|
Users viewing this topic:
none
|
|
Login  | |
|
RE: The common ancestor - 7/7/2008 10:00:37 AM
|
|
|
drj11
Posts: 632
Joined: 3/29/2008
Status: offline
|
For my reply, see the last paragraph in this post
|
|
|
|
|
RE: The common ancestor - 7/7/2008 10:02:06 AM
|
|
|
hellohellohi
Posts: 538
Joined: 12/10/2007
From: North Carolina!
Status: offline
|
It is conceivable but I do not know whether true that a class of self-replicating molecules (or, even, molecules that could induce mirror images of themselves from constituent molecules in the environment, which would then induce mirror-copies of themselves producing replication in two steps) could have originated everything. If you simply suppose the possibility for errors to occur in replication and for some of the properties of structure associated with the "informational" aspects of these molecules to confer advantage in competing for the constituent molecules, then who knows. It is worth scientifically investigating.
|
|
|
|
|
RE: The common ancestor - 7/7/2008 10:06:12 AM
|
|
|
Embedded
Posts: 50
Joined: 4/11/2005
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: Carico
Evolutionists claim that all living animals came from a common ancestor or common ancestors (since they don't know if this story is true they don't know if there is one common ancestor or many).
The Theory of Evolution (ToE) does make that claim lightly. It is based on the evidence we have and the fact that all living things (not just animals) came from a common ancestor. Even Michael Behe understands this.
When we talk about the most recent common ancestor for all living things it is not a single individual organism but a population of organisms.
quote:
But if they believe the story of one common ancestor, then what did he look like to be common to all living things? An alien? Or a beast of one's imagination that would have all the traits of all living things? Whatever your imaginary creature is, you are actually describing some type of God.  The reason is because:
A) you can't explain how that common ancestor got here and where he, she, or it, came from
We can explain how it came to be. There has been ongoing research in abiogenesis for quite some time. Are you familiar with the current state of the science regarding abiogenesis? Would you like to be?
quote:
B) you can't pinpoint what he looks like
We can make some pretty good guesses about what it did NOT look like. It was most unlikely to be a "he" (sex hadn't evolved yet). What do you mean by "pinpoint"?
quote:
C) You acknowledge one ultimate source of the life of all living things and also acknowledge that he had to be capable of producing all forms of life
Hmm... not so sure about this one. Again not a "he". There may have been many sources but that doesn't change the fact that the evidence points to a common ancestor. Not sure what you mean by "universal common ancestor", the universe is a big place. It seems very unlikely that the common ancestor came from anywhere but the Earth we live on... though it is certainly a possibility.
quote:
Or, if you claim there were many common ancestors, then please tell us how many there were and what they looked like. Otherwise, your story is as fictional as any science fiction story.
All the common ancestor populations probably looked very much alike. There were probably millions, if not, billions of them.
At the very least we have some science in our explanation. You do not.
Wt least we have some evidence for our explanation. You do not. All you have is fiction (no science).
|
|
|
|
|
RE: The common ancestor - 7/7/2008 11:31:31 AM
|
|
|
Carico
Posts: 531
Joined: 8/19/2005
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: Embedded
quote:
ORIGINAL: Carico
Evolutionists claim that all living animals came from a common ancestor or common ancestors (since they don't know if this story is true they don't know if there is one common ancestor or many).
The Theory of Evolution (ToE) does make that claim lightly. It is based on the evidence we have and the fact that all living things (not just animals) came from a common ancestor. Even Michael Behe understands this.
When we talk about the most recent common ancestor for all living things it is not a single individual organism but a population of organisms.
quote:
But if they believe the story of one common ancestor, then what did he look like to be common to all living things? An alien? Or a beast of one's imagination that would have all the traits of all living things? Whatever your imaginary creature is, you are actually describing some type of God. The reason is because:
A) you can't explain how that common ancestor got here and where he, she, or it, came from
We can explain how it came to be. There has been ongoing research in abiogenesis for quite some time. Are you familiar with the current state of the science regarding abiogenesis? Would you like to be?
quote:
B) you can't pinpoint what he looks like
We can make some pretty good guesses about what it did NOT look like. It was most unlikely to be a "he" (sex hadn't evolved yet). What do you mean by "pinpoint"?
quote:
C) You acknowledge one ultimate source of the life of all living things and also acknowledge that he had to be capable of producing all forms of life
Hmm... not so sure about this one. Again not a "he". There may have been many sources but that doesn't change the fact that the evidence points to a common ancestor. Not sure what you mean by "universal common ancestor", the universe is a big place. It seems very unlikely that the common ancestor came from anywhere but the Earth we live on... though it is certainly a possibility.
quote:
Or, if you claim there were many common ancestors, then please tell us how many there were and what they looked like. Otherwise, your story is as fictional as any science fiction story.
All the common ancestor populations probably looked very much alike. There were probably millions, if not, billions of them.
At the very least we have some science in our explanation. You do not.
Wt least we have some evidence for our explanation. You do not. All you have is fiction (no science).
Sorry, but no population can do what no member in that population can do. So until even one ape has demonstrated that he can turn into human being, then whole populations of apes can't turn into people! 
A guess comes from the imagination which makes it imaginary. Anyone can imagine any fictitous creature and claim that creature actually lived.  that's what science fiction books and movies consist of.
|
|
|
|
|
RE: The common ancestor - 7/7/2008 6:27:50 PM
|
|
|
ianz
Posts: 330
Joined: 12/22/2005
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: Carico
Sorry, but no population can do what no member in that population can do. So until even one ape has demonstrated that he can turn into human being, then whole populations of apes can't turn into people!
Correct. No one is arguing this point.
However. Two apes (where I am referring to the ape which was the common ancestor for us and other great apes) can produce an offspring which is slightly varied from the parents. That ape can mate with another to produce another slightly varied offspring. Do that for a few thousand generations and you slowly get enough variety to produce a new species.
When we compare the first creature with the last, we see a huge difference. But if we were able to compare each generation with the next, we'd see so little variation as to be almost indistinguishable. Hence the drive to find transitional species.
So no ape is giving birth to a human (much less "turning into one")
Regards, Ian
|
|
|
|
|
RE: The common ancestor - 7/7/2008 8:15:26 PM
|
|
|
Carico
Posts: 531
Joined: 8/19/2005
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: ianz
quote:
ORIGINAL: Carico
Sorry, but no population can do what no member in that population can do. So until even one ape has demonstrated that he can turn into human being, then whole populations of apes can't turn into people!
Correct. No one is arguing this point.
However. Two apes (where I am referring to the ape which was the common ancestor for us and other great apes) can produce an offspring which is slightly varied from the parents. That ape can mate with another to produce another slightly varied offspring. Do that for a few thousand generations and you slowly get enough variety to produce a new species.
When we compare the first creature with the last, we see a huge difference. But if we were able to compare each generation with the next, we'd see so little variation as to be almost indistinguishable. Hence the drive to find transitional species.
So no ape is giving birth to a human (much less "turning into one")
Regards, Ian
You just described the theory of evolutionn which is impossible.
First of all, you are guessing that there was a common ancestor because you don't know who he is. So you are making him up.
Secondly, you are claiming that he produced mutants when you don't even know if he existed in the first place! You are then claiming that his mutant offspring produced mutants as well and his mutant offspring produced more mutants until one day, one of these mutants produced a fully formed human being.
The above is the theory of evolution in a nutshell and it's all based on "let's say" which is nothing more than a science fiction story. It also then presumes that any animal, including a human can turn into any other animal on the planet which of course reality doesn't support. So the theory of evolution is nothing more than, "Let's say that a human can turn into a giraffe because our genes can mutate into giraffe genes "over time."
Sorry, but that's not science, it's science fiction because it doesn't happen in reality. It all comes from the imaginations of men.
|
|
|
|
|
RE: The common ancestor - 7/7/2008 9:06:57 PM
|
|
|
ianz
Posts: 330
Joined: 12/22/2005
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: Carico
You just described the theory of evolutionn which is impossible.
First of all, you are guessing that there was a common ancestor because you don't know who he is. So you are making him up. Fossil evidence.
quote:
Secondly, you are claiming that he produced mutants Evidence of gradual change. You accept this. Or was every single species on board the Ark, and not just one of each kind?
quote:
... You are then claiming that his mutant offspring produced mutants as well and his mutant offspring produced more mutants until one day, one of these mutants produced a fully formed human being. Correct.
quote:
It also then presumes that any animal, including a human can turn into any other animal on the planet which of course reality doesn't support. Nor does evolution theory.
quote:
So the theory of evolution is nothing more than, "Let's say that a human can turn into a giraffe because our genes can mutate into giraffe genes "over time." No, that's only what you have said evolution does.
quote:
It all comes from the imaginations of men. Doesn't it just.
|
|
|
|
|
RE: The common ancestor - 7/7/2008 9:51:46 PM
|
|
|
Carico
Posts: 531
Joined: 8/19/2005
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: ianz
quote:
ORIGINAL: Carico
You just described the theory of evolutionn which is impossible.
First of all, you are guessing that there was a common ancestor because you don't know who he is. So you are making him up. Fossil evidence.
quote:
Secondly, you are claiming that he produced mutants Evidence of gradual change. You accept this. Or was every single species on board the Ark, and not just one of each kind?
quote:
... You are then claiming that his mutant offspring produced mutants as well and his mutant offspring produced more mutants until one day, one of these mutants produced a fully formed human being. Correct.
quote:
It also then presumes that any animal, including a human can turn into any other animal on the planet which of course reality doesn't support. Nor does evolution theory.
quote:
So the theory of evolution is nothing more than, "Let's say that a human can turn into a giraffe because our genes can mutate into giraffe genes "over time." No, that's only what you have said evolution does.
quote:
It all comes from the imaginations of men. Doesn't it just.
Sorry, but by the explanations of evolution, any animal or human can change into another animal or human because...well..their genes just changed into that of another animal or human. Afterall, evolutionists claim that evolution is ongoing which means that eventually humans will evolve into another species superior to ourselves because...well.. our genes will jsut change into another species. Sorry but again only in the imagination can one animal change into another, especially into a human.
The fossil record is as speculative as looking at a piece of modern artwork and imagining what it is.
|
|
|
|
|
RE: The common ancestor - 7/8/2008 12:57:47 AM
|
|
|
ianz
Posts: 330
Joined: 12/22/2005
Status: offline
|
Hey Carico
How about responding to this comment:
quote:
quote:
ORIGINAL: Carico
Secondly, you are claiming that he produced mutants
Evidence of gradual change. You accept this. Or was every single species on board the Ark, and not just one of each kind?
Do you accept micro-evolution? i.e. did all the dogs we see now descend from a common dog kind ancestor from the ark?
|
|
|
|
|
RE: The common ancestor - 7/8/2008 11:11:25 PM
|
|
|
Method
Posts: 1133
Joined: 9/19/2007
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: Carico
Sorry, but by the explanations of evolution, any animal or human can change into another animal or human because...well..their genes just changed into that of another animal or human.
This is not the theory of evolution I am aware of. The descendants of humans will always be humans. You never evolve out of your ancestry. What will happen is that the variation among humans will increase over time, and if modern humans speciate the number of human species will increase. At one time there was a single species of mammal, and that species went on to produce the variety of mammals we see today. These species have modified the original mammal design but they still carry mammalian characteristics found in the original mammal species. It will be that way with humans as well until humans are either plentiful or extinct.
quote:
Afterall, evolutionists claim that evolution is ongoing which means that eventually humans will evolve into another species superior to ourselves because...well.. our genes will jsut change into another species.
But humans will not evolve into another species that exists right now. They will evolve into a species that does not exist right now. Also, the humans will probably not change that much without a drastic change in environment. Species can only adapt to a certain point in a static environment.
quote:
Sorry but again only in the imagination can one animal change into another, especially into a human.
So it is only my imagination which tells me that wolves evolved into Chihuahuas and Great Danes?
quote:
The fossil record is as speculative as looking at a piece of modern artwork and imagining what it is.
So when the evidence is stacked against you you pretend it isn't there?
|
|
|
|
|
RE: The common ancestor - 7/9/2008 9:23:52 AM
|
|
|
Carico
Posts: 531
Joined: 8/19/2005
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: Method
quote:
ORIGINAL: Carico
Sorry, but by the explanations of evolution, any animal or human can change into another animal or human because...well..their genes just changed into that of another animal or human.
This is not the theory of evolution I am aware of. The descendants of humans will always be humans. You never evolve out of your ancestry. What will happen is that the variation among humans will increase over time, and if modern humans speciate the number of human species will increase. At one time there was a single species of mammal, and that species went on to produce the variety of mammals we see today. These species have modified the original mammal design but they still carry mammalian characteristics found in the original mammal species. It will be that way with humans as well until humans are either plentiful or extinct.
quote:
Afterall, evolutionists claim that evolution is ongoing which means that eventually humans will evolve into another species superior to ourselves because...well.. our genes will jsut change into another species.
But humans will not evolve into another species that exists right now. They will evolve into a species that does not exist right now. Also, the humans will probably not change that much without a drastic change in environment. Species can only adapt to a certain point in a static environment.
quote:
Sorry but again only in the imagination can one animal change into another, especially into a human.
So it is only my imagination which tells me that wolves evolved into Chihuahuas and Great Danes?
quote:
The fossil record is as speculative as looking at a piece of modern artwork and imagining what it is.
So when the evidence is stacked against you you pretend it isn't there?
Boy are you confused! You don't even know what a species is! You claim that each individual human is a different species.  But unfortunately, that's what happens when people stop observing reality and read science textbooks which are nothing more than double talk.
Claiming that humans will turn into another species is called science fiction, not science because it deals with the future. And since no human has ever turned into another species since there have been witnesses, then I'm sorry but the evidence is stacked against you, not me.
|
|
|
|
|
RE: The common ancestor - 7/9/2008 5:58:37 PM
|
|
|
Method
Posts: 1133
Joined: 9/19/2007
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: Carico
Boy are you confused! You don't even know what a species is! You claim that each individual human is a different species.
No, I haven't. Perhaps you should reread my posts.
quote:
Claiming that humans will turn into another species is called science fiction, not science because it deals with the future.
Here is what I said:
"What will happen is that the variation among humans will increase over time, and if modern humans speciate the number of human species will increase."
Did you notice the bolded part?
quote:
And since no human has ever turned into another species since there have been witnesses, then I'm sorry but the evidence is stacked against you, not me.
The witnesses are the fossil record and our genomes, not to mention the DNA of neanderthals which is being sequenced right now. Early results show that neanderthals were a separate species of human as no neanderthal DNA can be found in modern humans nor in anatomically modern humans that lived along side of neanderthals. We also see the gradual appearance of modern human features in the fossil record, as seen here.
We also find ERV's at the same location in the chimp genome as they are in our genomes. This indicates shared ancestry.
|
|
|
|
|
RE: The common ancestor - 7/9/2008 7:41:09 PM
|
|
|
Bettawrekonize
Posts: 1419
Joined: 4/17/2005
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: hellohellohi
It is conceivable but I do not know whether true that a class of self-replicating molecules (or, even, molecules that could induce mirror images of themselves from constituent molecules in the environment, which would then induce mirror-copies of themselves producing replication in two steps) could have originated everything. If you simply suppose the possibility for errors to occur in replication and for some of the properties of structure associated with the "informational" aspects of these molecules to confer advantage in competing for the constituent molecules, then who knows. It is worth scientifically investigating.
I see no problems with investigating it scientifically (though, at the moment, molecule to man evolution is faith based). However, that's not to say that we shouldn't consider criticisms and opposing views either.
|
|
|
|
|
RE: The common ancestor - 7/10/2008 1:10:57 AM
|
|
|
Method
Posts: 1133
Joined: 9/19/2007
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: Bettawrekonize
I see no problems with investigating it scientifically (though, at the moment, molecule to man evolution is faith based).
So how should we approach it? What genetic, fossil, and morphological evidence would point towards shared ancestry and evolution through Darwinian mechanisms?
quote:
However, that's not to say that we shouldn't consider criticisms and opposing views either.
If they have evidence and research backing them I completely agree.
|
|
|
|
|
RE: The common ancestor - 7/10/2008 9:31:37 AM
|
|
|
Bettawrekonize
Posts: 1419
Joined: 4/17/2005
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: Method
If they have evidence and research backing them I completely agree.
I think most of the research supports the notion that flagella doesn't arise independently of existing life or design. Can you show me an example showing an organism without flagella, absent any code that codes for flagella, evolving flagella independent design or existing DNA that codes for it? I think such is a valid criticism of the notion that evolution can produce such structures. No one has ever seen evolution originate flagella, new organs, body plans, limbs, appendages, life, organ systems, IC and SC systems, etc... or the DNA for them (independent design) and I think such is a valid criticism supported by research. Unless you can show examples of evolution producing such things, I think the fact that we are unable to repeat what evolution supposedly produced (unguided) is a valid criticism of the notion that evolution can plausibly produce such structures (which is a valid criticism against the notion that evolution did produce these structures in the past).
< Message edited by Bettawrekonize -- 7/10/2008 9:40:13 AM >
|
|
|
|
|
RE: The common ancestor - 7/10/2008 9:36:02 AM
|
|
|
hellohellohi
Posts: 538
Joined: 12/10/2007
From: North Carolina!
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: Bettawrekonize
quote:
ORIGINAL: hellohellohi
It is conceivable but I do not know whether true that a class of self-replicating molecules (or, even, molecules that could induce mirror images of themselves from constituent molecules in the environment, which would then induce mirror-copies of themselves producing replication in two steps) could have originated everything. If you simply suppose the possibility for errors to occur in replication and for some of the properties of structure associated with the "informational" aspects of these molecules to confer advantage in competing for the constituent molecules, then who knows. It is worth scientifically investigating.
I see no problems with investigating it scientifically (though, at the moment, molecule to man evolution is faith based). However, that's not to say that we shouldn't consider criticisms and opposing views either.
Very fair.
|
|
|
|
|
RE: The common ancestor - 7/10/2008 11:51:38 AM
|
|
|
gluadys
Posts: 1000
Joined: 4/26/2008
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: Carico
Evolution claims that humans will speciate!!
Not quite. Humans, like any other species, will speciate, given appropriate conditions. Speciation is not automatic in any species. It occurs only in certain situations.
One condition necessary to speciation is a cessation of gene flow from one part of the population to another.
|
|
|
|
 New Messages |
 No New Messages |
 Hot Topic w/ New Messages |
 Hot Topic w/o New Messages |
 Locked w/ New Messages |
 Locked w/o New Messages |
|
 Post New Thread
Reply to Message
Post New Poll
Submit Vote
Delete My Own Post
Delete My Own Thread
| | |
Forum Tools
Printable Version
If you claim it's a fact, then you've contradicted yourself by using the word "if" when talking about human speciation. So which is it?