Tanzanian Tracks Show Man's Early Steps

---

Originally Posted By: JapanFan14 Quote:belief in the creation myth what happened to respecting people's beliefs though? oh, I think our self proclaimed biblical expert has tossed out all respect of other beliefs years ago

yawn

Quote:To be honest, it's really just sad that they've wasted their lives because they believed, without question, what they were told in school.I think this passage is very significant. thor believes that knowledge is passed down unchanged from teacher to pupil-teacher through the generations. He doesn't understand that science doesn't work this way - that science is based on experiment and observation and is continually correcting itself and expanding its knowledge through new experiments and new observations. thor believes that 'evolution' means 'what Darwin taught', and doesn't understand how much progress the biological sciences have made since then. Since Darwin didn't observe natural selection in action, but only deduced it from his observations, he believes that is still the case.In fact, he goes further, he believes it must be the case. He was shown in an earlier thread that natural selection, leading to new species, has in fact now been observed, as a process, in several instances, both in the field and in the laboratory - that natural selection is now better proven than that he has a brain, for the first has been observed and the second has not. I am not sure by what effort of will he wipes that from his mind, but it's not a pretty sight.Nor does he understand how DNA works, and how our increasing ease of reading it enables us now to see how certain genes derived from other genes that served a quite different purpose. He doesn't understand the frequency of mutations and other changes, and how natural selection makes the choice as to whether a change is beneficial or not. Quote:If you read my post above, you'll see they are contradicted by simple common sense. Common sense that has been ignored for so long it is believed, by those scientists you quote, to be irrelevant.The word 'common sense' means sense that is common - that all (or nearly all) people possess. It does not mean "I can't see how this can be true, therefore it can't be true". That is not common sense, it is subjectivism.(In fact 'common sense' is not a good standard of truth. Relativity and quantum mechanics both appear to fly in the face of common sense, but are well attested - they deal with situations that are not part of common experience. And there are many examples of things that were nearly universally held as true that have since been shown to be false.) Quote:It amounts to no more than the wishful thinking of athiestsI can't resist quoting C.S. Lewis here:"'Come, come,' said the jailor. 'You must know your catechisms by now. You, there' (and he pointed to a prisoner little older than a boy whose name was Master Parrot), 'what is argument?''Argument,' said Master Parrot, 'is the attempted rationalisation of the arguer's desires.''Very good,' replied the jailor, 'but you should turn out your toes and put your hands behind your back. That is better. Now: what is the proper answer to an argument proving the existence of the Landlord?''The proper answer is, "You say that because you are a Steward."''Good boy. But hold your head up. That's right. And what is the answer to an argument proving that Mr Phally's songs are just as brown as Mr Halfways'?''There are two only generally necessary to damnation,' said Master Parrot. 'The first is, "You say that because you are a Puritanian," and the second is, "You say that because you are a sensualist."''Good. Now just one more. What is the answer to an argument turning on the belief that two and two make four?''The answer is, "You say that because you are a mathematician."'"(C.S. Lewis, The Pilgrim's Regress, Book 3, chap 8)

Originally Posted By: Ineligible Quote:To be honest, it's really just sad that they've wasted their lives because they believed, without question, what they were told in school.I think this passage is very significant. thor believes that knowledge is passed down unchanged from teacher to pupil-teacher through the generations.Wrong from start. What has been passed down in this country changed around the time of the Great Depression. At least start by getting your facts straight...which, in this case, means asking questions of others instead of your usual rhetoric.As for the rest of what you wrote, you claim I understand none of this...yet you claim that you do. Do you know how to apply what you (at least believe) you know? History on this board shows that you get lost in what you've been taught to think instead of actually ever thinking for yourself...which is why you will forever remain in the liberal box you have allowed yourself to be placed in. But this is nothing new for many folks around here. Quote:The word 'common sense' means sense that is common - that all (or nearly all) people possess. It does not mean "I can't see how this can be true, therefore it can't be true". That is not common sense, it is subjectivism.Only one without common sense would say that.

Originally Posted By: thor

I know you are but what am I

Originally Posted By: thor Originally Posted By: bobalicious Originally Posted By: thorDoesn't work, in practice. Imagine the odds of a male and female of the same species haveing exactly the same mutation, then finding each other and mating (so as to pass it on)...then the rest of the offspring for all those non-mutated dieing out IN EVERY SINGLE EXAMPLE OF EVOLUTION SINCE THE DAWN OF TIME! The odds are better of my flapping my arms and flying to the moon...and that's just for one species. The male and female don't have to have the same mutation and for an emerging mutation its nearly impossible. Then at best, the chances are 50/50 of it being passed on (all other things being equal). But....On average I suppose the chances are about 50/50, but it really depends. For example, the mutation could occur to a dominant gene, increasing its chances of being passed on. Originally Posted By: thor Quote:And the rest of the population do not have to die off, the mutation simply spreads throughout the population as those with it are given a better chance of survival and therefore are more likely to reproduce and pass it on. Now you've introduced another variable. Are all mutations automatically benificial? Comepletely random mutations would suggest a 50/50 possibility...which, coupled with the above, put as back to where we were before (possibility-wise). But the reality is that mutations actually observed are very rarely benificial. By nature, they are random and without any pre-determined direction. So, the odds are much worse than even I initially considered them to be.This also makes the case that, when these changes are made, that there is an intelligence guiding them so that they ARE beneficial. After all, how is a random mutation supposed to know it's supposed to be beneficial? It wouldn't be random then, would it. Pretty rediculous. But no, the evidence of changes for the benefit of species is indicative of a guiding (rather than random) force in these changes...which, of course, suggests a creator. Actually, the vast majority of mutations are neither beneficial or detrimental, they have no effect at all. And each human has on average about 10 mutations. Its why we have so much junk DNA that does nothing. I think that seems like an argument against an intelligent creator.And although the chances are greater that the mutation would be detrimental rather than beneficial, the negative mutations are far less likely to survive as they hinder the animal's chance of reproducing.

Originally Posted By: thor

Originally Posted By: bobalicious

These theories, including Evolution by Natural Selection, are fully supported by evidence and are contradicted by none of the evidence.

If you read my post above, you'll see they are contradicted by simple common sense. Common sense that has been ignored for so long it is believed, by those scientists you quote, to be irrelevant. To be honest, it's really just sad that they've wasted their lives because they believed, without question, what they were told in school.

But what common sense are they ignoring? If all of the evidence (observation and experiment) support this theory, is it not common sense to trust it and test it further?

If someone is found murdered with a smoking gun beside them, and the fingerprints on the gun belong to the butler. The shell casings have fingerprints that also belong to the butler. The gun is registered to the butler. The butler is known to have a very loud row with the victim just earlier that night where he was heard to have shouted, "I'll fucking kill you!" When the butler is questioned, residual gun powder is found on his clothes along with some of the victim's blood.

Is it common sense to charge the maid with murder?

And thor, I'm not going to get into this little bitch-match that everyone seems to be having. I know tensions are a little high because of the debate in the 'Milk' thread but I hope that won't effect our conversation here, if you wish to continue it.

Originally Posted By: bobaliciousAnd each human has on average about 10 mutations. Its why we have so much junk DNA that does nothing. I think that seems like an argument against an intelligent creator.It seems to me it makes the argument that we don't understand nearly as much about the whole thing as we'd like to think we do. Mutations may be to the DNA world the same as hydrocarbons are to the automobile engine world...something not desired, but a byproduct of how the whole thing works. There are a lot more possibilities that DO point to how complicated the whole thing is...pointing also to the necissity for somebody who understands it all to orchestrate the whole thing. Or are you implying all the genes and molecules know what to do all by themselves?

You're implying that just because its complicated, it must need a designer. Crystal structures can be very complicated but we know how and why they form in the way they do.

And the junk DNA isn't just DNA that we don't know what it does. Genetic experiments have been performed where quite a lot of the junk DNA in mice has been removed and it had no effect on the mouse.

Simple rules naturally create complex outworkings, and it is simplicity rather than complexity that needs special explanation. Crystal structures are actually notable for their regularity, though this is explicable in terms of self-organising forces (which also are responsible for cell membranes and other structures).

Quote:Or are you implying all the genes and molecules know what to do all by themselves?No conscious knowledge is required, but yes, cell processes occur without any miraculous intervention, following the usual behaviour of substances. Although not every detail of every cellular process is known, most is now understood, and it is mechanical, the result of ordinary physical laws.

Originally Posted By: IneligibleNo conscious knowledge is required...Who told you that? How do YOU, or anybody else for that matter, know exactly what is required? We don't understand it, but we know what is and is not required, according to you. How? Who told you? Quote:...but yes, cell processes occur without any miraculous intervention...We don't know what to do, but these cells and genes seem to know exactly what to do. Are you implying they're smarter than us? I realize it's possible that there is a mechanism at work that we don't understand...but I refer you again to the above: HOW DO WE KNOW WHAT IS REQUIRED IF WE DON'T UNDERSTAND IT?!!!Though I realize it may stem from the spiritual side of things, it seems my faith in a creator is more well founded than your faith in there being no need for one.

What I'm trying to point out, thor, is that we DO understand it. There is still much, of course, that is not yet fully understood, but it decreases every year. We know so much more now than we knew twenty years ago, and most cellular processes are now an open book to us. Most recently there has been a lot of progress towards understanding cell differentiation, which has always been the most tricky question.There's no reason why you would keep up to date with advances in cell biology, but I have had to keep an eye on the area. New findings are reported in the biological primary literature and make their way in time to the secondary literature, to monographs and eventually textbooks and wikipedia. You will probably find much in a local college library.I don't think you would assume that physiological systems such as the circulation of the blood require miraculous intervention to occur. Essentially, cells are similarly mechanistic, on a smaller scale.I don't doubt that God can, and may, miraculously intervene in the operation of cells, or of anything else. I merely aver that He doesn't have to for cells to work.You seem to be saying "we can't understand how this could happen without God, so it must require God". The second part of the argument however doesn't logically follow from the first. This sort of 'God of the gaps' argument leads to God's becoming compressed to smaller and smaller areas as our knowledge improves, and I don't think it is a good grounding for faith. I believe faith should have larger grounds.

Originally Posted By: thor Originally Posted By: IneligibleNo conscious knowledge is required...Who told you that? How do YOU, or anybody else for that matter, know exactly what is required? We don't understand it, but we know what is and is not required, according to you. How? Who told you?But nearly everything in biology is just a series of chemical reactions. This is known and it is understood. Photosynthesis does not require external instruction or a higher conciousness, it is a known and well understood chemical process. Everything in nature that we have studied has resulted in a similar understanding. For something to work in a way other than this would be so far out from everything else, it is very unlikely to occur and therefore would require evidence to show that it did work another way, and so far, there has been no such evidence. Originally Posted By: thorWe don't know what to do, but these cells and genes seem to know exactly what to do. Are you implying they're smarter than us? I realize it's possible that there is a mechanism at work that we don't understand...but I refer you again to the above: HOW DO WE KNOW WHAT IS REQUIRED IF WE DON'T UNDERSTAND IT?!!!You're applying a level of conciousness to something that shows no sign of it occurring or being required. The cells don't "know" anything, all of their actions are a result of internal programming that has developed and evolved over millions and millions of years. They are chemically structured in such a way that they interact with their environment with certain behaviour which is complicated but completely natural. Originally Posted By: thorThough I realize it may stem from the spiritual side of things, it seems my faith in a creator is more well founded than your faith in there being no need for one. It seems that you are using gaps in the naturalist world view, whether those gaps actually exist or not, as evidence towards your own Creator-orientated world view. You're limiting the discussion to just 2 possibilities in an attempt to give credit to your own view by destroying the other one.This argument cannot work because its not known that there are only 2 options, so to use my age-old example, proving that 2 plus 2 does not equal 3, does not prove that 2 plus 2 equals 5. You need to actually provide evidence for your claim, not just argue against the other claim.

30 odd thousand years ago, cro-magnon chap is taking refuge under a tree during a thunder storm. He is frightened and has no idea where the thunder and lightning come from. For that matter, he doesn't even know where the tree came from.And POOF, god is invented.today, privative minds follow the same path of "Poof, it exists"

Originally Posted By: unsupervisedtoday, privative minds follow the same path of "Poof, it exists" Thats quite unfair and untrue. A belief in the Poof Theory (not to be confused with the Gay Theory) is a result of childhood indoctrination, exposure to a society that condones and promotes such beliefs and limited knowledge of the modern scientific community. In a lot of places in the world, people just don't (or didn't) have the resources to question the Poof Theory.

and in places where they do have the resources?

I think there are a lot of people who don't want to accept it because they think it puts doubt on the rest of their beliefs. They feel that they can't have evolution AND God, that its one or the other.

really? can't have faith AND science?oh dear, that seems rather disrespectful to both. I know science isn't easily offended but I hear that this god person has a temper.

The theory that God was invented to explain things like lightning seems to me to project modern scientific thinking backwards onto people who were not familiar with that sort of reasoning. I think rather, once God or gods are postulated, it becomes natural then to ascribe to them things that are not well understood.