Login

Join for Free!
112344 members


Who did we evolve from?

Discussion of everything related to the Theory of Evolution.

Moderator: BioTeam

Postby ZakaSPFC » Wed Jan 18, 2006 12:00 am

I dont have any web pages, but it is in the first chapter of The Third Chimpanzee by Jared Diamond. In saying this I am only trying to prove that we are close related to the pygmy chimp(Pan paniscus) than the regular chimp(Pan trogolydes).
Sadattay, Whattata Respec.
User avatar
ZakaSPFC
Death Adder
Death Adder
 
Posts: 58
Joined: Mon Dec 26, 2005 11:45 pm

Postby Squawkbox » Thu Jan 19, 2006 7:21 pm

If u were going to mak a car would u make up new blueprints each time or would u just keep the same basic structure and just modify small things to make eack car slightly better. No point in creating 1000s of different engines every time u make 1 you just modify the same basic design. Same applies to life, why had loads of different gene sequences when u can just use the same basic 1 most animals do have similar structures and produce similar proteins etc but they are all different. This is the intellegent way to doit id say
Greater love hath no man than this, that a man lay down his life for his friends.
User avatar
Squawkbox
Coral
Coral
 
Posts: 199
Joined: Thu Jan 19, 2006 2:49 pm
Location: Newcastle

Postby canalon » Thu Jan 19, 2006 7:37 pm

Squawkbox wrote:If u were going to mak a car would u make up new blueprints each time or would u just keep the same basic structure and just modify small things to make eack car slightly better. No point in creating 1000s of different engines every time u make 1 you just modify the same basic design. Same applies to life, why had loads of different gene sequences when u can just use the same basic 1 most animals do have similar structures and produce similar proteins etc but they are all different. This is the intellegent way to doit id say


Well but if you were to make planes, boat, submarine, trucks, car, food processor air dryer (just to reflect diversity of life in your metaphore, no special meanings behind those objects) would you use the same set of blueprints? Because obviously that is what happened... I wouldn't call that intelligence, it would at best be lazyness at height rarely reached by anyone, should I say to God-like heights ;)

And think about all design flaws that we can see. Like our hipbones which would be better adapted to 4 legs locomotion, like the thumb of the panda... And I won't comment on god's engeneering abillities, because when he puts the playground and the sewage system at the same place in many animals, it wasn't a very intelligent move.

The main problem with ID is that well it cannot be disproved because if you have homology, well it's because the intelligent designer was working on a budget, and if you don't it is because there has been a new grant awarded (except that (s)he hasn't be good at attracting funding to devellop radically new design), when a lack of homology would definitely disprove evolution.
Patrick

Science has proof without any certainty. Creationists have certainty without
any proof. (Ashley Montague)
User avatar
canalon
Inland Taipan
Inland Taipan
 
Posts: 3909
Joined: Thu Feb 03, 2005 2:46 pm
Location: Canada


Postby ZakaSPFC » Thu Jan 19, 2006 10:48 pm

Well to make all of those things have one basic starting point, electricity. In the case of evolution it would be the cell.
Sadattay, Whattata Respec.
User avatar
ZakaSPFC
Death Adder
Death Adder
 
Posts: 58
Joined: Mon Dec 26, 2005 11:45 pm

Postby alextemplet » Fri Jan 20, 2006 1:26 am

Haha, well said, Canalon! :lol: As a believer I'll excuse the insult to God's intelligence, as I'm sure He will as well. He seems to be awfully forgiving these days . . . 8)

Perhaps a God who can use one process - evolution - to create everything is much superior to a God who must independently create everything. That's pretty ingenious, isn't it? And I don't think God took the easy way out simply because He was lazy; rather, I think He already had His hands full dealing with the whole Lucipher's rebellion thing. :twisted:
User avatar
alextemplet
King Cobra
King Cobra
 
Posts: 5599
Joined: Fri Dec 23, 2005 4:50 pm
Location: South Louisiana (aka Cajun Country)

Postby Sharifa » Fri Jan 20, 2006 1:59 am

If we are - as some people believe - coming from chimps, then why there are chimps still exist in nature! why don't they develope to human !
User avatar
Sharifa
Garter
Garter
 
Posts: 22
Joined: Fri Jul 01, 2005 6:05 pm

Postby canalon » Fri Jan 20, 2006 2:05 am

Because we are not coming from chimps. We just have a common ancestor. And anyway, you should think about one thing: do parents always die at the birth of their kid? A branching in evolution does not implie the disparition of the parental branch if it is fitter than its own descent in some niche. Hence the living fossils. Which by the way did not stop evolve, mutation are still happening, but since they are still perfectly adapted to their environment do not significantly differ from their (grand)n-parents.
Patrick

Science has proof without any certainty. Creationists have certainty without
any proof. (Ashley Montague)
User avatar
canalon
Inland Taipan
Inland Taipan
 
Posts: 3909
Joined: Thu Feb 03, 2005 2:46 pm
Location: Canada

Postby b_d_41501 » Sun Jan 22, 2006 5:06 pm

As stated before, we didn't come from any ape or chimp found to exist today, however, the theory of evolution of man says that both humans and apes/chimps came from a common ancestor (AKA the missing link). This in no way says that God did or did not have anything to do with creation. Perhaps God put all the necessary conditions in order and allowed them to unfold in such a way that we propose they did (Big Bang, Primordial Oceans, etc.). We know that God couldn't have created all animals and plants known today separately as foretold in Genesis because nothing has a single origin of creation. Everything is interlinked in some way taxonomically. The writers of the Hebrew Bible had no other way of describing the creation story because they did not know nearly as much as we do about science.
"Take four red capsules, in ten minutes take two more. Help is on the way."
----- Voice from the Medicine Cabinet
User avatar
b_d_41501
King Cobra
King Cobra
 
Posts: 746
Joined: Mon Apr 25, 2005 9:55 pm
Location: Kentucky

Postby Springer » Mon Jan 23, 2006 3:56 am

quote="b_d_41501"

As stated before, we didn't come from any ape or chimp found to exist today, however, the theory of evolution of man says that both humans and apes/chimps came from a common ancestor (AKA the missing link).

This is an undocumented assumption of evolution. If you look at any evolutionary "tree of life", there are no examples of any living species that "evolved" into any other. They have all conveniently become extinct.
We know that God couldn't have created all animals and plants known today separately as foretold in Genesis because nothing has a single origin of creation.


If you're going to objectively look at what's in the Bible, then you can't assume that it implies that all species were created seperately.

Everything is interlinked in some way taxonomically. The writers of the Hebrew Bible had no other way of describing the creation story because they did not know nearly as much as we do about science.


Homology is entirely consistent with creative design, even separate creation of individual species. What you are saying is that if God had created species separately, then they would not be genetically or phenotypically linked. That is a religious/philosophical belief. You are making assumptions that God would have conducted the creative process in a certain way that fits with your preconceived theology.

The argument by evolutionists that homology is indicative of common descent is likewise a religious belief, because it presupposes by what process a God would have created life.
[/quote]
Springer
Coral
Coral
 
Posts: 113
Joined: Wed Dec 21, 2005 2:20 am

Postby mith » Mon Jan 23, 2006 10:45 pm

Springer wrote:This is an undocumented assumption of evolution. If you look at any evolutionary "tree of life", there are no examples of any living species that "evolved" into any other. They have all conveniently become extinct.

If there was, then it wouldn't be a "missing" link. Anyway the cauliflower, kale and brussel sprout are noted forms with a known common ancestor.

quote:
Consider, first, the wildly varying plants of the genus Brassica (broccoli, cauliflower, cabbages, kale, and brussel sprouts), which have been derived through artificial selection from a single species of wild mustard (Campbell, 1990, p.432). Anyone who has compared kale with brussel sprouts can see that their structures are extremely different.1 Another example of major structural change is the set of widely variant dog varieties that has resulted from selective breeding.2 Just look at the different varieties of dogs that exist today, and ask whether a Chihuahua and St. Bernard can be connected only by saltations? If such profound change can occur and speciation does, as Denton conceded, occur, then what is to theoretically stop a remote ancestor from evolving into all of the primates? What is theoretically to stop an ancient ungulate from evolving into a whale, or an ancient fish into an amphibian?
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/denton.html

From same source:
Denton does discuss at great length in Chapters 9 and 14 some of the more complex organs in various vertebrates, such as the avian pulmonary system and its lack of a remote counterpart among the reptiles, but these long discussions seem to amount to little more than saying: "We haven't told an evolutionary story for it yet, and it seems difficult to me to believe that such a story could exist, therefore there is not one."
Living one day at a time;
Enjoying one moment at a time;
Accepting hardships as the pathway to peace;
~Niebuhr
User avatar
mith
Inland Taipan
Inland Taipan
 
Posts: 5345
Joined: Thu Jan 20, 2005 8:14 pm
Location: Nashville, TN

Postby Springer » Mon Jan 23, 2006 11:47 pm

The selective breeding of dogs should be used as evidence that evolution is impossible, not the reverse.

Selective breeding of dogs has been occuring for 5,000 years. Despite the phenotypic diversity (microevolution), as you pointed out, they are all 100% dogs. A St. Bernard is no closer to any non-canine species than a poodle or any other breed. If evolution were possible, then we should see evidence of it in domestic breeding. Breeding of dogs is easily explicable by variations in the gene pool. The evolution from a hippo-like ancestor to a whale is an entirely different matter, requiring major changes such as the development of a different physiology to change from salt water to fresh water, restructuring of the caudal musculature to change from a side to side to an up and down tail movement, development of echolocation, changes in physiology to allow suspension of respiration.... to name a few.
The fallacy of extrapolation of microevolution to macroevolution is apparent even to a young child. It is extremely poor science... It is totally illogical and only underscores the weakness of the evolutionary position.
Springer
Coral
Coral
 
Posts: 113
Joined: Wed Dec 21, 2005 2:20 am

Postby b_d_41501 » Tue Jan 24, 2006 12:47 am

Springer, perhaps if you were to read the textbook owned by one of those "young children" then you would plainly see that things evolve all the time. It is much easier to notice microevolutionary changes (how do you think viruses mutate?!) than it is to notice macroevolutionary changes. You totally misinterpreted my statements on religion as well. I am not saying that God had nothing to do with the way things are today or that he had entirely everything to do with it, I'm saying that I believe that he simply directs it. And, yes, things do interconnect taxonomically; this has been proven many times over. Quit preaching against an idea and start supporting it with facts. If you can't, then state it as your opinion. Scientific Laws aren't made based on people's individual opinions. :wink:
"Take four red capsules, in ten minutes take two more. Help is on the way."
----- Voice from the Medicine Cabinet
User avatar
b_d_41501
King Cobra
King Cobra
 
Posts: 746
Joined: Mon Apr 25, 2005 9:55 pm
Location: Kentucky

PreviousNext

Return to Evolution

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest

cron