by moman 55 Replies latest jw friends
escargot,
Do youself a favor and find a tiny, itsy bitsy clue. You haven't understand anything about the article you posted.
- Jan
--
"Doctor how can you diagnose someone with Obsessive Compulsive Disorder and then act like I had some choice about barging in here right now?" -- As Good As It Gets
moman, yes there are a few technical problems with evolution, coz it started millions of years ago, and well, things get misplaced around my house in the course of a week, so ya can see how hard it is to keep track of evolutionary evidence left lying around the planet for millions years ago.
I think it's natural to assume then that in spite of the incredible fossil evidence that we have located, it really is much more feasable to fabricate a big old mystical being - and with no scientic evidence whatsoever, we can make him the designated creator. It's just so much tidier this way - no messy loose ends to account for.
Marilyn
JanH:
Sir, you lack knowledge! I have the “chart” that is approved for class work that does show the progression from ape to man and the neanderthals are in the progression. However, the chart was approved in 1995, if the “facts” have changed again, please let us know what the new facts are? Boy you can give the WT a run for their money when it came to what is a fact and what is not!
Truth is hard to take uh?
JanH:
You are sooo funny. Chill, this is not 911. You can make the attacks without any proof of claim. All I have provided is some information that should be considered before you put all creation in your tiny box, all wrapped up with a great explanation.
Here are my points:
1. Evolution is not a fact. All college bound persons, or persons of letter know what has to take place before a “fact” is a Fact.
2. I presented information that we could have came from a common ancestor like an Adam and Eve. And that so far, DNA shows a different path than you would like to believe.
3. Life is a miracle. Evolution runs contrary to the second law of thermodynamics, which, for you JanH, is that energy naturally flows from a state of lesser organization, from a state of higher differentiation to a state of lower differentiation.
Open your minds.........
Who gives a goddamn where we came from? Just love each other now, and if all women are from Adam's rib-who cares? And if all men are made of dust-who cares? Made from Apes, Gorillas, Primates? Who cares? It's an interesting question, but the only other reason it gets so much attention is the blame of the fanatics...they just love to rub things in faces of the other side.
There's a lot of debate how the dinosaurs died, and no one cares about that. So why do people get so angry about creation/evolution?
ashi
"""in spite of the incredible fossil evidence """"
Proof? So far, the fossils shows a large pattern of life, all at once, not the chain from apes to man.
I think it's clear for all here to see that the fundies on this board who reject evolution are completely ignorant.
Escargot - here's a clue: Neanderthals are not apes. You are so clueless that you can't even understand that articles you use to prove your case actually do the opposite! And even worse, we've brought it to your attention that your article doesn't support your claim and you can't even comprehend why. So sad.
Noman - I suppose you don't believe in all that pesky DNA evidence that lawyers use to prove identity and paternity. Do you think the rules for DNA just change because you don't feel like being related to an ape? I suppose you were on OJ's jury. LOL
At least the lurkers here can see who have the facts and who are speaking from ignorance.
rem
"We all do no end of feeling, and we mistake it for thinking." - Mark Twain
REM:
Why disstort? I never said "they are" N are apes. However, the information (dated 1995) shows both types in the same evo tree.
Notwithstanding, if you know your own “beliefs,” you would know that the “common ancestor” theory is contradicting to your evo beliefs. However, you are the silent one.
Also, all you have done is generalized and make many quick statements, however with no “meat.”
Answer:
1. What makes a fact? Tell us, just don’t sit there and name call. Is evo a fact, or, as you put it both fact and theory (what ever that means!)?
2. Explain why the “common ancestor” just can’t be right when talking evo?
3. What are your comments on the second law of TD? And its contradiction to EVO?
Please give us some substance. Your trying to just discredit without any substance is getting old, and an old trick at that.
Escargot,
The problem is that there has been plenty of substance posted on this subject in numerous threads on this board and many others. Fundies like you are too lazy to do the research that us informed folks have done. You expect us to spoon-feed you all the information, and then, when it goes against your preconceived notions of god and the universe, you decide to reject facts. But I'll play along (yet again) in the hopes that you really do want to learn something:
First of all - you implied that Neanderthals were apes because you were the one asserting that humans are not related to chimpanzees which ARE apes. One can only assume that when you put an article up showing that Neanderthals are not direct ancestors of humans that you believe them to be apes - otherwise, what was the point? Also, if you'll notice, the article you presented showed that humans and apes share a common ancestor. You have a severe reading comprehension problem if you don't understand that. Did you even read the article you posted?
Now to answer your questions:
1) Evolution is both a fact and a theory. The fossil, DNA, etc. evidence shows that all life on earth has a common origin - everything is related and has ‘progressed’ from simple to complex organisms. This is a fact. Evolution is also a theory - the theory of how this happened is Natural Selection, survival of the fittest. So evolution is both a fact and a theory. Just like gravity is a fact and a theory. It's a fact that massive bodies attract one another. Gravity is also a theory - Einstein’s is that massive bodies warp space so the shortest distance between two points isn't necessarily a straight line in 3D Euclidean space. Get the picture? Both fact and theory.
Also, try and understand the scientific usage of the word Theory. It doesn't mean "a guess" like in common usage. It means a testable framework that is used to explain facts and can make PREDICTIONS. A theory that does not make accurate predictions is not useful. Guess what? Evolution makes accurate predictions. Also, a theory must be falsifiable, otherwise it is useless. Guess what? Evolution is also falsifiable. Is your theory of special creation falsifiable? If yes, how so?
2) I'm not sure what you mean by "Explain why the “common ancestor” just can’t be right when talking evo". Humans and apes share a common ancestor. It is shown through both fossil and DNA evidence. Neanderthals are related to humans and apes, but are not our ancestors, just like your cousins are not your ancestors. Apes are not our ancestors, but are related to us like cousins as well. Apes and humans share a common ancestor millions of years ago that was not a modern ape at all. This isn't really that complicated stuff.
3) The second law of thermodynamics does not contradict evolution anymore than it contradicts the forming of snowflakes or the development of a fetus into a baby. It is true that on the whole thermodynamics means that at the end there will ultimately be entropy, but until then there are pockets of reduced entropy. This is caused by energy sources, such as the sun. If the earth was a closed system, then everything would wind down into complete entropy, but since the sun provides energy, the earth is a pocket of reduced entropy. They second law of thermodynamics has been refuted as an objection against evolution a long time ago. People who hold to this belief understand neither Evolution nor thermodynamics.
rem
"We all do no end of feeling, and we mistake it for thinking." - Mark Twain
Here is some info on your own "beliefs" that you say I don’t understand. Please note the connection of Apes to Neanderthals. Also, why the divergence of the lines if we come from the same source? Time to make up a new fact, right? DNA shows that there is NOT a line....be
What is currently the most accepted theory of human evolution?
Todayís most accepted theory is the "Savannah-based theory" first proposed by Raymond Dart in 1924. This theory proposes that hominids evolved as some apes moved from the shrinking lush forests onto the surrounding Savannah. As a result of these apes moving from the food rich environment of the forests to the drier environment of the Savannah certain adaptations (Neanderthals) evolved which were advantages to the new environment. Some of these adaptations include: bipedalism, lack of hair, and increased fat. Bipedalism would be advantages to these Savannah apes as they could uses there newly freed hands to gather food, which can be scarce, and carry it over long distances while looking for the next meal. Similarly increased fat also have aided these Savannah apes with food storage. The loss of hair was often described as advantages as it may help to cool the ape.
So what are the problems with the Savannah-based theory?
AAT proponents argue that if early hominids did evolve on the Savannah then there should be multiple examples of other Savannah animals which have evolved similar adaptations and characteristics of hominids. The problem is that there are not any such animals which display similar characteristics of hominids. A second problem AAT proponents point out is that the Savannah based theory fails to even attempt to explain many characteristics of humans and how those may have evolved on the Savannah
