Kansas finds sanity again

**Big_John** · 08-08-2006, 02:17

you have to admit, pape, macrogravity is pretty cool.

**wolftrapper78** · 08-08-2006, 02:25

Are you calling me obtuse, Papewaio?

Now, I sure am sorry. I thought about coming on as obtuse, but then I decided against it and, wouldn't you know it, I ended up coming on obtuse anyways. I hate it when that happens.

**Papewaio** · 08-08-2006, 02:48

Only if the shoe fits. I was referring to a college biology course letting non-scientists define the nomenclature.

It would be like someone who hates automobilies defining the names of a car mechanics tools, and then the car mechnanic not wanting to upset the 'customer who will never be' renaming his tools to match the patrons desires.

**Ice** · 08-08-2006, 02:54

Originally Posted by Papewaio

Only if the shoe fits. I was referring to a college biology course letting non-scientists define the nomenclature.

It would be like someone who hates automobilies defining the names of a car mechanics tools, and then the car mechnanic not wanting to upset the 'customer who will never be' renaming his tools to match the patrons desires.

Well, I thought when I put (An ape turning into a human) in () people would understand what macroevolution is. But for the record...

Macroevolution: A species evolving from another species. The new species cannot mate with the other species.

Microevolution: A species evolving favorable traits. The the favorable trait being can still mate with the other one.

**Papewaio** · 08-08-2006, 03:08

Originally Posted by Ice

Well, I thought when I put (An ape turning into a human) in () people would understand what macroevolution is. But for the record...

Macroevolution: A species evolving from another species. The new species cannot mate with the other species.

Microevolution: A species evolving favorable traits. The the favorable trait being can still mate with the other one.

Evolution should not be defined as evolving favorable traits. That is putting the cart before the horse. Cause then effect not effect then cause.

Originally Posted by www.answers.com

evolution
3. Biology a)"Change in the genetic composition of a population during successive generations, as a result of natural selection acting on the genetic variation among individuals, and resulting in the development of new species."

Favorable traits is what is selected, not what causes the change nor what does the selection.

In Natural Selection it is the environment that does the selection which results in the species best suited for the current environment to propagate over the ones that are less suited for the current environment.

In Artificial Selection it is humans (a self aware sub-component of the environment) which selects which set of organisms will get to propagate the next generation.

What causes the change in the organisms is the combination of genes. Just combining genes in different combinations allows variation in organisms. Mutation of genes can then allow totally new organisms to come about.

**Ice** · 08-08-2006, 03:15

Originally Posted by Papewaio

Evolution should not be defined as evolving favorable traits. That is putting the cart before the horse. Cause then effect not effect then cause.

Favorable traits is what is selected, not what causes the change nor what does the selection.

In Natural Selection it is the environment that does the selection which results in the species best suited for the current environment to propagate over the ones that are less suited for the current environment.

In Artificial Selection it is humans (a self aware sub-component of the environment) which selects which set of organisms will get to propagate the next generation.

What causes the change in the organisms is the combination of genes. Just combining genes in different combinations allows variation in organisms. Mutation of genes can then allow totally new organisms to come about.

I didn't mean favorable traits, but mutations. Sorry about the mix up.

**Papewaio** · 08-08-2006, 03:28

Thats fine you probably understand more about biology then I do... like always scientists and fanboys of science in other fields make some nasty critics... but we do keep each other honest... when not purposely undermining each others interests for the limited funds.

I should do a paper titled.

"The selection pressures on research funds and the evolution of titles and abstracts."

**wolftrapper78** · 08-08-2006, 03:14

Ice,
Thank you for responding.

Basically there is no 'progressive' change. All of the supposed 'apemen' are just humans or apes. Variations within a kind. That is all. Just as human as you or me or Adam. Or they like "Lucy" they are apes. Variation within a kind and evidence of a common Designer.
All of the animals that we see fossilized are animals, or very rarely humans, that died in the Flood. Don't get me wrong there are many extinct animals that are found in the fossil record that are not around any more, that is why they are called extinct. For radiometric dating see here

2. and 3. if we are so much like animals, then how come we have the ability to think like a human. Really, do you think that Human's ability to concieve of great inventions and read, write, and theorize, like what we are doing right now. Does that separate us from animals. Similar body structure is just evidence that we have a common Designer.

4. and 5. thanks for your evolutionist, secular humanistic-thumping articles

Sorry, I gotta go. I will write more later.

**Ice** · 08-08-2006, 03:37

Originally Posted by wolftrapper78

Ice,
Thank you for responding.

Basically there is no 'progressive' change. All of the supposed 'apemen' are just humans or apes. Variations within a kind. That is all. Just as human as you or me or Adam. Or they like "Lucy" they are apes. Variation within a kind and evidence of a common Designer.
All of the animals that we see fossilized are animals, or very rarely humans, that died in the Flood. Don't get me wrong there are many extinct animals that are found in the fossil record that are not around any more, that is why they are called extinct. For radiometric dating see here

2. and 3. if we are so much like animals, then how come we have the ability to think like a human. Really, do you think that Human's ability to concieve of great inventions and read, write, and theorize, like what we are doing right now. Does that separate us from animals. Similar body structure is just evidence that we have a common Designer.

4. and 5. thanks for your evolutionist, secular humanistic-thumping articles

Sorry, I gotta go. I will write more later.

1. They are all humans or apes, eh? Nothing in between? One or the other? Why are all these "humans" and "apes" so different from the ones that exist today? Varation? Different species... not just varation. Could they have maybe... evolved?

http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/hovind/howgood-add.html

http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/c-decay.html

Radiometric Dating and the Age of the Earth.

2/3. We have developed higher brain functions that allow us to do all these things. We are very similar to many of them.

4/5. Anytime. I'm happy to base my logic on reason, observation, and facts rather than a 2000 year old book.

**wolftrapper78** · 08-08-2006, 06:53

So what if I get my logic and reasoning from this 2000 year old (or 3000+, if you are talking about the Torah), does that make it any less reliable than some 150 year old book (Origin of Species)? If anything I would look at the 3000 year old book as the more reliable source, since we are arguing about things in the past and they were a lot closer to it than we are.