|
Post by gillianren on Sept 2, 2006 15:27:23 GMT -4
Yes, exactly. That's as far as I can go with blind belief in things I can't explain. I have faith in gravity and it has yet to fail me. Yet I honestly can say I don't understand gravity. I let others explain it, and have faith that their explanations are valid. True comprehension is outside my knowledge base. Well, you know, I never said I understood it, either. However, I do get your point. Those in relevant fields know a heck of a lot more about their fields than I, and if it's good enough for them, I do kind of take their word for it. We're a culture of specialists, for good or ill, and the specialists in biology, medicine, botany, zoology, etc., are all convinced by evolution, pretty much regardless of any religious belief. Who am I to argue?
|
|
Al Johnston
"Cheer up!" they said, "It could be worse!" So I did, and it was.
Posts: 1,453
|
Post by Al Johnston on Sept 2, 2006 16:46:22 GMT -4
I wonder sometimes when in history it was possible (if it ever was) for a single mind to encompass all scientific knowledge...
|
|
|
Post by Apollo Gnomon on Sept 2, 2006 17:33:19 GMT -4
I wonder sometimes when in history it was possible (if it ever was) for a single mind to encompass all scientific knowledge... Indeed - Did Homo erectus and H. habilis differentiate between hunters and gatherers? When did some people start to make better tools than others, and spend more time knapping flint or sewing for the tribe and less time actually hunting? Did Australopithecine males spend significant amounts of time with childcare, like gorillas and bonobo, or were they, like chimps, busy doing other things? I would argue that with the beginning of "scientific knowledge" (which I admit I interpret rather broadly to reach this far back in time) there were automatically some who learned the new things and some who didn't. It has been observed in chimps (as well as other apes and even in some monkeys) that innovation occurs at the fringes of the tribe, among low-status members, socially farthest from the Alpha. Members closest to the Alpha are too busy learning the dance of politics and currying favor, and are usually the most "conservative."
|
|
|
Post by Data Cable on Sept 3, 2006 1:40:28 GMT -4
By gravity, do we mean curvature in space-time? ;D He means the force which repels us from the heavens above, as though by the will of an intelligent being who forbids us passage into its unearthly realm.
|
|
|
Post by Data Cable on Sept 3, 2006 1:42:31 GMT -4
It has been observed in chimps (as well as other apes and even in some monkeys) that innovation occurs at the fringes of the tribe, among low-status members, socially farthest from the Alpha. Wohoo! Chimps have nerds too! ;D
|
|
Jason
Pluto
May all your hits be crits
Posts: 5,579
|
Post by Jason on Sept 5, 2006 12:23:00 GMT -4
Your knowledge of hominid evolution is similar to moonman's knowledge of thermodynamics. I hope it's at least a little more thorough than that. I'm sorry - I was not intending to be flippant. I do take a lighter approach to internet discussions than some people as a general rule, but I don't want to offend anyone by not taking seriously something they do. Perhaps you misunderstand me. What I was getting at is that we know that chimps, bonobos, etc. are not ancestors because they are contemporary to humans. If they instead had lived in the ancient past, however, wouldn't their similarities to humans make them prime candidates to be named as ancestors? My point being that evolutionary biologists are basing their ideas of descent on similarities of form and function that may not in fact indicate an ancestral relationship - they may only be similar in form or function, as modern apes are quite similar to us but are not in fact ancestral.
|
|
Jason
Pluto
May all your hits be crits
Posts: 5,579
|
Post by Jason on Sept 5, 2006 12:39:35 GMT -4
The topic of being agnostic came up on the Colbert report about a month ago. A book called "Misquoting Jesus" I think, and the authour said he is agnostic, to which Colbert responded: "Agnostic? Isn't that just an Athiest without balls?" I found that hysterical! I think that's how an atheist might view an agnostic. I believe the primary motivation for athesits is the superiority kick they get in believing that they are willing to accept what they see as the hard facts of life while the majority are not. I can understand doubt in the existence of God or disagreement in his attributes, but claiming he positively does not exist seems rather foolish to me. I have once or twice, but it's been quite a while since I last did so. I believe I have the same user name over there.
|
|
|
Post by gillianren on Sept 5, 2006 16:52:03 GMT -4
Perhaps you misunderstand me. What I was getting at is that we know that chimps, bonobos, etc. are not ancestors because they are contemporary to humans. If they instead had lived in the ancient past, however, wouldn't their similarities to humans make them prime candidates to be named as ancestors? If they had lived in the ancient past, we would be living in a different universe, and they might be. But, more specific to your point, we look at more than just DNA similarity to determine ancestry. (Although I'm not sure what--I just know we can't, because DNA doesn't fossilize.) They would definitely be considered relatives of humans, as indeed they are, but they are physically dissimilar in ways that make them less obviously related to us that H. habilis. There are several hominid lines that are not considered ancestral but are instead branches like the chimpanzee--related, but not ancestral. There is a certain amount of scientific debate about which lines fit that description, as there is with everything, but contrary to your apparent opinion, not all hominids are considered human ancestors, most notably Neandertal.
|
|
Jason
Pluto
May all your hits be crits
Posts: 5,579
|
Post by Jason on Sept 5, 2006 18:16:12 GMT -4
But, more specific to your point, we look at more than just DNA similarity to determine ancestry. (Although I'm not sure what--I just know we can't, because DNA doesn't fossilize.) I was well aware that DNA doesn't fossilize. I am speaking of the characteristics that do survive fossilization - as I understand it were ancient hominids are concerned that's pretty much just the size and shape of particular bones, and sometimes only the merest fragments of bones. That is not my opinion. I was well aware that not all ancient hominids are considered human ancestors by the scientific community. You appear to have mis-underestimated my knowledge on this topic. My point is that the only evidence for any claim to ancestry for a modern human to an ancient hominid is an observed similarity in the characteristics that can survive fossilization, and considering that there are animals today that are similar to us in many ways without being our ancestors it is really just a guess to say "I think this may be an ancestor of ours," and that such a guess presupposes that evolution must have produced humanity, rather than proceeding from the available evidence.
|
|
|
Post by gillianren on Sept 5, 2006 21:47:05 GMT -4
What do you think the explanation for them is, then?
|
|
Jason
Pluto
May all your hits be crits
Posts: 5,579
|
Post by Jason on Sept 6, 2006 12:05:17 GMT -4
What do you think the explanation for them is, then? The explanation for humans or for ancient hominids?
|
|
|
Post by gillianren on Sept 6, 2006 16:29:16 GMT -4
The explanation for the similarities between, well, animals. Ancient hominids, families of canids, felines, etc. The fossil record as a whole. We expect to see certain similarities if evolution holds true. When we see them, it's support of the theory. If we didn't, it wouldn't be. However, we do. There are many, many transitional species, unless your definition of transitional species is different than that of biologists. There are no species yet discovered that cannot be explained by evolution. Why is that? Was God not all that creative?
|
|
Jason
Pluto
May all your hits be crits
Posts: 5,579
|
Post by Jason on Sept 6, 2006 17:06:54 GMT -4
The explanation for the similarities between, well, animals. Ancient hominids, families of canids, felines, etc. The fossil record as a whole. We expect to see certain similarities if evolution holds true. When we see them, it's support of the theory. If we didn't, it wouldn't be. However, we do. There are many, many transitional species, unless your definition of transitional species is different than that of biologists. There are no species yet discovered that cannot be explained by evolution. Why is that? Was God not all that creative? An argument against God having created life because He didn't create enough varieties? That's gotta be a first. Why do animals have similaraties? Because they face similar problems and similar environments, so the same or very similar designs can serve equally well. Why do ships look similar? Not because they evolved that way. Why are there no species that cannot be explained by evolution? Well, first of all I'm not positive that's the case - but granting that it is, it would be because the theory of evolution has been tailored to fit the observable world. The geocentric astronomical model with its deferents, epicycles, and equants matched the observable facts fairly well too, until we came up with technology that allowed finer observations that didn't quite match and had to come up with a new theory to explain them, dropping the geocentric model in the process.
|
|
|
Post by gillianren on Sept 6, 2006 18:39:25 GMT -4
An argument against God having created life because He didn't create enough varieties? That's gotta be a first. You misunderstand me. Again. Yes, there are untold varieties of animals, but each group of animals follows the same body plan, even when it's not the most efficient way for that animal to work. A lot of human anatomy that isn't very helpful to us (due to bipedalism, largely) is just fine for our primate cousins. Actually, they sort of did. All ships can be traced back to the proto-ship. More to the point, consider the bat. (All umpteen-however-many species thereof.) Its wings are unlike birds' wings, yet they are like mammal forearms. Why? Yes. It's called "how science works."
|
|
Al Johnston
"Cheer up!" they said, "It could be worse!" So I did, and it was.
Posts: 1,453
|
Post by Al Johnston on Sept 7, 2006 6:15:47 GMT -4
It's not just that features are shared, or that there are "similarities", it's that many of these similarities would have to be regarded as design faults by any objective standard.
For example, human eyes have the blood and nerve connections to the retina placed between the light and the light-sensitive cells - all vertebrate eyes have this feature. It would make sense if vertebrates inherited their eye design from a common ancestor, less so that they were individually designed with defective (or at least sub-optimal) eyes. It isn't that it is not possible to have an eye with the more logical arrangement of light sensors, nerves and blood vessels - cephalopods have exactly that design.
Vitamin C provides another example: most creatures don't need it in their diet as they can synthesise the molecule - the mechanism(s) and associated gene sequences have been identified. The great apes lack this ability, and so do we. We have most of the necessary biochemical machinery in our cells, but the process fails at a particular point. The same defective processing goes on in great ape cells. Again something that makes sense in the context of common ancestry, but not otherwise.
|
|