[karajorma]

No, I'm not.  If humans are based on chimps, all you need to do to get a human from a chimp is to take chimp DNA and tweak a few things.  The code to lay the foundation of cells, tissues, and organs is already present and working and doesn't need to be messed with.  This is true whether the agent of change is God or evolution.

So in other words you're saying that the reason why the human and the chimp are similar is because God took a chimp (or similar) and fiddled with it until he had a human?

If that is true what the hell are Homo Habilis, Homo Neanderthalis and all the rest? The reject pile?

Unless you can come up with a credible explaination for where humans did come from that explains all the similarities we have to chimps and the other great apes your point of view is actually even more incomprehensible than Charismatic's.

Notice the word all? You can explain any one point but it's when you try explaining all of them together that you run into problems. The only way you can explain the 99% similarity between chimps and humans is to say that God took a look at the DNA of the chimp (or it's ancestor) and used that as a template for humanity. But then you've dug a bigger hole for yourself explaining what the other Hominids were.

[Getter Robo G]

Everyone can believe what they want or what they "feel" is right. Well in the USA anyway.

As for me, I think it's pretty fricken simple and men got into power and let say they "compicated things" and according to God Jesus was THE final word (He became savior and HIS message overrode all others the old covenants became null and void so so much for scriptures, sorry Isaac and Abraham and all that crowd...) Plus that whole purgatory thing proves the A.) God CAN mess up (so much for almighty, better take that off the banner, and B.) He CAN change his mind.

"Banished to Purgatory for Eternity... Whoops Never mind I sent Jesus to Purgatory to get everyone out, now you just go to Heaven or Hell, yeah that's it..."

I thought For Eternity meant forever (or until the end of space and time)... But then again I'm an imperfect being judging something that seems imperfect to begin with. Maybe there's some level no one on Earth is able to grasp it and explain it to the rest of it cause every time they open their mouths I can poke a stick right through it... Maybe I'M DIVINE?  (which of course we ALL are accordign to the bible...) What an oxymoron we are DIVINE SINNERS!!! (Quote for truth)...

You know if you think about it Too Much it can really make your head hurt!

As for that DNA explanation that made my head hurt, I managed to make out Gattatica and that was it (which was a kickass film BTW)...

I really hope that someday we can survive just long enough before our sun goes boom in around 4 billion years to find any sort of sentient life out there...

Us moderates will be fine with it and overjoyed to discover another of "God's children", while the fundamentalists get critically bent out of shape as this would completely destroy their complete reliance on "scripture" (Mass suicides and riots to follow)...

Alien Overlord viewpoint: "WTF is up with them?"

Alien Overlord's XO: "Dunno... So what do you think, Orbital Bombardment?"

Alien Overlord: "Cool, lets see if we can get that guy before he gets across that bridge!"

  Umm lets just hope their friendly...

[Goober5000]

No, I'm not.  If humans are based on chimps, all you need to do to get a human from a chimp is to take chimp DNA and tweak a few things.  The code to lay the foundation of cells, tissues, and organs is already present and working and doesn't need to be messed with.  This is true whether the agent of change is God or evolution.

So in other words you're saying that the reason why the human and the chimp are similar is because God took a chimp (or similar) and fiddled with it until he had a human?

If that is true what the hell are Homo Habilis, Homo Neanderthalis and all the rest? The reject pile?

Not at all.  You're deliberately misreading my post.  I said if humans are based on chimps, this is what to do to get from one to the other.  I'm making no claim to whether one is based on the other or in what order they evolved or any of that.  The only thing I'm claiming is that 1% differentiation does not imply as much similarity as one might think, for the simple reason that evolution has historically been exponential, not constant, in advancement.

I notice you haven't addressed MP-Ryan's post at all, btw.

What alamrs went off when i said prophet?

I think people are wary of the charlatans that try to con people out of money, or attract attention to themselves, or fool people via magic tricks and sleight-of-hand.  That's what I was referring to when I quoted the verse about "many false prophets".

But just because many false prophets exist does not therefore mean that true prophets don't exist.  The important thing is to tell the difference between the two.  Most people, unfortunately, have only had experience with the former.

[Mefustae]

But just because many false prophets exist does not therefore mean that true prophets don't exist.

Or not. Believing in a God or whatever is all well and good, but when people start claiming they've met supernaturally powered 'prophets', it's no longer the realm of philosophy but rather the realm of stupidity.

[karajorma]

So in other words you're saying that the reason why the human and the chimp are similar is because God took a chimp (or similar) and fiddled with it until he had a human?

If that is true what the hell are Homo Habilis, Homo Neanderthalis and all the rest? The reject pile?

Not at all.  You're deliberately misreading my post.  I said if humans are based on chimps, this is what to do to get from one to the other.

Actually I'm fast approaching the point where I haven't got the faintest clue what you're on about. The misreading isn't deliberate. Hence the question marks. Can you explain yourself more clearly please?

I'm making no claim to whether one is based on the other or in what order they evolved or any of that.  The only thing I'm claiming is that 1% differentiation does not imply as much similarity as one might think, for the simple reason that evolution has historically been exponential, not constant, in advancement.

First I'm not buying this evolution is exponential stuff if it means what you sound like you're saying. A human is no more evolved than a fish. Humans simply come from a different evolutionary niche than fish do. Yet they've been around more than 100 times longer than we have.

I notice you haven't addressed MP-Ryan's post at all, btw.

Notice that MP-Ryan never said I was wrong. You merely claimed that his post supported your argument. I tend to disagree but I'm waiting for him to post his opinions on that.

[Ace]

Not at all.  You're deliberately misreading my post.  I said if humans are based on chimps, this is what to do to get from one to the other.  I'm making no claim to whether one is based on the other or in what order they evolved or any of that.  The only thing I'm claiming is that 1% differentiation does not imply as much similarity as one might think, for the simple reason that evolution has historically been exponential, not constant, in advancement.

Considering that humans are not based on chimps, instead the fact is that both chimps and humans if you go back far enough share a common ancestor. Which was neither homo or pan.

Also 'advancement' is a false concept when dealing with evolution, as is the claim that it's 'exponential.' Puncutated equilibrium means that there are periods of fast change in tune with drastic changes in the climate. However unilineal evolution where it's 'accelerating' to some prescribed 'perfection/advancement' is a completely flawed idea that reeks of the 19th century and people such as Spencer (who developed Social 'Darwinism').

Organisms adapt to their environment. There's no 'goal' of evolution save for self-propigation. Some species wind up with traits that means there's 6 billion of them.

[aldo_14]

Are you saying i have spit out lies in this thread, or the last one?
And yes, i am able, and i do fully conciter things. I am capable to look at all angles of debates and situations. I am not blind and i do not shut out every view that disagrees with me, and label it bull****. I am not a child.

Yes, you have regurgitated lies told to you.

[neo_hermes]

i think we are all pieces to a computer and that mice are the technicians.

oh oh and the meaning of life is 42

[aldo_14]

i think we are all pieces to a computer and that mice are the technicians.

oh oh and the meaning of life is 42

Nope.  Not mice; interdimensional beings pretending to be mice.

[neo_hermes]

thank you aldo 

[Charismatic]

i think we are all pieces to a computer and that mice are the technicians.

oh oh and the meaning of life is 42

I thought it was 69 

[Ford Prefect]

[MP-Ryan]

So in other words you're saying that the reason why the human and the chimp are similar is because God took a chimp (or similar) and fiddled with it until he had a human?

If that is true what the hell are Homo Habilis, Homo Neanderthalis and all the rest? The reject pile?

Not at all.  You're deliberately misreading my post.  I said if humans are based on chimps, this is what to do to get from one to the other.

Actually I'm fast approaching the point where I haven't got the faintest clue what you're on about. The misreading isn't deliberate. Hence the question marks. Can you explain yourself more clearly please?

I'm making no claim to whether one is based on the other or in what order they evolved or any of that.  The only thing I'm claiming is that 1% differentiation does not imply as much similarity as one might think, for the simple reason that evolution has historically been exponential, not constant, in advancement.

First I'm not buying this evolution is exponential stuff if it means what you sound like you're saying. A human is no more evolved than a fish. Humans simply come from a different evolutionary niche than fish do. Yet they've been around more than 100 times longer than we have.

I notice you haven't addressed MP-Ryan's post at all, btw.

Notice that MP-Ryan never said I was wrong. You merely claimed that his post supported your argument. I tend to disagree but I'm waiting for him to post his opinions on that.

Hell, I knew I shouldn't have re-read this thread... sorry for the bump.

You're both right.

Sort of.

There's a view wandering around out there (which I sincerely hope karajorma isn't espousing.. I don't think he is but I'm not quite sure) that no life is more evolutionarily advanced than any other form of life.  Which is incorrect.  Similarly, it is also incorrect to say humans are "more evolved" than, say, chimps.  Neither is true.  Speaking purely in evolutionary terms, all life at a given point in time is equal - each form, if it exists, is as advanced as any other if it survives in its environmental niche.  But that's at a point - which isn't measurable, because time is relative (i.e. seconds have no physical basis).  Arguably time is perception, but that's philosophy.

Point being is that we can only look at environmental fitness OVER time, in which case it's quite clear that some organisms are more advanced evolutionarily than others - advancement being defined as the increased rate of survival.  This is nitpicky, but important.  Humans are less evolutionarily advanced than some bacterial strains.  Alternatively, we're more evolutionarily advanced than several species of insects.

We're a work in progress.

I notice you're both claiming I support your points.  Not true.  Rather, your points both reflect portions of a modern genetic understanding (but not its entirety).

My argument is actually a deconstruction of karajorma's - we aren't related because we're similar to chimps, we're related because we're less different than one might expect.  It's a fine difference (some might claim there isn't a difference) but its a very important distinction.  Similarly, Goober tacked onto my explanation of the 1% difference to say evolution is exponential, which is also only partly true.

The truth of the matter is that molecular biology has an elegant complexity to it.  Evolution is change.  It doesn't matter how much, or how little.  All that matters is survival.  And evolutin is directed - the forces which contribute to it obey the laws of Nature.  As I already said, if someone wants to read that as "God in the details" there isn't a scientific explanation capable of countering it.  Evolution is NOT random.  Unfortunately, the only way to explain it to people without a complex understanding of molecular genetics is to lie and say it is.  Mutation and environmental changes are random - evolution is not.

[Janos]

There's a view wandering around out there (which I sincerely hope karajorma isn't espousing.. I don't think he is but I'm not quite sure) that no life is more evolutionarily advanced than any other form of life.  Which is incorrect.  Similarly, it is also incorrect to say humans are "more evolved" than, say, chimps.  Neither is true.  Speaking purely in evolutionary terms, all life at a given point in time is equal - each form, if it exists, is as advanced as any other if it survives in its environmental niche.  But that's at a point - which isn't measurable, because time is relative (i.e. seconds have no physical basis).  Arguably time is perception, but that's philosophy.
Point being is that we can only look at environmental fitness OVER time, in which case it's quite clear that some organisms are more advanced evolutionarily than others - advancement being defined as the increased rate of survival.  This is nitpicky, but important.  Humans are less evolutionarily advanced than some bacterial strains.  Alternatively, we're more evolutionarily advanced than several species of insects.

No we are not! We are more complicated and, maybe, have a more diverse evolutionary history and may have a wider genome with more variation. However, "advance" is a quality term and beyond our everyday communication has no meaning in evolutionary terms - the only thing that matters is fitness, and that has nothing to do with phenotype itself. We being cladistically "above" our ancestors does not indicate a qualitative supremacy above them - it only says that we are descended from an organism A, that our genotype differs significantly. You are trying to apply quality terms into evolutionary discussion, which is inane.

To prove a point: In what way are we more advanced than our recent ancestor, in objective and provable way?

We're a work in progress.

Of course we are, since the selection pressures that morph our geno- and phenotypes are constantly changing.

I notice you're both claiming I support your points.  Not true.  Rather, your points both reflect portions of a modern genetic understanding (but not its entirety).

My argument is actually a deconstruction of karajorma's - we aren't related because we're similar to chimps, we're related because we're less different than one might expect.  It's a fine difference (some might claim there isn't a difference) but its a very important distinction.  Similarly, Goober tacked onto my explanation of the 1% difference to say evolution is exponential, which is also only partly true.

No no no no. We are related because we have similar taxonomical history - we share common ancestor and our morphological forms are more closely related to each other than to other taxons outside this cladistical tree. If you chase this idea far enough you end up with one ancestor to all chordates and so on.
Of course, a percentage of genotype does not in any way indicate similarity or difference in phenotype. 1% difference - or 0.01% difference - can be huge if those different genes code completely different proteins which effect the procreative differences between the populations.

The truth of the matter is that molecular biology has an elegant complexity to it.  Evolution is change.  It doesn't matter how much, or how little.  All that matters is survival.  And evolutin is directed - the forces which contribute to it obey the laws of Nature.  As I already said, if someone wants to read that as "God in the details" there isn't a scientific explanation capable of countering it.  Evolution is NOT random.  Unfortunately, the only way to explain it to people without a complex understanding of molecular genetics is to lie and say it is.  Mutation and environmental changes are random - evolution is not.

Molecular biology and evolutionary biology are very complex fields of science. The evolution is only directed at fitness - whoever breeds the most, under the specific circumstances, has the most offspring. It's quite simply and very complicated, both at the same time.

[karajorma]

I notice you're both claiming I support your points.

Nope. I said that I disagreed with Goober's assessment that your posts said I was wrong.

[Charismatic]

Are you saying i have spit out lies in this thread, or the last one?
And yes, i am able, and i do fully conciter things. I am capable to look at all angles of debates and situations. I am not blind and i do not shut out every view that disagrees with me, and label it bull****. I am not a child.

If you have repeated creationist / intelligent design dogma, I'm afraid so.  The standard ID/creationist tactic is to discredit evidenced science by lying about the evidence being present.  It's entirely understandable, if you only get given one side of the story. 

But I would question either your desire to consider opposing evidence or correctly weigh it if you still believe evolution is anything other than scientific 'fact' (in the same sense as gravity being scientific 'fact'), given your participation in prior threads.

This quote;

I am sorry but I do not believe, one can be a 'true' Christian, so to speak, and still beleive in Evolution. You claim you 'beleive' in god, yet, you subscribe to Evolution to 'explain things in facts'. I just dont see how that works. God tells us how things went down. God did not say man evolved by mutation. I dont feel like getting into this one that deep. But, i do think that the beleive you can go dual beleifs is a lie, twisting the facts to make you think you can do both. You cant walk down two roads at once, so to speak. And please, no witty comments about highways or whatever please.

is pretty strong evidence for me of a dogmatic, blind view.  Especially given that most major denominations of christianity are happy to recognise evolution as valid - because the alternative would be admitting that the obervable world and centuries of scientific endeavour have voided the concept of life directly created by God.  Essentially, justifying creationism means you have to say every single scientific discovery since the 19th century (and probably before) is wrong.  THat includes the science allowing you to type on this forum, and the science that allows doctors to, say, stitch you back up after a car crash.

Or do you believe that the earth is flat, 5,000 years old and was made in 6 days?

Most majior denominations? Ok, where is your source of info, where is your proof.

And for the record, i believe earth is 5-10,000 years old, and was made in 6 days. The world is more of a rectangular shape.

And also, to show i did what i said id do, i asked my dad about this. He said he did not really study up on this (yet) and cannot tell me anything offhand, as proof etc. He mentioned several things, a few of them were faith, and god proves himself to each one, his own way. He mentioned other things as well.

[Bobboau]

"i believe earth is 5-10,000 years old, and was made in 6 days. The world is more of a rectangular shape."

ok, the sad thing is I actually am not sure where if anywhere in that statement you were joking. the last bit seems like it should be an obvius joke, but it's not too far off from the first bit which I know many people do belive, and seem in line with what you've said. so, all seriusness, do you beleive the earth

is anything but roughly shpereical in shape?

[Col. Fishguts]

Filthy lies, fed to you by the liberal, gay-loving, tree-hugging media.

Just take a look at

See ?!? It's clearly rectangular.

[Bobboau]

that map has to be fake, it says china and europe are on the right, and America is on the left!

[Col. Fishguts]

No, the US ist the large green country on the top right. No ?