Perhaps I should be using the term 'intelligent design' instead of 'creationism.' Would that work better for you? 'God' is not the only force put forth as an origin of 'life from non life.' Also, 'creationsim' in general is only defined as life originating 'from the devine...', its not predicated on it having been created 'in its present form.' There are hundreds of creation stories outside Christianity from cultures that go back thousands of years that are 'creationism' involving celestial bodies, animals, the weather, aliens...
Yes, intelligent design was on trial in Kitzmiller. It's repackaged creationism, was ruled as such, and cannot be taught in public schools. The main premise of the "theory" is irreducible complexity which was soundly refuted in Kitzmiller v Dover. And of course the age-old problem of who created God becomes who created the intelligent designer. It is not a scientific theory. Yes, ancient aliens, gods, all kinds of untestable ideas out there.
untestable right now... but potentially testable upon further scientific advancement. as with much that was originally untestable but is now scientifically proven so we can agree then, if all intelligent design are forms of creationism, then creationism does not necessitate "in its present form"?
Not sure what you're asking. The particular creationism being discussed in the OP is vs evolution. The side issue of abiogenesis really isn't relevant here. These "theories" are not falsifiable, which means they are not logically suited to science. That doesn't change with knowledge, so no, they can never be tested.
you said: You say 'creationsism is God created all life in its present form' and 'intelligent design is repackaged creationsim' ...but not all intelligent design involves 'God' or 'created life in its present form...' Assuming you know that not all intelligent design is 'God creating life in its present form', then you're contradicting yourself.
You're conflating two different subjects. I bring up Kitzmiller because of the evidence provided for evolution during trial. Kitzmiller itself is irrelevant to the OP, only certain testimony is. Intelligent design doesn't deny evolution; the creationist in the OP does. Does that explain it better?
Just curious-- why did you put this in "Political Opinions?" Actually, the idea that a modern human would born from a chimpanzee, is a pretty idiotic misunderstanding, so I am guessing that would be a sign of someone who just doesn't want to hear your argument. There is something that you both ignore. But let me first make clear that I accept biological evolution. Yet, when one looks at human evolution, specifically, and how fast Homo sapiens have, & continue to, evolve, opening up such an apparent gap between ourselves and the other animal life of our world (of which we are aware), it is not surprising that man would not immediately recognize his connection to the rest of the evolutionary web. Still, that vast gap remains poorly explained. Even with all the other archaeo-hominids that have been discovered, I don't think we've yet found Darwin's, "missing link," that gets us just one major, or many tiny, steps away from Homo sapiens. I actually think the most credible theory, especially when one considers how human evolution has continued-- and at such a fast pace, outstripping the progress of other species, that have reached an apex position, in their environments-- is there having been some artificial modification(s) of our genes. While I realize this idea raises the eyebrows of many, it is not all that far-fetched a notion. We know, for example, that a life form as simple as viruses (specifically retroviruses), has deposited about 8% of our genome. When one considers that our actual DNA's genes only make up 2% of our genome, that's really saying something; i.e., that it would not be too difficult for an advanced life form to accomplish this. But I'm only offering this interesting possibility, to account for that which standard science does not treat as the glaring chasm, which it is.
I guess that you are only making the jump to creationism, in anticipation of where you feel modernpaladin is going to take it? Abiogenesis is simply the creating of organic molecules and life, from the inorganic, right? And we know that must have occurred, don't we? You are speaking less, here, I take it, about the how abiogenesis could occur, and more so about the why different elements would have the proclivity to take a path, leading to life? Can I both commend your open-mindedness, and humble willingness to admit our great, enduring ignorance, and yet also point out one flaw in your terminology? This may be something you realize, and just didn't think it worth bothering to insert, as a caveat; but it somewhat detracts from the claim of plausibility, to my mind, when all of one's scientific calculations start from a completely unexplainable substrate, of the pre-existence of the matter (& forces) in the universe, which created the Big Bang. Not to say that it would be impossible to ever come up with an explanation; but getting something, out of nothingness, is quite a trick.
Just a kind of interesting essay I came across. https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.scientificamerican.com/article/we-are-the-aliens/?amp=true ...But the strangest thing of all is how we generate, exploit, and propagate information that is not encoded in our heritable genetic material, yet travels with us through time and space. Not only is much of that information represented in purely symbolic forms—alphabets, languages, binary codes—it is also represented in each brick, alloy, machine, and structure we build from the materials around us. Even the symbolic stuff is instantiated in some material form or the other, whether as ink on pages or electrical charges in nanoscale pieces of silicon. Altogether, this “dataome” has become an integral part of our existence. In fact, it may have always been an integral, and essential, part of our existence since our species of hominins became more and more distinct some 200,000 years ago. This idea, which I also pursue in my upcoming book, The Ascent of Information, leads to a number of quite startling and provocative proposals. For example, let’s consider our planetary impact. Today we can look at our species’ energy use and see that of the roughly six to seven terawatts of average global electricity production, about 3 percent to 4 percent is gobbled up by our digital electronics, in computing, storing and moving information. That might not sound too bad—except the growth trend of our digitized informational world is such that it requires approximately 40 percent more power every year. Even allowing for improvements in computational efficiency and power generation, this points to a world in some 20 years where all of the energy we currently generate in electricity will be consumed by digital electronics alone... All of which raises the question: Why exactly are we doing this? An unexpected answer is that it’s not just us doing this. Our dataome looks like a distinct, although entirely symbiotic (even endosymbiotic), phenomenon. Homo sapiens arguably only exists as a truly unique species because of our coevolution with a wealth of externalized information; starting from languages held only in neuronal structures through many generations, to our tools and abstractions on pottery and cave walls, all the way to today’s online world. But symbiosis implies that all parties have their own interests to consider as well. Seeing ourselves this way opens the door to asking whether we’re calling all the shots. After all, in a gene-centered view of biology, all living things are simply temporary vehicles for the propagation and survival of information. In that sense the dataome is no different, and exactly how information survives is less important than the fact that it can do so. Once that information and its algorithmic underpinnings are in place in the world, it will keep going forever if it can. A very simple example can be seen in any of the great works of human literature, from Lao Tzu to Shakespeare. These writings, these informational packages, have found a way to persist through time by attaching themselves to us. We eagerly read them, restructuring our brains to remember them, and we go to great lengths to copy and reproduce these works, again and again across the centuries and in many languages and forms. But these texts aren’t just memes; they’re more like parts of a budded-off extended human phenotype that has its own processes and its own capacity to pressure the world around it to try to ensure its survival. In the course of life’s three-to-four-billion-year history on Earth, it doesn’t seem that anything exactly like this has actually happened before. On a geologic timescale, the emergence of the human dataome is like a sudden alien invasion, or an asteroid impact that precipitates a mass extinction—changing how energy flows and how the biosphere functions. It’s not just flesh-and-blood life on this world anymore. By a quirk of evolution, our very existence as clever talkative apes has gone hand-in-hand with the unleashing of something else, a new trick for the restructuring of matter in service of a phenomenon with very deep roots in the statistical arrangement of atoms and molecules, in their order and disorder or dispersal: in entropy and its cousin, information. Look around where you are right now, at the walls of your room, or the chair you’re sitting on. Or the light you’re reading by, and the screen or paper you’re reading these words from. In the end, all of these things are here in support of data, of ideas and of the most potent quantity in the universe: information. Our very alien dataome may just be the harbinger of things to come.
In order to give this idea of evolution any kind of credible consideration, I would have had to made sense of the following two sentences, which I just couldn't do. Here they are: An ape has never given birth to a man. Apes beget apes, and Man is an ape. How do those sentences square with the title of the post, 'You are an ape'?
the question of "how life began" might include abiogenesis. creationism, the scriptural literalist belief that "my grandmother wasn't a monkey," was argued in opposition to "the origin of species."
Yes, but the OP is a taxonomical description, which shows our relationship to other life forms, ultimately, that of great apes. We are apes.
A possible explanation for the cause of the Big Bang. Pretty interesting stuff. Wired https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.wired.com/2014/11/multiverse-big-bang/amp “Scientists Search for Evidence of the Multiverse in the Big Bang's Afterglow”
I am not sure I follow. Are you talking about the increasing speed of technological and cultural advancement? I am not sure which missing link you are referring too. Which have fairly extensive fossil records since Australopithecus more than four million years ago. Are you referring to a transitional fossil about 7 million years ago when we diverged from the great apes? Sorry, I can't speak to this. Biology is not my thing but there seem to be many others here that a quite verse in the subject.
^^^^^^^^^^^^^ Yet when it comes to the weather, the left says the science is settled using 30 years worth of data. The fact is no one knows if the climate is changing....hence evolving....because we don't have data, other than the fossil record, that tells us what 'normal' temperatures are. But the left disregards the fossil record, which clearly show the climate was much warmer in years past. So I find this conversation ironic. Really it's just an attack on religious people. And I'm not even religious but I see it for what it is. But for those of you that think we are apes, I have a simple question or two for you. Why haven't apes evolved in the last 2,000,000 years? They aren't walking and talking....no sir...they are the same as they were 2 million years ago. You would think they would at least be hair-less by now living in hot climates for millions of years. But they are not. Because they haven't evolved. They haven't evolved in the same time span that supposedly humans evolved from them. That makes no sense what-so-ever. Yet humans migrated out of Africa to butt-freezing cold climates and lost their body hair? Yeah, right. Were more likely to come from an alien planet than from apes, although this is something the masses can't or refuse to grasp. Or at least, through some kind of alien intervention. The missing link hasn't been found because there is no missing link. Every fossil record has been found except for the 'missing link'. Good luck searching.
Ah...shades of 2005. I knew ye were out there. Thankfully, not as much. Are any Scopes people still alive?
The fossil record and core samples absolutely prove the earth when through periods of much warmer temperatures in the past. Your point being??? I can't speak for others but I don't view science as an attack on religious people. I think religious people think so because often scientific facts challenge religious doctrine. IMO science should not even care about religion. I guess there are a few like Richard Dawkins that has taken the so call battle with religion but that is a personal choice. Well for starters I don't think we are apes. I think we share a common ancestor with apes about 7 million ago. I am not sure which ape you are referring too but my knowledge of other primate evolution is next to nil but I would assume that if you investigate the species of ape you are interested in there is probably fossil evidence of evolution taking place in that period. I won't even begin to address this.
I agree with this except humans are classified as apes. You can disagree with the classification, but such disagreement cannot be supported scientifically. It is certainly possible, using current taxonomical (Linnaean) classification methods, that humans will someday diverge from other apes to a degree they form a unique family of primate. It's also possible humans will go extinct long before macaques. DNA has proven the taxonomy to be correct. The fused human chromosome 2 is the defining difference between us and other apes, but is insufficient to classify homo sapiens as its own family of primate.
I would speaking in terms of Homo Sapiens. I accept that we are classified in the family of Great Apes but I view the term humans as Homo Sapiens.
I'm not sure what you're saying. I was referring to this: Well for starters I don't think we are apes. I think we share a common ancestor with apes about 7 million ago. Ancestry is indicated using taxonomy, which is why it's such an elegant system. The tree of life representation of evolution might help in understanding taxonomy. Taxonomical classifications begin at the trunk and end at the branch tips. Here's a graphical representation of humans: Humans are at once, and completely ALL of the above classifications. The family Hominidae is what classifies us as apes. This is why I like the OP as it explains why this is true. We are the only surviving species of the genus homo. We don't know what life will look like in a million years, but we do know it will be different from today. Our larger cranial capacity (as well as that of other, extinct species of homo) is what separates us from chimpanzees, bonobos, gorillas and orangutans. We are the latest "iteration" of ape, if that makes sense. And we really can't predict that our minds will protect us from extinction. I'd like to add that our hominid cousins are highly intelligent animals. This painting by the late gorilla Michael indicates a thinking mind. A gorilla's brain cannot provide the dexterity of a human adult, but that a thinking creature created this is evident. It's called "Apple chase." Apple is the dog Michael was painting.
As I stated biology is not my area of knowledge. My interest in human evolution only comes from my interest in Archaeology. When I was in university I had to complete a social science credit requirements for my business degree. I discovered Archaeology and found I really enjoyed it. I even had to get permission from the department to take 300 and 400 level course because I was not in their department. All of my knowledge of evolution is related to the fossil record. We referred to humans as primates belonging to the family of Great Apes. So our relatives were the orangutans, chimpanzees and gorillas and with them we share a common ancestor. (All three studied by amazing women; Fossy, Goodall and Galdikas) All early hominids, (at least as early as I was concerned about), from australopithecus to homo sapiens fell under this category. To be honest my interest in Archaeology had more to do with early civilizations than early humans but it was part of the study.
Yes, agree with the amazing women scientists. Fossey's murder was tragic. Goodall witnessed cannibalistic violence between competing chimp tribes, by females. Bonobos, on the other hand, are peaceful. We are closely related to both.
