Posts by Cadellin

77

On Human Evolution

by TD in

jw
friends

it's a subject that comes up fairly often here (understandably) and very strong opinions are expressed.

much of the discussion seems to be counterproductive.. i'd like to propose a different approach.

we all know what each other's conclusions are (or at least we should by now).

Cadellin

Interesting excerpt from DD's stanford link:

Evolutionary theory ... tells us that the boundaries between species are vague.

Which is the point I was trying to make with my (foundering) dog analogy

And it tells us that a number of forces conspire against the existence of a trait in all and only the members of a species. From a biological perspective, species essentialism is no longer a plausible position

I think this is really a key point. Essentialism runs up against the overwhelming evidence for comment descent (which even Michael Behe, irreducible complexity's poster boy believes).

However, DD's link asserts (and I admit I've only read part of it) that there is no essential feature common to all humans and not found in other species. I have to wonder whether the innate universal grammatical capacity of humans isn't such an essential feature. Animals have varying degrees of communication and rudimentary "language" but none (to my knowledge) have the generative capacity of syntax that is unique to ALL human languages.

If that's the case, then one might suggest that the line be drawn where language ability began to manifest itself.

77

On Human Evolution

by TD in

jw
friends

it's a subject that comes up fairly often here (understandably) and very strong opinions are expressed.

much of the discussion seems to be counterproductive.. i'd like to propose a different approach.

we all know what each other's conclusions are (or at least we should by now).

Cadellin

That's a bunch of bullit. You just proved you don't know what you're talking about.

Thanks for such an erudite and polite reply. Sort of what I'd expect from a middle schooler.

I got my information from a wolf rehabilitation center I recently visited. However, a little further investigation indicates that it might be way off. The closest thing to a credible source I can find is a National Geographic test where rottweilers and german shepherd averaged around 300 psi and wolves around 400. I should have been more careful with my info and for that I apologize.

However, my error in this aspect of my analogy doesn't nullify my overall point. The domestic dog, whether pit bull, rottweiler or golden retriever, is still considered a separate though closely related species. And as such, it differs from wolves in behavior and some aspects of morphology. Because of how closely they're related, they can produce fertile offspring.

31

HELLO EVERYONE

by sarahkate in

jw
friends

new to the forum, just wanted to say hi, will tell my brief story sometime, happy at the moment just getting to know you all!!!!.

.

sarahkate xx.

Cadellin

Greetings and salutations. Tell us something about yourself when you feel ready...

14

Okay, they are totally whacko. more from the july 15 tower

by therevealer in

.

Cadellin

Evidently, Bath-sheba was good for something, not "good for nothing."

Oh, this is why I come here, beyond the endless evolution debates. Ha!

81

New simplified Watchtower

by alanv in

beginning with the july 15th 2011 edition of the watchtower, the society are producing a simplified version of the study copy.. this is apparantly for the many people whose first language is not english, and yet they live in a predominantly englsih speaking county.. the normal study edition will still be produced but it looks like the cong.

will be able to ask for a supply of the simplified version each month.. this simplified version can be downloaded from the watchtower site.. http://www.jw.org/index.html.

Cadellin

So with two Kool-Aid editions available I guess we could tag them as "dumb and dumber"...

ROFLMAO

God, that was a moronic movie.

77

On Human Evolution

by TD in

jw
friends

it's a subject that comes up fairly often here (understandably) and very strong opinions are expressed.

much of the discussion seems to be counterproductive.. i'd like to propose a different approach.

we all know what each other's conclusions are (or at least we should by now).

Cadellin

Members of a species can breed with immediate ancestors and descendants, no matter what classification we put them under later

That's the idea. The very limited interbreeding occurred around 60,000 years ago (b/w H. sapiens and H. neanderthalensis). The species had already diverged, but were very closely related. Researchers are able to identify specific places in our genome that appeared after we diverged from Neanderthals, including gene variants for cognitive development. I'm quoting from the recent Discover article here (May 2011, "Meet the New Human Family").

That two species can interbreed doesn't mean they're actually a single species. For instance, golden retreivers can be mated with grey wolves. Same species? No, there are a host of behavioral and physiological differences. I don't mind sharing my quarters with a golden retriever but I know a wolf will want to spray urine around the place at a distance of about three feet from the floor. That trait can't be trained out of it. It will challenge me at a certain point in its development--the golden retriever not so much. Also, the wolf has a bite strength of about 1500 lbs per squ. inch, the golden about half that. These traits all point to separate species, albeit closely related ones--hence the ability to mate and produce a hybrid.

THe point is is that the term "species" is a cultural construct that resists an absolutely precise definition in the real world. We like the idea as humans of a nature that is finely ordered and easily categorized. But that's not how life works. Evolution is sloppy, imprecise and fuzzy around the edges.

77

On Human Evolution

by TD in

jw
friends

it's a subject that comes up fairly often here (understandably) and very strong opinions are expressed.

much of the discussion seems to be counterproductive.. i'd like to propose a different approach.

we all know what each other's conclusions are (or at least we should by now).

Cadellin

I think the recent explosion in gene sequencing technology, particularly with respect to ancient DNA, will seal the deal. Modern human genomes fall within a fairly limited range and it's now known that Neanderthals fall outside that range (making them a separate, though related species), as do the most recent discovery, the Denisovians.

What's interesting is that interbreeding happened way long ago, which means that researchers theorize that we're carrying around something like 3-4% Neanderthal DNA and a whopping 5% Denisovian. Not all of us, though. These species arose after leaving Africa, so it would be expected that indigenous African peoples like the !Kung would not share Neanderthal or Denis. DNA. And they don't.

41

Blondie's Comments You Will Not Hear at the 04-10-2011 WT Study (CREATION)

by blondie in

jw
friends

the physical heavens, the earth, and everything.

heavens themselves were made, and by the.

creative days three through six, god created.

Cadellin

Witnessedater:

Questions: Why aren't there any people walking around with a third arm sticking out of the top of their head? Isn't evolution random?

Questions like these are a clear indicator that your understanding of the current state of evolutionary biology might not be as complete as you would like. While certain aspects of organic life are random, evolution itself is not. Natural selection most definitely is not random but rather predictable and thus falsifiable. Mutations are neither "good" nor "bad," in fact the vast majority are neutral. They only take on beneficial or deleterious characteristics in context with the organism's environment. A mutation (or, often, cumulative series of mutations) only imparts benefit if it helps the organism in its pariticular setting. When that happens, those organisms have an advantage and can come to dominate a population. THis is essentially how antiobiotic resistance in bacteria work.

Ah, yes, you might say, but it's still a bacteria. Well, of course. To find out if an accumulation of changes can (over time) trigger speciation, we have to look to the fossil record. And an honest appraisal of that might surprise you. Kathleen Hunt provides a pretty good overview here . Or at least read Prothero's Evolution: What the Fossils Say and Why it Matters.

One of the biggest challenges for creationists right now, IMHO, isn't the fossil record (though it's pretty solid) but the genetic record. Gene sequencing of ancient DNA means that genomes of humans, chimpanzees, Neanderthals and the latest find, Denisovians can be laid side by side. It becomes very easy to see that humans are pretty homogenous and that Neaderthals and Denisovians fall outside the range of modern human genetic diversity.

Finding that the human evolutionary tree is more of a bush? Cool. Trying to fit it all into the last 6,000 years? Impossible.

77

On Human Evolution

by TD in

jw
friends

it's a subject that comes up fairly often here (understandably) and very strong opinions are expressed.

much of the discussion seems to be counterproductive.. i'd like to propose a different approach.

we all know what each other's conclusions are (or at least we should by now).

Cadellin

I agree, there is much variation (within a kind) in the real world. However, I wouldn't call these variations "transitional" into another kind.

It's not a matter of simple variation, which can occur randomly within any contemporary population, but rather of those variations, to use the term, occurring within specific time periods. When you examine those variations within a chronological timeframe, as TD has lined up the skulls, then the transitional significance of those variations becomes clear, particularly when considered against the backdrop of geological and climatological patterns. In fact, that's how evolution works. Random variations take on "good" or "bad" significance only in view of the prevailing environmental pressures and can come to dominate a population when they convey some benefit, even if very small.

However, you added a very good point, and that is that the WT view of creationism isn't the only view out there. Toward the end of the transitional fossils essay that I linked to, the writer (whose name escapes me, aggh) discusses something like five different creation scenarios and how each does or does not harmonize with the fossil record. Pretty interesting--the WT likes to make out that you're either a creationist or an athiest, and nothing could be further from the truth.

I want to add more but gotta run!!

77

On Human Evolution

by TD in

jw
friends

it's a subject that comes up fairly often here (understandably) and very strong opinions are expressed.

much of the discussion seems to be counterproductive.. i'd like to propose a different approach.

we all know what each other's conclusions are (or at least we should by now).

Cadellin

Really? You learned that at what school?

The WT school, of course!

"[DNA] is very stable and has served to maintain the distinction b/w basic kinds of creatures down through the ages." (WT 2/15/2011, p. 9)

"...There is a limit to the amount of variation that can occur within a "kind." Both the fossil record and modern research support the idea that the fundamental categories of plants and animals have changed little over vast periods of time." (Was Life Created? p. 28)

"If living things were created, they would be expected to appear suddenly in the fossil record, unconnected to anything before them." (Life--How Did it Get Here? p. 57) (emphasis added.)

One of the fundamental differences b/w evolution and creation is the belief that species arise through acts of special creation, not from existing species. Hence, it follows that, according to creation, species (or "kinds," whatever they are) are "stand-alone" groups, unique from other "kinds," with no intermediaries or transitions, extant or fossilised.

This is not what we see in the real world. Rather, transitions--or transitional features--abound.