Support NeoGAF

[tenchir]

I seem to recall reading that Neanderthal man actually had a larger brain size than modern man (although I guess he didn't do a lot with it). Can anyone confirm this?

http://www.icr.org/pubs/imp/imp-323.htm

Neanderthal Brains
A Neanderthal brain volume equals or exceeds modern human dimensions (Deacon, 1994), ranging from about 1200_1750 ml, and thus on the average about 100 ml larger than modern humans (Stringer and Gamble, 1993). Holloway (1985: 320) has stated "I believe the Neanderthal brain was fully Homo, with no essential differences in its organization compared to our own."

Although there is no direct correlation between brain size and intelligence, Neanderthal brain volume certainly does not support views that argue for an evolutionary expansion of "Hominid" brains.

 

[JoshuaJSlone]

My fav was: that God put those fossils in the ground to test the faith of the people. :lol

Then there's the related: Satan put those fossils in the ground to trick the people.

 

[Lucky Forward]

Although there is no direct correlation between brain size and intelligence...

I understand that Albert Einstein's brain was smaller than average.

 

[geogaddi]

Human fetuses have tails.

Note: Humans have a "tail bone" too. A human is still a human and nothing else even if the "fetus" has something that resembles a tail.

I'm surprised that no one has mentioned an idea complementary to Darwinian survival of the fittest, that of evolution by sexual selection: the idea that when a female chooses whom to mate with, she is shaping the future of her species.

The classic example of sexual selection is the peacock. Females choose the male with the longest, brightest plumage, and peacocks thus evolve to have very long, bright plumage. This plumage confers no survival advantage, but it is a successful stategy as long as the male reproduces. Female bowerbirds choose the male who builds the biggest, most ornate nest, and over the millenia bowerbirds evolve to build huge (for their size) ornately decorated nests.

Female humans (some speculate) choose the males who demonstrate the greatest intelligence through their hunting and gathering skills, handcrafting skills, artistic acumen, and the care and devotion that indicates they would be good family providers. Thus, humans evolve to be intelligent hunter gatherers skilled in arts and crafts who have a long-term dedication to their families.

This is evolution without the need for random mutations, but rather shaped by the females' choice. Rather than the genetic deck being randomly shuffled by indiscriminate mating, each individual effort to choose the best mate helps to improve the species.

This is an example of natural selection, something which doesn't require or cause fish-to-philosopher evolution. Like I said, we can observe natural selection at work but it doesn't prove that, for example, an animal without wings can acquire wings over a period of millions of years because this would require new genetic information of wings. Natural selection cannot account for the fish-to-philosopher evolution.

Objections to this usually take this approach: Oh, but over millions of years these small changes gradually increment to greater and more apparent changes. (micro plus micro plus micro = macro)

-This pre-supposes that information arose from matter (i.e. from hydrogen in stars)

"There is no known law of nature, no known process and no known sequence of events which can cause information to originate by itself in matter.’"- Dr. Werner Gitt

- This pre-supposes that a mechanism exists for this to happen a priori to the evidence. We must first prove that the mechanism occurs/exists before we jump into conclusions rather than doing questionable inductive logic (a questionable premise affirmed by the consequent).

- This says that; the same information plus more of the same information plus more of the same information plus more of the same information gives rise to new information. A fish remains a fish, a bird remains a bird.

I wouldn’t discount comparative anatomy when discussing evolution it’s extremely important.

Anyway it’s 2am, but when I surface you can expect me to write a summary of “sea squirts” to “humans” Explaining how animals evolved along the way

Edit: yes it’s possible to gain new genetic information

Bacteria for example transfer DNA/RNA strands all the time
Purely Random Mutation is considered “new information”
Even reproductive is a way of gaining “new” information

However what you said about reshuffling of junk DNA is very true

 

[etiolate]

It depends. I believe that there has been evolution and things evolve, but I do not believe in evolution as an origin for human beings.

 

[The Shadow]

yeah, there's been two or three new finds since the initial one. Political Correctness has nothing to do with it. It's the idea that within the genus homo, differences have become more and more minimal. I really think that DNA evidence can be thrown out the window, especially if the theory that 50/60,000 years ago the human population got heavily reduced..

Can you give me an example of the new finds? I'd like to read about them if I may.

You must remember that sometimes discoveries are "shaped" by the people who find them. Were the new finds discovered by the initial finder of the child? Even before he found that fossil, he believed we were the result of Neanderthal hybridization for instance and purposely sought out evidence to support that idea. Sometimes you find what you want to find, in a manner of speaking.

And for what reason would you throw out DNA evidence? To me, this is akin to "shaping" your evidence, like I said in my last paragraph.

The "political correctness" comment was from my Anthropology professor. He knew the guy that discovered the hybrid child and though he thinks he's an intelligent anthropologist, he also thinks that his theory was somewhat fueled by a need to be "politically correct".

All of those physical features still exist in humans today, just in rare occurrences here and there. Not to make a joke, but how many times do you see bizarre looking people with out of control brows. There's little consistency in the physical feature of modern man... there's people that have had 800cc brain size yet were perfectly normal otherwise.

I'll grant you one example, the bus driver in "Speed". I've never seen brow ridges like that anywhere else.

Still, it's not proper hybridization. It's features that have been essentially turned off, one set of features eliminated(Neanderthal) and another set predominant(modern man). That doesn't sit well with me at all. Aside from "rare" examples, how can features of modern man exist whereas Neanderthal features very nearly disappear (I think occipital bun is the only one that really co-exists IIRC). You'd expect a merger of features, not the complete dominance of one set of features and the elimination of another set.

I'm willing to accept we're co-species with Neanderthals but I need to see some pretty conclusive evidence to that fact. I see a lot of "maybe" evidence but nothing that really smacks of "OMG Hybridization!". Lot's of people don't which is why it's still debated, like we're doing now.

Edit:

I seem to recall reading that Neanderthal man actually had a larger brain size than modern man (although I guess he didn't do a lot with it). Can anyone confirm this?

They did. You have to remember that brain size doesn't mean they were smarter than modern man. They lived in a colder climate and a larger brain would make it easier for them to keep warm.

They were pretty smart though. IIRC, the first evidence of a ceremonial burial was at a Neanderthal site. They were more advanced in some ways than Homo sapiens at the time.

 

[Shogmaster]

Then there's the related: Satan put those fossils in the ground to trick the people.

Ah yes... :lol

It must be nice to be a fundy wacko. So many ways to dodge the question.

 

[Phoenix]

Here is a thread containing a series of posts about why creationists are just WRONG.

Read it. Seriously. It's very long, but well written, clear, and refutes ALL of creationism's arguments.

The author is just as flawed in his interpretations as he is in his arguments:

"There is an even more fatal problem with the creationist argument, though. The fact is that biologists have evolved resistant strains in the laboratory (Hall, 2003a, b)"

Problem - creationism does not claim that God created every organism that might ever exist.
Problem - creationism does not claim that evolution cannot occur


People Christianity is not the only religion in the world, nor the only one that believes in a "creator'. In my eyes both evolution and creationism are flawed because they are rooted NOT in finding 'answers' but in trying to prove the other incorrect.

 

[Lucky Forward]

They were pretty smart though. IIRC, the first evidence of a ceremonial burial was at a Neanderthal site.

And I believe Neanderthal skeletons have been found that showed a broken leg that had healed and a skull injury that indicated an eye was lost yet the individual lived for some years after. This implied that rather than being selfish brutes, Neanderthals cared for injured members of their community, and looked after them while they healed.

...all of which leads to Bart Simpson's Sunday school question, "Are there cave men in heaven?"

 

[Ignatz Mouse]

There's nothing about the theory of evolution that is there to prove creationism incorrect. It's an effort to explain the observed world. That anti-religious folks use it as a tool in their debate does not taint the theory.

 

[Shogmaster]

In my eyes both evolution and creationism are flawed because they are rooted NOT in finding 'answers' but in trying to prove the other incorrect.

What are you talking about? Evolution rose from finding evidence first, not with an agenda. The one with the agenda is Creationism.

Some may use evolution as an agenda for their personal reasons, but that's got nothing to do with what drove the study of evolution: fossil discoveries.

 

[geogaddi]

Just wondering, what are creationists explanation to the existance of neanderthals? Considering we have fossils of them, that our DNA are similar to theirs, and that it's likely they existed at the same time as our ancestor.

Aren't their other species of Home Sapiens too that we have fossils of too??? Like the Crom Magnum(can't remember the spelling)

Evolutionists say = they are less human or something
Creationist say = they are humans. nothing more nothing less.

Everyone observes the same evidence, but it demands to be interpretted.

Evolutionist says = I have the correct interpretation
Creationist says = I have the correct interpretation

It's a problem of pre-suppositions.

This image illustrates what I'm trying to say;

 

[PhlegmMaster]

The evolution vs creationism "debate" is pointless, not because the origin of the diversity of life is uninteresting or unimportant, but because the debate takes place between two very different kinds of people: Scientifically litterate people, and scientifically illiterate people.
I know it sounds harsh, but the fact is that the totality* of scientists that work in a field which is related to evolution (i.e. biochemists, biologists, and paleontologists) accept it as fact.

On the other side of the debate you have people who, for the most part: don't know what science is, don't understand how the peer-review and falsification processes work, don't know the basic definition of the theory of evolution, don't understand its basic mechanisms, don't make any distinction between the big bang theory, abiogenesis, and evolution, don't know that atheism (or any belief/non-belief) has nothing to do with evolution, don't know that evolution and common descent are both a fact and a theory, don't know the difference between the popular usage of the word "theory", and the scientific one, and don't understand the basic scientific premises that rule out creationism and intelligent design as anything more than pseudo-science.

So how can these two types of people engage in a productive debate? The answer's simple: They can't.


* Ok, maybe not the totality. Perhaps 99,999% of biologists, biochemists and paleontologists worldwide would be more precise.

 

[Chony]

Species jumping is pretty bizarre in my opinion. Going from dinosaur to bird is freaky. Imagine in several million years chimpanzees start growing wings. Why? What reason could a species need to become 'flighted'? I can see animals leaving the ocean for the abundance of oxygen and sun, but going to flight is bizarre. More bizzare than an omnipetent being with infinite power? That all depends on faith. Natural selection does make sense, and is provable. Humans have been around for more than 6000 years, carbon dating is very accurate at that time period (±30 years). Everyone knows Kennewick man, that in itself is far beyond the bible 'standard'. Some things are taking literally, some are not. You can't pick and choose. The bible isn't being contradictory, you are.

When It comes down to it, our universe is very old, and the beginning is what mistifies me. To say that some particles, existing for all existence, bang and boom we have people on a message board. It is asinine to think something can come from nothing, at least in my perspective. I am not saying you shouldn't believe in god, it is that the universe is far more complex than we make it out to be, and the gaining of knowledge is ever forthecoming.

Really, the debate over evolution is a fun one. Yes there a definite patterns of changing of species gradually, instances of species dying out, or branching out. It is entirely possible we came from the single cell atom, splitting apart into new species. These species diverged in the beggining, and came to what they are today.

In conclusion, I am really tired because I got home at 3 am and only got an hour of sleep before my math final this morning, so must of what I am saying is useless/ not backed by fact/ mindless rant/ what-have-you.

Personally, I like chaos theory.

 

[The Shadow]

People Christianity is not the only religion in the world, nor the only one that believes in a "creator'. In my eyes both evolution and creationism are flawed because they are rooted NOT in finding 'answers' but in trying to prove the other incorrect.

Wrong. Wrong. Wrong.

Evolution doesn't give a shit whether creationism exists or not. People who study evolution don't give a shit. The whole scientific process is to constantly test theories. Science seeks to constantly test Evolution to see if it stands up (and so far it has, quite well). The process does not give a single shit whether God exists or not. It's not in the equation at all. It's not trying to disprove or disprove creation at all.

Whether or not people believe in God while still believing in evolution is entirely up to them. The study of evolution doesn't give a damn about personal beliefs.

On the other hand, there are people who feel threatened by evolution because their personal beliefs are threatened by the clear evidence to its existance as a natural process.

There's a pretty big difference there.

And I believe Neanderthal skeletons have been found that showed a broken leg that had healed and a skull injury that indicated an eye was lost yet the individual lived for some years after. This implied that rather than being selfish brutes, Neanderthals cared for injured members of their community, and looked after them while they healed.

...all of which leads to Bart Simpson's Sunday school question, "Are there cave men in heaven?"

I almost mentioned that too but I couldn't remember 100% if it was a Neaderthal example or not.

But you're right though. First evidence that they cared for the injured. They were not a dumb, hunched over race in the least.

 

[AstroLad]

Evolutionists say = they are less human or something
Creationist say = they are humans. nothing more nothing less.

Everyone observes the same evidence, but it demands to be interpretted.

Evolutionist says = I have the correct interpretation
Creationist says = I have the correct interpretation

It's a problem of pre-suppositions.

This image illustrates what I'm trying to say;

Haha you got that image from a site whose header is "UPHOLDING THE AUTHORITY OF THE BIBLE FROM THE VERY FIRST VERSE." And which features- One Man for One Woman: An Answers Mini-Drama. Great, I would have never found this place otherwise. Thanks for the laughs.

 

[brooklyngooner]

Note: Humans have a "tail bone" too. A human is still a human and nothing else even if the "fetus" has something that resembles a tail.



This is an example of natural selection, something which doesn't require or cause fish-to-philosopher evolution. Like I said, we can observe natural selection at work but it doesn't prove that, for example, an animal without wings can acquire wings over a period of millions of years because this would require new genetic information of wings. Natural selection cannot account for the fish-to-philosopher evolution.

Objections to this usually take this approach: Oh, but over millions of years these small changes gradually increment to greater and more apparent changes. (micro plus micro plus micro = macro)

-This pre-supposes that information arose from matter (i.e. from hydrogen in stars)

"There is no known law of nature, no known process and no known sequence of events which can cause information to originate by itself in matter.’"- Dr. Werner Gitt

- This pre-supposes that a mechanism exists for this to happen a priori to the evidence. We must first prove that the mechanism occurs/exists before we jump into conclusions rather than doing questionable inductive logic (a questionable premise affirmed by the consequent).

- This says that; the same information plus more of the same information plus more of the same information plus more of the same information gives rise to new information. A fish remains a fish, a bird remains a bird.

Are you a college freshman?

 

[levious]

I'm willing to accept we're co-species with Neanderthals but I need to see some pretty conclusive evidence to that fact. I see a lot of "maybe" evidence but nothing that really smacks of "OMG Hybridization!". Lot's of people don't which is why it's still debated, like we're doing now.

Oh, that's exactly how I feel, but it's an uphill battle since the status of neandertal was decided years ago when they were first discovered... talk about shaping the evidence. I'll try to find articles related to other "smoking guns."

I don't understand why DNA evidence should should be thrown out if 50/60 thousand years ago the human popupulation got heavily reduced(from what?).

sorry for not stating that clearly... DNA back tracking has never really jived with the fossil record. Some would argue that it was just that the process was lacking, others would say that it should supercede the fossil record. But if theories about the human population being decimated at a global scale due to the super volcano in yellowstoneturn out to be credible, then it would all make a great deal more sense. Our mitochondrial dna going back to a small population 50/60 thousand years ago would be due to this occurance rather than the more popular modern out of africa theory.

- not only have neandertal burials been found, but some erectus remains with tools and evidence of pollen... really fascinating stuff.

 

[Phoenix]

What are you talking about? Evolution rose from finding evidence first, not with an agenda. The one with the agenda is Creationism.

Please explain and prove since Creationism existed before archaeology. While the scientific discovery IN archaeology is science, evolutionism/evolutionary theory has an agenda. Archaeology is driven by the discovery of lost cultures as well as fossils and was not the driver of evolution - Linnaeus. Linnaeus was actually a 'creationist':

Linnaeus loved nature deeply, and always retained a sense of wonder at the world of living things. His religious beliefs led him to natural theology, a school of thought dating back to Biblical times but especially flourishing around 1700: since God has created the world, it is possible to understand God's wisdom by studying His creation. As he wrote in the preface to a late edition of Systema Naturae: Creationis telluris est gloria Dei ex opere Naturae per Hominem solum -- The Earth's creation is the glory of God, as seen from the works of Nature by Man alone. The study of nature would reveal the Divine Order of God's creation, and it was the naturalist's task to construct a "natural classification" that would reveal this Order in the universe.

...


Was Linnaeus an evolutionist? It is true that he abandoned his earlier belief in the fixity of species, and it is true that hybridization has produced new species of plants, and in some cases of animals. Yet to Linnaeus, the process of generating new species was not open-ended and unlimited. Whatever new species might have arisen from the primae speciei, the original species in the Garden of Eden, were still part of God's plan for creation, for they had always potentially been present. Linnaeus noticed the struggle for survival -- he once called Nature a "butcher's block" and a "war of all against all". However, he considered struggle and competition necessary to maintain the balance of nature, part of the Divine Order. The concept of open-ended evolution, not necessarily governed by a Divine Plan and with no predetermined goal, never occurred to Linnaeus; the idea would have shocked him. Nevertheless, Linnaeus's hierarchical classification and binomial nomenclature, much modified, have remained standard for over 200 years. His writings have been studied by every generation of naturalists, including Erasmus Darwin and Charles Darwin. The search for a "natural system" of classification is still going on -- except that what systematists try to discover and use as the basis of classification is now the evolutionary relationships of taxa.

 

[Phoenix]

Wrong. Wrong. Wrong.

Evolution doesn't give a shit whether creationism exists or not. People who study evolution don't give a shit.

Read post later in thread. Darwin and Linnaeus and others in that timeframe WERE absolutely debating with agenda. You need to look at when these things happened and who these people were before you continue on. Neither theory is new - they are actually several hundred years old at this point during a time when absolutely they BOTH had agendas.

 

[JoshuaJSlone]

Species jumping is pretty bizarre in my opinion. Going from dinosaur to bird is freaky. Imagine in several million years chimpanzees start growing wings. Why? What reason could a species need to become 'flighted'?

Fast movement, distance travel, and access to completely new locations seem like they'd be advantages, even in incremental steps. It's not as if wings just start popping out from nowhere. If the ground was a dangerous place and one extremely light chimp with some mutated hands and arms got some sort of locomotive advantage from that, who knows where it could lead?

 

[geogaddi]

Haha you got that image from a site whose header is "UPHOLDING THE AUTHORITY OF THE BIBLE FROM THE VERY FIRST VERSE." And which features- One Man for One Woman: An Answers Mini-Drama. Great, I would have never found this place otherwise. Thanks for the laughs.

Genetic Fallacy. The illustration still illustrates the issue of pre-suppositions regardless of your opinion of it.

 

[Shogmaster]

Please explain and prove since Creationism existed before archaeology. While the scientific discovery IN archaeology is science, evolutionism/evolutionary theory has an agenda. Archaeology is driven by the discovery of lost cultures as well as fossils and was not the driver of evolution - Linnaeus. Linnaeus was actually a 'creationist':

It does not matter what the individuals involved in the creation of evolution theories believed. The discoveries of the fossils that don't jibe with the Bible's account of history would soon or later raised the same questions.

It's called common sense, and it will always triumph in the end.

 

[Ignatz Mouse]

Phoenix, you're using faulty logic. That the theory of evolution comes after the belief in creationism in not way positions it as an agenda against creationism. Unless every bit of new evidence is considered to be part of an agenda against any previously held belief-- in which case you trivialize the word "agenda" to the point where is doesn't maen what you imply.

 

[The Shadow]

Oh, that's exactly how I feel, but it's an uphill battle since the status of neandertal was decided years ago when they were first discovered... talk about shaping the evidence. I'll try to find articles related to other "smoking guns."

The status and view of Neanderthal has changed quite a bit since the first fossil was found. They're no longer viewed like the hairy dumb creatures they were once thought of. This doesn't mean we have to ignore evidence that they were their own distinct species either. Especially the way people "selectively" have to ignore evidence to support the hybrid idea.

I personally think hybrid-ist sell the Neanderthals short. It's kind of distasteful to suggest they had to be directly related to us in order to be as advanced as they were. Not much different from the hunched over hairy beast with a modern man giving a symbolic helping hand to prop them up IMO.

Like I said, I'm willing to believe it. It's not some "elitist" view that hybrid-ist like to put on people who don't agree with it. It's the lack of concrete evidence. If there really was a smoking gun, it wouldn't be debated now.

This isn't geology. It's not some overly conservative science that is extremely restrictive to change. To suggest that's why it's still debated is wrong. The simple fact is that it's an idea that still needs time to prove itself, if it can prove itself. Nothing more, nothing less. Remember that a belief is not the same as a time tested theory.

 

[Phoenix]

It does not matter what the individuals involved in the creation of evolution theories believed. The discoveries of the fossils that don't jibe with the Bible's account of history would soon or later raised the same questions.

It's called common sense, and it will always triumph in the end.

And so the evil rears its head. So lets take the bible out of it. You do realize their are other religions in the world... that also have a notion of creationism. Right?

 

[Lucky Forward]

But if theories about the human population being decimated at a global scale due to the super volcano in yellowstone turn out to be credible, then it would all make a great deal more sense. Our mitochondrial dna going back to a small population 50/60 thousand years ago would be due to this occurance rather than the more popular modern out of africa theory.

That would be the Toba supervolcano:

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/sci/tech/166869.stm

"Modern human races may have diverged abruptly, only 70,000 years ago," he writes in the Journal of Human Evolution.

Geneticists have thought for some time that humans passed through a recent evolutionary bottleneck but they had little idea what may have caused it.

Scientists believe that an eruption of Toba caused a volcanic winter that lasted six years and significantly altered global climate for the next 1,000 years.

During those six years, there was substantial lowering of global temperatures, drought and famine. No more than 15,000 people survived.

When better conditions returned, the human population was able to grow once more and develop the genetic diversity we see today.

"When our African recent ancestors passed through the prism of Toba's volcanic winter, a rainbow of differences appeared," Professor Ambrose said.

If this theory is true, I wonder how believers in a benevolent caring God can can accept that fact that a random global catastrophe nearly wiped out humanity 70,000 years ago. Talk about cognitive dissonance...

 

[tenchir]

That would be the Toba supervolcano:

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/sci/tech/166869.stm



If this theory is true, I wonder how believers in a benevolent caring God can can accept that fact that a random global catastrophe nearly wiped out humanity 70,000 years ago. Talk about cognitive dissonance...

Huh, didn't god like killed nearly everyone before with the flood?

 

[Chony]

Fast movement, distance travel, and access to completely new locations seem like they'd be advantages, even in incremental steps. It's not as if wings just start popping out from nowhere. If the ground was a dangerous place and one extremely light chimp with some mutated hands and arms got some sort of locomotive advantage from that, who knows where it could lead?

It's just my thought process that developing a completely different physical structure to get through the environment is bizzare. Say the chimps were living near an active volcano with flowing lava. Being a bird would be advantageous yes, but it seems they would develop thicker feet first rather than wings.

Also mountain goats would probably do better as birds, but they developed their legs such that they can move through the mountains easily.

It doesn't really seem plausible, but of course it is possible, as anything is. Hell, humans developed is in an essence the most amazing thing ever to happen. The line crossing from instinctual to abstract thinking is incredible. Many animals do care for their young, the old, the sick, the injured, and even have complex social hierarchys. Does that mean they have abstract thinking like humans do? Were humans the first to evolve, and thus are on the course far advanced than the other species? Are all species soley dependant on their environment? Than how did humans develop alike in very seperate environments?

Agriculture for instance was developed several times indepentantly of eachother, with varying environments. Since humans have been developing for hundreds of millions of years, why are there no bird people? Fish People? Scaled people? All we have are clines of varyiation in what we call 'race'.

What we need to do, is to build the most super quantum computer ever, and simulate the world as we know (just in terms of physics and chemistry), and see if nothing comes from nothing. Then accelerate the theoretical speed of the world several billion earth years, and see what happens. Run this test simoultaneously billions of times over. See if something like humans ever shows up.

 

[Lucky Forward]

Huh, didn't god like killed nearly everyone before with the flood?

Well, folks 70,000 years ago must have been doin' some serious sinnin'.

 

[The Shadow]

And so the evil rears its head. So lets take the bible out of it. You do realize their are other religions in the world... that also have a notion of creationism. Right?

Do they have the exact same idea of creationism? Nope. Are they as restrictive to the ideas of evolution? Nope.

Try not to shoe-horn other religions into the restrictive creationism that exists here in order to give credibility to it. You do them a disservice and you show a lack of respect to their beliefs.

 

[Phoenix]

Phoenix, you're using faulty logic. That the theory of evolution comes after the belief in creationism in not way positions it as an agenda against creationism.

Actually I'm using history right now and information about the people who are the founding principles for these idealogic theories. One can't just start saying 'evolution evolution evolution' without looking at the people behind it.

Unless every bit of new evidence is considered to be part of an agenda against any previously held belief-- in which case you trivialize the word "agenda" to the point where is doesn't maen what you imply.

You are implying that an agenda has a contrarian intent which I did not imply. At the time that evolution was 'discovered' it was not at odds with anything. In fact was assumed to be a catalogging of the creatures of the Garden of Eden. When evolutionary theory was created from this the intent was indeed to show that creationism was flawed.

You have a history book I'm sure.

 

[Phoenix]

Do they have the exact same idea of creationism? Nope. Are they as restrictive to the ideas of evolution? Nope.

Try not to shoe-horn other religions into the restrictive creationism that exists here in order to give credibility to it. You do them a disservice and you show a lack of respect to their beliefs.

Try not to shoehorm creationism into one religion. You do a disservice to other people who believe in creationism who are NOT CHRISTIAN.

Damn western society I swear. Sometimes Im ashamed to be a part of it

 

[The Shadow]

Try not to shoehorm creationism into one religion. You do a disservice to other people who believe in creationism who are NOT CHRISTIAN.

You're not even making sense. Are you actually trying to have a discussion here?

Either you're purposely twisting words around, or you're not even reading what people have posted. In either case, your argument (from what I can gather considering your cryptic logic) holds very little water.

Faulty Logic.

 

[Shogmaster]

And so the evil rears its head. So lets take the bible out of it. You do realize their are other religions in the world... that also have a notion of creationism. Right?

Obcourse. Probably more than you realise since in my short lifetime, I've had to practice 3 different religions due to family pressures. I was born into a Buddist family that later changed to Confucious practices, then after moving to the States, changed to Catholicism. After turning 18 I said fuck you all and your religious flip flopping ways. I'm going Atheist. :lol

Anyways, Creationism, religion and all that crap can be sumed up in my mind in one simple way: Our need to feel special. We can't bear the thought of being just a variable in this chaotic world, so we made up various religions, and each religion has their own creation story that makes us feel special, better than all other living things in this world. Very self serving, but not much else merit of you ask me.

Everyone wants to feel special. That's why even those (like many here) that love science and technology is drawn to stories and fiction that has the hero being special and gifted. All that superhero crap falls into that catagory. Even those that embrace Creationism is drawn to Sci-fi that has us bing special over all other living things on Earth. Just look at all the countless stories involving some ancient Alien race seeding us onto this planet from their genes, from Guyver to Halo2.

It all seems very transparent to me, but you go ahead with your high thoughts on validity of Creationism, buddy.

 

[Phoenix]

You're not even making sense. Are you actually trying to have a discussion here?

Do Jewish people believe in a creator that created everything? Yes. Are they Christians? No. Do they follow the bible? No.

Are you trying to actually ignore what's being said?

 

[Ignatz Mouse]

There's no problem with religion (any) and evolution as long as you don't take the doctrine literally. It's the fundamentalist jag the country's been on that's the issue, not religion in general.

 

[iapetus]

"There is no known law of nature, no known process and no known sequence of events which can cause information to originate by itself in matter.’"- Dr. Werner Gitt

The famous creationist, Dr Werner Gitt (something you neglected to mention when citing him previously, which might be considered germane by some...) I can't find any useful references to him other than those associated with creationist websites, which suggests to me that he isn't exactly highly respected outside that narrow and somewhat biased clique.

None of his books appear on the reading list of any information science course.

The idea that complex behaviour can not emerge from a simple ruleset is one that always stuns me when people put it forward - perhaps it's my background in AI that makes it so obvious to me that they're wrong.

 

[Phoenix]

Anyways, Creationism, religion and all that crap can be sumed up in my mind in one simple way: Our need to feel special. We can't bear the thought of being just a variable in this chaotic world, so we made up various religions, and each religion has their own creation story that makes us feel special, better than all other living things in this world. Very self serving, but not much else merit of you ask me.

Agreed.

It all seems very transparent to me, but you go ahead with your high thoughts on validity of Creationism, buddy.

Actually I don't believe in creationism - just pointing out obvious faults in this line of debate. Perhaps you need to stop assuming that everyone that is showing you a door intends to kick you out of it.

 

[AstroLad]

Genetic Fallacy. The illustration still illustrates the issue of pre-suppositions regardless of your opinion of it.

What the fuck? I was saying thanks for the link, not engaging you in debate, Socrates. Thanks for further illustrating "pre-suppositions," though.

 

[The Shadow]

Do Jewish people believe in a creator that created everything? Yes. Are they Christians? No. Do they follow the bible? No.

I would like for you to point out exactly where I suggested that.

Clearly you have a reading comprehension problem. Not once did I ever suggest that other religions shared the same idea of creationism. If anything, I said the opposite.

Again, you really do have a reading comprehension problem. Either that or you purposely misconstrue what is said in a flawed attempt to make an argument.

 

[McLesterolBeast]

Read post later in thread. Darwin and Linnaeus and others in that timeframe WERE absolutely debating with agenda.

Darwin didnt "debate" anything, as far as I know. He wasn't set on the idea of publishing his work on evolution initially either, because of how he thought it would be interpreted.

 

[Phoenix]

I would like for you to point out exactly where I suggested that.

Clearly you have a reading comprehension problem. Not once did I ever suggest that other religions shared the same idea of creationism. If anything, I said the opposite.

No clearly you do.

People Christianity is not the only religion in the world, nor the only one that believes in a "creator'.

First post. Read it again.

 

[JoshuaJSlone]

Also mountain goats would probably do better as birds, but they developed their legs such that they can move through the mountains easily.

That's looking at things pretty simplistically, though. We can imagine flying mountain goats, but of course once we pretend a goat has wings we'd have to change a lot of other things to make it a viable animal. Once we've done all that, we might see it's pretty similar to some bird which already exists. There's plenty of room for diversity to fill in different niches.

Agriculture for instance was developed several times indepentantly of eachother, with varying environments. Since humans have been developing for hundreds of millions of years, why are there no bird people? Fish People? Scaled people? All we have are clines of varyiation in what we call 'race'.

Just because we can imagine something existing doesn't mean it's strange that they don't exist. Evidently once the "prototypical primate" species came about, it's not had a real reason to switch from being a land being to a water being. As close as merfolk would be to ourselves genetically and still be called a people, couldn't we consider monkeys to be "tree people"?

What we need to do, is to build the most super quantum computer ever, and simulate the world as we know (just in terms of physics and chemistry), and see if nothing comes from nothing. Then accelerate the theoretical speed of the world several billion earth years, and see what happens. Run this test simoultaneously billions of times over. See if something like humans ever shows up.

I doubt we'd see much. Even ardent evolutionists have to admit that the random chances involved are pretty huge. Human-made approximations of natural forces attempting to simulate the entire world or universe for billions of years... unimaginable. On the very minor scale, though, there are computer programs which just attempt to mimic evolution by creating creatures with varying numbers of limbs, abilities, reproduction, requirement for survival, and a bit of mutation, and allow you to see how things go among a population.

 

[Socreges]

I've taken a course on Evolution. I believe in Evolution.

I also think that almost anyone who doesn't believe in Evolution is either ignorant or deceiving themselves.

 

[Shogmaster]

Actually I don't believe in creationism - just pointing out obvious faults in this line of debate. Perhaps you need to stop assuming that everyone that is showing you a door intends to kick you out of it.

DAMNIT, I knew it! Would you please stop debating just for the sake of flexing that big brain of yours! :lol

 

[JoshuaJSlone]

One can't just start saying 'evolution evolution evolution' without looking at the people behind it.

It's a matter of science. If I want to talk about gravity, does it matter whether Newton was a pedophile or a fan of limericks?

 

[The Shadow]

People Christianity is not the only religion in the world, nor the only one that believes in a "creator'.

Which assumes when people talk about "creationists", we're talking about every religion that believes in a creation.

FAULTY LOGIC

Thank you, come again.

If you want to argue semantics, argue semantics. Don't assume everyone is generalizing just so you can have a little debate in your own world.

One can't just start saying 'evolution evolution evolution' without looking at the people behind it.

It's a matter of science. If I want to talk about gravity, does it matter whether Newton was a pedophile or a fan of limericks?

Sigmund Freud was a druggie. We should probably re-evaluate the science of Psychology.

 

[FoneBone]

Jesus fucking Christ, he actually used a fucking Lietha cartoon.
:lol :lol :lol :lol

 

[Shogmaster]

It's a matter of science. If I want to talk about gravity, does it matter whether Newton was a pedophile or a fan of limericks?

Fan of limericks! :lol :lol I'm literally clutching my stomach! :lol