Creative writing. Memories of grade school. You don't have to accept science, and you can believe anything you want, but that doesn't mean this post makes a lick of sense. Reminds me of Salem witch trials or sumptin. I have no idea what you're talking about, but it sounds like you're upset. I wouldn't know why.
Yes, the old "if man came from monkeys, why are there still monkeys" nonsense. Evolution in real time – Harvard Gazette After 26 years of workdays spent watching bacteria multiply, Richard Lenski has learned a thing or two. He’s learned that naturalist Charles Darwin was wrong about some things. For one, evolution doesn’t always occur in steps so slow and steady that changes can’t be observed. Lenski also learned that a laboratory freezer can function as a time machine. A professor at Michigan State University, Lenski has watched E. coli bacteria multiply through 59,000 generations, a span that has allowed him to observe evolution in real time. Since his Long-Term Experimental Evolution Project began in 1988, the bacteria have doubled in size, begun to mutate more quickly, and become more efficient at using the glucose in the solution where they’re grown. More strikingly, however, he found that one of the 12 bacterial lines he has maintained has developed into what he believes is a new species, able to use a compound in the solution called citrate — a derivative of citric acid, like that found in some fruit — for food. Natural selection in action. Undeniable.
Evolution says nothing of the sort. No one has ever claimed something created itself from nothing, not even the Big Bang. And conditions on earth have varied immensely in its 4+ billion year history. Thinking today is the same as billions of years ago is wrongheaded.
You are completely wrong and must not be aware of Darwin's letter to Hooker where Darwin claimed that DNA created itself from nothing In 1871 Charles Darwin wrote a now famous letter to Joseph Hooker which included some of his speculations on the spontaneous generation of life in some - warm little pond. The letter was mailed to Hooker on February 1st, 1871. Down,Beckenham, Kent, S.E. My dear Hooker, ... It is often said that all the conditions for the first production of a living organism are now present, which could ever have been present. But if (and oh what a big if) we could conceive in some warm little pond with all sorts of ammonia and phosphoric salts, - light, heat, electricity &c. present, that a protein compound was chemically formed, ready to undergo still more complex changes, at the present day such matter wd be instantly devoured, or absorbed, which would not have been the case before living creatures were formed. So can science show how this happens, or they tried and proved it impossible? I wonder if you even know
Smh. I wonder how to keep someone in suspense. That's your argument? A quote from Darwin? Come back when you have something to discuss.
I definitely don't agree with the "I have lived on this planet" argument thus I am aware of Nature's ability. That is like I have driven a car or flown in a plane. I may know how to drive or board a plane for travel but I will not pretend to know how they work beyond the very basic fundamentals I picked up here and there? When you have mechanics are engineers around who are experts why would you ask me explain how they work or how to make one. I might have lived on this planet and observe nature and I could certainly give you opinions on gardening or raising cats and dogs but if you expect me to be explain or discuss potential DNA tampering millions of years ago by intelligent visitors to this planet I would have no idea how to start. For starters I know next to nothing about DNA and I know nothing about aliens. What is it you want me to say about them that could possibly be significant. You seem to be annoyed that I refuse to weight and talk about them. If I was baking muffins and one had a mutton leg sticking out of it instead of a muffin I would definitely consult an expert although a baker is not probably the expert I would look for, because how a muffin became a leg of mutton is beyond my understanding of baking muffins. I think you ended on a perfect point. If you replied to that post with exactly what you said, I would have appreciated that and asked you more questions are a follow up. What I said was what I last remember hearing the Neanderthals and Homo Sapiens may have interbred. If there is evidence that it absolutely happened I would have welcomed it and asked for a link to the study. I think that very statement should demonstrate how stale my information is on the subject.
* Sorry, I accident removed my reply to this during my cutting and pasting of quote tags. I wrote to @ChiCowboy about this in an earlier post. I totally regret posting in this thread. I thought this would going to be a lite, non partisan, no controversial thread. Post a quick reply and I am done. I did not expect to be replying to this thread days later in controversy. So you are 100% right, I should not be here.
The Dunning-Kruger Effect ensures that those who are the most profoundly ignorant of science continue to reject evolution based on their cartoon understanding of science in general and evolution in particular.
His argument is not only vacant, but based on a misunderstanding of the quote he's citing. All Darwin was saying is that conditions on primordial earth were vastly different than now, and that current conditions would prevent abiogenesis from happening. I'm not sure what argument he's trying to make with that quote.
Ancient scriptures along with self evident truth state that everything in nature is/was created to function within certain bounds, except for man who was given conscience and free will. So here we are, many thousands of years after the establishment of that concept. All of nature still abides within its boundaries. And man alone still has conscience to know right from wrong and the free will to choose one or the other. It is collectively a testimonial to and at the feet of the concept and tradition of Judeo/ Christian creation. Nevertheless there are those who say, you know what, I think we should go find where we came from and how we came to be, because the story near to us and to which our reality is so closely engaged is insufficient, and its God, mute. Therefore we will discard it and find a better one, a true one that explains everything. We will find the remains or gork and gronk and their bones will talk to us. Then we will have true knowledge rather than silly supernatural fairy tales of creation.
That's fine for philosophy, but it doesn't falsify evolution. Everything about our existence evolved from simpler life forms, including our emotions. I don't know what "simple bounds" you're referring to.
I think I said "certain bounds". I don't buy the theory of evolution. It is an unproved and unprovable quest, contradictory to all that is and inapplicable to life but as a buoy to the theory. It is like gibberish to me.
That all of nature functions within certain bounds as if it were all commanded to so so, is not a philosophy. It is real. Likewise that mankind have consciences to know right from wrong and the free will to choose is not a philosophy. It is real and observable. It is reality. And it is in perfect alignment with the concept of creation by God. No study of or findings in the natural world can change these facts which are right now and real.
Wow, really? Pretty amazing, as at that time DNA had not even been discovered yet. And it would be another 60 years that "nuclein" (which was "discovered in 1873, two years after your "letter") would become known as "thymus nucleic acid" was in fact a key part of passing information from one cell generation to another. This is a complete fail, as you are trying to link a statement to him that is not anywhere close to being possible.
Enjoy your faith. None of that makes logical sense much less scientific. Self-awareness =/= God. It's a faith based belief. All hominids are self-aware. But, stamping your feet screaming you're right is fine with me if it works for you. Sad.
As arithmetic is gibberish to a baby, no doubt. The lack of education is not very impressive. Natural selection is understandable by anyone whose mind isn't closed shut by bronze-age myth.
Lenski is amazing. I have been following his work for many years, and it is fascinating. He has been doing that for over 30 years, and has seen some amazing results. Even a great many examples of convergent evolution. Where similar mutations will crop up hundreds of generations apart, creating the same effect but in a different way. Even more amazing, was about 2 decades ago when one strain made an amazing jump. E. Coli is interesting in that it largely is "blind" to citrate, which is the medium he used for all his samples. Instead he fed them all glucose. Then suddenly, one strain developed the ability to use the citrate as a food source, which at least in this lab experiment was a very advantageous evolutionary jump. And not the first time such happened in real history. After all, almost all life on early Earth died off after cyanobacteria had released so much oxygen into the atmosphere that almost all life at the time (anaerobic) became extinct as oxygen was actually a poison to them. Luckily for all later forms of life, one of those bacteria mutated to take advantage of that gas, and ultimately almost all life on the planet today descends in some way from it.
Oh, it goes beyond even that. All of the "Great Apes" (orangutan, gorilla, chimps) are self-aware. It is unique in all animals, and the easiest way to prove this was to place one in front of a mirror. Almost instantly, such apes realized that they were seeing a reflection of themselves, and not another of their species. Other than humans, they seem to be the only animals that actually recognize that the reflection is of themselves. And will even use them to help groom themselves, just as a human would use a mirror. This is different from all other animals, who will react with a mirror reflection of themselves as they would another of their species. Not recognizing that the reflection is actually of themselves.
I woke up 15 minutes ago after having slept for 4 hours. That's when I happened upon this post sitting in a thread called 'you are an ape'. I picked this thread because I could not think of a less taxing way to ease into the morning as my coffee brewed, than to pick between 'yes, I am an ape' and 'no, I am not an ape'. This post should have come with a warning label.
What am I supposed say to someone who believes that reality is a bronze age myth, and that his Parents are apes who've evolved from primordial goo. Where is room for reason in that. It is self evident that all of nature, from the solar system to earths creatures abides its boundaries as if by command, devoid of conscience and free will. It is similarly apparent that mankind as a creature is endowed with the light of conscience and free will to either abide or go beyond the command to choose the good, as if we are the offspring of the same creator of nature. And it is self evident that this reality is perfectly aligned and engaged with the "bronze age myth" of creation by God. Nevertheless, the evolutionists, rather than ply or prod the obvious, say let us discard the "myth" and find our origins elsewhere. So fine, go ferret it out.
This is just more example of facts put together in an opinion. Stating common ancestry doesn't make it so over common design. That was her opinion. The skull and spine is a design of God's for many of his creations. Why would this prove common ancestry? Just more theory using scientific observation based on the point of view, atheist. The tail bone is not a remanence of a tail. Unbelievable in this day and age to try that crap again. Because the design of an animal and human are similar doesn't mean one descended from another. That's lazy science.
