There Was No First Human (page 25)

Viviane

And I have written bug free programs also.

In the complex world of software development, the most that can ever be said is that the software is at a state with no known bugs. It's just the way it is.

Viviane

I am done hijacking Cofty's thread with software discussion. Sorry, Cofty.

talesin

Viviane

People have politely explained, referenced, re-explained and re-illustrated the point. If someone's still not getting it, why is it wrong to point that out?

I know you have excellent reading comprehension skills, so I fail to understand why you don't get my point.

I COULD have said. Well, it's kind of idiotic that you don't get my point.

Which reply is respectul and dignified? Which is NOT?

Do you get my point now?

tal

I get that you are using hyperbole. No one called anyone an idiot. I also get that is NOT your point. It's about tone. Written word in email, IM and message boards are the worst for conveying tone, so it's best not to read tone into it. People keep doing that and they should stop. They should also not post on things they don't know much about, not ignorantly argue about subjects or misrepresent peoples words, tell people what their motives are, say something and then deny they said it.

All sorts of things happen on a message board. Reading tone into someone's post isn't one of them. I try not to do it, it also probably explains why my posts tend to be so flat sometimes, why people claim I am being obtuse. I am trying very hard to very clearly understand what people mean without making assumptions or assuming a certain tone to posts.

DJS said it quite well on another thread, http://www.jehovahs-witness.net/social/current/279208/4/An-important-difference-between-atheists-and-true-believers#.U1iN0Fca3qV.

It's the internet and debate, it's words on a screen from a person you never met that can't hurt you and doesn't know anything at all about you. It's time to put your big girl panties on if you wanna jump in.

Maat13

you don't evolve from something that still exists...

"That's exactly how evolution works. It's been observed in action."

A controlled experiment?...did you observe it? .how complex was the species? what were the conditions under which this "evolution" took place? And no, that is not how evolution works...so now evolution is selective within one species? Is evolution a disease and is only susceptible by some within one species and not others within the same species? This can't be your argument....I mean really...where's the proof?

Either there was a phenomenonal mutation (which wipes out the previous species) or an implementation of a new a species all together.

"That's exactly the opposite of how evolution works."

An evolution is a change, gradually. A mutation is a change, albeit a drastic one. Once the change has occurred, the previous entity no longer exists.

Fish are still here..and if only some species of fish "evolved", why not all species of fish?

"Back up. Explain why you think all fish would evolve into a new species at the same time?"

I don't purport to say anything about fish evolving...I'm merely phrasing a question...which you did not answer....

More importantly, why was there a need to evolve? A message like the one presented provides no insight into this fundamental question. Darwin failed miserably at it. And I challenge any evolutionist to show proof of a NEED for humans to have evolved from any other species that lived on this planet.

"To survive under changing environmental conditions, for one. But, in any event, populations change over time, regardless, that's a fact. It just IS. Need may not have anything to do with it."

What environmental conditions? Water is now 2/3 of this planet. I'm quite sure millions of years ago it was more. What would cause a fish to come out from an environment that encompassed nearly the entire planet? Nature was never and will never be "Just IS". Nature is purposeful. If there is no need, Nature doesn't and will not ever alter because it wants to...that's man way of thinking.

Maat

cofty

Maat13 - I am genuinely puzzled by what your point is? Could you back up a bit and tell us the bigger picture of your position on evolution and why you hold that view please? Your post contains so many errors regarding how evolution works it's difficult to know if you are serious.

"Fish are still here..and if only some species of fish "evolved", why not all species of fish?"

Have a read at this thread about Tiktaalik... We know a great deal about how some lobe-finned fish made the transition onto land. Fish fossils from 375 million years ago have the same arrangement of bones in their limbs as you do. Sub-populations exploit opportunities. Of course the poppulations of fish that stayed in the water changed as well. There is a fish called a coelacanth that looks amazingly similar to it's ancient ancestor but that is an exception.

The first mammals were small shrew-like animals who spent their time trying not to get eaten by dinosaurs. Look at all the millions of ways they have evolved to expoit every niche on the planet.

Either there was a phenomenonal mutation (which wipes out the previous species) or an implementation of a new a species all together.

That could hardly be more wrong. An individual that suffers a "phenomenonal mutation" would be very unlikely to survive and reproduce. Evolution does not depend on "Hopeful Monsters". Also, how would a "phenomenonal mutation" in one individual "wipe out the previous species"?

Zed - Just like atrapado, you just don't get the very basic point that the video in the OP explains beautifully. "The Dead Hand of Plato" looms large.

Talesin - Unless you have been appointed etiquette police please confine yourself to the topic.

cofty

Here are a few suggestions...

Do you have a series in order (basic to complex). - altrapado

Here are some very accessible books you would enjoy... (ZED and Maat13 please take note)

"Endless Forms Most Beautiful" by Sean B. Carroll

"The making of the fittest" by Sean B Carroll

"Evolution, what the fossils say" by Donald Prothero

"The Greatest Show on Earth" by Richard Dawkins

"The Blind Watchmaker" by Richard Dawkins

"An Ancestor's Tale" by Richard Dawkins

"Why Evolution is true" by Jerry Coyne

"Your Inner Fish" by Neil Shubin

"Life Ascending" by Nick Lane

For starters take an hour or so to read the Common Ancestry thread.

KateWild

Fish fossils from 375 million years ago have the same arrangement of bones in their limbs as you do. - cofty

That is interesting it goes back that far. I suppose the arrangement of bones in our limbs is the same for a lot of animals. Essentially we are all similar in as far as DNA and bone structure.

Kate xx

There Was No First Human

Share this