Evolution vs. Creation

High school senior Zack Kopplin is leading the fight to repeal the Louisiana Science Education Act of 2008. Full Story

Since: Feb 08

Tampa, FL

#50263 Oct 3, 2012
I'm not the one here who claimed that all university students had to take a philosophy course.
That would be you.
Are you going to admit your mistake? Or pretend that you didn't make it?
Charles Idemi wrote:
<quoted text> Another blind arguments.
Philosophy are taken by all students, in my country and some others.
In your original claim, did you say "in my country"? Yes or no?

Since: Feb 08

Tampa, FL

#50264 Oct 3, 2012
Knightmare wrote:
Have you seen a car put itself together?
Do cars reproduce themselves?

If not, then how are they analogous to living organisms, which reproduce themselves?

“Nihil curo de ista tua stulta ”

Since: May 08

Orlando

#50265 Oct 3, 2012
New Kenyan fossils shed light on early human evolution

October 3, 2012

http://phys.org/news/2012-10-kenyan-fossils-e...

Fossils discovered east of Africa's Lake Turkana confirm that there were two additional species of our genus—Homo—living alongside our direct human ancestral species, Homo erectus, almost two million years ago. The finds, announced in the journal Nature, include a face, a complete lower jaw, and part of a second lower jaw.

The fossils were uncovered between 2007 and 2009 by the Koobi Fora Research Project (KFRP), led by Meave and Louise Leakey. NYU anthropology professor Susan Antón, a member of the research team, was part of the effort to compare these fossils with those from earlier finds.

"These new fossils provide great tests of earlier hypotheses of how diverse the early Homo record was," explains Antón. "They provide anatomical support for the idea of multiple species of early Homo, but, more importantly, they suggest ideas about how the species might have divided up the environment—the species weren't separated into a large species and a small species; instead, the fossils suggest remarkable size variation within each species, but with different facial anatomies."

Four decades ago, the KFRP discovered the enigmatic fossil known as KNM-ER 1470 ("1470" for short). This skull, distinguished by its large brain size and long flat face, ignited a longstanding debate about just how many different species of early Homo lived alongside Homo erectus during the Pleistocene epoch, which spanned from 2.6 million to 11,700 years ago. 1470's unusual morphology was attributed by some scientists to sexual differences and natural degrees of variation within a single species, whereas others interpreted the fossil as evidence of a separate species.

This decades-old dilemma has endured for two reasons. First, comparisons with other fossils have been limited due to the fact that 1470's remains do not include its teeth or lower jaw. Second, no other fossil skull has mirrored 1470's flat and long face, leaving in doubt just how representative these characteristics are. The new fossils address both issues.

"For the past 40 years we have looked long and hard in the vast expanse of sediments around Lake Turkana for fossils that confirm the unique features of 1470's face and show us what its teeth and lower jaw would have looked like," says Meave Leakey, co-leader of the KFRP and a National Geographic Explorer-in-Residence. "At last we have some answers."

"Combined, the three new fossils give a much clearer picture of what 1470 looked like," adds Fred Spoor, leader of the scientific analyses. "As a result, it is now clear that two species of early Homo lived alongside Homo erectus. The new fossils will greatly help in unraveling how our branch of human evolution first emerged and flourished almost two million years ago."

Found within a radius of just over 10km from 1470's location, the three new fossils are dated between 1.78 million and 1.95 million years old. The face KNM-ER 62000, discovered in 2008, is very similar to that of 1470. Moreover, the face's well-preserved upper jaw has almost all of its cheek teeth still in place, which for the first time makes it possible to infer the type of lower jaw that would have fitted 1470. A particularly good match can be found in the other two new fossils, the lower jaw KNM-ER 60000, found in 2009, and part of another lower jaw, KNM-ER 62003, found in 2007. KNM-ER 60000 stands out as the most complete lower jaw of an early member of the genus Homo yet discovered.
anonymous

Franklin, PA

#50266 Oct 3, 2012
Kong_ wrote:
...and btw, I'm not the one placing the "judging" icons on the posts.
Just in case anyone is wondering.
I'll get over it if you will. I don't like being grouped into a post with a bigotry label on it and you dog-piled on, assuming that I was a creationist or something.

Getting back on track, consider the ethics and the politics associated with "Evolution". Do we let starving kids die because they live in grass huts and their parents have AIDS? If we can't save everyone, who do we save? It's a nasty business. I won't say otherwise and I won't make those choices on my own. Politicians won't either. That's a good percentage of why nobody likes our government these days, but we still have to deal with it.
anonymous

Franklin, PA

#50267 Oct 3, 2012
Drew Smith wrote:
I'm not the one here who claimed that all university students had to take a philosophy course.
That would be you.
Are you going to admit your mistake? Or pretend that you didn't make it?
<quoted text>
In your original claim, did you say "in my country"? Yes or no?
This all started because Charles had some point to make about all PhDs being Doctors of Philosophy and that all scientists were practitioners of philosophy. It's a trivial point of linguistics only.

Since: Feb 08

Tampa, FL

#50268 Oct 3, 2012
anonymous wrote:
This all started because Charles had some point to make about all PhDs being Doctors of Philosophy and that all scientists were practitioners of philosophy. It's a trivial point of linguistics only.
All PhDs *are* Doctors of Philosophy (by definition). But it doesn't have anything to do with actual philosophy.

In any event, the not-so-trivial point is that Charles makes lots of errors here, but is unwilling to admit to any of them. He's dishonest.

“I am evolving as fast as I can”

Since: Jan 08

Brooklyn, in Dayton OH now

#50269 Oct 3, 2012
HTS wrote:
<quoted text>I see you're back, Ted... peddling the same regurgitated BS as always...blindly parroting everything that you've been fed by the MSM. You pretend to be objectively waiting for evidence of intelligent design, while only admitting for consideration evidence that fits with your religion of atheism. That is not science... What, pray tell, would qualify as "evidence" according to your pre-defined criteria?
Oh HTS, I wander in and out. Unlike some, I have several things going on in my life and Topix just isn't a high priority, more of a hobby. No parroting needed, I simply ask for evidence and when you continually fail to produce it, I am not afraid of reminding of that little fact. However, where you are concerned, I usually don't bother asking for evidence of ID, I ask for evidecne supporting your own statements. Requests you continually try and evade and ignore. Then it's fun to watch you get frustrated when I won't let you off the hook for failing to provide any supporting evidence.

as for evidence of ID, obviously something that could only be the product of an intelligence, but so far the BEST you have been able to com up with are spurious arguments claiming high probabilities against natural processes -- yet you have offered nothing in support of those probabilities and nothing in support of the requirement for intelligence. You can't even seem to comprehened basic statistics to know why your probabilities arguments are meaningless. Of course when someone attempts to educate you, you start calling names and trying to belittle people.

No one buys into your BS, which simply makes you even more entertaining! Bring on the evidence! Try something different for a change. Support your contentions instead of just re-airing them over and over again. Be a man and do what Jesus would do -- Cowboy up!
anonymous

Franklin, PA

#50270 Oct 3, 2012
Drew Smith wrote:
<quoted text>
All PhDs *are* Doctors of Philosophy (by definition). But it doesn't have anything to do with actual philosophy.
In any event, the not-so-trivial point is that Charles makes lots of errors here, but is unwilling to admit to any of them. He's dishonest.
Prideful, and deceitful, as are a lot of people.

I still hope that most people won't believe a lie if it is repeated often enough. Assuming that they will might be insulting....Just my political strategy.
Gillette

Fairfield, IA

#50271 Oct 3, 2012
anonymous wrote:
<quoted text>
Getting back on track, consider the ethics and the politics associated with "Evolution".
How in the WORLD are you coming to some sort of connection between "Evolution" and all of these social ills? There are NO ethics and policies "associated with evolution" anymore than there are ethics and policies "associated with gravity" or "associated with back holes."

You DO know that so-caled "Social Darwinism" is not science and has nothing really to do with the science behind evolution?

Again, trying to figure out -- with mixed success -- WTH you are trying to talk about.
HTS

Englewood, CO

#50272 Oct 3, 2012
Drew Smith wrote:
Yes, humans are apes. We meet the definition.
Demonstrate otherwise.
<quoted text>
So provide the scientific definition for "ape", and tell us how humans do not meet that definition.
What "definition"? Define "ape"...

“I am evolving as fast as I can”

Since: Jan 08

Brooklyn, in Dayton OH now

#50273 Oct 3, 2012
HTS wrote:
<quoted text>
Ted, you obviously have no concept of evolution if you can use such an absurd analogy. Your suggestion that "natural selection" could produce a Shakespearean play would require, by your own admission, a pre-defined goal. Hence, your suggestion that it would grab and cull out any thing that wasn't part of a Shakespearean work. Do you actually think that DNA can be changed in that manner... one nucleotide at at time? Have you no concept of the real world of genetics?
And your "argument from incredulity" card is an already debunked argument that has been repeatedly demolished on this forum, so why do you persist in trying to use it? The answer is simple. You cannot provide any scientific answers to back up your claims.
And as usual you have no idea what an analogy is or does. The idea of the selection of prose does not imply evolution has a pre-determined objective, but the fact of having a selection process makes the monkey analogy a tiny bit closer to being an actual evolution analogy because it has some sort of selection mechanism. It is no way implies that the criteria for selection is the same, but that in order for anything to be any form of analogy for evolution, it needs more than just typewriting monkeys. I thought I made that pretty clear, well probably clear enough for most folks. One of these days when you actualy understand evolution and even literary analogies to the point of realizing why your comment is so ridiculous -- but I doubt it.

So you and your philosophical friends can keep trying to tell people that monkeys typing Willie is analogous to evolution and we will keep trying to educate you as to why it an incredibly poor analogy. The only one worse is the tornado going through a junkyard and building a space shuttle.

Do you have any actual arguments against evolution, or are you going to continue trying word games -- because you are not very good at word games.
HTS

Englewood, CO

#50274 Oct 3, 2012
TedHOhio wrote:
<quoted text>
as for evidence of ID, obviously something that could only be the product of an intelligence, but so far the BEST you have been able to com up with are spurious arguments claiming high probabilities against natural processes -- yet you have offered nothing in support of those probabilities and nothing in support of the requirement for intelligence. You can't even seem to comprehened basic statistics to know why your probabilities arguments are meaningless.
I have repeatedly challenged you and others to provide mathematical evidence that any evolutionary process is within the range of stastitical probability, utilizing known mutation rates, known birth rates, reasonable selective value rates, etc. All you have done is broadly dismissed all probability challenges, as all good little DarwinBots do, because atheism presumes that nothing is too improbable for mutations and natural selection... All you can do is blindly throw millions of years at it and assume that the correct mutations will magically appear... and that natural selection will somehow see what is invisible to man sto ensure "survival of the fittest." I have explained in detail how the evolution from ape to man is impossible. None of my specific claims are refuted. All you can do is make sweeping inflammatory statements, belittling my intelligence and trying to undermine my knowledge and application of statistics. All you have ever done is speak in broad generalities. For once, how about accepting a challenged to your cherished religion of evolution and demonstrate that an pathway of transmutation is possible.

“I Am No One To Be Trifled With”

Level 7

Since: Jun 09

Dread Pirate Roberts

#50275 Oct 3, 2012
Drew Smith wrote:
<quoted text>
Do cars reproduce themselves?
If not, then how are they analogous to living organisms, which reproduce themselves?
So clones reproduce themselves? Wait what about the gene manipulation that scientists do to change things organisms and stuff?
HTS

Englewood, CO

#50276 Oct 3, 2012
Gillette wrote:
<quoted text>
How in the WORLD are you coming to some sort of connection between "Evolution" and all of these social ills? There are NO ethics and policies "associated with evolution" anymore than there are ethics and policies "associated with gravity" or "associated with back holes."
You DO know that so-caled "Social Darwinism" is not science and has nothing really to do with the science behind evolution?
Again, trying to figure out -- with mixed success -- WTH you are trying to talk about.
What are the messages that society can glean from the study of evolution?
William B. Provine, Ph.D, a renowned historian of science and professor at Cornell University, summarized the effects of evolution on man's thinking:

"Naturalistic evolution has clear consequences that Charles Darwin understood perfectly. 1) No gods worth having exist; 2) no life after death exists; 3) no ultimate foundation for ethics exists; 4) no ultimate meaning in life exists; and 5) human free will is nonexistent."

*
(Provine W.B., "Evolution: Free will and punishment and meaning in life." Abstract of Prof. William B. Provine's 1998 "Darwin Day address, "Darwin Day" website, University of Tennessee Knoxville TN, 1998
HTS

Englewood, CO

#50277 Oct 3, 2012
TedHOhio wrote:
<quoted text>
And as usual you have no idea what an analogy is or does. The idea of the selection of prose does not imply evolution has a pre-determined objective, but the fact of having a selection process makes the monkey analogy a tiny bit closer to being an actual evolution analogy because it has some sort of selection mechanism. It is no way implies that the criteria for selection is the same, but that in order for anything to be any form of analogy for evolution, it needs more than just typewriting monkeys. I thought I made that pretty clear, well probably clear enough for most folks. One of these days when you actualy understand evolution and even literary analogies to the point of realizing why your comment is so ridiculous -- but I doubt it.
So you and your philosophical friends can keep trying to tell people that monkeys typing Willie is analogous to evolution and we will keep trying to educate you as to why it an incredibly poor analogy. The only one worse is the tornado going through a junkyard and building a space shuttle.
Do you have any actual arguments against evolution, or are you going to continue trying word games -- because you are not very good at word games.
So in your convoluted line of logic you ridicule me for not accepting your false analogy. To demonstrate the validity of evolution, you deliberately propose an analogy of selection that requires an end goal... and now suggest that I'm stupid for not assuming that evolution can act on each and every mutation without an end goal. You are supposing that the genetic code is a simple linear sequence of nucelotides, when it clearly isn't. Your entire paradigm relies on false concepts of heredity... ie, that genes can be built up through mutations and natural selection one nucleotide at a time. A monkey can never type a Shakespearean play with any proposed method of selection unless an end goal is in place.

“H-o-o-o-o-o-o-ld on thar!”

Level 7

Since: Sep 08

The Borderland of Sol

#50278 Oct 3, 2012
anonymous wrote:
<quoted text>
Thingy? ;(
Meh! I get that all the time. If you can log into your wireless router, you need to know a few settings.
1. Does your router block unauthorized mac addresses?
2. Is encryption security enabled?
3. What kind of encryption is in use? Avoid WEP, it's old and easily hacked.
4. What pass-phrase or passkey is in use?
5. Find out what levels of Wi-Fi are supported.(802.11a, 802.11b, 802.11g, or 802.11n)
6. What is the SSID programmed into the router. If it is a default setting like "linksys", change it. You're making things too easy for hackers.
You can have dead zones in your house. I've got a few and I've got a newer class n router. Typically, you can log into the router by using your web browser, and by using a url of http://192.168.xx x.1
Type "ipconfig at the command prompt of a connected computer to find out what xxx is. It will usually be shared by all the computers in your house.
You can look up the default password for most models of cable routers on the Internet. If you don't have security enabled, I'd enable it, and choose WPA security. If you don't, you're setting yourself up for bandwidth theft from your neighbors.
Once you know those settings, go to your laptop and select the appropriate choices. It's not that complicated.
Hmm, some of that lot is familiar.

Project for sometime over the weekend - thank you.
anonymous

Franklin, PA

#50279 Oct 3, 2012
Gillette wrote:
<quoted text>
How in the WORLD are you coming to some sort of connection between "Evolution" and all of these social ills? There are NO ethics and policies "associated with evolution" anymore than there are ethics and policies "associated with gravity" or "associated with back holes."
You DO know that so-caled "Social Darwinism" is not science and has nothing really to do with the science behind evolution?
Again, trying to figure out -- with mixed success -- WTH you are trying to talk about.
Social Darwinism? No, that's not really true. It's as legitimate as any other form of evolution, depending on your definition.

A simple example would be sexual dimorphism. Selective breeding in domesticated animals is an externally applied example. It all comes down to semantics and whether you're talking about deliberate vs. subconsciously motivated changes, that being given another ambiguous label we like to call "politics".

Here's a line from Wikipedia.

"The term "social Darwinism" has rarely been used by advocates of the supposed ideologies or ideas; instead it has almost always been used (pejoratively) by its opponents."

So really, I don't embrace the label but then again, it's not a very clear label. Selection is selection, whether or not nature or human social pressure is at work.

Now, you mentioned "social ills". Why are they ills? Whatever you're thinking, you've put a spin on the concepts and have added a social pressure.

Another tidbit from Wikipedia.

"In The Descent of Man, and Selection in Relation to Sex of 1882 Darwin described how medical advances meant that the weaker were able to survive and have families, and as he commented on the effects of this, he cautioned that hard reason should not override sympathy and considered how other factors might reduce the effect"

Not exactly off-topic, eh? Charles Darwin was WELL aware of the implications of his theory:

"Thus the weak members of civilized societies propagate their kind. No one who has attended to the breeding of domestic animals will doubt that this must be highly injurious to the race of man. It is surprising how soon a want of care, or care wrongly directed, leads to the degeneration of a domestic race; but excepting in the case of man himself, hardly any one is so ignorant as to allow his worst animals to breed."

The biggie issue is simple. Someone is going to apply the concepts to human beings. Most people would have a private prejudice biasing their beliefs. Still, it's dirty. It's politics. We've got to deal with it.
anonymous

Franklin, PA

#50280 Oct 3, 2012
HTS wrote:
<quoted text>
What are the messages that society can glean from the study of evolution?
William B. Provine, Ph.D, a renowned historian of science and professor at Cornell University, summarized the effects of evolution on man's thinking:
"Naturalistic evolution has clear consequences that Charles Darwin understood perfectly. 1) No gods worth having exist; 2) no life after death exists; 3) no ultimate foundation for ethics exists; 4) no ultimate meaning in life exists; and 5) human free will is nonexistent."
*
(Provine W.B., "Evolution: Free will and punishment and meaning in life." Abstract of Prof. William B. Provine's 1998 "Darwin Day address, "Darwin Day" website, University of Tennessee Knoxville TN, 1998
I fully contest the statement that human free will does not exist.

You can freely accept Evolution as being a product of genetics and decisions made by the mind, through chemistry and learned experiences. Nobody is directing you. Unless you're obsessed with your inner-god, you don't worry about the chemistry or the experiences much because that is what you are.

Creationists love to say that a computer is incapable of understanding itself. It's true that you cannot observe and override your inner workings in real time. Who cares? What purpose would you choose for yourself other than the one you've committed to since the moment you began to breath for yourself?
Gillette

Fairfield, IA

#50281 Oct 3, 2012
HTS wrote:
<quoted text>
What are the messages that society can glean from the study of evolution?
William B. Provine, Ph.D, a renowned historian of science and professor at Cornell University, summarized the effects of evolution on man's thinking:
"Naturalistic evolution has clear consequences that Charles Darwin understood perfectly. 1) No gods worth having exist; 2) no life after death exists; 3) no ultimate foundation for ethics exists; 4) no ultimate meaning in life exists; and 5) human free will is nonexistent."
*
(Provine W.B., "Evolution: Free will and punishment and meaning in life." Abstract of Prof. William B. Provine's 1998 "Darwin Day address, "Darwin Day" website, University of Tennessee Knoxville TN, 1998
Provine is a craven, lying Jesus Freak who is working the same agenda you are.

F- him and F- you.
HTS

Englewood, CO

#50282 Oct 3, 2012
Gillette wrote:
<quoted text>
Provine is a craven, lying Jesus Freak who is working the same agenda you are.
F- him and F- you.
Provine is an atheist and evolutionist. Do your homework. He's one of your own.

Tell me when this thread is updated:

Subscribe Now Add to my Tracker

Add your comments below

Characters left: 4000

Please note by submitting this form you acknowledge that you have read the Terms of Service and the comment you are posting is in compliance with such terms. Be polite. Inappropriate posts may be removed by the moderator. Send us your feedback.

Evolution Debate Discussions

Title Updated Last By Comments
It's the Darwin crowd that lacks the facts in e... (Mar '09) 11 min Denisova 140,908
An atheistic view on evolution vs. a godly view... 34 min Denisova 1,338
"Science vs. Religion: What Scientists Really T... (Jan '12) 44 min Brian_G 16,566
Should evolution be taught in high school? (Feb '08) 1 hr The Dude 176,787
has science finally debunked the 'god' myth? 1 hr Kong_ 5
Creationism isn't a science and doesn't belong ... 1 hr dirtclod 575
.com | Debunking the Christian argument from de... 4 hr paul porter 1
More from around the web