How many ATHEISTS don't believe that they came from FISH? (page 8)

caliber

Speaking words of wisdom..." Let it be "...... there will be an answer

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=j9SgDoypXcI

Cal

hamilcarr

Could you name a really good book that explains evolutionary theory without at the same time serving as a treatise of attack against religion and spirituality?

Have you read Finding Darwin's God: A Scientist's Search for Common Ground Between God and Evolution, a popular evolution book by the Roman Catholic pro-science activist K. Miller?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Finding_Darwin%27s_God

BurnTheShips

Hamilcarr, no I haven't read it, is it worth the money? Maybe I will download it to my Christmas present from my wife, an Amazon Kindle. :-)

By the way, I purchased a copy of Phenomenon of Man by Chardin. I haven't read it yet. I read the first few pages when it came in the mail, and even though it was translated to English, damnit if it didn't feel like I was reading French!

BTS

Satanus

'Rokhsar noted that nearly three-fourths of the genes in the human genome have identifiable counterparts in Fugu, highlighting the shared anatomy and physiology common to all vertebrates. "These similarities are recognizable in the two genome sequences despite the 400 million years of evolution since the two species diverged from their common ancestor," he said. "Proteins found in humans but not in pufferfish, and vice versa, help define the sets of genes at the core of differences between four-limbed animals (reptiles, amphibians, birds, and mammals, including humans) and finned fish."'

http://www.jgi.doe.gov/News/news_7_25_02.html

Once the majority of the genomes are read, it will be interesting to see percentages of similarities between the various species.

S

Spook

Hooberus,

Please provide the page reference and bibiliography for your Origin quote, along with the preceding and subsequent line. You don't have the book, do you? Note also that a news blurb from 1999 is not an illuminating source if you are looking for technical information. If you don't have or have not read Origin, you are engaging in quote mining. In other words, were this an essay, and were I your teacher, I would give you an F because your point is based on no research or understanding of the material quoted. If you gave any evidence that you understood the context that might be different. You are arguing about different taxonomical perspectives and seem to be treading on a Wittgensteinian language game. You are talking about superficial morphology while some of these authors are discussing structural/skeletal/osteopathic cladistics.

So my question is Do you know what the statement "humans came from X" means when used in the context of evolution?

For now, I'll credit the point as moot. Now, please cut to the chase. Where are you going with this? In short to directly answer the OP as I think it means:

Nobody who accepts the consensus opinions of evolutionary theory believes that currently living humans came from any living fish in a straight line manner now or at any time in the past. Also, everyone who accepts the consensus opinions of evolution theory believes that all currently living humans share a common ancestor with all living species of fish at some time in the distant past.

More precisely H. Sapeins as a species did not diverge from any Chordata by means of a radial speciation event at any point in the geological past. The same holds true for the superclasses Agnatha (jawless vertebrates) and also Gnathostomata (jawed vertebrates). Tetrapods diverged from Sarcopterygii in the Devonian period. H. Sapiens do not have an identified radiation from an immediate taxon, only closely located species in the genus homo (then go back to hominini, homininaie, hominidae, hominoidia...tetrapod....etc., all distinct and none a single generation speciation radial.)

Take that!

Caedes

Spook,

Are you expecting Booberus to give you any kind of serious reply that actually answers your question?

hooberus

Hooberus, Please provide the page reference and bibiliography for your Origin quote, along with the preceding and subsequent line. You don't have the book, do you?

Given that I never quoted from "Origin" [of species?] I see no need to provide any documentation from it.

Note also that a news blurb from 1999 is not an illuminating source if you are looking for technical information.

I wasn't quoting it for "technical information" but rather to document a basic point. Anyway, are you claiming that they were wrong when they said: "Humans are vertebrates, as are rabbits, eagles and frogs, and as such we are all evolved from fish," ( http://www.guardian.co.uk/science/1999/nov/04/fossils.uknews ) ? If so, then is the Florida Museum of Natural History also wrong when they said: "Humans and other land animals ultimately descend from bony fish." ( http://www.flmnh.ufl.edu/fish/sharks/InNews/fingers2007.html ) ?

If you don't have or have not read Origin, you are engaging in quote mining.

Interesting, since I never quoted from Origin at all.

In other words, were this an essay, and were I your teacher, I would give you an F because your point is based on no research or understanding of the material quoted.

And what would your grade be, given that you (without any documentation to support your assertions) accused me of "dishonest" misrepresentation of quoted sources, and demanded that also I provide references from a book that I never quoted from, to begin with?

Other main points will be responded to shortly.

Caedes

Ooh, I must be psychic!

Boob, do you ever answer a straight question?

Spook

My appologies for referencing Origin. You referenced Descent Of Man, and I was thrown by the way you cited it, given the following quote was attributed in the same manner to (prominent evolutionist) which I take it is not the title of a book.

Anyway, Hooberus, open your copy of Descent to chapter six and read the portion preceding and subsequent to your quote where Darwin describes his thoughts on the lineage issue, noting particularly the multifaceted nature of such a lineage. It is clear as day to any reader that Darwin was not implying any kind of straight line succession, and it's not accurate to portray it that way. I would state to readers of this book that he did have many erroneous notions about the differences of human races, so don't even bother with the subtle racism of 1871. Darwin was wrong about several things...so were most people in 1871.

H. Sapiens came from "early fish" the same way that modern "fish" came from "early humans." How's that to confuse the issue? The phrase "came from" is not a sufficient point to get hung up on. Popular science articles will usually contain such simplifications. So do you or do you not understand what "came from" means in this context?

hooberus

"My appologies for referencing Origin. You referenced Descent Of Man, and I was thrown by the way you cited it, given the following quote was attributed in the same manner to (prominent evolutionist) which I take it is not the title of a book.

Anyway, Hooberus, open your copy of Descent to chapter six and read the portion preceding and subsequent to your quote where Darwin describes his thoughts on the lineage issue, noting particularly the multifaceted nature of such a lineage. It is clear as day to any reader that Darwin was not implying any kind of straight line succession, and it's not accurate to portray it that way. I would state to readers of this book that he did have many erroneous notions about the differences of human races, so don't even bother with the subtle racism of 1871. Darwin was wrong about several things...so were most people in 1871."

I simply quoted from Descent in order to show that Darwin taught that ancient monkeys were in fact in mans actual ancestral lineage. Any one can see my quote on page one and then compare it with the following:

http://www.sacred-texts.com/aor/darwin/descent/dom09.htm

"In the class of mammals the steps are not difficult to conceive which led from the ancient Monotremata to the ancient Marsupials; and from these to the early progenitors of the placental mammals. We may thus ascend to the Lemuridae; and the interval is not very wide from these to the Simiadae. The Simiadae then branched off into two great stems, the New World and Old World monkeys; and from the latter, at a remote period, Man, the wonder and glory of the Universe, proceeded. Thus we have given to man a pedigree of prodigious length, but not, it may be said, of noble quality."

As for myself, I will spend no more time on your assertions against me on the issue of this quote.

How many ATHEISTS don't believe that they came from FISH?

Share this