[StratComm]

Not to be taken seriously:

How do you know, personally, that Neanderthals can't have kids with Homo Sapiens? Hmmm?

Well you see, a man and a Neanderthal walk into a bar...

[ZmaN]

Not to be taken seriously:

How do you know, personally, that Neanderthals can't have kids with Homo Sapiens? Hmmm?

Well you see, a man and a Neanderthal walk into a bar...

Its been said that if you give a neanderthal modern clothes and a haircut and put him in a mall, few ppl would give him a second glance...
sorry bed time so I cant finish posting the book...

[StratComm]

Not to be taken seriously:

How do you know, personally, that Neanderthals can't have kids with Homo Sapiens? Hmmm?

Well you see, a man and a Neanderthal walk into a bar...

Its been said that if you give a neanderthal modern clothes and a haircut and put him in a mall, few ppl would give him a second glance...
sorry bed time so I cant finish posting the book...

Now see, you've used the quote but you completely missed the point.  Had you quoted my post where I was responding to you, then it would have made some sense, maybe.  Here, you're badly missing a joke (spun off of another joke no less that was quoted in the text you quoted, complete with smilies and a huge bold disclaimer) that I don't have the time, or quite frankly the patience, to explain.

Anyway, a Neanderthal skull varies highly enough from that of a human that the two of them are easily classified as distinct species.  And I mean easily.  Whether clothes and a haircut could fool your average guy isn't really relevant to the discussion.  The average guy doesn't have to contend with there being more than one species of human-like beings alive in the world today, so he wouldn't be looking for the things that distinguish the two, or at least not in casual observation.  Far less noticable than a difference in skin tone, though, which people don't really give second glances to now.  (Actually I'd argue that whoever said that in the first place was talking out of his ass, but as I don't have a diagram of a Neanderthal skeleton in front of me to compare to that of a human I can't say for certain.  But then, that's sort of the theme for ID isn't it)

And of course you can't finish posting that book.  I'm really starting to believe that it doesn't exist.

[Ford Prefect]

That's what I'm starting to think about McTeague by Frank Norris. I read it in high school in AP English, and no one I've talked to since then has ever heard of it. An excellent Naturalistic novel, but it's almost like my English teacher wrote it and made up the author.

[Bobboau]

ZmaN Charismatic, how old is the earth and why do you think that?

[StratComm]

ZmaN Charismatic, how old is the earth and why do you think that?

I second this question, and I also ask that it be answered as you would answer it as if none of this thread to this point had transpired.  Think about it as though a classmate were asking you about your world view in a strictly curious way, and that you don't have to defend anything.  Just tell us what you think and why.

[karajorma]

Neanderthalis is a man with the disease called rickets, caused by lack of vitamin C.

1) Rickets is caused by a lack of vitamin D not vitamin C. Lack of C causes scurvy.
2) Rickets presents with several very clear cut symptoms which are not present in Neandethals.
  a) Bones of people affected by rickets are poor in calcium and as a result are lower density and weaker than normal. In contrast Neanderthals have thicker, denser bones than homo sapiens sapiens.
  b) Rickets causes a very characteristic bowleggedness due to the bending of the leg bones. This is not observed in Neanderthals.
  c) Neanderthals were significantly bigger than modern humans. It seems unlikely that any people who were suffering from vitamin defeciencies would manage to also grow larger than average too.

[Ace]

Well... a Neanderthal in a bar would have one big difference: the noticable lack of a chin

Other then that...

[aldo_14]

So homo habilis is a man or an ape? Or Homo Neanderthalis? Or Homo Erectus? Where do you draw the line then? Which are men and which are ape?

Homo Habilis is an Ape.  its actually smaller then the so called missing link of evolution, "lucy".
Neanderthalis is a man with the disease called rickets, caused by lack of vitamin C.
Cro-Magnon's were man as well.
Home Erectus is also an Ape. (also known as "the Java-Man")

I'll post my science book pages now and post them so you can see what I'm talking about

'Men' are homo sapiens.  The homo genus is the genus (of the family hominidae, including humans and great apes) enclosing the ancestors of modern man (the enclosure of homo hablis within this genera is actually an issue of scientific debate).   You should also note that being descended from 'apes' does not mean descended from modern apes.

What you're doing here is making the classic mistake of trying to linearly group a transitional evolutional progression of species into some single type; obviously a transitional species or species line represents a transition between species/genera, so pigeon-holing would be at best a deliberate attempt to mischaracterise.  I don't believe 'Lucy' (Australopithecus afarensis) has ever been definitively declared the 'missing link', though.

As for your scientific 'classifications', I presume you pulled them out your bum.  Making such an obvious and schoolboy mistake over Neanderthal man would indicate so, as would the lack of awareness of the homo genus.

Just to pull a few things (for Gods sake, quote people!)


[q]Radiocarbon dating easily proves that those fossils are not only thousands of years old. There is simply too little carbon 14 present for them to.[/q]

Again, wrong.  Fossil bone is not expected to contain any carbon 14; carbon dating is only used for up to about 40,000 (and has significant skew approaching that time), as the 1% error would begin to signficantly alter the result (carbon dating FYI has never been regarded as flawless).  Most carbon in fossilized remains it likely to be from contamination such as via groundwater.

Creationist arguements around C14 tend to also wrongly base themselves on a constant rate of production of C14, which has been documented as being incorrect (using 22,000 year old sediment).

[q]
What evidence have we actually found to support evolution?  I mean theres lucy, and all those other types that are supposedly half transitioned man, and they all turn out to be either APE or MAN, NO APE-MAN[/q]

Wrong.  Why, on the very first page we have a transitional fossil.  We have equine transitional fossils, and archeopteryx.  Lots of transitional fossils.  Macro-evolution created in the lab.  Hell, what are disease resistant bacteria strains if not proof of evolution?  You don't even known what a transitional fossil is though, I see, by your strange ape-man type terminology.

[q]
Another thing not mentioned yet is that Evolution states that everything is getting stronger and stronger and is getting more powerful...
The sun gets cooler, not hotter...  Men get older, not younger...
[/q]

Again, incredibly wrong.  Evolution - or rather, natural selection - puts evolution as being akin to an arms race.  But each adaptation has costs; for example, a gazelle could keep evolving till it can run 200mph (assuming the laws of physics don't contradict this as a possibility); but the energy handicap of that would make that speed a disadvantage due to the amount of food that the gazelle needs to eat.  You simply don't get a spiralling growth of efficiency.  Also, imagine the cheetah chasing the gazelle; it only wins a small amount of hunts, so each run is more 'expensive' to it.  So the faster the cheetah goes, the higher the cost of those failed chases.  Ergo, the cheetah has a cap on how fast it can evolve to before the muscle expenditure is too much.  Likewise, the gazelle only needs to evolve to be just a bit faster on average than the cheetah - those that evolve to be too fast will be wasting energy and thus at a disadvantage.  So evolution tends towards equilibrium rather than continuous improvement because of this expenditure issue.  Except, of course, that mutation is random and advantages will always be selected, so it can never be a constant equilibrium - for example, the gazelle develops 5% better peripheral vision and the cheetah now is disadvantaged, so some mutation that counteracts that would be one favoured by natural selection.

(this is of course ignoring speciation; these wouldn't stay the same species so gazelle and cheetah is a generalization.  also, it is a simple example; you should read up geniune evolution information for further details.  The Blind Watchmaker should be more than enough if you can swallow the propaganda and misinformation you've been fed & keep an open mind)

Again, this ignores sexual selection (mate choice), and the use of costly fitness ornamentation for sexual attractiveness ala the peacocks tail (or human language).  Those would be intangible benefits to someone who doesn't understand the theory, but very tangible in practice.

And as for evolution negating aging - it, er, does.  Turtles don't age naturally (or rather, they don't show the deterioration associated with age).  But mutations are rather random, and expecting it to just pop into place on humanity that someone lives forever is more than a bit unlikely.

Also, the sun didn't evolve.  That's physics that models the suns fusion processes.  Quite how mindnumbingly stupid that statement is, i really can't find the words to say.

EDIT; I'm not sure what the point is of you even arguing when you've illustrated here you don't even know the slightest bit about the theory of evolution.

[WMCoolmon]

The sun gets cooler, not hotter...  Men get older, not younger...  HECK even Windows XP gets slower...

Actually, given that example of aging, you see something else at work...people actually grow and become larger and stronger, starting from a group of undifferentiated cells. If you want proof that a series of 'simple' molecules/cells can combine to form a far more complex organism, all you need to do is study the process of pregnancy.

[StratComm]

Not that this post has anything to do with the actual thread, of course.

Just to pull a few things (for Gods sake, quote people!)

[q]Radiocarbon dating easily proves that those fossils are not only thousands of years old. There is simply too little carbon 14 present for them to.[/q]

Again, wrong.  Fossil bone is not expected to contain any carbon 14; carbon dating is only used for up to about 40,000 (and has significant skew approaching that time), as the 1% error would begin to signficantly alter the result (carbon dating FYI has never been regarded as flawless).  Most carbon in fossilized remains it likely to be from contamination such as via groundwater.

Creationist arguements around C14 tend to also wrongly base themselves on a constant rate of production of C14, which has been documented as being incorrect (using 22,000 year old sediment).

And this is exactly why I harp on people for failing to use quotes properly, here you're actually attacking (goes back a page, it looks like...) Karajorma's counterargument to Charismatic's assertion that the flood could have somehow caused fossils to reside in sedimentary layers.  (God, that was needlessly complicated)  You're both right, in a way, because in either case there's no way the fossils could be a mere 6,000 years old.  But neither Charismatic or Zman brought radiological dating into this argument at all, and unfortunately that was lost somewhere.  You're 100% correct about dating fossils, it's just not a counter argument to anything that's yet been posted.

Anyone caught not attempting to distinguish their post from what they are replying to via copy-paste should be smacked with a wet hose, IMHO.

Zman:


I'm sorry to everyone else, but some things can only be said with giant, low-res buttons.  Please.  Think then post.

[Mefustae]

AAHHH! Attack of the giant, mutated, low-res buttons!! The Clicked have now become the Clickers!! *Runs screaming into the hills*

[aldo_14]

And this is exactly why I harp on people for failing to use quotes properly, here you're actually attacking (goes back a page, it looks like...) Karajorma's counterargument to Charismatic's assertion that the flood could have somehow caused fossils to reside in sedimentary layers.  (God, that was needlessly complicated)  You're both right, in a way, because in either case there's no way the fossils could be a mere 6,000 years old.  But neither Charismatic or Zman brought radiological dating into this argument at all, and unfortunately that was lost somewhere.  You're 100% correct about dating fossils, it's just not a counter argument to anything that's yet been posted.

Anyone caught not attempting to distinguish their post from what they are replying to via copy-paste should be smacked with a wet hose, IMHO.

Zman:

Ah, you're right.  There's a creationist arguement that you can date fossils using radiocarbon (and that c14 negates 'old earth'), which is what I thought he said.   Anyways, it's really what kara meant then, but in a different context.   So if anyone pulls out the creationist C14 arguements, we've already shown that's utter tosh.  Yay!

so to paraphrase;
1/ you can't have fossils as 6,000 years old as you could reliably date them using c14 in the sediment (karas point) if that was so (actually, IIRC carbon dating specifically disproves in particular the 'canopy' flood scenario).
2/ fossils can be claimed to be 'young' using c14 dating, but this uses a bunch of erroneous assumptions about both carbon dating and carbon production/loss rates. (my point)

I guess this is a consequence of having to reply to creationist arguements that are based on saying something like 'rates of genetic disease' and then offering no explanation or expansion, so that i end up having more understanding of that 'point' (and why it is bunkum) than the poster.  Ergo, it means i have to guess what they mean because they are so vapid and vague; although I guess it meshes with the complete lack of understanding of evolutionary theory.

ZMan - use the ****ing quote button!  honestly, it's a nightmare.

[StratComm]

Oh I knew exactly what you were on about, I just couldn't pass up the oppertunity to harp on copy-quoters and to make use of the 768x150 quote button.  We're on the same page

EDIT: And I actually think I know what Zman was trying to point out with the dubious "rates of genetic diseases" crap.  I believe he's trying to say that genetic disorders (e.g. Hemopheila) that would have been weeded out by natural selection are seemingly becoming more predominant in modern man and thus that the trend (again with the trends where trends aren't valid) can't extrapolate backwards very far before it crashes or reaches zero or whatever he's trying to point out.  Of course, he's missing a rather glaring element of that equation, namely healthcare, which is serving to radically alter the process of selection in humans over the last century or two.  It's a completely useless argument and anyone who stops and thinks about it should quickly see it for the farce it is, as of course the ability to live with the disorder despite the fact that it would kill you without intervention alters the factors of natural selection considerably.

[aldo_14]

Oh I knew exactly what you were on about, I just couldn't pass up the oppertunity to harp on copy-quoters and to make use of the 768x150 quote button.  We're on the same page

EDIT: And I actually think I know what Zman was trying to point out with the dubious "rates of genetic diseases" crap.  I believe he's trying to say that genetic disorders (e.g. Hemopheila) that would have been weeded out by natural selection are seemingly becoming more predominant in modern man and thus that the trend (again with the trends where trends aren't valid) can't extrapolate backwards very far before it crashes or reaches zero or whatever he's trying to point out.  Of course, he's missing a rather glaring element of that equation, namely healthcare, which is serving to radically alter the process of selection in humans over the last century or two.  It's a completely useless argument and anyone who stops and thinks about it should quickly see it for the farce it is, as of course the ability to live with the disorder despite the fact that it would kill you without intervention alters the factors of natural selection considerably.

I think it's also down to the typical creationist view of evolution as being 'directed', and ignoring that some genes can be recessive in carrier parents (or children) and thus escape selection through fitness.  It's not like you could work out genetic disease rates for any reliably long and indicative period of time, anyways, due to the increasing understanding of genetics and diseases in general over that time period.  They'd be viewed as curses from the devil or somesuch, for example.

Plus, of course, let's not forget negative disease-causing mutations, as either negative or invisible (that is, unnoticeable) mutations can occur.  I think the average person has something like 17 mutated genes, although I'd need to double check that figure (in any case, the overwhelming majority of people have some minor mutation with no observable effect).  Plus a large, monogamous group such as humanity mainly is would see a reduced rate of evolution because of the 'distance' a mutation would have to propagate to become part of the species.

Worth noting, though, that there are (for example) observed mutations (CCR5-delta-32) that convey protection against HIV and possibly smallpox or the plague.  And also the apolipoprotein  A-1 (Milano) mutation, which protects against heart disease by preventing atherosclerosis.  For example.  But if you imagine how quickly those genes could spread across the entire human population of 5+ bn (is it 6.5 now?), of which a large number are monogamous, then it'd take a long time for it to be uniform.

Although documented genetic susceptability to a disease would actually help back up evolution by showing how genetic characteristics can be inherited across multiple generations.

[karajorma]

Yep. It makes it hard to even spot the other person's argument let alone figure out what it is meant to be.

I actually completely missed on of ZmaN's comments cause I couldn't spot it amongst the poor cut and paste of my own stuff.

[aldo_14]

Yep. It makes it hard to even spot the other person's argument let alone figure out what it is meant to be.

I actually completely missed on of ZmaN's comments cause I couldn't spot it amongst the poor cut and paste of my own stuff.

You didn't miss much.

[Ghostavo]

Most people here already know this but I find it helpful to post it.
http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/list.html

[Crazy_Ivan80]

I'm enjoying the thread. It's been a long time since HLP hosted a good Evolution vs. Religious-Nonsense-Posing-As-Science Thread.

[aldo_14]

Tomorrow nights recommended viewing

[q]Webcast commences: 1730GMT / 1830BST

Intro:Many biologists are worried by a recent and unexpected return of an argument based on belief by the certainty, untestable and unsupported by evidence, that life did not evolve but appeared by supernatural means. Worldwide, more people believe in creationism than in evolution.

Why do no biologists agree? Steve Jones will talk about what evolution is, about new evidence that men and chimps are close relatives and about how we are, nevertheless, unique and why creationism does more harm to religion than it does to science. 
[/q]

courtesy of the Royal Society.