81–90 of 142 posts
The concept of species is a construct of language.
Members of the same species can procreate fertile offspring. In some edge cases this definition becomes a little fuzzy, but it is clearly more than just a linguistic construct. A mouse and an elephant won't be able to procreate even if the word "species" didn't exist.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
They found the bone in the rock. Scientists look at the rock and can tell the rocks age. They assume that the bone is about the same age as the rock it was found inside.
And how did they determine the age of the rock?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I mean we are a very different species, we have not evolved from apes, nor have apes evolved from fish. It is an idiot theory that doesn't serve us at all. These apes are not our ancestors fortunately, we are very fortunate to be real humans. I believe all species DNA are designed by our true ancestors. Imagine what is possible if technology evolves another 1000 years what we would be capable of! And it is incredibly…
It's a shame that you're being downvoted, although I'm hoping it's more because of your tone and language than for discussing alternative viewpoints. The fact of the matter is that the theory of evolution is the best fit for the evidence we currently have available. It doesn't mean that it's "true", and of course scientific theories have been overturned in the past as new evidence has become available. So while the t…
I don't believe the user you are responding to is discussing in good faith, but I admire the work of you and others who are trying to educate (I'm being sincere here).
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> 'Closeness' (whatever you mean by that) doesn't really imply ancestry without some hefty presuppositions Of course it does. It doesn't prove ancestry. But genetic similarity implies proximate shared ancestry. We can take microbes (or fruit flies), subject them to stress, let the survivors reproduce, and watch the genotypes branch into a diverse population. We can then take the observed path of genetic variation and…
You're making a whole lot of unfounded and unproven assumptions here! For example: what if the current genetic diversity on Earth is the result of genetic engineering by ancient aliums? That's a facile example, but there are serious deeper issues here. The mechanisms of gene transfer are too complex for us to explain presently, including things like viruses, horizontal transfer, etc. You're assuming a simplistic darw…
The grandparent post makes no unfounded assumptions. It makes unproven ones for a strict definition of “proven”, but that's trivially true since no statements about physical reality can actually be proven, only statements about the relation of abstract concepts can be proven, and then only within a given system of axioms.
> For example: what if the current genetic diversity on Earth is the result of genetic engineering by ancient aliums?
That is indeed an example of an assumption that is not merely unproven but actually unfounded, but it's not an example of one made in the grandparent post so I don't know how it is relevant.
> The mechanisms of gene transfer are too complex for us to explain presently, including things like viruses, horizontal transfer, etc.
There are aspects that lack complete explanation, but that doesn't diminish the power of what we do understand (also, viruses and horizontal gene transfer aren't two things we can't explain, viruses are one of the main mechanisms of horizontal gene transfer.)
> You're assuming a simplistic darwinist model that we already know isn't true.
I see no evidence that that is the case; modern models are not simplistic Darwinism models of the type that involve only transfer by descent.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Are you implying that if we don't know all the details of something, then we just don't know it? That is, are you implying that if we don't know all the details about our evolution, then we should just say that we know nothing and ignore all the things we actually do know are very very likely? That would leave you without any empirical sciences, because there has always something we do not know. When Newtonian mechan…
> if we don't know all the details about our evolution, then we should just say that we know nothing and ignore all the things we actually do know are very very likely? Nothing wrong with studying and figuring out how things work, you should not look at it with an all or nothing attitude. But assuming from the very start that all human species ancestors are some kind of ape is just so ridiculous that it can only sink…
For eample, why do humans have a tail bone? Why have muscles attached to the ear that can not move it? Why have wisdom teeth? And there is about a dozen of these things in humans that have no discernable purpose in humans but have a similarity with things in other animals that do serve a purpose.
Evolution gives a model to explain this. Humans evolved from ape-like creatures that had a tail, humans have evolved not to grow the tail but have not quite lost the tail bone. Humans evolved from ape-like creatures that could move their ears. Humans didn't need that and so ears have become fixed without detriment, but have not yet lost the muscles. etc.
Evolution is simply not sufficient. Dr. David Gelertner, a CS professor from Yale, penned an essay in May that lays out the high level argument against Darwin/Evolution, including references to background material. https://www.claremont.org/crb/article/giving-up-darwin/
Also, a Computer Science professor has no business arguing about evolution. Or rather, his opinion is as informed as yours or mine, i.e. not very.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I mean we are a very different species, we have not evolved from apes, nor have apes evolved from fish. It is an idiot theory that doesn't serve us at all. These apes are not our ancestors fortunately, we are very fortunate to be real humans. I believe all species DNA are designed by our true ancestors. Imagine what is possible if technology evolves another 1000 years what we would be capable of! And it is incredibly…
It's a shame that you're being downvoted, although I'm hoping it's more because of your tone and language than for discussing alternative viewpoints. The fact of the matter is that the theory of evolution is the best fit for the evidence we currently have available. It doesn't mean that it's "true", and of course scientific theories have been overturned in the past as new evidence has become available. So while the t…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
They found the bone in the rock. Scientists look at the rock and can tell the rocks age. They assume that the bone is about the same age as the rock it was found inside.
And how did they determine the age of the rock?