EVOLUTION - Page 5

Sometimes it is well to stay out of the thick of things, starting this string I compiled a list of statements to comment on (most were rellated to ironclad) so

Darwin'sBlack box
Author; Michael J Behe
Publisher;Simon & Schuster New York.
Copyright Ó1996

The Units of Evolution
ESSAYSON THE NATURE OF THE SPECIES
Editor; by Marc Ereshefsky Copyright Ó1992
Massachusetts Insittuite of Technology

But I was glad I waited when friend OKcitykid came around to the point as well as aura although next in line with the number of entries on the list. Nice defence of eastern religions.
As to the origin of this thread, origin of species "What defines ape-like vs human-like species and where is the distinction drawn?
As IronClad tried to point out, the reason they use various animals for testing purposes is we share common genetic features. So a pigs organ could substitute for human and dna consist of certain groups which variations in order produce different functions or purpose. We all have different dna but various characteristics divide us into ethnic groupings.Was the neandrathal really human or ape or some other species?

Depends what you mean by ape or human. In class we define as "part of the human lineage" as any species that is closer to man then it is chimps. That roughly means anything that looks like a monkey but whose legs are made to walk on two feet most of the time.
So neanderthal is part of "the human ligneage" but that doesn't much heh.
But certainly although neanderthal was a different species, they were culturally very similar to us, they had tools, funerals and fire. They may could well have wiped us out and asked themselves thousands of years later "are homo sapiens sapiens ape or humans?".

Depends what you mean by ape or human . . . thank you for an honest answer but I wouldn't classify you as a dumb teen.
In okcity responce I felt a deeper questioning that might go something like this . . . canines as a classification of animals range from St. Bernards to Chawawas (sp). We can accept their being lumped together simply because of their ability to cross breed if for no other reason.
Yet the mule certainly is a candidate for evolutionary extinction because it lacks the ability to breed. So even though horses and donkeys breed mules giving evidence that they related species? While I never heard of cross breeding of lions and tigers which doesn't mean that it can't happen but I certainly don't see them as candidates for breeding with mice and rats. So the question remains what distintion makes one homo sapien rather than ape?

"but I wouldn't classify you as a dumb teen. "
Thx!

". canines as a classification of animals range from St. Bernards to Chawawas (sp). We can accept their being lumped together simply because of their ability to cross breed if for no other reason."
Yes, scientists haven't found any real better ways of classification since lol.

" Yet the mule certainly is a candidate for evolutionary extinction because it lacks the ability to breed. So even though horses and donkeys breed mules giving evidence that they related species?"
They are related but their ability to breed together is more an "accident" then anything else. The generally accepted rule for a species is all individuals capable of reproducing (as opposed to breeding) with another individual of that species. From what I understand, Neanderthal never reproduced with homo sapien (and as far as I know never bred with homo sapien). So they are technically a different species.
But that doesn't mean they weren't very human, if not "as human" as we are. They're brains were bigger and the other differences were relatively minor (in my opinion) physical traits which helped them in the cold climate.
So although technically not "human" they weren't closer to apes.

Hmm . . . I think I see what you mean. (?) As to the controversy about evolution for Christian arise from the implication that if homo-sapiens evolved then that would disprove that GOD creted man. While to myself the question would be did life evolve by some coincident, probability or was it created to evolve (note Native Traditions perceive things differently) The Theory of Evolution doesn't particularly add or detract from their point of view.

i believe in evolution
maybe it's just becuase i'm a scinetist ...... deep inside my heart
and god .... hm i dunno i think religion is just a way to keep people inline - you have to scare them with something so that they behave ....... and religion works .... i mean you HAVE to believe in something if there is nothing you can do..... because the hope never dies ..... so yeah i'm not sure about god
and aliens - well hell fuckin yeah there are aliens, can you imagine how big the universe is ? if it doesn't end, it's EVERYWHERE , so there must be some other form of life out there . and i doubt that they're green with big eyes and kinda look like migits in africa but i'm sure they exist

old arguement between Raven and myself, usually I would with trying to point out that if indeed aliens visited the earth long ago. But spirit doesn't have physical form, therefore they are alien beings to man.

"Geology shows that fossils are of different ages. Paleontology shows a fossil sequence, the list of species represented changes through time. Taxonomy shows biological relationships among species. Evolution is the explanation that threads it all together. Creationism is the practice of squeezing one's eyes shut and wailing 'does not!'."
- Anonymous, chat room

*claps*

LMAO! that is great kunz, i just hope everyone keeps their "eyes open" here at UG

If you take creationism as a fairy tale story. It really is good, and there is a moral. I think, some day all religious people will agree on that. Agree that this was the true purpose of this inspired word, to teach morals, not to provide historical evidence of where we came from. Faith is a powerful thing science has not yet learned. I respect those of faith.

Anonymous, chat room -- I am not sure I get your point?
In the OLD Testament it speaks of a hand writing on the wall.
The inferred is the 'hand of GOD' but I rather doubt that spirit has a human hand so I would suppose that ' the hand' was a projection of the mind of those seeing, giving form relating as a hand.
The GOD of the jews took the form of a pillar of fire at night and of smoke during the day, which is only an appearence (form) by which GOD was perceived as GOD of the Jews does not have form therefore they were unable to make graven images of His likeness.
Live is consistently biological & all biological live forms have similar structure which is consistent with their (being) form has a common source. I don't see any disbute with the perception. Neither do I see any evidence which refutes creation..(Darwin's Black Box, etc.) But random reactions of biological mechanisms does strain the limits of probability beyond creditability

"But random reactions of biological mechanisms does strain the limits of probability beyond creditability"
No one said the universe's fundamental laws would be intuitive to our brains, which indeed, are designed for hunting on the plains rather the understanding complex laws.

Speaking of the universe's "fundamental laws", I would like to ask a question. Doesn't the theory of evolution have to obey the law's of the universe?

I have a book that gives reasons for why the evolutionary theory breaks the three laws of thermodynamics. I'm letting a friend borrow it at the time so I can't relay it's arguements to all of you as of yet. But when I get it back I'd like to hear what all of you have to say.

Yes they do have to obey those laws. However, if I remember correctly, the laws of thermodynamics are not universal laws, but general laws. IE, they're not ALWAYS true, but barring exceptional circumstances, they are true.
Its not like evolution breaks any universal laws, grabity, atomic reactions etc..