THE PACK Message Boards

Grayheart wrote:Now you made me curious, sugarpoultry - in what kind of evolution do you believe that doesn't contradict your beliefs?

I don't believe we come from apes. I believe we come from God, but animals and us obviously evolve over time and change, course, we'll never see it happen. Evolution in theory actually supports God.

I support Darwinian evolution, unfortunately. I say unfortunately because of how incredibly apelike human beings are. Almost sickeningly apelike... to the point where I begin to feel uncomfortable with myself. I have an irrational dislike for apes; they're ugly, unappetizing animals, and there are people out there who at a glance could pass for apes pretty easily aside from a lack of body hair. If God created us in his image, we certainly are deeply flawed, overblown gorillas who walk on two legs.

LOL I don't think we look THAT bad. There is only a few cells different between man and ape, but if we really came from apes, don't you think that we wouldn't have apes anymore? I mean, how did we evolve and they didn't? By Darwinian logic, we should be seeing them become more human or something, but we don't.

sugarpoultry wrote:There is only a few cells different between man and ape, but if we really came from apes, don't you think that we wouldn't have apes anymore? I mean, how did we evolve and they didn't? By Darwinian logic, we should be seeing them become more human or something, but we don't.

This goes back to the beginning of this thread. It's why this "missing link" is so important.

This is a very common question about Darwinian evolution, based on a slight misconception, and easily answered. I'll just copy and paste from the evolution FAQ on pbs.org:

4. Could apes ever evolve into some other humanlike creature?

It is possible that in many millions of years present day apes could evolve into some other humanlike species. It is, however, very improbable. First of all, humans did not evolve from any of the species we know as apes today. At some point 5 to 8 million years ago, the common ancestor of humans and modern apes diverged to form the two separate lineages we know today. The species at the end of these lineages are a result of a very specific combination of selection pressures and genetic mutations over millions of years. This same combination is highly unlikely to occur ever again.

6. If humans evolved from apes then why are there still apes?

Humans did not evolve from present-day apes. Rather, humans and apes share a common ancestor that gave rise to both. This common ancestor, although not identical to modern apes, was almost certainly more apelike than humanlike in appearance and behavior. At some point -- scientists estimate that between 5 and 8 million years ago -- this species diverged into two distinct lineages, one of which were the hominids, or humanlike species, and the other ultimately evolved into the African great ape species living today.

The full FAQ:

http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/evolution/library/faq/

The thought - that evolution implies a goal of some sorts (like becoming ultimately humanlike over time) isn't one rooted in the Darwinian concept of evolution. There's no inherent longing for improvement in evolution - it's just survival of the fittest for any given situation. And not - like it was often misleadingly stated - survival of the strongest. Darwin never said anything like this.

Fit in this sense can mean anything that enables an individual being to survive longer than others - thus resulting in the fact that this one individual being has the possibility to pass on it's genes.

The concept of ultimately goal driven and triggered evolution is more the Lamarckian one. In this it's said that evolution serves an certain end (Well, that's what I still remember about it from my schooling time).

@sugarpoultry: I can agree that evolution doesn't contradict the thought of a god, even not the christian one. To me there's no need to decide between science and faith - to me it's just a matter of perspective.

Grayheart wrote:@sugarpoultry: I can agree that evolution doesn't contradict the thought of a god, even not the christian one. To me there's no need to decide between science and faith - to me it's just a matter of perspective.

Agreed. To me science and faith go hand in hand, though most wouldn't believe it. After all, God is the greatest scientist of all. ;)

Berserker wrote:I support Darwinian evolution, unfortunately. I say unfortunately because of how incredibly apelike human beings are. Almost sickeningly apelike... to the point where I begin to feel uncomfortable with myself. I have an irrational dislike for apes; they're ugly, unappetizing animals, and there are people out there who at a glance could pass for apes pretty easily aside from a lack of body hair. If God created us in his image, we certainly are deeply flawed, overblown gorillas who walk on two legs.

We're smart, we're ugly, we walk funny, we lack body hair, there's lots of us, and we come in many different races. So, are we the "geeks" of the apes?

Grayheart wrote:@sugarpoultry: I can agree that evolution doesn't contradict the thought of a god, even not the christian one. To me there's no need to decide between science and faith - to me it's just a matter of perspective.

I know this was at sugarpoultry, but I felt you deserved another compliment for it. This is a fantastic way of thinking, one can support one thing without dismissing another, if one is perhaps a little too overzealous in their own support for something and dismisses another out of hand, that makes them no less extreme or bigoted than anyone else.

Support your own views, that's something I love and dig, people should stick by what they think/reason/believe, but to try to knock another person off their pedestal just because they don't think the same way you do, it shows that perhaps such a person isn't as steady and sure in their belief as they think they are, it displays uncertainty.

Someone whom is able to understand this, and can support themselves without needing to attack others in the same breath is someone whom is also able to display true confidence, and without looking like a politician having a go at the other "party".

I've been tempted to say something like what you said there for a while, but I was holding off to see if anyone else would point this out... and frankly, it's a breath of fresh air.

I'm beginning to feel like a chaos magician because I know that everything we have is just a tool in understanding the World around us, be it solid research or theistic faith, and to dismiss one or the other out of hand is to lessen our understanding of both our Universe and ourselves.

So kudos to anyone who can stick with their own approach whilst realising the validity of every other.

^Agreed. He said it well.

And I'm surprised by this forum. I thought for sure by sharing my views and the fact that I'm Christian I would have gotten flamed and yelled at. I've been on many forums who did that. I'm on one right now that does that.

I'm happy that people here are a bit more understanding about other people's views. ^_^ Thanks guys!

Vagrant wrote:Someone whom is able to understand this, and can support themselves without needing to attack others in the same breath is someone whom is also able to display true confidence, and without looking like a politician having a go at the other "party".

...

I'm beginning to feel like a chaos magician because I know that everything we have is just a tool in understanding the World around us, be it solid research or theistic faith, and to dismiss one or the other out of hand is to lessen our understanding of both our Universe and ourselves.

Wholeheartedly agreed, Vagrant!

Consider this: Religion comes from the word religere - which means to re-connect. That means, religion is a way to reconnect to something you have been formerly cut off. Seeing religion this way gives the possibility to be very tolerant in front of very different conceptions of religious faith - because, everyone has to find his/her individual way to meaningfully reconnect with the thing they've been cut off.

Some people can agree on a certain meaningfully filled faith - that's the way bigger faith traditions function to me - but there are as many ways to reconnect with the cut off aspects as there are people in the world. There are even more ways than that, because one individual has the inherent possibility to reconnect in very different ways throughout lifetime.

Because of this view active missioning with the goal to make others believe in what you believe is so fatal and rejectable - you cannot force another person to reconnect the same way as you do, because it doesn't suit them and they'll be ultimately cut off the godly energy they came from. It's a matter of respect.

sugarpoultry wrote:And I'm surprised by this forum. I thought for sure by sharing my views and the fact that I'm Christian I would have gotten flamed and yelled at. I've been on many forums who did that. I'm on one right now that does that.

That said - this is your way of religio, so I see no sense in yelling at you. We may have different opinions, but as long as you feal meaningfully related to this world, I can respect that. People who can't do that make me furious beyond compare and I'm glad that this forum maintains a peacefully and communicative atmosphere that is characterized by respect for each other.

There are people who are "Christians" who are seriously trying to live as Jesus said people should live.
Then there are "Christians" who bend the First Amendment to near breaking and practice bigotry and intolerance "in the name of Christ".
These are the people who make life miserable for other Christians and everyone else who disagrees with them; and they are the ones that most people think of when the "Christian" title is assumed by someone.
I'm happy to see that we of "The Pack" have learned to respect the beliefs of others...
as I imagine you are, too.
You're among friends.

I'm beginning to feel like a chaos magician

Argh! A discordian, oh dear.

whilst realising the validity of every other.

this is a sure abuse of the term. I prefer to think of it as being at ease with peoples freedom of belief, separate from validity.

Forewarning to you all, this post is long.
We found an extinct lemur. Sorry, but that really does appear that Ida’s supposed evolutionary link to humans is little more then media hype and poorly done research, as many scientists are pointing out.

Today we know better. As LiveScience's Clara Moskowitz reports, there are doubts about whether Joan Jett is really descended from Ida. Problem is, most of the coverage is done, and the public could be left with the impression that Ida is a rock-solid missing link in the human evolutionary chain.
Despite press-conference claims, no textbooks will be rewritten any time soon.
"It's not a missing link, it's not even a terribly close relative to monkeys, apes and humans, which is the point they're trying to make," said Chris Beard, a curator of vertebrate paleontology at the Carnegie Museum of Natural History in Pittsburgh.

Ida Fossil Hype Went Too Far”
Robert Roy Britt, LiveScience, May 20, 2009
http://www.livescience.com/culture/0905 ... -hype.html

Many paleontologists are unconvinced. They point out that Hurum and Gingerich's analysis compared 30 traits in the new fossil with primitive and higher primates when standard practice is to analyze 200 to 400 traits and to include anthropoids from Egypt and the newer fossils of Eosimias from Asia, both of which were missing from the analysis in the paper. "There is no phylogenetic analysis to support the claims, and the data is cherry-picked," says paleontologist Richard Kay, also of Duke University. Callum Ross, a paleontologist at the University of Chicago in Illinois agrees: "Their claim that this specimen should be classified as haplorhine is unsupportable in light of modern methods of classification."
Other researchers grumble that by describing the history of anthropoids as "somewhat speculatively identified lineages of isolated teeth," the PLoS paper dismisses years of new fossils. "It's like going back to 1994," says paleontologist K. Christopher Beard of the Carnegie Museum of Natural History in Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania, who has published jaw, teeth, and limb bones of Eosimias. "They've ignored 15 years of literature."
““Revolutionary’ Fossil Fails to Dazzle Paleontologists”
Ann Gibbons, ScienceNOW, May 19, 2009 http://sciencenow.sciencemag.org/cgi/co ... 2009/519/1

And before you ask, no, I do not believe in Darwinian Evolution, aka: Life evolved from random chance out of some sort of primordial goo and all life descends from a common ancestor. Why? Well, I’ll get into that a little later. First, I will point out that my source above all came from evolutionary believing sources, so no, you can’t just say “Oh, that’s just what the creationists say”. Since, from my experience in these kind of debates, a creationist with a PH.D is still not a believable scientific source, because well hey, he’s a creationist! *gasp*

Have creationists said anything about this?

And for that matter, have they indicated any plan to incinerate Ida? - kitetsu

We’ve said a lot, mainly quoting you evolutionists. Isn’t it always nice to see such lovely fair portrayal of those with differing viewpoints. *Sarcasm*

Evolution is a fact, not a theory. The fossil record is just too complete for us not to have evolved along with the rest of life on Earth. Scott Gardener

No, its still a theory. Even evolutionists agree on that:
It is claimed by some that evolution by natural selection is a "fact" instead of just a "theory". While it may be a very good theory, it has not reached fact status for the simple reason that it has not been fully observed. Observation of a claimed process actually taking place from start to finish should be the final lid on any theory to make into "fact". This is sometimes called "repeatability".
Evolution, however, has only given us slim slices of observation. We have observed minor changes in the field, such as bird beak color and size changes; or computer- simulated bigger changes under pristine, controlled software conditions. But nobody has demonstrated eyes and brains evolving from mud or organic soup in front of observers and cameras. True, it would probably take billions of years to finish such demonstration, but "time ate my homework" is not an acceptable excuse. If it cannot be fully demonstrated then it cannot be fully demonstrated. Apologies won't change that. The universe can be a real bummer at times and does not always want to make science easy. - http://www.geocities.com/tablizer/observe.htm
The only time I have every heard evolution stated as a fact is when you define evolution as changes in an organism over a period of time. That is fact, is has in fact been observed and tested.

There are lots of other “facts” fossils, rock layers, stars, the earth, plants and animals, they are all “facts”, or “evidence” used to support the theory of evolution AND the theory or creation. Both theories make use of the same fact, both theories have written books and articles explaining their own theories about the aforementioned evidence, and how it supports their own theory of the origin of the earth. How can we both use the same facts to prove opposing view points, by the simple act of how we choose to interpret the facts based on our own presuppositions. For instance, if two scientists, a creationist and an evolutionist both dig up the same fossil, the evolutionist will most likely automatically assume that it was buried millions of years ago in sedimentary rock and fossilized. While the creationist will most likely automatically assume that it was rapidly buried thousands of years ago, most likely in the flood of Noah. And both will attempt to prove their views. This is why we have two separate theories both based on the same evidence.

One can debate how species relate, but to say the whole thing is some colossal prank played by a kind and loving but angry diety that's infinitely powerful but rather needy is just kind of reaching way too far at this point. - Scott Gardener

Um, who told you that creationists think it was a prank by God? I’ve yet to meet one who claimed this, or read any work claiming this.

I never had the opportunity to ask this, because I've never encountered a person who doesn't believe in Darwin's theory on the origin of species. Here in germany this kind of creationist's thoughts are pretty uncommon if almost non existent througout society as a whole - so it's very difficult for me to understand how someone couldn't believe in Darwin's theory, despite all the facts that actually exist. - Grayheart

The main reason you probably haven’t heard anyone who doesn’t believe in Darwin’s theory is : A: In Germany, its my understanding you are legally required by law to attend a state school, so you don’t have a lot of educational freedom to discuss alternate theories of origin. B: A lot of scientists have learned that questioning the theory of evolution leads to the loss of jobs, reputation, and scientific credibility, so not many speak out. Watch “Expelled, Intelligence not Allowed”, it’s an excellent documentary with Ben Stein documenting this.

And for the record, as I’ve already stated, we use the same “facts” you do, we just have a different interpretation of them.

Hmm, this is getting to long, I'll continue next post.

lykoi wrote:Forewarning to you all, this post is long.
We found an extinct lemur. Sorry, but that really does appear that Ida’s supposed evolutionary link to humans is little more then media hype and poorly done research, as many scientists are pointing out.

Just for the record, I was kidding about this being a "missing link." It's a catchy title for this thread though, eh?

Even if it's not a missing link or transitional fossil, it's still a fascinating find. It's the third cercamoniine adapiform found in the Messel pit in Germany, and the fossil itself has its own genus. Also, it's not exactly an extinct lemur. The ancestors of modern lemurs actually started to appear around 7 million years after Ida supposedly lived, because this was the point at which primates diverged into two branches: lorises and lemurs; and monkeys, tarsiers, and apes.

"Ida" may or may not be a transitional fossil, but she did live between the last known Plesiadapiformes species and when the primates split into two branches. Also, while the last known Plesiadapiformes species (Carpolestes simpsoni) had grasping digits but not forward facing eyes, "Ida" has both. No matter how you interpret the evidence, there's some sort of logical progression in there. I don't know much about how "Ida" exactly fits, but she's in our evolutionary history somewhere.

"Ida" might have been predatory to some degree, since forward-facing eyes and a grasping hand are two key traits found in bipedal or faculative bipedal predatory animals. The teeth are inconclusive, though; since they are not the traditional steak-knife of the obligate carnivore or the shred-grind teeth of the herbivore.
So, maybe "Ida" was a bit of both; and opportunistic ominvore.

That would put "her" on the protosimian side of the tree, and an indirect ancestor of modern anthropoids (Chimps and Humans).

While "she" may not be a direct "missing link", "she" is certainly somewhere close in the "chain" of primate development to said "link".

Personally, I don't think there will ever be a real "missing link" found as a fossil, since that would require a fossil that exactly combines every transitional form in one body; and as a rule, that just doesn't happen. Even the most highly developed simians still have archaic structures, and without a living reference we don't know if these archaic features were really used or were just vestigial reminants that did nothing.
Even we humans have such vesitiges of our past still with us, so there is no clue without a living example as to what was still in use and what was just along for the ride.

But nobody has demonstrated eyes and brains evolving from mud or organic soup in front of observers and cameras

You know what a strawman is, right?

As for the old 'irreducible complexity' of eyes, the information, and documentation of different species with different stages that appear to lead to the modern eye is there and waiting for you. Angle of incidence is quite a simple advantage that encourages a curvature.

"time ate my homework" is not an acceptable excuse

Probably could point out a bunch of theories you accept that have temporal restraints on demonstration. This is the importance of fossils in the first place, to show that hypothesis act as we expect

we use the same “facts” you do, we just have a different interpretation of them

Facts are objective. I get what you meant though but careful how you use the term. You try to discover the facts but don't feely interpret them to mean whatever.

because having a differing scientific viewpoint makes one stupid and illogical.

you are correct in your rebuttal there, but I see a tendency to be a far more rigorous logician towards opponent views than ones own in many belief systems.

Yup, we and about 270 other cultures worldwide that have a very similar worldwide flood myth

Along with human animal hybrids, animism, souls, and among my favourites are all the 'how death came to be' stories, the most quaint of which was one from somewhere in Africa I think, and it was spilled accidentally out of a gourd.

double checking the data

I'd be honestly interested in what data you look up and how you go about rejecting it

No vitriol is meant in this and it is all for the sake of productive discussion, so please remain civil and all that.

Ugh... I knew at one point this would turn into a line-by-line debate on whether or not evolution is real or if God is real or whatever. >_<

Wselfwulf wrote:Argh! A discordian, oh dear.

Do you feel so uncomfortable with your own nature that you have to comment negatively about that of others? There's a not-so-subtle difference between disagreeing with someone and taking an obviously cheap and nasty pot-shot at whom it is they choose to be. No?

Wselfwulf wrote:this is a sure abuse of the term. I prefer to think of it as being at ease with peoples freedom of belief, separate from validity.

My point was that if someone believes something different than you, whatever they choose to believe in is just as valid as your choice. I agree with freedom of belief, but why would it be intrinsically wrong to accept all beliefs as equally valid?

If that's not what you're claiming then I apologise, if it is what you're claiming then this nods to the kind of bigotry I spoke of, wherein; one has their system of belief and may even permit another to believe in something, yet they cannot accept equality between the two, they cannot accept the validity of both in the given situation thus implying that one has to be inferior to the other. From this way of thinking, bigotry itself and overzealous pursuits are borne.

Anyone, regardless of what it is they choose to believe about the World around us, from the stark differences of scientific research or theistic belief, can fall prey to this. It is not exclusive to any one side or type of person. Regardless of motive or reason, the actions, speeches, and snide remarks are very much the same.

My point was simply that this does not have to be, for if we can accept equality in beliefs, then bigotry wouldn't have half as much of a chance to rear its ugly head.

sugarpoultry wrote:Ugh... I knew at one point this would turn into a line-by-line debate on whether or not evolution is real or if God is real or whatever. >_<

Uh-huh.

This is why these forums are becoming increasingly uncomfortable, because there are those, to varying degrees, whom are unable to live and let live, and who thrive on the field of "battle" (as "battle" is with words between anonymous people on the Internet). We've seen people like that here before, some of 'em leave, some of 'em stay... but the situation does leave one feeling embittered toward the forum.

Stop by the IRC, sugarpoultry, it's much more friendly there, and people who turn up just to create such a battlefield aren't welcome.

Vagrant wrote:Uh-huh.

This is why these forums are becoming increasingly uncomfortable, because there are those, to varying degrees, whom are unable to live and let live, and who thrive on the field of "battle" (as "battle" is with words between anonymous people on the Internet). We've seen people like that here before, some of 'em leave, some of 'em stay... but the situation does leave one feeling embittered toward the forum.

Stop by the IRC, sugarpoultry, it's much more friendly there, and people who turn up just to create such a battlefield aren't welcome.

If you think its bad here, NEVER go to zeldauniverse.net. They let trolls wonder... Debates are horrible over there. Not only do they refuse to use logic and reason, but there is never ending bashing of beliefs. They are very disrespectful and they never let stuff go. They hold grudges and once you are on their bad side, be prepared to stay that way forever. It's pretty much, "if you don't side with me, I'll make your life hell."

I'll check the IRC out. Thanks.

Do you feel so uncomfortable with your own nature that you have to comment negatively about that of others? There's a not-so-subtle difference between disagreeing with someone and taking an obviously cheap and nasty pot-shot at whom it is they choose to be. No?

That was a joke, my boy, it's a shame subjects like this put people on edge. If anything, I'd think it would be utterly fanciful if he was an adherent of the principia discordia, or the king in yellow or whatever.

My point was simply that this does not have to be, for if we can accept equality in beliefs, then bigotry wouldn't have half as much of a chance to rear its ugly head.

Validity and bigotry are loaded terms. Almost everyone will be a victim of bigotry in their lifetime. But don't use it too loosely, else a comment about fashion, food choice, or lascivious acts in a childrens day care centre are instantly 'bigotry'. One thing bigotry is not is a catch-all term for people with a differing opinion. Here's one thing: there is no place for anyone 'permitting' anything. Freedom of belief is an unaliable right, and if you or I has a belief that does not permit other beliefs, it breaches this right. If you are familiar with Mill's 'harm principle', think of it as the complete freedom of everyone to run their own lives without interfering those who don't wish to be interfered with.
Now validity. The reason I think you've missused the term is because it has a specific meaning. If a person who doesn't accept equal validity of all beliefs is a bigot, then we are all bigots. Some beliefs, a priori, simply cannot be valid, others might be so socially harmful that do not grant it equality, saying nothing of validity. That is saying nothing about anything expressed here, but you see my point. When a belief is valid it's claims are both logical and valid. Nothing about the makeup of a belief precludes this.

I did appreciate the gist of what you were saying though, and I say again, freedom of belief is an unaliable right.

Ugh... I knew at one point this would turn into a line-by-line debate on whether or not evolution is real or if God is real or whatever. >_<

What I find less worrisome than that is the eye-rolling that immediately puts people on guard an becomes a self-fulfilling prophecy. People can't relax about these subjects as it is, or views questions and discussion as personal attacks. Relax, man!

But you know what? If it puts people off so much don't worry about it. You may not be able to avoid the discussion of all sensitive topics, but if it so pleases you, you can lop off the more obvious ones.

I'm just going to go blame God for being the root of all butthurt if this keeps up.

........