^^^ When some people have become figures of fun, they are to be taken seriously only when necessary; otherwise they are to be treated as . . . well, figures of fun.

debosky:

Unfortunately the discussion has become 'trapped' in a rut.

No it isn't trapped.

debosky:

Let's leave aside the 'classification' issue and go back to the question on the origin of man. Regardless of the taxonomical classification questions, my view is that similarities are not sufficient to confirm that man and chimpanzees, etc. had a common ancestor.

The classification issue is of course very important because the classification is one of the means by which we show their ancestral relationships. It is a sort of family tree.
First, would you agree with me that man is an ape more like other apes than e.g a lion?

Enigma:

(I guess your "lawyer" is around, I would expect him to be able to explain those; but then, maybe not).

*rises from the back seat*
You mean me I guess. Dont flatter yourself because you learnt a few latin phrases from the Flying Spaghetti Monster knows who .
I tend to take a back seat when science is being discussed one major reason being that it isnt my specialty. I never relied on science to loose my belief in the sky daddy. Science simply provides more plausible answers to primitive fairy tales. Also, science is not afraid of being wrong. That is the reason for its trustworthiness. Nothing is free from enquiry. Falsifying a theory is a trump for science [/b]unlike certain religions. I laugh when I see certan so called christian scientists here. I wonder if they would try to cure leprosy with the blood of birds.

As Isaac Asimov said "[b]'Properly read, the Bible is the most potent force for atheism ever conceived."
The bible defeats itself when exposed to analysis, that is why man has invented so many excuses for "God".
Feel free to insult me or maybe you will surprise me. Either way, I do not care.

Continue the debate
*sits down again*

thehomer:

The classification issue is of course very important because the classification is one of the means by which we show their ancestral relationships. It is a sort of family tree.

The family tree is a construct based on apparent similarities - it isn't necessarily based on actual evidence of a common ancestor producing members of that family tree. In essence, what you are saying is that all of these organisms share similar characteristics.

Without observable evidence showing a common ancestor producing both gorillas and human beings, you can't conclusively state that there is a common ancestor. That is the postulation, but one that cannot be confirmed.

First, would you agree with me that man is an ape more like other apes than e.g a lion?

In terms of appearance I agree that man resembles apes and has similar characteristics - however, this does not mean that man and apes share a common ancestor.

Hmmm, flying spaghetti monster. That's one down.  

How many more to go from the evangelical atheists' stock?

Invisible pink unicorn?
Sussicorn?
Russell's teapot?

debosky:

The family tree is a construct based on apparent similarities  - it isn't necessarily based on actual evidence of a common ancestor producing members of that family tree. In essence, what you are saying is that all of these organisms share similar characteristics.

Without observable evidence showing a common ancestor producing both gorillas and human beings, you can't conclusively state that there is a common ancestor. That is the postulation, but one that cannot be confirmed.

The similarities aren't just apparent, they're actual and go down to the molecular level.
The observable evidence is there from the fossil record to the genetic and biochemical information.

debosky:

In terms of appearance I agree that man resembles apes and has similar characteristics - however, this does not mean that man and apes share a common ancestor.

It does when you consider that among other things like genetic, anatomical, developmental, biochemical and even some social similarities.

Anyway to cut the long story, creationists have carried the vote as per below.


Created 15 (60%)
Evolved 7 (28%)
Not sure 2 (8%)
Don't care 1 (4%)
Leave us alone 0 (0%)
Total Votes: 25

thehomer:

The similarities aren't just apparent, they're actual and go down to the molecular level.
The observable evidence is there from the fossil record to the genetic and biochemical information.

Even so - the observable evidence may lend itself to a conclusion that there is a common ancestor, the similarities do not necessitate one.

It does when you consider that among other things like genetic, anatomical, developmental, biochemical and even some social similarities.

It may be agree with other theories like evolution, but being similar is a necessary but not sufficient requirement to confirm originating from the same ancestor.

jayriginal:

*rises from the back seat*
You mean me I guess. Dont flatter yourself because you learnt a few latin phrases from the Flying Spaghetti Monster knows who .
I tend to take a back seat when science is being discussed one major reason being that it isnt my specialty. I never relied on science to loose my belief in the sky daddy. Science simply provides more plausible answers to primitive fairy tales. Also, science is not afraid of being wrong. That is the reason for its trustworthiness. Nothing is free from enquiry. Falsifying a theory is a trump for science [/b]unlike certain religions. I laugh when I see certan so called christian scientists here. I wonder if they would try to cure leprosy with the blood of birds.

As Isaac Asimov said "[b]'Properly read, the Bible is the most potent force for atheism ever conceived."
The bible defeats itself when exposed to analysis, that is why man has invented so many excuses for "God".
Feel free to insult me or maybe you will surprise me. Either way, I do not care.

Continue the debate
*sits down again*

It seems you've violated one of the rules of the internet which is that you shouldn't feed the trolls. I know I've violated it too a few times so please don't make a similar mistake to the one I did.

More trolling, then!

Anywhere you see an evangelical atheist, even on his own, you see a mumu and the worst case of the Dunning-Kruger effect. Fact!

Even evolutionists don't claim to have conclusively proven their phylogeny:

his tree, like all phylogenetic trees, is a hypothesis about the relationships among organisms. It illustrates the idea that all of life is related and can be divided into three major clades, often referred to as the three domains: Archaea, Bacteria, and Eukaryota.

The tree is supported by many lines of evidence, but it is probably not flawless. Scientists constantly reevaluate hypotheses and compare them to new evidence. As scientists gather even more data, they may revise these particular hypotheses, rearranging some of the branches on the tree. For example, evidence discovered in the last 50 years suggests that birds are dinosaurs, which required adjustment to several “vertebrate twigs.”

http://evolution.berkeley.edu/evosite/evo101/IIAFamilytree.shtml

In fact, we can say the theory of evolution in itself is still evolving.

less that 60% have voted that man came from mud! wow, a whooping 40% did not, amazing. Who would have imagined this would be possible in this day and age?

Modern man is the product of both creation(via hybridization program,IMHO) and evolution. There can't be evolution if there is no creation and at the other end, if there is no evolution what has been created is dead at creation, because evolution is life and life must always flow on. Panta Re, everything flows.

And who says that science is not afraid to be wrong? That was the science of old. Mainstream(academic) science of modern times(this century and latter part of the last) is very very afraid of being wrong and that is why it has become as dogmatic as the desert religions it despises. That is the sad and unfortunate situation science is now in.

frosbel:

Anyway to cut the long story, creationists have carried the vote as per below.


Created 15 (60%)
Evolved 8 (28%)
Not sure 2 (8%)
Don't care 1 (4%)
Leave us alone 0 (0%)
Total Votes: 25

When you consider that less than 10% of the voters (us freethinkers) managed to get over 50% of the vote. I consider that a victory. And besides this topic is about us discusssing the origin of man and so far its us freethinkers who are the ones facing a barage of questions. Since all you creationists believe we were created please explain how  god created us.

frosbel:

Anyway to cut the long story, creationists have carried the vote as per below.


Created 15 (60%)
Evolved 7 (28%)
Not sure 2 (8%)
Don't care 1 (4%)
Leave us alone 0 (0%)
Total Votes: 25

I hope you know that scientific questions aren't settled by popular votes.

debosky:

Even evolutionists don't claim to have conclusively proven their phylogeny:

http://evolution.berkeley.edu/evosite/evo101/IIAFamilytree.shtml

In fact, we can say the theory of evolution in itself is still evolving.

So what? How does this help your case?

thehomer:

I hope you know that scientific questions aren't settled by popular votes.

Not to worry , the percentage of creationists has somewhat dwindled !

Appears your heathen brethren are starting to vote to close the gap

@thehomer,

Don't waste your time with that dummy; he's a Christian but doesn't even know the contents of the Bible!

@davidlyan

Allow me to waste a few keystrokes here:
How many peer-reviewed work have you published on this topic - The Origin of Man? Just mention one.

Yes I read Discover magazine; I follow the works of authorities of science, or who am I supposed to follow - you? You are an authority in what exactly? As far as I'm concerned you are a non-entity. Your tantrum is quite amusing though - it can be compared to a Primary School kid mad at the world for listening to Einstein on his Relativity Theory in the early 20th century and saying "Come on I can tell you how space and time works using my compass and tee-square and ruler".

thehomer:

It seems you've violated one of the rules of the internet which is that you shouldn't feed the trolls. I know I've violated it too a few times so please don't make a similar mistake to the one I did.

Lol. I'll keep that in mind.

thehomer:

So what? How does this help your case?

It helps by confirming that the phylogeny partly relied on as 'evidence' of man's origin from a common ancestor with gorillas and the likes is simply a hypothesis.

There is no conclusive evidence of man's origin from a common ancestor with the apes. As a result, from a purely scientific point of view, the possibility of man being created has not been eliminated.

debosky:

It helps by confirming that the phylogeny partly relied on as 'evidence' of man's origin from a common ancestor with gorillas and the likes is simply a hypothesis.

There is no conclusive evidence of man's origin from a common ancestor with the apes. As a result, from a purely scientific point of view, the possibility of man being created has not been eliminated.

You're looking at it the wrong way. What you should ask yourself is the criteria being used to group these organisms on the phylogenetic tree. It is this information used in making these classifications e.g fossils, developmental information, biochemistry, genetics etc that you need to look at to see the links on the phylogenetic tree.
When you examine the information, the best explanation is the common ancestor theory. If you have a better theory, please present it for scrutiny.

thehomer:

You're looking at it the wrong way. What you should ask yourself is the criteria being used to group these organisms on the phylogenetic tree. It is this information used in making these classifications e.g fossils, developmental information, biochemistry, genetics etc that you need to look at to see the links on the phylogenetic tree.

I don't disagree with the information used or the classification per se, it is a convenient way of presenting the information that has been gathered through the years.

When you examine the information, the best explanation is the common ancestor theory. If you have a better theory, please present it for scrutiny.

From an atheistic perspective it is definitely the best explanation.

From a Christian perspective, the best explanation is an all-knowing Creator who in His Infinite Wisdom and sovereignty has chosen to create different organisms at the same time with slightly different qualities, without the use of common ancestors. Any classification without considering the Creator will be flawed.

debosky:

I don't disagree with the information used or the classification per se, it is a convenient way of presenting the information that has been gathered through the years.

From an atheistic perspective it is definitely the best explanation.

From a Christian perspective, the best explanation is an all-knowing Creator who in His Infinite Wisdom and sovereignty has chosen to create different organisms at the same time with slightly different qualities, without the use of common ancestors. Any classification without considering the Creator will be flawed.

So what was the last species of animals created by God and when did he perform this act of creation?

thehomer:

So what was the last species of animals created by God and when did he perform this act of creation?

According to the bible, the human beings were the last creation by God, and this happened sometime 'in the beginning'.

The bible does not tell us exactly when this happened (i.e. no reference to a specific date we can relate with) but some have claimed to be able to calculate this time by inferring from time periods recorded in the bible.

^ Evolution is creation in continuous progress

debosky:

According to the bible, the human beings were the last creation by God, and this happened sometime 'in the beginning'.

Is the Bible your source of scientific information on biology?

debosky:

The bible does not tell us exactly when this happened (i.e. no reference to a specific date we can relate with) but some have claimed to be able to calculate this time by inferring from time periods recorded in the bible.

I hope you know that there have been several speciation events in the last 1000 years long after God stopped creating new species e.g some species of mosquitoes and fruit flies. And this would also imply that God had been popping in and out of the earth creating animals. Was he also responsible for the extinctions?

Deep Sight:

^ Evolution is creation in continuous progress

Evolution as used in science isn't creation. I wonder who according to you is doing the creating and what would you say is the target of this progress?

thehomer:

Is the Bible your source of scientific information on biology?

It depends on what you mean by 'scientific information'. I believe the bible tells us the origin the species - God created them. In terms of the specific creation processes used, that information is not provided.

In terms of scientific information like number of genes, chromosomes and the like, obviously the bible does not provide that level of information as it was not intended as a treatise on biology.

I hope you know that there have been several speciation events in the last 1000 years long after God stopped creating new species e.g some species of mosquitoes and fruit flies. And this would also imply that God had been popping in and out of the earth creating animals. Was he also responsible for the extinctions?

Were they observed speciation events or is speciation the theory being used to explain the newly observed/previously undiscovered species?

As I said, the details of the initial creative process was not provided in the bible, so I can't comment on that, but the bible does not say God has been popping in and out of the earth to create animals.

In terms of extinctions, recently observed extinctions can be clearly attributed to changes in habitats that may be man made or of natural causes, or other man-made causes such as overfishing and the likes.

In that sense I do not believe God was responsible for recent extinctions, I don't think God is generally in the business of killing off species, but the latter is simply my personal view.

debosky:

It depends on what you mean by 'scientific information'. I believe the bible tells us the origin the species - God created them. In terms of the specific creation processes used, that information is not provided.

In terms of scientific information like number of genes, chromosomes and the like, obviously the bible does not provide that level of information as it was not intended as a treatise on biology.

I mean information such as fish big enough to swallow someone and they would live in them for some days, the reproductive habits of angels and their offspring, the diversity of animals available being explained by Noah's ark, talking snakes, talking donkeys etc.

debosky:

Were they observed speciation events or is speciation the theory being used to explain the newly observed/previously undiscovered  species?

No these are species that appeared with the availability of certain modern environments e.g subways.

debosky:

As I said, the details of the initial creative process was not provided in the bible, so I can't comment on that, but the bible does not say God has been popping in and out of the earth to create animals.

That is what would be implied for new species to exist after human creation.

debosky:

In terms of extinctions, recently observed extinctions can be clearly attributed to changes in habitats that may be man made or of natural causes, or other man-made causes such as overfishing and the likes.

In that sense I do not believe God was responsible for recent extinctions, I don't think God is generally in the business of killing off species, but the latter is simply my personal view.

So in your view, God simply kept on commanding species out of the ground and other places and it just so happened that about 99% of them went extinct.

thehomer:

I mean information such as fish big enough to swallow someone and they would live in them for some days, the reproductive habits of angels and their offspring, the diversity of animals available being explained by Noah's ark, talking snakes, talking donkeys etc.

Does that tell you anything about chromosomes and the like? I don't regard that as 'scientific' biological information.

No these are species that appeared with the availability of certain modern environments e.g subways.

I'll take your word for it, but then again, that it happened in this specific case doesn't mean speciation is the way all the organisms on the face of the earth came to be.

That is what would be implied for new species to exist after human creation.

It doesn't have to be that way - the creation of God had the ability to reproduce - if combined with other natural factors, the organisms may have changed/adapted to suit their environment.

So in your view, God simply kept on commanding species out of the ground and other places and it just so happened that about 99% of them went extinct.

In my view God created all living things, after which the cycle of nature was set in motion. The bible does not define 'species' as currently defined by scientific biology so there is a clear difficulty in drawing exact parallels.

Hurricanes happen, asteroids hit the earth - those are aspects of the natural cycle set into motion by God. WHY 99% of species are extinct is not a subject specifically covered in the bible to my knowledge. But then again, as I previously mentioned, it is not a treatise on 'scientific' biology.

debosky:

Does that tell you anything about chromosomes and the like? I don't regard that as 'scientific' biological information.

Chromosomes aren't the only information we have from biology. There's more like plants existing before the sun, and those examples I presented to you. What I'm saying is that all these things are tied together.

debosky:

I'll take your word for it, but then again, that it happened in this specific case doesn't mean speciation is the way all the organisms on the face of the earth came to be.

And maybe, just maybe the sun isn't powered by nuclear fusion but by firewood. It seems you don't want to put information together and make inferences from them.

debosky:

It doesn't have to be that way - the creation of God had the ability to reproduce - if combined with other natural factors, the organisms may have changed/adapted to suit their environment.

But definitely not evolved?

debosky:

In my view God created all living things, after which the cycle of nature was set in motion. The bible does not define 'species' as currently defined by scientific biology so there is a clear difficulty in drawing exact parallels.

Of course. Maybe its because those who wrote the Bible were ignorant of what we consider to be basic biology. This is why it is preferable to pick the source with more modern and accurate information.

debosky:

Hurricanes happen, asteroids hit the earth - those are aspects of the natural cycle set into motion by God. WHY 99% of species are extinct is not a subject specifically covered in the bible to my knowledge. But then again, as I previously mentioned, it is not a treatise on 'scientific' biology.

Since it isn't a treatise in scientific biology, then why do you wish to keep trying to refer to it as though it were such? You already said the Bible gives you an answer and for some reason, you consider this good enough to compare to modern science.