, we would expect to see similar evidence of it. A large flood in a portion of the world where there weren't even humans doesn't even help your theory that it was a large flood localized where every human in the world was since in locations where we know our ancestors were 2-3 million years ago, there is no similar evidence of similar massive flooding, let alone the significantly larger flood suggested in the bible. 

if a flood of such magnitude happened here, it is evidence that the occurance claimed in scripture could have happened there during that time.  Location of such evidence is irrelevant be it that we're not talking about THEE flood when speaking of evidence of magnitude.

Beyond Saving wrote:

No, they didn't. And if you read their writing, every time they refer to a source they call the conclusions drawn by the real scientists "ridiculous" and "impossible". The sources they site don't support their rantings. You would be far better off reading the sources because they at least have logical conclusions stemming from an examination of the available evidence. 

They don't acknowledge all cited sources and use many of them to support their claims.

Beyond SAving wrote:

 

 

Caposkia wrote:

how are we aware of when wine skins were invented?  

 

Because you can't just take dried rawhide (the earliest leather used for clothing) and put a liquid in it. It won't work. Go ahead, buy some rawhide and try it, see what happens. In order to make bags capable of carrying liquid, you have to tan the hide first. Tanning is a relatively complex process which requires fine tools and some knowledge of chemicals. It is something that is typically discovered in conjunction with animal husbandry when people settle down into villages and start raising their food rather than just hunting it. Ancient methods of tanning took several months. Additionally, once you tan the hide, you have to have a method to shape the leather and sew it into the shape you want. That means metal knives and needles, you aren't doing it with stone. The earliest culture known to discover tanning was in Mehrgahr (modern day Pakistan along the India border) who discovered tanning sometime between 7500 and 5500 BC. 

http://books.google.com/books?id=GXzycd3dT9kC&pg=PA128#v=onepage&q&f=false

Evidence of using leather to carry liquids doesn't come around until the Egyptians and it was the Greeks who first created the wineskin. 

I didn't know all that about wineskins.  interesting stuff.

Beyond Saving wrote:

Nowhere near to the extent you have suggested. Technological advancement tends to follow similar, and rather linear, paths since certain inventions/discoveries are required before others can even be possible (for example, until you have containers for storage and practice farming excess food you will never discover alcohol) We can compare cultures that were completely seperated and see the similar paths they take. What you have suggested is that a culture existed that was literally millions of years more advanced than anyone else, but didn't leave a shred of evidence. The reason why there is significantly more archaeological evidence from 20,000 BC on, is because that was the time period where humans really started farming and settling into areas for extended periods of time. As soon as you do that, it dramatically increases the rate of technological advancement and leads to a significantly higher level of traces left behind. If you are going to suggest that some culture in 2 million BC was that advanced, you might as well suggest that they had airplanes, spaceships and nuclear bombs, it wouldn't be any less absurd. 

Millions of years is a bit of a stretch don't you think?  but is it really absurd to consider that separated cultures did just that, they invented, then lost the invention due to their demise for some reason or left behind in a means of escaping something, etc?  It seems quite possible to me.

Beyond Saving wrote:

Why is it strange that wine making was discovered after clay pots? Discovering clay pots is easy. All you need is opposable thumbs, fire and mud. Then you just have to notice that the mud next to your fire is getting really hard. So you make a shape out of the mud, throw it by the fire and shazaam, you just invented pottery. It doesn't take much longer to figure out that some mud is better than others and to discover that a bowl/pot shape is pretty damn useful. You have a vessel that is fairly durable, waterproof and portable- no tools needed. Hell, put a kid at a beach with decent clay and they are going to be making all sorts of shapes out of it for fun without any prompting. The only step you really have to figure out is heating it. 

it's just an odd connection to make the wine contingent on the invention of clay pots.  Sure it's easy... do you think that wine making was invented by a scientist?  natural fermentation occurs and was likely observed by humans, who then likely tried to recreate the process and figured out a fairly simple means of doing so with the heat of the sun in desert reigons.  

Beyond Saving wrote:

Caposkia wrote:

every single writing during that time from any source that tried to portray a history and was not writing about current events.  AS far as ancients were concerned, historical people were using or donig the same things they were.  I don't have specific titles or links, but I remember going through many docmuments on the subject not connected to the bible.  

Name one. I tried googling it and I couldn't find anything. The history I have read that comes from the biblical era has been from the Romans or from the Chinese (I went through a phase where I was fascinated by Chinese history) and neither of them edited their history in that way. 

you're right.. it is hard to find in google... lemme do some homework

Beyond SAving wrote:

Are there any credible meteorologists who have posited that it is theoretically possible? 

I don't know... I think if you ask any credible meteorologist, they will tell you that we have only about 150 years of legitimate weather history and the rest is based on geological studies and ice samples... based on those samples however, the weather we've experienced in the last 150 years has been quite mild.  They would also likely add that it would not be impossible to consider that weather patterns could do any number of things that could lead to such extremes that are immaginable to us today.

Beyond Saving wrote:

Somehow I doubt any meteorologist would agree that is possible. Do you have any sources at all? (Preferably meteorologists who are actually respected and credited with advancing their field. Not kooks who never write in peer reviewed journals and have no research that they allow their peers to see, like your favorite geologist and so-called quantum physicist Gotswami)

be it that I have the understanding in this field, i did not use sources.  Why do you doubt it?  What evidence do you have that suggests what i've said is extreme let alone implausible?

Beyond Saving wrote:

No it doesn't. That is like saying hurricane force winds is proof that 200 mph winds could be sustained for 40 days when we know for a fact that once a hurricane makes landfall it loses its power in a predictable manner and the winds die down. Or saying that because Usain Bolt has been clocked running 27 mph that he can run to a store a mile away and back in less than 5 minutes. 

bad comparisons... wind and rain are 2 majorly different forces in nature... you also can't say that hurricane force winds clocked at 200 mph means that the hurricane had sustained winds of 200 mph.. rather the speed of the wind in teh hurricane at that level was 1. likely a gust, or 2, in a very very concentrated part of the storm... the rain however has been observed to flood New England severely though it made landfall in the gulf of Mexico.  

Beyond Saving wrote:

 

Proof that something can occur short term is not at all evidence it could be sustained long term and even though I am ignorant of meteorology, even I know that all weather patterns have a finite amount of energy that is expended at a more or less predictable rate. A quick check of rainfall records on wiki confirms that the record for rain over one minute is an exponentially higher rate than the record for an hour, which is an exponentially higher rate than the record for 24 hours, which is exponentially higher than the record for a week etc. which creates an exponential curve, not a linear one. It is absolutely insulting to my intelligence that you think I would believe a short term measure of the intensity of anything is proof that it could be sustained long term. And then when I call you out on such utterly blatant bullshit to suggest I'm not the one thinking? 

it's exponential when observing tallied rainfall... not when observing a specific weatehr pattern over the same location for 1 week... it's not the weather "patterns" that lose their energy, they're just patterns, it's the storms themselves... which is why there'd have to be a chain of storms caused by a specific pattern being fed from a tropical source, which if you notice doesn't tend to run out of energy except seasonally... plenty of time for a 40 day flood.

Beyond Saving wrote:

And yet it has never produced anything even approaching Noah's flood, so obviously a stall in the jet stream is not enough.  

maybe not in the last 150 years, but even you claimed that it has been discovered that severe floods have happened in history.  

Granted there'd have to be more than just a stall in the Jet stream... there'd have to be a particular stall reaching to tropical moist locations, then there'd have to be a separate pattern that would guide the moisture to those storms being channeled by the stalled jet stream.  (this has been observed)... there would have to also be a high pressure system set in place close enough to guide the storms, yet far enough away to not cause sheer and break the storms down.  There then would have to be a convection of air before the location in question to cool and condense the moisture in the air to create the storms, but in the right spot so that they release right on the location.  This would be an upper air low with cooler air.  There's more to it as well, but you see why I didn't decide to dive into that.


Jabberwocky
atheist
Posts: 411
Joined: 2012-04-21
User is offlineOffline
caposkia wrote:Jabberwocky

caposkia wrote:

Jabberwocky wrote:

caposkia wrote:

I know what Theory is.. I'm pretty sure we've covered it long ago... or if not directly with you, on a few threads you were involved in.

caposkia wrote:

I merely bring up the reasons why its' still a theory and not scientific fact.

Ok. Unless you quit being dishonest, I will stop answering you completely (and I understand I'm not the first one to do so). You have just blatantly demonstrated that you have absolutely NO interest in being honest and coherent in your discussions. These above two quotes occur in back to back posts. You clearly do not know what the definition of "theory" is in a scientific discussion. Under your worldview, isn't such blatant dishonesty sinful? If so, why do you engage in it?

 

I happen to agree with this definition... so how is that being dishonest?... and when have you started answering me completely?   Stop with the excuses.  Anyone can claim anyone's dishonest when they don't want to agree, but show me how I'm being dishonest.

a coherent group of tested general propositions, commonly regarded as correct, that can be used asprinciples of explanation and prediction for a class of phenomena: 

Does it say in there after "Commonly regarded as correct" something along the lines of "but not necessarily"? No it does not. Scientific theories are explanations for libraries of facts. In some cases, competing theories exist. In some, they don't. In the case of the theory of evolution by natural selection, there are no competing theories. Everybody who is serious about doing science accepts it. You are hinging your entire belief here on the premise of it maybe being erroneous. The theory of evolution by natural selection is a scientific fact in every sense of the word. It is not a law because it can't be expressed by only mathematics, but it is a fact. It is a fact that we and chimpanzees have a common ancestor. It is a fact that our DNA shares more in common with chimps and bonobos than they (chimps and bonobos) share with gorillas. It is a fact that the same DNA tests used to determine paternity when it is unknown is used to determine how closely related other primates are to us (and there is nothing, NOTHING that comes up in that test that makes it impossible or even unlikely). It is a fact that the dates deduced by DNA testing fall within the range of dates deduced by fossils. It is a fact that when selection pressures change, different genes are favoured and it can speed up genetic change. It is a fact that no creationist ever....not ONE, has ever identified a genetic mechanism (and nobody's even tried it!) that prevents genes from diverging indefinitely once two populations that were previously the same species became isolated. If you want, you can go ahead and say that all of these facts don't prove it. I'm not going to stop you. However, whether or not a supernatural agent is present in this world, the fact remains that given all we know and I have said in this ridiculously long paragraph, we could have evolved from a common ancestor with chimps and bonobos. Further, we could have evolved from a common ancestor with all primates. Further still, all mammals, and all vertebrates, and all animals. This had been posited most famously early on by Charles Darwin. Now, our vast riches of fossil evidence compared to then, and DNA evidence which we couldn't have examined in Darwin's time, has corroborated and confirmed that it is all possible. 

Given all of that, the only thing you can say is "well, it's implausible that it all ended up this way, and I think a god had to do something". I will accept that the odds that everything ended up exactly this way are slim. However, you have to consider the difference in "I won the lottery" vs. "Somebody won the lottery". 

I'm sure you accept the scientific theories concerning weather patterns. Those fly directly in the face of Thor throwing lightning. Do they fly in the face of Yahweh's actions? Probably not although I haven't read the entire bible yet. I've also not seen a Christian complaining about meteorology being taught in a classroom, so I'll assume maybe not (and if so, it's one of those parts of the bible all Christians ignore...). You probably accept heliocentrism and an (oblate) spherical earth, even though verses in your bible seem to contradict that! Because of popular rhetoric, that is your comfort zone. Accept the astronomy, the meteorology, but be cynical when it comes to the biology. If you've been on a plane you have some personal experience regarding the earth's curvature as it's somewhat evident from that altitude. However, when it comes to meteorology, I guarantee you that you have about the same level of evidence to the validity of meteorology as you do to biological science regarding our origins. You can have a hot shower and see droplets on your ceiling and steam on your mirror. Equally, you can DNA test yourself and your children, and your parents, and your siblings, and your cousins, and your second cousins, and see how the change occurs. If you were to map whole genomes, you could even see which genes you got from each parent, and which were copied perfectly, and which not (AKA mutations). The assumed age of our common ancestor with chimpanzees (before we were able to examine DNA) fell in line with the age when we measure the rate of DNA change between generations. Do you not consider this solid evidence? (As usual with my posts, please be sure to directly address the bold bits)

Theists - If your god is omnipotent, remember the following: He (or she) has the cure for cancer, but won't tell us what it is.


Jabberwocky
atheist
Posts: 411
Joined: 2012-04-21
User is offlineOffline
caposkia wrote:Jabberwocky

caposkia wrote:

Jabberwocky wrote:

I will respond here, but heed my advice and stop being dishonest. When people tell you things such as I did regarding what a scientific theory is, don't continue asserting what we know is incorrect. 

there's a difference between being dishonest and misunderstanding.  Your dramatic conclusions to directly accuse me of being dishonest are quite suspect to your intentions on this thread with me.

I'll once again give you the benefit of the doubt. However, scientific theories (and more-so ones that have ruled out their competitors) are synonymous with fact. The "theory of evolution" is a fact. It is not a law like gravity. Gravity has a law and a theory. The law is a mathematical equation. The theory is a body of facts that the law explains. The only thing gravity has over evolution that allows it to include a "law" is that it can be expressed mathematically. Evolution can not. Although the range of possible rates of genetic change from generation to generation presumably can be expressed as such, it is still a range, not a concrete number. This is why it's not a "law" like gravity. It is not because it's any less true. Anyhow, moving on (as I covered this above too)

caposkia wrote:

Jabberwocky wrote:

It might be dumb luck. It may have been a small difference as well that was then selected for. Also, it has been proven that our species went through a bottleneck and was nearly extinct at one point, which was the driver behind our exit from the desert climate where we had our lowly beginning. Now, irregularities in chromosomes happen quite frequently. Downs syndrome is one. Another is the extra copying of a sex chromosome, with possibilities of XXX chromosomed women, and both XXY and XYY men. XXY is the one with the most noticeable irregularities compared to those with 2 sex chromosomes. Occasionally more serious disorders can occur as the result of the translocation, but overwhelmingly, the differences are minor (a taller average height that only begins to show after puberty for instance). 

Now do we have to assume that either a small favoured trait or just dumb luck allowed the 46 chromosome humans to win? Sure. However, that is a safe assumption since we are here. You can look at it as a lottery. If you were to win the lottery, it would seem so very unlikely, and indeed it is. However, if the odds of winning are 1 in 13 million, and 15 million people play the thing, it's very likely that SOMEONE will win. While this particular occurrence (of homo-sapiens in their current form) may be statistically improbable on its own, it's important to remember that there is nothing special about our species in the grand scheme of things. This result may be unlikely, but every other result was equally unlikely as well. It just is what it is. 

yet none of what you said gives me doubt that there could be a God behind any of that.  is it the erronius DNA problems throughout history that give you the doubts?  I believe God put the wheels in motion and that all choices evolve either successfully or unsuccessfully.  

You misunderstood what I said there. I did not imply that genetic copying errors ruled out god. You have expressed doubt that unguided evolution could have produced us. We were specifically discussing chromosomal variations in species. You said that the probability is that 46 chromosome humans must have had some advantage if they were to prevail. You then said that there is "almost certainly no advantage in how the DNA is packaged". You didn't cite a source, or any evidence, for the second part so until you do I will take it as an assertion. I provided examples where DNA packaging makes a difference (Downs syndrome) and one where the difference is comparitively smaller (extra sex chromosomes). The truth is variations in genetics can vary wildly in how they express themselves. If combining those 2 chromosomes was in any tiny way advantageous, it was more likely that it would win out, even if the difference is minute. Natural selection is dependant on survival and reproduction. Those two things happen for far, FAR different reasons in humans than they do in wild animals. Our society has changed selection pressures greatly. An extra sex chromosome likely has little to no effect on the population at large. If combining that chromosome that became our chromosome #2 was advantageous in any way, it was more likely to win. Even if the difference was minute. You assert that packaging chromosomes differently has no effect. I agree that it CAN have no effect, but I would argue that it can have an effect (sometimes a large one) as well. Until we are able to test this in a lab, or otherwise discover exactly how genes work, we can't know with certainty what benefit that chromosomal fusion had on our ancestors, if any.

My entire point on the chromosomal fusion was that you are left with 2 choices if you contend that we can not have a common ancestor with chimpanzees and bonobos (which you haven't said outright, but seem to imply). 

1. Our human ancestors had 48 chromosomes that fused, meaning that our DNA was even more similar to a chimp's or bonobo's than it is today; or

2. All humans have always had 46 chromosomes (save for mutations that alter the # of chromosomes), except we were designed with an extra large telomere in the wrong place, and an inactivated centromere in our second chromosome. 

#1 makes parts of the theory of evolution that you denounce more likely, and #2 means that your god was deliberately deceptive. He would have had to design a universe where humans would have required this bizarre chromosome containing what seems to be evidence of us being chimp's cousins. Do you accept my 2 possibilities, or do you posit something else? I don't do these list form posts for everyone, but you seem uniquely evasive. I, therefore, need to know where you actually stand in order to have a proper discussion. 

jabberwocky wrote:

caposkia wrote:

jabberwocky wrote:

What consistency among all species make the evidence skim?

the consistent lack of evidence on how the Chromosomal changes actually allowed the transformation of the species and didn't hurt them.

Addressed above

right, but that still doesn't bring any further closure to the core problem of God or no God.  To me honestly, it looks like you're reasoning your way through it... sure it could be this, but it's possible because... I don't mean this as sarcastic or snobby, it just doesn't show me why God could not have been behind it.  

I never claimed that a god couldn't have done it. However, I can confidently say that an omnipotent, omniscient, omnibenevolent god couldn't have. Further, the Christian scriptures paint quite a different story that contradicts what we know. 

Also, even if none of the above was true, that doesn't change anything. Your assertion (as is in line with most believers) is that a god was necessary to make this happen. The evidence I provide merely is to show that it can occur without one. Given that these things could occur without a god, and no actual compelling evidence for a god has actually been provided by anyone, the correct position to take on the matter is that such a supernatural being probably doesn't exist. 

caposkia wrote:

Jabberwocky wrote:

When the hell were we discussing Einstein's opinion on creation? I was talking about his theory and how it suppplemented/superseded what Newton said (and was deemed correct for a very long time!)

I was just pointing out the difference in opinion you and Einstein have on the complexity of the Universe.  

And what is that difference, and what relevance does it have to this conversation?

caposkia wrote:

 

Jabberwocky wrote:

They are wired backwards that the wiring is literally in the way of what we see. Our eye DOES see upside down, and our brain merely fixes it because it's easier than living upside down. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Perceptual_adaptation Tested with glasses. Our brain is capable of this.

So from that you want to go with; "our brain merely fixes it because it's easier than living upside down"?

Yes. If our eye was intelligently designed, it would have been possible to wire it the right way. I was not referring to upside-down sight (which is what you thought I meant). Our nerves are in the way. Wired correctly, they wouldn't be. 

As far as upside-down sight, our eye is like a camera that sees upside-down. We know enough that if we were able to design an eye, we could have designed one to see the correct way. We are unable to manipulate genes in that way, but given omnipotence, a team consisting of biologists and engineers could do that rather quickly (without omniscience even...just their combined knowledge). Why is our eye designed to see upside-down if it's so perfect in your opinion?

caposkia wrote:

Jabberwocky wrote:

So you're saying that god couldn't have designed separate things for this? Hell, birds only have one waste function. Imagine if all of that was relegated to one place, with the sex organs reserved for sex? That would be objectively better in every way.

S

in one perspective... but in another it just opens up more places for infection and other issues to occur.  Objectively better in one way, objectively worse in others.  I can come up wtih logical arguements to design a package deal like we have and for a separate unit for both purposes.  It makes more sense to me to combine it.  Simply, stuff goes in the top, out the bottom.  Though I'm curious as to where it would be better for women to give birth from.

So you're saying that our bodies are a perfect design? Where our food hole is our breathing hole (which is literally the engineering fault that allows us to choke)? 

Your last sentence says it all for me. If your god is omnipotent, why are we the ones who have to consider this question? Shouldn't he figure that out, and implement a solution that if it were suddenly to come about today, it would blow our little human minds? Childbirth sucks and is painful for human women, and it's for a simple reason related to the dimensions of the pelvis. If your god is perfect, he should be answering that question, not me. 

caposkia wrote:

Jabberwocky wrote:

We don't have sex just because we want children. Some people do, but overwhelmingly the reason people have sex is because they're horny. Of course, our level of horniness increases instances of sex, which is what makes for pro-creation. Once again, I repeat. Sex is not FOR pro-creation. It simply causes procreation. We do it because it's simply fantastic. A horny couple who don't like protection or contraception are more likely to have more children than those who aren't horny. The first animals that had sex didn't have the luxury of knowing that it was needed to propogate the species. They merely had to be compelled to. 

basically with your final statement you make my point, Sex IS for procreation and you cannot empirically prove otherwise.  Science proves this statement... the purpose of the horniness, attraction, pleasure is so the species will continue to exist, nothing more.  We have made it more than it is, but only with technology to prevent it's sole purpose.  Without that technology, people would procreate.  

No, no, no! Sex causes procreation. Desire for sex causes...sex! By extension, desire for sex causes procreation. Where from that do you get "sex is for the purpose of procreation"?

caposkia wrote:

jabberwocky wrote:

What about all of the other chromosomal similarities between us?

what about them?  Would a creator not use some of the same tools for different jobs?

I use a steel pipe on a ratchet when undoing hard bolts on a car because it's far cheaper than a breaker bar, and my ratchet has a lifetime warranty. Are you suggesting that god has such economic limitations?

caposkia wrote:

Jabberwocky wrote:

Also, I have another tip for any creationist who refuses to believe that we have a common ancestor with chimpanzees. Major in genetics. Just do it. Major in it, and take a bunch of other creationists with you. Young earthers, old earthers, ones with malleable and ultimately unidentifiable beliefs like Caposkia, and become powerhouses in the field of genetics. Then whether or not you believe that there was millions of years for us and chimps to evolve from a common ancestor, find out the answer to the following: IF the millions of years were available, is it possible that these 2 species shared a common ancestor? I guarantee you that if they're honest, the answer will be yes, and if they're dishonest they may say inconclusive or unlikely. However, if it is actually impossible, that CAN be proven by examining genetics. Yet no creationist has ever even tried it.

well, as I've said a few times, we can always reason our way out of the truth...  the thing is, possible, inconclusive, unlikely... none of that proves anything.  No evolutionist has successfully connected the link.  Sure they'd be lying to say it's not possible with the information we have at this point... why? becasue we have no genetic proof of God and there is nothing to suggest that the commonalities couldn't evolve so dramatically other than the gaps...

Gaps in what? Fossil record? Genetics? Name one problematic gap between humans and a simplier primate. Just one. Look up what we know of human ancestry, and find me one gap that has no explanation. 

caposkia wrote:

You and I have empirically proved something here though... that genetics will not resolve the issue on this thread.  

Nothing here was empirically proven. You have made another ridiculous assertion, and I haven't the slighest clue what you even meant to mean by it. The genetics prove it is possible that things naturally took their course to where they are today. Do you agree, or not? If not, why not?

caposkia wrote:

jabberwocky wrote:

The whole article was highlighting the difference, and since they are young earthers, they don't allow for the possibility of the necessary change to go from an ancestral chromosome. They never even address that point. See the bold section above. 

They made a point that is logical in science regardless of time.  Neither side can prove that's how it was or wasn't, but it's still possible... again, more evidence that genetics will not resolve the issue here.

Because you don't want it to. That's the only reason either of us see a problem. You will not accept a certain line of evidence because it contradicts a predetermined conclusion you have made. Those of us who think properly, allow the evidence to inform their conclusions instead. You should try that. 

Theists - If your god is omnipotent, remember the following: He (or she) has the cure for cancer, but won't tell us what it is.


Jabberwocky
atheist
Posts: 411
Joined: 2012-04-21
User is offlineOffline
caposkia wrote:Jabberwocky

caposkia wrote:

Jabberwocky wrote:

caposkia wrote:

 

Anyway, The point that the change is NEVER abrupt leads me further into doubt about those changes as described taking place... You're telling me they are never abrupt, which means the fusion likely happens over an extended period of time.... and we have NO actual physical proof of the transformation... not even a part of it... that to me is a problem for the theory.  

Are you deliberately trying to misunderstand this? The fusion isn't gradual. The fusion is a very specific detail. If you compare a human and a chimp chromosome, you can calculate roughly how many generations ago a common ancestor would have existed. By abrupt, I mean something like creationists typically look for (one "kind" giving birth to another "kind" where kinds are at LEAST at the genus level, and sometimes all the way up to the kingdom level in the most idiotic cases, like when Ray Comfort says "They're still bacteria!&quotEye-wink.

http://www.amnh.org/exhibitions/past-exhibitions/human-origins/understanding-our-past/dna-comparing-humans-and-chimps

Here is a little page with some information about DNA. It's very basic information, but if you read that, it says that there are about 35 million differences between human and chimpanzee base pairs. When talking of these 35 million differences, those 35 million diverged gradually. However, each single one of those 35 million changes had to happen abruptly. So if it's 6 million years, that's about 6 differences a year. If we take an age range for how long one generation was, and use a broad range like 15-35 years between each parent/child, you get between 90 and 210 differences in base pairs between parent and child. Even 210 out of 3 billion (roughly the number of base pairs that both us and chimps have total) certainly doesn't seem like a lot. All it takes is selection pressures to drive it a specific way.

 

Here is an exerpt from a different page on that same site.

Quote:

Tracing the Human-Chimp Ancestor

By comparing DNA sequences from humans and chimpanzees, experts calculated that the last human-chimp ancestor lived roughly six million years ago. Later, the discovery of a hominid fossil dating back six to seven million years supported this claim.

Why do you think that when geneticists run the math, they come up with the same numbers as geologists/archaeologists?

I want to read the link before posting a reply to this, but for some reason the link brought me to an "error page"... will you try to post it again?  

The article appears to be gone. Try this link:

http://web.archive.org/web/20140419091212/http://www.amnh.org/exhibitions/past-exhibitions/human-origins/understanding-our-past/dn...

If that doesn't work (you might have to do it yourself) then go here:

https://archive.org/web/web.php

Paste the original link in there, and click April 19th. It worked for me, but I do get an error page as you do with just the original link now. 

Theists - If your god is omnipotent, remember the following: He (or she) has the cure for cancer, but won't tell us what it is.


caposkia
Theist
Posts: 2701
Joined: 2007-05-15
User is offlineOffline
Jabberwocky wrote:I must

Jabberwocky wrote:

I must split this to address this point individually. To begin with your first sentence(ish), evolution never claims to explain how things got started. That lies in other scientific fields. Creationism doesn't explain it either. It asserts it without any supporting evidence. Evolution doesn't tackle it because it's not equipped to, and doesn't claim to. On average, evolutionary biologists probably know more about abiogenesis than the average layperson, but they are certainly not deemed experts at it. So, to your next bit, proving evolution vs. proving darwinism...

The point here is that nobody has ever demonstrated that there is a limit, or a cutoff to how far it WILL go. Nobody has ever shown that genes all of a sudden stop changing. They mutate. Copying errors happen. Based on rate of genetic change that we can measure, the conclusion is that us and chimpanzees 100% could have evolved from a common ancestor. There is no odd bump in that road that is unexplainable. It is also proven that even further back a common ancestor between us and all of the other great apes, and further still, the other primates is possible as well. It is proven that a common ancestor between us and all other animals is possible. It is proven that a common ancestor between all animals, plants, AND fungii could have existed as well. No geneticist, not even a creationist one, has EVER proven that this can not happen. Isn't this puzzling, considering that creationists want so SO badly to find this? 

As far as proving evolution vs. proving darwinism, the only difference is time. More time = more change (although the rate of change does vary depending on selection pressures driven by environment). As I said in the above paragraph, we have seen that there is nothing to suggest that there is a limit to this rate of change. So what is it that prevents you from accepting this? Is it a lack of time? Do you believe that there is indeed a limit on genetic change regardless of large quantities of time (even though nobody has ever demonstrated this)? Or is it some third option I can't see at the moment? 

What prevents me from accepting this is lack of evidence that it actually happens that way... Sure we can deduce that there is no limit to how things can evolve, but the oxymoron that us and chimpanzees 100% could have is not compelling evidence that Creationism is wrong.   A "could have" conclusion is in no way scientific, it's an assumption based on what we think we know.  

I don't disagree that there really is no limit that we are aware of as far as how much something can evolve.  but I do believe due to lack of evidence as you so blatently state about Creationism that it does not prove Darwinism over Creationism.  I think we're all pretty much on the same page with evolution with the exeption of origins which you and I agree is not evolution.  Therefore, evolution i don't think is going to bring progression to the Noah conversation. 

Jabberwocky wrote:

I don't see it as having a shaky foundation. It appears to me that you do. You mention that it's not a scientific fact. This shows your misunderstanding. Let me list some facts. 

ok

Jab wrote:

- No fossil has EVER been located that puzzled the scientific community as to its location in a geological column, or its location geographically

why would it?

Jab wrote:

- In modern times, many previously undiscovered fossils have been found that were similar to expectations based on data we already had

great, it should be if we're doing our homework correctly

Jab wrote:

- Geographic distribution of living organisms and fossils suggest that a gradual change over time has occurred

that IS how evolution works

Jab wrote:

- Study of DNA and genes in general (a more recent ability we now have) has agreed 100% with all assumptions of universal common descent.

except that we just don't have the actual evidence of such an occurance despite the countless numbers of categories.

Jab wrote:

- Dating by the study of DNA has shown similar dates to dates by geologists.

it has also shown a margin of error that can span thousands of years in some cases.  Similar or not, it really doesn't support your case.  Need I remind you I am not a YEC

Jab wrote:

- No feature has ever been located in DNA that prevents change from occurring indefinitely.

great, so science is now being used to prove a negative.  I've gotten so much flack on this site when people think I'm doing that... why is it ok for you to do it?

Jabberwocky wrote:

Every time a new discovery is made, it is another piece of evidence in favour of evolution, and common descent among all life on Earth. I am not saying this as a dogma. I am just saying that every time new evidence is uncovered, it fits with the explanation given. This explanation is "the theory of evolution". Could you find me any evidence in genetics that disproves this? Could you find me any evidence in the fossil record that is out of place either geographically or geologically? Could you come up with any other potential issues that could disprove the theory? Because until then, all evidence that we find just so happens to fit in with the theory of evolution. In fact, the theory of evolution in its entirety is the ONLY explanation that has been shown to work to explain what we find. The details of how we know this are very very specific, and come from several fields of science. Until you can come up with an actual competing theory that is supported by this many fields of science, and can make specific predictions, you are just saying random crap. Either address one of my points that would actually disprove evolution, or present your own specifically, get me to agree with it, and demonstrate to me something that would disprove it. That's all you need to do. 

I don't need to... just in case through these past few pages you weren't quite getting the hint, The Bible does not contradict evolution.  Only the common decent idea, which you stated clearly earlier is not evolution.  

None of that would prove your perspective whether I could or could not find all you listed above... also again it's not logical to suggest that I should prove a negative with science, rather there should be contradictory evidence of a new discovery that would ultimately discredit the old idea.  

Jabberwocky wrote:

Regardless of a model with 3 groups, the truth is that even with a model of 2 groups, speciation events occur because the genes of two lineages from one common ancestor have diverged too far. What prevents them from diverging further?

DNA odds really.  We don't have any evidence to suggest it does or doesn't other than Creationism, which does not use evolution to support its understanding.  The thing is, if God can be proven to be a realistic being, then none of the evidence up to this point in evolution and geology will need to change and can still support creationism.  

jabberywocky wrote:

This description of missing links shows me that you don't seem to understand the way this works. If humans and chimps had a common ancestor, there isn't one single intermediary. There is no point where one species becomes another, as every offspring is the same species as its parent. Much like if you look at a rainbow, it's not possible to say at which point one colour becomes another. The names of colours are just arbitrary points. However, in biology, it's as if we have something quite reddish, and something quite blu-ish, but nothing really distinctly purple in most cases. In rarer cases, it's as if we have some royal blue and some blu-ish red, and they can produce these sterile offspring (such as mules). The point is, though, that the only reason we are able to classify species is because the indermediaries have died off. There is no instant at birth where one species simply births another. If we were able to go back in time, we would be able to attempt to mate one generation further and further back until we found the point where most humans were no longer reproductively compatible with an ancestor. However, we can't travel back in time, and I don't believe that anybody would be willing to participate even if time travel were possible (eww...sorry, haha)

yea, I'll pass that on to someone else.

Anyway, this reasoning is even more cause as to why I have trouble accepting it.  Just like in your rainbow, though you can't see exactly when one color turns to the next, you can clearly see a connection between all the colors.. even more so because they blend at the connection.  In evolution, there is no such clear connection... in fact, there are breaks... we see the red, a slit of sky and then blue... there may be a string of bluish red in the middle, but there is a distinct disconnect and change in the colors.  The bluish red then would be seen as its own color and not a mix of the 2 because again they are not connected.  

Jabberwocky wrote:

On your first point, it's still a problem for you. The math Bill Nye did had 11 new species every day. So that would be 36865 new species a year. If you do the math from a flood 4000 years ago to one 2 million years ago as you posit, that's 73.73 (so almost 74) new species a year. This is simply not a rate of speciation that we observe. This is to believe that evolution occurs FAR quicker than non-creationists do. We know this does not happen right now. If you posit that it happened quicker before, then you're positing an EVEN quicker rate of speciation. Your position here is still scientifically absurd, just less so by a few orders of magnitude than Ken Ham's. Also, that's if you agree with Ham that a "kind" is more on the family level. Even if it is at the family level, there is no way the Ark could have held all of the mammals, birds, insects, aquariums full of fish (fresh-water+salt-water mix = bad for all involved here), reptiles, amphibians, etc. etc., If you put it at the genus level, this problem becomes several orders of magnitude bigger. 

So you either have to posit evolution occurring at what seems to be beyond an impossible rate, or you have to posit cramming an impossible number of animals onto a wooden boat. 

The event or chain of events that caused marsupials to end up in Australia is that they evolved there, or near there. The separation of Pangaea is likely responsible for their geographic isolation which made way for the evolution of the variety of marsupials we see today.

the thing with evolution is it's not a smooth line of transition in order for that math to work... as far as special creation, there is no definite number that determines when or how many species were created during what time periods. 

Also speciation occurs more dramatically or less dramatically depending on the weather patterns and needs of the species.  Consider the dramatic weather changes that have happened in the past 2 million years.  There is good reason for a mass evolutionary process to happen within a limited number of species to have to change to dramatic climate changes that have occured as well as migration. 

jabberwocky wrote:

I just asked you if it's human or ape, and you answered "no". I assume, though, that you mean that Australopithecus Afarensis is not human because it is classified as a great ape? Or did I misunderstand what you meant?

I think you understood correctly.  I also agree with the reasoning for the classification as explained in Wiki.  

jabberwocky wrote:

There is no difference between the two. Those who make the predictions are almost exclusively those who accept darwinism. Although I have to say I would prefer to use the term "universal common descent" or something of that sort. Not because I'm necessarily adverse to the term darwinism, but because it is a term that is often later used to attempt to conflate biological theory with things that are awful such as eugenics, and the idea of social darwinism. 

well, it is a religion.  There is a difference though as we discussed

jabberwocky wrote:

Because even a creator of a car only uses the same parts over multiple models if it makes some sense! A car company has things to think about such as financial viability, assembly lines, parts supplying, etc. If they can design all of their cars to use the same door handles, they'll damn well try to. Most car companies have a range of engines, and they put them into many models of their cars. If funds were limitless, they would not do that. They would custom make each engine for each type or at least size of car, in order to provide the best balance of power, fuel economy, smoothness, etc. Are you suggesting that god had a resource or economy problem? 

 

I'm suggesting that He created using simpler terms than people assume He would use.  His original intention was to create humans... He created animals as humans companion, but likely used the same blueprint so as to apply commonality somehow.  It is not out of the question to see that pattern in science.


caposkia
Theist
Posts: 2701
Joined: 2007-05-15
User is offlineOffline
Vastet wrote: Like I cannot

Vastet wrote:
Like I cannot choose to fly. Like I cannot choose to be rich. Like I cannot choose to rule the world. Like I cannot choose to end war. Like I cannot choose to breath argon. Like a billion other things that we HAVE NO CHOICE in. Every thing we cannot choose to do or be is a limit on choice. Choice is imperfect because it is limited and because not all choices are the right choice. Choice is perfect only as an example of imperfection.

those examples aren't limits of choice, but of lifestyle.  Choice is limitless really if you think about it.  You cannot fly?  Go to an airport.  you cannot be rich?  Go back to school and study (you may not enjoy it, but you can get a job with the right education that will make you rich if you dedicate yourself to it.)  You cannot choose to end a war you didn't start because you did not choose to start it, but to end a war is in the power of choice, just not necessarily yours.  You can put limits on anything... that is also a choice.  As the song goes, "if you decide not to choose, you have still made a choice".    Choice is limitless, your lifestyle is limited.  

Vastet wrote:

 Your god cannot. Your god saw everything that would result from creation, and created it anyway. All of us are simply acting out the future he already foresaw. If I kill you, then god saw it before either of us were born, and decided to allow it. None of us chooses anything, none of us are responsible for anything. None of us can be anything other than what he already knew we would be millennia before we even existed. Only your god is responsible. Only your god CAN BE responsible.

Ah, so you're a predestinationalist.  I don't adhere to that belief system.

Vastet wrote:

 You want a timeline of 2 and a half million years of fossils from every 30-odd years to show the minute changes over every generation that led to our species. Almost 80,000 fossils in perfect condition. You want something that is not necessary to prove evolution, and you want it because you know just enough to know that such is impossible.

but it would be what is necessary to prove your perspective... which you now have just confirmed is impossible.  

Vastet wrote:

 I'd love to see evidence for your god. I'd be so in awe of convincing evidence that I'd probably drop to my knees and cry. Too bad you don't have any. Your keystone of evidence is a self contradictory book written by people who didn't know the basics of life on Earth that anyone in grade one today already knows. They didn't even know why the sky is, usually, blue; nor what a volcano is, or a star. They didn't understand gravity or tides, they didn't even know what the moon was or what separates a bat from a pigeon. They were primitive ignorant people one step up from living in caves and learning how to light a fire. And you take their imaginings as fact. Ironically even they were smart enough to know that their imaginings were just that. The primitive and ignorant people of two thousand years ago were actually smarter than you. You're a joke, and you'll always be a joke.

The primitive and igorant understanding of ancient people's science is an excuse.  Would you really want to see evidence for my God?  Many people have dropped to their knees and cried when they've come to know God.  it is quite a revelation when they open there eyes to Him... you however have already decided there isn't any... but are you looking in the right spot?

My question to you is what would you expect to see as evidence if there was a God?  Your answer to this question will determine whether you were being truthful about whether you really would love to see evidence for my God.  


caposkia
Theist
Posts: 2701
Joined: 2007-05-15
User is offlineOffline
Jabberwocky wrote:caposkia

Jabberwocky wrote:

caposkia wrote:

Jabberwocky wrote:

caposkia wrote:

I know what Theory is.. I'm pretty sure we've covered it long ago... or if not directly with you, on a few threads you were involved in.

caposkia wrote:

I merely bring up the reasons why its' still a theory and not scientific fact.

Ok. Unless you quit being dishonest, I will stop answering you completely (and I understand I'm not the first one to do so). You have just blatantly demonstrated that you have absolutely NO interest in being honest and coherent in your discussions. These above two quotes occur in back to back posts. You clearly do not know what the definition of "theory" is in a scientific discussion. Under your worldview, isn't such blatant dishonesty sinful? If so, why do you engage in it?

 

I happen to agree with this definition... so how is that being dishonest?... and when have you started answering me completely?   Stop with the excuses.  Anyone can claim anyone's dishonest when they don't want to agree, but show me how I'm being dishonest.

a coherent group of tested general propositions, commonly regarded as correct, that can be used asprinciples of explanation and prediction for a class of phenomena: 

Does it say in there after "Commonly regarded as correct" something along the lines of "but not necessarily"? No it does not. Scientific theories are explanations for libraries of facts. In some cases, competing theories exist. In some, they don't. In the case of the theory of evolution by natural selection, there are no competing theories. Everybody who is serious about doing science accepts it. You are hinging your entire belief here on the premise of it maybe being erroneous. The theory of evolution by natural selection is a scientific fact in every sense of the word. It is not a law because it can't be expressed by only mathematics, but it is a fact. It is a fact that we and chimpanzees have a common ancestor. It is a fact that our DNA shares more in common with chimps and bonobos than they (chimps and bonobos) share with gorillas. It is a fact that the same DNA tests used to determine paternity when it is unknown is used to determine how closely related other primates are to us (and there is nothing, NOTHING that comes up in that test that makes it impossible or even unlikely). It is a fact that the dates deduced by DNA testing fall within the range of dates deduced by fossils. It is a fact that when selection pressures change, different genes are favoured and it can speed up genetic change. It is a fact that no creationist ever....not ONE, has ever identified a genetic mechanism (and nobody's even tried it!) that prevents genes from diverging indefinitely once two populations that were previously the same species became isolated. If you want, you can go ahead and say that all of these facts don't prove it. I'm not going to stop you. However, whether or not a supernatural agent is present in this world, the fact remains that given all we know and I have said in this ridiculously long paragraph, we could have evolved from a common ancestor with chimps and bonobos. Further, we could have evolved from a common ancestor with all primates. Further still, all mammals, and all vertebrates, and all animals. This had been posited most famously early on by Charles Darwin. Now, our vast riches of fossil evidence compared to then, and DNA evidence which we couldn't have examined in Darwin's time, has corroborated and confirmed that it is all possible. 

Given all of that, the only thing you can say is "well, it's implausible that it all ended up this way, and I think a god had to do something". I will accept that the odds that everything ended up exactly this way are slim. However, you have to consider the difference in "I won the lottery" vs. "Somebody won the lottery". 

I'm sure you accept the scientific theories concerning weather patterns. Those fly directly in the face of Thor throwing lightning. Do they fly in the face of Yahweh's actions? Probably not although I haven't read the entire bible yet. I've also not seen a Christian complaining about meteorology being taught in a classroom, so I'll assume maybe not (and if so, it's one of those parts of the bible all Christians ignore...). You probably accept heliocentrism and an (oblate) spherical earth, even though verses in your bible seem to contradict that! Because of popular rhetoric, that is your comfort zone. Accept the astronomy, the meteorology, but be cynical when it comes to the biology. If you've been on a plane you have some personal experience regarding the earth's curvature as it's somewhat evident from that altitude. However, when it comes to meteorology, I guarantee you that you have about the same level of evidence to the validity of meteorology as you do to biological science regarding our origins. You can have a hot shower and see droplets on your ceiling and steam on your mirror. Equally, you can DNA test yourself and your children, and your parents, and your siblings, and your cousins, and your second cousins, and see how the change occurs. If you were to map whole genomes, you could even see which genes you got from each parent, and which were copied perfectly, and which not (AKA mutations). The assumed age of our common ancestor with chimpanzees (before we were able to examine DNA) fell in line with the age when we measure the rate of DNA change between generations. Do you not consider this solid evidence? (As usual with my posts, please be sure to directly address the bold bits)

the angle I'm taking on it though is that you're using theory as fact and therefore as proof... which it's really not... Theory is BASED on fact and is 'generally agreed on as proof' (which is a very religious approach)  

Here's my problem with that.  Creationism is BASED on fact.. yes scientific fact.. atheists would say a skewed understanding of it, but nonetheless, they base it on fact... Creationists would claim a skewed understanding of the facts on darwinists.  Basing anything on facts does not make it proof, rather it gives the idea plausibility.  It does not officially confirm it.   Just so you don't try and read between the lines, it also does not officially deny anything... My point is, theories leave a lot of open doors and so all other possibilites must still be considered until it is scientifically confirmed... I believe a Nobel Prize will be in line for anyone who does confirm an established scientific theory.  


caposkia
Theist
Posts: 2701
Joined: 2007-05-15
User is offlineOffline
Jabberwocky wrote:You

Jabberwocky wrote:

You misunderstood what I said there. I did not imply that genetic copying errors ruled out god. You have expressed doubt that unguided evolution could have produced us. We were specifically discussing chromosomal variations in species. You said that the probability is that 46 chromosome humans must have had some advantage if they were to prevail. You then said that there is "almost certainly no advantage in how the DNA is packaged". You didn't cite a source, or any evidence, for the second part so until you do I will take it as an assertion. I provided examples where DNA packaging makes a difference (Downs syndrome) and one where the difference is comparitively smaller (extra sex chromosomes). The truth is variations in genetics can vary wildly in how they express themselves. If combining those 2 chromosomes was in any tiny way advantageous, it was more likely that it would win out, even if the difference is minute. Natural selection is dependant on survival and reproduction. Those two things happen for far, FAR different reasons in humans than they do in wild animals. Our society has changed selection pressures greatly. An extra sex chromosome likely has little to no effect on the population at large. If combining that chromosome that became our chromosome #2 was advantageous in any way, it was more likely to win. Even if the difference was minute. You assert that packaging chromosomes differently has no effect. I agree that it CAN have no effect, but I would argue that it can have an effect (sometimes a large one) as well. Until we are able to test this in a lab, or otherwise discover exactly how genes work, we can't know with certainty what benefit that chromosomal fusion had on our ancestors, if any.

The cited sources are the links that Beyond SAving posted... I had gotten all that information from those. It was a quoted statement I believe.

jabberwocky wrote:

My entire point on the chromosomal fusion was that you are left with 2 choices if you contend that we can not have a common ancestor with chimpanzees and bonobos (which you haven't said outright, but seem to imply). 

1. Our human ancestors had 48 chromosomes that fused, meaning that our DNA was even more similar to a chimp's or bonobo's than it is today; or

2. All humans have always had 46 chromosomes (save for mutations that alter the # of chromosomes), except we were designed with an extra large telomere in the wrong place, and an inactivated centromere in our second chromosome. 

#1 makes parts of the theory of evolution that you denounce more likely, and #2 means that your god was deliberately deceptive. He would have had to design a universe where humans would have required this bizarre chromosome containing what seems to be evidence of us being chimp's cousins. Do you accept my 2 possibilities, or do you posit something else? I don't do these list form posts for everyone, but you seem uniquely evasive. I, therefore, need to know where you actually stand in order to have a proper discussion. 

I posit that we really don't know for sure what happened...  We have evidence of 48 chromosomal humans and 46.  We don't have evidence of that specific chromosome being separate in a human being.  

jabberwocky wrote:

I never claimed that a god couldn't have done it. However, I can confidently say that an omnipotent, omniscient, omnibenevolent god couldn't have. Further, the Christian scriptures paint quite a different story that contradicts what we know. 

Also, even if none of the above was true, that doesn't change anything. Your assertion (as is in line with most believers) is that a god was necessary to make this happen. The evidence I provide merely is to show that it can occur without one. Given that these things could occur without a god, and no actual compelling evidence for a god has actually been provided by anyone, the correct position to take on the matter is that such a supernatural being probably doesn't exist. 

your statement is contradictory.  If you do believe that my God is omnipotent, omniscience, omnibenevolent, then there really is nothing that God "can't" do therefore you cannot confidently say that a God of that magnitude couldn't do something.

The idea is that it "could" occur with the evidence you provided, but it doesn't show that it actually does occur.

Jabberwocky wrote:

And what is that difference, and what relevance does it have to this conversation?

the difference was, yours "dumb" Einsteins "complex"  relevance to this conversation is complexity implies intelligence.

Jabberwocky wrote:

Yes. If our eye was intelligently designed, it would have been possible to wire it the right way. I was not referring to upside-down sight (which is what you thought I meant). Our nerves are in the way. Wired correctly, they wouldn't be. 

As far as upside-down sight, our eye is like a camera that sees upside-down. We know enough that if we were able to design an eye, we could have designed one to see the correct way. We are unable to manipulate genes in that way, but given omnipotence, a team consisting of biologists and engineers could do that rather quickly (without omniscience even...just their combined knowledge). Why is our eye designed to see upside-down if it's so perfect in your opinion?

reflection on the retna would invert the visual feed.  the fact that it works to give us the complex details that it does makes it so perfect IMO

Jabberwocky wrote:

So you're saying that our bodies are a perfect design? Where our food hole is our breathing hole (which is literally the engineering fault that allows us to choke)? 

that "engineering fault" is the difference between having a chance to live and certain death if food gets into that pipe.  If food gets into your lungs, you're pretty much screwed... the choking mechanism is actually designed to block food from getting into the lungs... thus it gives the person a chance to survive the ordeal.  Also breathing allows us to better taste the food we're eating which was also a survival mechanism to allow us to be aware of good or bad foods.

Jabberwocky wrote:

Your last sentence says it all for me. If your god is omnipotent, why are we the ones who have to consider this question? Shouldn't he figure that out, and implement a solution that if it were suddenly to come about today, it would blow our little human minds? Childbirth sucks and is painful for human women, and it's for a simple reason related to the dimensions of the pelvis. If your god is perfect, he should be answering that question, not me. 

IT is scientifically proven that people retain more information with self discovery rather than when the information is fed to you.

Jabberwocky wrote:

No, no, no! Sex causes procreation. Desire for sex causes...sex! By extension, desire for sex causes procreation. Where from that do you get "sex is for the purpose of procreation"?

ok, would sex be biologically necessary if the species did not need to procreate?

jabberwocky wrote:

I use a steel pipe on a ratchet when undoing hard bolts on a car because it's far cheaper than a breaker bar, and my ratchet has a lifetime warranty. Are you suggesting that god has such economic limitations?

I'm suggesting that just because you have all the tools in the universe to create something doesn't mean you have to use the most complicated way to create it.  It is logical that you'd still use simple tools for simple jobs and reuse them when needed.

Jabberwocky wrote:

Gaps in what? Fossil record? Genetics? Name one problematic gap between humans and a simplier primate. Just one. Look up what we know of human ancestry, and find me one gap that has no explanation. 

how about the actual transitional timeline... you've repeatedly stated it would be quite extensive... why do we not have it?

jabberwocky wrote:

Because you don't want it to. That's the only reason either of us see a problem. You will not accept a certain line of evidence because it contradicts a predetermined conclusion you have made. Those of us who think properly, allow the evidence to inform their conclusions instead. You should try that. 

I have to say it again.  Are you reading what you're saying?  It's a; no-true-scottsman fallacy.  Don't use reasoning against me that I can just as easily use against you, it's pointless.  


caposkia
Theist
Posts: 2701
Joined: 2007-05-15
User is offlineOffline
Jabberwocky wrote:caposkia

Jabberwocky wrote:

caposkia wrote:

Jabberwocky wrote:

caposkia wrote:

 

Anyway, The point that the change is NEVER abrupt leads me further into doubt about those changes as described taking place... You're telling me they are never abrupt, which means the fusion likely happens over an extended period of time.... and we have NO actual physical proof of the transformation... not even a part of it... that to me is a problem for the theory.  

Are you deliberately trying to misunderstand this? The fusion isn't gradual. The fusion is a very specific detail. If you compare a human and a chimp chromosome, you can calculate roughly how many generations ago a common ancestor would have existed. By abrupt, I mean something like creationists typically look for (one "kind" giving birth to another "kind" where kinds are at LEAST at the genus level, and sometimes all the way up to the kingdom level in the most idiotic cases, like when Ray Comfort says "They're still bacteria!&quotEye-wink.

http://www.amnh.org/exhibitions/past-exhibitions/human-origins/understanding-our-past/dna-comparing-humans-and-chimps

Here is a little page with some information about DNA. It's very basic information, but if you read that, it says that there are about 35 million differences between human and chimpanzee base pairs. When talking of these 35 million differences, those 35 million diverged gradually. However, each single one of those 35 million changes had to happen abruptly. So if it's 6 million years, that's about 6 differences a year. If we take an age range for how long one generation was, and use a broad range like 15-35 years between each parent/child, you get between 90 and 210 differences in base pairs between parent and child. Even 210 out of 3 billion (roughly the number of base pairs that both us and chimps have total) certainly doesn't seem like a lot. All it takes is selection pressures to drive it a specific way.

 

Here is an exerpt from a different page on that same site.

Quote:

Tracing the Human-Chimp Ancestor

By comparing DNA sequences from humans and chimpanzees, experts calculated that the last human-chimp ancestor lived roughly six million years ago. Later, the discovery of a hominid fossil dating back six to seven million years supported this claim.

Why do you think that when geneticists run the math, they come up with the same numbers as geologists/archaeologists?

I want to read the link before posting a reply to this, but for some reason the link brought me to an "error page"... will you try to post it again?  

The article appears to be gone. Try this link:

http://web.archive.org/web/20140419091212/http://www.amnh.org/exhibitions/past-exhibitions/human-origins/understanding-our-past/dn...

If that doesn't work (you might have to do it yourself) then go here:

https://archive.org/web/web.php

Paste the original link in there, and click April 19th. It worked for me, but I do get an error page as you do with just the original link now. 

thank you.  I don't have time righ tnow, but I will get to this... I didn't want you to think I ignored it


Vastet
atheistBloggerSuperfan
Vastet's picture
Posts: 13210
Joined: 2006-12-25
User is offlineOffline
caposkia wrote:those

caposkia wrote:
those examples aren't limits of choice, but of lifestyle.

Noone chooses their own lifestyle? lol you play right into my argument.

caposkia wrote:
Choice is limitless really if you think about it.

No it isn't. Not even remotely.

caposkia wrote:
You cannot fly?  Go to an airport.

Riding a machine that flies isn't flying. And even if it were, what about the people 130 years ago? 200 years ago? 1000 years ago?

caposkia wrote:
you cannot be rich?  Go back to school and study (you may not enjoy it, but you can get a job with the right education that will make you rich if you dedicate yourself to it.)

Not true. There are hundreds of thousands of people with a very high level of education that are stuck in dead end jobs because there isn't enough demand for their expertise. Also, higher education costs money. How can I become a NASA engineer if I can't afford the required education?
The suggestion that you can be rich if you work at it is bullshit. Say instead that you MIGHT become rich if you work at it, and then you'll be talking a lot more realistically.

caposkia wrote:
You cannot choose to end a war you didn't start because you did not choose to start

Bullshit. People have ended wars they didn't start. WWII was ended by a conglomeration of nation's who didn't start it.

caposkia wrote:
You can put limits on anything... that is also a choice.  As the song goes, "if you decide not to choose, you have still made a choice".    Choice is limitless, your lifestyle is limited.

Choice is limited, lifestyle is irrelevant, and you are delusional.

caposkia wrote:
Ah, so you're a predestinationalist.  I don't adhere to that belief system.

Yes you do. You believe in an omnipotent, omniscient, immortal, creator god. You have no choice but to adhere to the systems that requires. Even if you don't like it.

caposkia wrote:
but it would be what is necessary to prove your perspective..

It isn't necessary. Every single fossil ever found and every life form ever examined fits with the theory of evolution. There is no competing theory. What we have is all we need. Unless someone someday finds something that doesn't fit, which is so unlikely as to be dismissed out of hand, evolution will remain a fact.

caposkia wrote:
which you now have just confirmed is impossible.

The fact that you require such exhaustive evidence which is so far beyond the threshold for science shows only that you're a hypocrite. You accept other scientific theories which actually have evidence showing they are not completely accurate, like gravity. But you won't accept a theory that has been challenged repeatedly over more than a century, with absolutely nothing that contends with it.

caposkia wrote:
The primitive and igorant understanding of ancient people's science is an excuse.

No it's a fact. Maybe you'd entrust the building of a bridge to someone who doesn't know the first thing about engineering, but I won't.

caposkia wrote:
Would you really want to see evidence for my God?

Yes.

caposkia wrote:
you however have already decided there isn't any

I have not. I've decided YOUR god doesn't exist, because your god is literally impossible. All the 'evidence' for the christian god logically proves there isn't one.
I'm willing to accept the probability that the teachings of your god have been corrupted by man, however, so there is a slight possibility that your god does exist, on the condition that the bible and scripture cannot lead me to him.
But god in general? I have no basis to dismiss the idea. I simply have no reason to embrace it.

caposkia wrote:
but are you looking in the right spot?

If I'm not looking in the right spot then maybe god should be the good guy he claims to be and put some evidence where I'm looking. It shouldn't be hard, he's omnipotent. And it's not like it would just be for me. Doing so could potentially reach billions of people. Of course maybe he doesn't want to reach billions. It should be simple for an omnipotent being to reach me alone if so.

caposkia wrote:
My question to you is what would you expect to see as evidence if there was a God?  Your answer to this question will determine whether you were being truthful about whether you really would love to see evidence for my God.

I don't know what would do it. I've thought about it quite a bit. All I know is what won't do it. An inconsistent book which completely ignores or challenges simple facts with simple mindedness won't do it. A person who even the believer says is corrupted by sin won't do it. I have no idea what would do it. But if god is omniscient, then god knows. Since you apparently have his ear, perhaps you could ask him.

Proud Canadian, Enlightened Atheist, Gaming God.


Jabberwocky
atheist
Posts: 411
Joined: 2012-04-21
User is offlineOffline
 caposkia wrote:Jabberwocky

 

caposkia wrote:

Jabberwocky wrote:
 I must split this to address this point individually. To begin with your first sentence(ish), evolution never claims to explain how things got started. That lies in other scientific fields. Creationism doesn't explain it either. It asserts it without any supporting evidence. Evolution doesn't tackle it because it's not equipped to, and doesn't claim to. On average, evolutionary biologists probably know more about abiogenesis than the average layperson, but they are certainly not deemed experts at it. So, to your next bit, proving evolution vs. proving darwinism... The point here is that nobody has ever demonstrated that there is a limit, or a cutoff to how far it WILL go. Nobody has ever shown that genes all of a sudden stop changing. They mutate. Copying errors happen. Based on rate of genetic change that we can measure, the conclusion is that us and chimpanzees 100% could have evolved from a common ancestor. There is no odd bump in that road that is unexplainable. It is also proven that even further back a common ancestor between us and all of the other great apes, and further still, the other primates is possible as well. It is proven that a common ancestor between us and all other animals is possible. It is proven that a common ancestor between all animals, plants, AND fungii could have existed as well. No geneticist, not even a creationist one, has EVER proven that this can not happen. Isn't this puzzling, considering that creationists want so SO badly to find this?  As far as proving evolution vs. proving darwinism, the only difference is time. More time = more change (although the rate of change does vary depending on selection pressures driven by environment). As I said in the above paragraph, we have seen that there is nothing to suggest that there is a limit to this rate of change. So what is it that prevents you from accepting this? Is it a lack of time? Do you believe that there is indeed a limit on genetic change regardless of large quantities of time (even though nobody has ever demonstrated this)? Or is it some third option I can't see at the moment?  
 What prevents me from accepting this is lack of evidence that it actually happens that way... Sure we can deduce that there is no limit to how things can evolve, but the oxymoron that us and chimpanzees 100% could have is not compelling evidence that Creationism is wrong.   A "could have" conclusion is in no way scientific, it's an assumption based on what we think we know.   I don't disagree that there really is no limit that we are aware of as far as how much something can evolve.  but I do believe due to lack of evidence as you so blatently state about Creationism that it does not prove Darwinism over Creationism.  I think we're all pretty much on the same page with evolution with the exeption of origins which you and I agree is not evolution.  Therefore, evolution i don't think is going to bring progression to the Noah conversation.  
 You see though, you have seemingly accepted the evidence that it's at least remotely possible that we evolved this way. If you actually don't agree that this is possible, please say why you think it's not even possible. You, on the other hand, have not provided any evidence that it could have happened your way. You have not shown that an omnipotent being exists. You have not shown any evidence for creationism. You have not shown any evidence of any supernatural occurence ever. Not only does evolution (in its entirety) explain how we came about wonderfully, there is not one competing explanation that has ANY compelling evidence that support it, and dispute evolution. This is why it is considered a scientific fact. You seem to be unable to understand this. These sorts of theories are accepted to be true unless a better explanation is provided. Your explanation involves a god (no evidence), who performs supernatural deeds (no evidence), who created humans independantly, rather than as beings evolved from other primates (no evidence, AND contrary evidence exists), flooded the entire world (no evidence), created unique languages to confuse people (no evidence, and I can understand a considerable percentage of most of Eastern Europe's languages being fluent in only 1)...I can go on like this. However, it would be unnecessary as I think you must get the point by now. The fact that all of the evidence supports the conclusion made by biologists (evolution by natural selection, and universal common descent from one abiogenesis event) makes it so likely to be true, you have a better chance of personally winning every single lottery in the world in one week. And even that isn't astronomical enough odds to explain what would have to happen in order for evolution to be incorrect. It would require so many errors over 150 years+, that we can at this point call it effectively impossible.  
caposkia wrote:
 
Jabberwocky wrote:
 I don't see it as having a shaky foundation. It appears to me that you do. You mention that it's not a scientific fact. This shows your misunderstanding. Let me list some facts.  
 ok 
Jab wrote:
 - No fossil has EVER been located that puzzled the scientific community as to its location in a geological column, or its location geographically 
 why would it? 
 
Jab wrote:
 - In modern times, many previously undiscovered fossils have been found that were similar to expectations based on data we already had 
 great, it should be if we're doing our homework correctly 
Jab wrote:
 - Geographic distribution of living organisms and fossils suggest that a gradual change over time has occurred 
 that IS how evolution works 
Jab wrote:
 - Study of DNA and genes in general (a more recent ability we now have) has agreed 100% with all assumptions of universal common descent. 
 except that we just don't have the actual evidence of such an occurance despite the countless numbers of categories. 
 Stop here. What would qualify (to you) as actual evidence? I have presented a lot of it. The conclusion was made on less evidence than we have now, and all evidence we have found since supports the conclusion. What would it take for you to accept it? Furthermore, if it isn't true, why haven't we found a single piece of contradictory evidence? The evidence can be insufficient for a dogmatic mind such as yours, but all of it fits together. 100% of it. By now with how thoroughly these things have been examined, we would have found one fossil out of place, or that one inconsistency in DNA in life, if it weren't true. This would be another astronomically unlikely thing if universal common descent wasn't true; that we haven't found one single piece of evidence to the contrary.  
caposkia wrote:
 
Jab wrote:
 - Dating by the study of DNA has shown similar dates to dates by geologists. 
 it has also shown a margin of error that can span thousands of years in some cases.  Similar or not, it really doesn't support your case.  Need I remind you I am not a YEC 
 Yes it does show a margin of error. Why bring it up if it's not a problem for your case though? To your last point here, I haven't forgotten that you're not a YEC. However, the biggest problem here is you have failed to outline what exactly it is you believe regarding what was created, and what evolved, and on what evidence you have based YOUR conclusion. As it goes with any such discussion, if the views of one side aren't even concise to begin with, then it is impossible to actually argue it. I will state the following: My views on the history of life on earth are informed by the evidence. I have no pre-conceived conclusion which compells me to ignore any evidence. I may seem to dismiss creationist "evidence" quickly, but that is because any time I have inspected it more closely, it has shown to be erroneous. Indeed, most creationist literature comes from the YEC crowd, and most of their conclusions regarding biology require that framework. Since I know that the earth is levels of magnitude older than 6000 years old, I can dismiss much of what they say. The reason I ask you many questions and ask you to answer "why" questions where you actually agree with me on certain points, is because your position has never been outlined. Can you give me a short outline of what you believe regarding the history of life on earth, and where it majorly differs from Young Earth beliefs, and where it majorly differs from the conclusions of biologists? Until you do that, you're not even shifting goalposts; you haven't even put them into the ground yet. I'm just running around here kicking a ball. 
caposkia wrote:
 
Jab wrote:
 - No feature has ever been located in DNA that prevents change from occurring indefinitely. 
 great, so science is now being used to prove a negative.  I've gotten so much flack on this site when people think I'm doing that... why is it ok for you to do it? 
 Prove what negative? Science is largely deductive. Take the phlogiston theory (the theory that a fire-like element called phlogiston existed in anything that burns). The theory was disproven, because magnesium gained mass when it was burned. Science had proven that phlogiston wasn't real. Where I have issue is when you ask someone to prove to you that an event from the bible didn't take place. You don't understand how the burden of proof works in this situation. Our inability to disprove a certain verse commenting on history in the bible does not make it any more likely that it happened. The point is, we see that DNA changes. Nobody has ever seen it abruptly stop changing. If your position is that humans actually could have evolved naturally from a common ancestor with chimps, but didn't because you believe god created us, well then there isn't much to argue unless you provide evidence as to why you think that way. If that's the case, you're just asserting. If you argue that humans could NOT have evolved from a common ancestor with chimps, you must show why you think that. I am presenting to you what might change my mind on the topic. If you were to locate a biological mechanism that would have prevented that, well then we can say it didn't happen! No such mechanism has ever been shown.  
caposkia wrote:
 
Jabberwocky wrote:
 Every time a new discovery is made, it is another piece of evidence in favour of evolution, and common descent among all life on Earth. I am not saying this as a dogma. I am just saying that every time new evidence is uncovered, it fits with the explanation given. This explanation is "the theory of evolution". Could you find me any evidence in genetics that disproves this? Could you find me any evidence in the fossil record that is out of place either geographically or geologically? Could you come up with any other potential issues that could disprove the theory? Because until then, all evidence that we find just so happens to fit in with the theory of evolution. In fact, the theory of evolution in its entirety is the ONLY explanation that has been shown to work to explain what we find. The details of how we know this are very very specific, and come from several fields of science. Until you can come up with an actual competing theory that is supported by this many fields of science, and can make specific predictions, you are just saying random crap. Either address one of my points that would actually disprove evolution, or present your own specifically, get me to agree with it, and demonstrate to me something that would disprove it. That's all you need to do.  
 I don't need to... just in case through these past few pages you weren't quite getting the hint, The Bible does not contradict evolution.  Only the common decent idea, which you stated clearly earlier is not evolution.   
 Where in the fuck did I say, or even imply that "common decent" (sic) is not evolution? 
caposkia wrote:
 None of that would prove your perspective whether I could or could not find all you listed above... also again it's not logical to suggest that I should prove a negative with science, rather there should be contradictory evidence of a new discovery that would ultimately discredit the old idea.   
 This is utter gibberish. I mean it. I've read it about 5 times now, and it makes absolutely zero sense. "there should be contradictory evidence of a new discovery that would ultimately discredit the old idea"....what? I know English can be stupid at times, but it's a surprisingly precise language if you use it properly. Please do exactly that. 
caposkia wrote:
 
Jabberwocky wrote:
 Regardless of a model with 3 groups, the truth is that even with a model of 2 groups, speciation events occur because the genes of two lineages from one common ancestor have diverged too far. What prevents them from diverging further? 
 DNA odds really.  We don't have any evidence to suggest it does or doesn't other than Creationism, which does not use evolution to support its understanding.  The thing is, if God can be proven to be a realistic being, then none of the evidence up to this point in evolution and geology will need to change and can still support creationism.   
 DNA odds doesn't prevent it. Creationism is not evidence. Also, even if, even IF your brand of creationism (which I again insist you explain at least one time, as you have been very vague on what you actually believe) were right, it would mean that your god deliberately made all the DNA so uncannily similar and in such a specific way, that it fooled every biologist (also known as: the people who spend the most time in their lives out of any humans anywhere studying exactly these things!) into thinking that we are all descendants of one abiogenesis event that took place on our planet. That would make him deceptive, as an omnipotent god by definition could have made it a different way. 
caposkia wrote:
 
jabberywocky wrote:
 This description of missing links shows me that you don't seem to understand the way this works. If humans and chimps had a common ancestor, there isn't one single intermediary. There is no point where one species becomes another, as every offspring is the same species as its parent. Much like if you look at a rainbow, it's not possible to say at which point one colour becomes another. The names of colours are just arbitrary points. However, in biology, it's as if we have something quite reddish, and something quite blu-ish, but nothing really distinctly purple in most cases. In rarer cases, it's as if we have some royal blue and some blu-ish red, and they can produce these sterile offspring (such as mules). The point is, though, that the only reason we are able to classify species is because the indermediaries have died off. There is no instant at birth where one species simply births another. If we were able to go back in time, we would be able to attempt to mate one generation further and further back until we found the point where most humans were no longer reproductively compatible with an ancestor. However, we can't travel back in time, and I don't believe that anybody would be willing to participate even if time travel were possible (eww...sorry, haha) 
 yea, I'll pass that on to someone else. Anyway, this reasoning is even more cause as to why I have trouble accepting it.  Just like in your rainbow, though you can't see exactly when one color turns to the next, you can clearly see a connection between all the colors.. even more so because they blend at the connection.  In evolution, there is no such clear connection... in fact, there are breaks... we see the red, a slit of sky and then blue... there may be a string of bluish red in the middle, but there is a distinct disconnect and change in the colors.  The bluish red then would be seen as its own color and not a mix of the 2 because again they are not connected.   
 Using the incomplete rainbow analogy, we posited "Well, we have red here, and green here. We would expect to find something similar to orange, and something similar to yellow in between". We later find these links. We find them very similar to what we expected to find. You say we have red, and a slit of sky....what slit of sky? I'm confused by your interpretation of the analogy.  
caposkia wrote:
 
Jabberwocky wrote:
 On your first point, it's still a problem for you. The math Bill Nye did had 11 new species every day. So that would be 36865 new species a year. If you do the math from a flood 4000 years ago to one 2 million years ago as you posit, that's 73.73 (so almost 74) new species a year. This is simply not a rate of speciation that we observe. This is to believe that evolution occurs FAR quicker than non-creationists do. We know this does not happen right now. If you posit that it happened quicker before, then you're positing an EVEN quicker rate of speciation. Your position here is still scientifically absurd, just less so by a few orders of magnitude than Ken Ham's. Also, that's if you agree with Ham that a "kind" is more on the family level. Even if it is at the family level, there is no way the Ark could have held all of the mammals, birds, insects, aquariums full of fish (fresh-water+salt-water mix = bad for all involved here), reptiles, amphibians, etc. etc., If you put it at the genus level, this problem becomes several orders of magnitude bigger.  So you either have to posit evolution occurring at what seems to be beyond an impossible rate, or you have to posit cramming an impossible number of animals onto a wooden boat.  The event or chain of events that caused marsupials to end up in Australia is that they evolved there, or near there. The separation of Pangaea is likely responsible for their geographic isolation which made way for the evolution of the variety of marsupials we see today. 
 the thing with evolution is it's not a smooth line of transition in order for that math to work... as far as special creation, there is no definite number that determines when or how many species were created during what time periods.  Also speciation occurs more dramatically or less dramatically depending on the weather patterns and needs of the species.  Consider the dramatic weather changes that have happened in the past 2 million years.  There is good reason for a mass evolutionary process to happen within a limited number of species to have to change to dramatic climate changes that have occured as well as migration. 
So earlier in this post, we discussed in biology methods by which we could have gotten to this point. The theory of evolution by natural selection (which includes the idea of universal common descent) is a functional model. Could you make a functional model that includes the global flood and the ark? You would have to provide a way that all of the animals could fit on a wooden boat, and have enough food for a year, and then a rate of speciation that is within an acceptable range to repopulate the earth (and provide the diversity we have). In my opinion, either it would be too crowded an ark, or an impossible rate of speciation. Am I wrong? If so, why?  
caposkia wrote:
jabberwocky wrote:
 I just asked you if it's human or ape, and you answered "no". I assume, though, that you mean that Australopithecus Afarensis is not human because it is classified as a great ape? Or did I misunderstand what you meant?  
 I think you understood correctly.  I also agree with the reasoning for the classification as explained in Wiki.   
Ok. Australopithecus, not human. Next, is homo habilis human? And yes, I'm going to keep going here one by one. 
caposkia wrote:
jabberwocky wrote:
 There is no difference between the two. Those who make the predictions are almost exclusively those who accept darwinism. Although I have to say I would prefer to use the term "universal common descent" or something of that sort. Not because I'm necessarily adverse to the term darwinism, but because it is a term that is often later used to attempt to conflate biological theory with things that are awful such as eugenics, and the idea of social darwinism.  
 well, it is a religion.  There is a difference though as we discussed 
What's a religion?
caposkia wrote:
jabberwocky wrote:
 Because even a creator of a car only uses the same parts over multiple models if it makes some sense! A car company has things to think about such as financial viability, assembly lines, parts supplying, etc. If they can design all of their cars to use the same door handles, they'll damn well try to. Most car companies have a range of engines, and they put them into many models of their cars. If funds were limitless, they would not do that. They would custom make each engine for each type or at least size of car, in order to provide the best balance of power, fuel economy, smoothness, etc. Are you suggesting that god had a resource or economy problem?    
 I'm suggesting that He created using simpler terms than people assume He would use.  His original intention was to create humans... He created animals as humans companion, but likely used the same blueprint so as to apply commonality somehow.  It is not out of the question to see that pattern in science. 
 So a completely evasive answer that doesn't address any part of my question. My question was why share parts if they're not ideal? You said "Im suggesting that He created using simpler terms than people assume He would use." To me, that would be like answering my question with "because". 

 

Theists - If your god is omnipotent, remember the following: He (or she) has the cure for cancer, but won't tell us what it is.


Beyond Saving
atheist
Beyond Saving's picture
Posts: 5448
Joined: 2007-10-12
User is offlineOffline
caposkia wrote:Beyond Saving

caposkia wrote:

Beyond Saving wrote:

Caposkia wrote:

But I got exactly what I wanted out of you here... 

 now, hoestly I want to research it a bit.  Do you have any links that show the evidence in life of group 2 mating and reproducing with 1 and 3?  I mean cross genus... there would have to be a inter-genus group right? 

 

No, there wouldn't have to be an inter-genus group. Most biologists believe that most species stem from ancestors who branched out to create new genus groups, in other words, they belonged to one genus and eventually became genetically isolated (unable to reproduce with any species other than their own) and from that point became so genetically dissimilar as to be classified as a different genus, family, order, class or even a new phylum. Ultimately, the categorizations are one of convenience rather than clear lines and changes occur in them quite often. One species that has recently been reclassified into a brand new phylum is the Xenoturbella http://www.wired.com/2011/02/new-phylum/

 

Regardless, it is certainly possible for intergeneric hybrids. Sheep and goats is a particularly common one. The cama (camel/llama) and wholphin (dolphin/whale) are other confirmed real life examples. There are also examples of inter-familial hybrids also exist such as the guineafowl. 

 

There are a few reasons why it becomes more rare as you move up the ladder- the more genetically dissimilar two species are, the less likely they are to be capable of interbreeding. Although probably the largest reason is that most animals don't even attempt to mate outside their species. Among plants, which are the bar sluts of the animal world and willing to mate with any pollen that comes along, inter-generic and inter-familial hybrids are far more common. Which gives us a great opportunity to see evolution in progress and new species being created. It shows that crossbreeding of even extremely distant relations is possible, even if it is (relatively) rare.

 http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/mec.12005/abstract

After checking the link and seeing that they originally miscategorized the Xenoturbella, and are now still presuming that it's "more likely" categorized correctly... and seeing that nothing you noted is definitive, but rather presumable, it's hard for me to see this as "evidence"

How is the existence of all of the species I mentioned anything less than definitive? Species can crossbreed with very different species under some conditions. Earlier you claimed that it never occurred, I provided proof that it does. Inter-genus breeding is rare, but it does occur. My point with the Xenoturbella is that our categorization system is one of convenience and isn't set in stone. It changes frequently.

 

 

Caposkia wrote:

Beyond Saving wrote:

 

And I will raise you one more. One animal species has figured out how to mate with plants and has actually crossed kingdoms to become the first animal/plant hybrid known to exist (assuming you don't consider plants crossed with bacterium in labs to be such a hybrid, which it technically is but yeah it is created by us rather than naturally occuring.) 

 

Say hello to the Elysia Chlorotica AKA green sea slug.  

http://www.wired.com/2010/01/green-sea-slug/

This fellow figured out how to mate with plants and steal their dna, which it actually passes on to its offspring. They are born with the ability to survive on photosynthesis. They literally don't need to eat as long as they get sunlight because they are half plant.   

so manipulating DNA from a common source to create something new is evidence that God did not create it?

No, it is evidence that it can occur and there is an explanation for how that doesn't require a god. You wanted evidence of intergenus breeding, so I supplied that and went a step further with this example of interkingdom breeding. I thought it was particularly appropriate considering your flippant remarks earlier regarding plants.

 

 

Caposkia wrote:

I know all of what you said seems to be evidence supporting your perspective, but none of what you said:

1. defined a clear peice of evidence that such interspecial evolution actually occurs

2. proved that God did not create any of it

3.  showed how origins started from one source specifically beyond speculation.  

if anything, I see reason to accept it as evolution doing its job and that things still originated at their Kinds.

1. I showed clear evidence of a species that evolved by crossbreeding with a plant, a half dozen examples of interspecies crossbreeding, interfamilial crossbreeding, intergenus crossbreeding and a species that. What other evidence do you want?

2. I am not attempting to prove that God didn't create any of it. I am merely attempting to prove that what you claimed earlier is impossible is in fact possible. You will always be able to say "Well yeah, but God created it" no matter what evidence I provide. The statement is not falsifiable. At most, I can point out that there is absolutely no evidence that a god created any of it so saying "God created it" is equal to claiming that a unicorn created it. 

3. Of course not. The evidence suggests that it is possible, but I believe it is more probable that life came from multiple sources. With the tools available to us right now, it is impossible to know for sure and quite possible that we will never know for sure.    

 

If, if a white man puts his arm around me voluntarily, that's brotherhood. But if you - if you hold a gun on him and make him embrace me and pretend to be friendly or brotherly toward me, then that's not brotherhood, that's hypocrisy.- Malcolm X


Beyond Saving
atheist
Beyond Saving's picture
Posts: 5448
Joined: 2007-10-12
User is offlineOffline
caposkia wrote:and what are

caposkia wrote:

and what are the odds of all that being planned?  Created that way if you will?  And based on what?  I only ask that based on the idea that the "odds" we are talking about are quite small.

The odds of it being planned are impossible to calculate since there is zero evidence of a being that would be capable of planning and creating it is even possible let alone all the variables that would be involved with such a being coming into existence. It is odd that you scoff at odds that we can calculate fairly accurately because we have observable examples, but then posit a being capable of controlling everything without ever considering how such a being could even come into existence.

If, if a white man puts his arm around me voluntarily, that's brotherhood. But if you - if you hold a gun on him and make him embrace me and pretend to be friendly or brotherly toward me, then that's not brotherhood, that's hypocrisy.- Malcolm X


Beyond Saving
atheist
Beyond Saving's picture
Posts: 5448
Joined: 2007-10-12
User is offlineOffline
caposkia wrote:Beyond Saving

caposkia wrote:

Beyond Saving wrote:

 

http://www.answersingenesis.org/articles/am/v2/n4/geologic-evidences-part-one

 

The basis of his entire argument is that the idea that rock formations are hundreds of millions of years old is "impossible" and that they could only be formed by a single massive flood. It is not recognized as evidence of ANY flood by most geologists. ]

 

Yes, there is evidence of drastic floods. I have never doubted that. All it does is show that if there had been a bigger flood, we would expect to see similar evidence of it. A large flood in a portion of the world where there weren't even humans doesn't even help your theory that it was a large flood localized where every human in the world was since in locations where we know our ancestors were 2-3 million years ago, there is no similar evidence of similar massive flooding, let alone the significantly larger flood suggested in the bible. 

if a flood of such magnitude happened here, it is evidence that the occurance claimed in scripture could have happened there during that time.  Location of such evidence is irrelevant be it that we're not talking about THEE flood when speaking of evidence of magnitude.

The magnitude is nowhere near what is suggested in scripture and location is not irrelevant at all because the fact that we have evidence of a much smaller flood on the opposite side of the world is a very good reason to believe that we would have evidence if a much larger flood occurred. 

 

Caposkia wrote:

Beyond Saving wrote:

No, they didn't. And if you read their writing, every time they refer to a source they call the conclusions drawn by the real scientists "ridiculous" and "impossible". The sources they site don't support their rantings. You would be far better off reading the sources because they at least have logical conclusions stemming from an examination of the available evidence. 

They don't acknowledge all cited sources and use many of them to support their claims.

Which ones? 

 

caposkia wrote:

Millions of years is a bit of a stretch don't you think?  but is it really absurd to consider that separated cultures did just that, they invented, then lost the invention due to their demise for some reason or left behind in a means of escaping something, etc?  It seems quite possible to me.

It is more than a stretch, it is a ridiculously long leap, but it is what you are suggesting. You suggest that a culture existed 2 million+ years ago that had technology on par with civilizations 3 thousand years ago but somehow managed to avoid leaving any evidence of their technological advancement. We aren't talking about a single invention, we are talking about the disappearence of thousands of inventions and discoveries that wouldn't be remade for millions of years. That is a ridiculously long leap.

 

caposkia wrote:

it's just an odd connection to make the wine contingent on the invention of clay pots.  Sure it's easy... do you think that wine making was invented by a scientist?  natural fermentation occurs and was likely observed by humans, who then likely tried to recreate the process and figured out a fairly simple means of doing so with the heat of the sun in desert reigons.

Heat doesn't help wine, it destroys it. Extended exposure to temperatures above 80 degrees will damage the wine and prevent fermentation, temperatures below 70 degrees will cause the fermentation to be too slow and prevent the process. In both cases, you end up with spoiled grape juice. That is another reason why wine wasn't discovered until after people started storing their food in controlled temperatures. (And another reason why clay was particularly conducive to making wine because it maintains a more stable temperature.)  

 

Caposkia wrote:

Beyond SAving wrote:

Are there any credible meteorologists who have posited that it is theoretically possible? 

I don't know... I think if you ask any credible meteorologist, they will tell you that we have only about 150 years of legitimate weather history and the rest is based on geological studies and ice samples... based on those samples however, the weather we've experienced in the last 150 years has been quite mild.  They would also likely add that it would not be impossible to consider that weather patterns could do any number of things that could lead to such extremes that are immaginable to us today.

I've never heard a meteorologist suggest that geological studies, ice cores and tree rings as less than legitimate. Is there any such evidence that points to the kind of massive storms you suggest? 

 

caposkia wrote:

be it that I have the understanding in this field, i did not use sources.  Why do you doubt it?  What evidence do you have that suggests what i've said is extreme let alone implausible?

Because you have made a number of assertions about various topics that were incorrect and I don't have the personal knowledge to be able to separate what is supported and what is just a naked assertion. Since you claim knowledge in the field, it should be easy to point me towards academic sources that support what you are claiming. 

 

 

caposkia wrote:

bad comparisons... wind and rain are 2 majorly different forces in nature... you also can't say that hurricane force winds clocked at 200 mph means that the hurricane had sustained winds of 200 mph.. rather the speed of the wind in teh hurricane at that level was 1. likely a gust, or 2, in a very very concentrated part of the storm... the rain however has been observed to flood New England severely though it made landfall in the gulf of Mexico.

So what evidence do you have that the sustained rain you are claiming is possible?

 

caposkia wrote:

it's exponential when observing tallied rainfall... not when observing a specific weatehr pattern over the same location for 1 week... it's not the weather "patterns" that lose their energy, they're just patterns, it's the storms themselves... which is why there'd have to be a chain of storms caused by a specific pattern being fed from a tropical source, which if you notice doesn't tend to run out of energy except seasonally... plenty of time for a 40 day flood.

From what I've noticed, that kind of chain of storms has never occurred during any season anywhere in the world. 

 

caposkia wrote:

Beyond Saving wrote:

And yet it has never produced anything even approaching Noah's flood, so obviously a stall in the jet stream is not enough.  

maybe not in the last 150 years, but even you claimed that it has been discovered that severe floods have happened in history.  

Granted there'd have to be more than just a stall in the Jet stream... there'd have to be a particular stall reaching to tropical moist locations, then there'd have to be a separate pattern that would guide the moisture to those storms being channeled by the stalled jet stream.  (this has been observed)... there would have to also be a high pressure system set in place close enough to guide the storms, yet far enough away to not cause sheer and break the storms down.  There then would have to be a convection of air before the location in question to cool and condense the moisture in the air to create the storms, but in the right spot so that they release right on the location.  This would be an upper air low with cooler air.  There's more to it as well, but you see why I didn't decide to dive into that.

Yes, "severe" floods have occured many times in history and we have evidence of them. The story of Noah isn't about a severe flood, it is about a flood that is hundreds of times larger than the most severe floods we have evidence of that somehow didn't leave any evidence even if we accept your interpretation that the flood was much more local than the bible says.  

If, if a white man puts his arm around me voluntarily, that's brotherhood. But if you - if you hold a gun on him and make him embrace me and pretend to be friendly or brotherly toward me, then that's not brotherhood, that's hypocrisy.- Malcolm X


caposkia
Theist
Posts: 2701
Joined: 2007-05-15
User is offlineOffline
caposkia wrote:Jabberwocky

caposkia wrote:

Jabberwocky wrote:

caposkia wrote:

Jabberwocky wrote:

caposkia wrote:

 

Anyway, The point that the change is NEVER abrupt leads me further into doubt about those changes as described taking place... You're telling me they are never abrupt, which means the fusion likely happens over an extended period of time.... and we have NO actual physical proof of the transformation... not even a part of it... that to me is a problem for the theory.  

Are you deliberately trying to misunderstand this? The fusion isn't gradual. The fusion is a very specific detail. If you compare a human and a chimp chromosome, you can calculate roughly how many generations ago a common ancestor would have existed. By abrupt, I mean something like creationists typically look for (one "kind" giving birth to another "kind" where kinds are at LEAST at the genus level, and sometimes all the way up to the kingdom level in the most idiotic cases, like when Ray Comfort says "They're still bacteria!&quotEye-wink.

http://www.amnh.org/exhibitions/past-exhibitions/human-origins/understanding-our-past/dna-comparing-humans-and-chimps

Here is a little page with some information about DNA. It's very basic information, but if you read that, it says that there are about 35 million differences between human and chimpanzee base pairs. When talking of these 35 million differences, those 35 million diverged gradually. However, each single one of those 35 million changes had to happen abruptly. So if it's 6 million years, that's about 6 differences a year. If we take an age range for how long one generation was, and use a broad range like 15-35 years between each parent/child, you get between 90 and 210 differences in base pairs between parent and child. Even 210 out of 3 billion (roughly the number of base pairs that both us and chimps have total) certainly doesn't seem like a lot. All it takes is selection pressures to drive it a specific way.

 

Here is an exerpt from a different page on that same site.

Quote:

Tracing the Human-Chimp Ancestor

By comparing DNA sequences from humans and chimpanzees, experts calculated that the last human-chimp ancestor lived roughly six million years ago. Later, the discovery of a hominid fossil dating back six to seven million years supported this claim.

Why do you think that when geneticists run the math, they come up with the same numbers as geologists/archaeologists?

I want to read the link before posting a reply to this, but for some reason the link brought me to an "error page"... will you try to post it again?  

The article appears to be gone. Try this link:

http://web.archive.org/web/20140419091212/http://www.amnh.org/exhibitions/past-exhibitions/human-origins/understanding-our-past/dn...

If that doesn't work (you might have to do it yourself) then go here:

https://archive.org/web/web.php

Paste the original link in there, and click April 19th. It worked for me, but I do get an error page as you do with just the original link now. 

thank you.  I don't have time righ tnow, but I will get to this... I didn't want you to think I ignored it

I finally got around to reading that link... and figuring out how to get to it.  Again, they're talking about commonalities, which is not uncommon throughout species and still make no direct link to the common ancestor despite how matter of fact they try to make it.  They state it, but then don't name that common ancestor and/or show progression... All we have to go on is very common genes that... well happen to be used very differently.  Honestly, I'm trying here... I see the similarties and why people might conclude that there is a common ancestor, but just like the "hard core" evidence you expect for me to provide for God, I am looking for the same here.   


Jabberwocky
atheist
Posts: 411
Joined: 2012-04-21
User is offlineOffline
 Jabberwocky wrote: I

 

Jabberwocky wrote:

 

I finally got around to reading that link... and figuring out how to get to it.  Again, they're talking about commonalities, which is not uncommon throughout species and still make no direct link to the common ancestor despite how matter of fact they try to make it.  They state it, but then don't name that common ancestor and/or show progression... All we have to go on is very common genes that... well happen to be used very differently.  Honestly, I'm trying here... I see the similarties and why people might conclude that there is a common ancestor, but just like the "hard core" evidence you expect for me to provide for God, I am looking for the same here.   

I have provided evidence. The evidence of how genes change over time is examinable by us, in quite a lot of detail. Mutations during both asexual and sexual reproduction happen. Some forms of life can even engage in what's called "horizontal gene transfer". With just these natural processes working as they do, things can and will change over time. The diversity of life today is not so great that it falls outside of the scope of possibility, or even the scope of probability. While this particular result on its own is improbable, it's equally as improbable as any other result (much like I mentioned earlier "someone won the lottery" isn't so crazy, because 10s of millions of people play the thing. "I won the lottery" is a comparitively rare event, because you are speaking of a specific person winning it" However, there is nothing impossible about it). Because of this, for you to say that it couldn't have happened this way requires that you provide evidence of what would have prevented things from happening this way. 

You, on the other hand, are positing a supernatural explanation. You have been unable to show evidence for any supernatural phenomenae. This is why I am not just being dismissive when I say that I have provided evidence, and you have not. This is why evolution, abiogenesis, formation of stars/planets, the big bang, etc. are theories. Your explanation isn't even a hypothesis, as it doesn't contais only untestable claims. 

Theists - If your god is omnipotent, remember the following: He (or she) has the cure for cancer, but won't tell us what it is.