Creationists

[daws101]

This is what I don't understand about this thread:


If you were hypothetically able to completely debunk evolution or the big bang theory, that would not do anything to prove
1.) God's existence
2.) that God created the universe
3.) and that God created life or mankind

You still need to actually prove these positive claims yourself. The tactic here seems to be that for any point won against evolution, is a point for creationism. But this is epistemically incoherent. This is not a zero sum game. The assumption with creationists is that evolution and creation are diametrically opposed, and that by debunking one, you prove the other. Logic 101 says otherwise.

The paradigm of ID / creationism is inherently illogical as it relies on supernaturalism and magic. Certainly, it is true that the two creationists posture their arguments for supermagical intervention of their gods as attacks on science and rationality. That is the hopeless position of ID creationism. There is no positive assertion of supernaturalism available so the arguments for supermagicalism devolves into strident and, as we see so often, screaming, juvenile name-calling from the desperate fundies.

Give us the miracle you believe that cause the beginning of life. I believe the creator did not use miracles like any other designer.

another false comparison ...

A miracle (Definition of MIRACLE
1: an extraordinary event manifesting divine intervention in human affairs )
assumes facts not in evidence i.e. an intention.

 

[daws101]

Yes your faith in science.

Has science created a life form out of nothing? A life form that can and will evolve into several different species with very different and distinct attributes where some will develop reasoning and logic while other rely soley on instinct? I didn't think so.

We all have the same facts but they are just being interpreted differently. The reason is because each side as their own axioms.

Unlike you , I don't need a scientific theory to explain natural phenomena.

No. There is no requirement for faith in science.

Have your gods created a life form out of nothing? There is no reason to believe your claims to supermagicalism.

Your "I don't think so" claim regarding evolutionary processes is consistent with a religious claim that only through supermagical processes could life have magically popped into existence, however, in the grown-up world, "magic" is decidedly an unreliable explanation

Purposeful design does not require miracles your theory does, get it ?

again no proof of purpose or design.

get it?

 

[Youwerecreated]

thanks for giving me this opportunity to highlight you ignorance and showcase reading comprehension disability...

1.my statement: (humans have the best developed eye for all around use of any creature on earth.
making you first statement false.)
the operative phrase (is ALL round use)
here is a list of functions that our eyes have or do what other animals can't :

For one, humans have their eyes set closer together than many other animals, which gives us wonderful depth perception. In exchange, we lose some of our ability to have good peripheral vision


Vision
Normal human vision is 20/20. In comparison, dog vision is between 20/50 and 20/100, horses are at about 20/33, and cats are at 20/100. (However, these number can vary significantly, because it is quite difficult to measure animal vision.)

Visual Acuity
Because animals have less visual acuity than humans, they do not perceive things as sharply as humans do. Their vision could be likened to watching a blurry Internet video as opposed to watching television.


Color Vision
Dogs perceive color almost like humans who are red-green colorblind. Both cats and dogs respond to blue and yellow best, and have trouble seeing shades of green and red. Cats perceive shades of red as black, and shades of green as white. To a cat, your front lawn looks like a textured bed sheet.



Read more: How Does the Human Eye Compare to the Eyes of Other Animals? | eHow.com How Does the Human Eye Compare to the Eyes of Other Animals? | eHow.com

just to name a few.



(Never did address the sense of smell our so called relatives possess that we do not possess.) either ywc is lying or it's that pesky reading comp problem.

my answer:"again a false comparison, our olfactory system is no less developed then our ape cousins."
The convention is that humans have notoriously poor senses of smell compared to animals. Some scientists say that humans have lost 60% of their olfactory receptors over the process of evolution. (Wilson) However, this is as specious as the statement, “Humans only use 10% of their brain.” Humans have some commendable feats regarding the nose. Mice choose mates by smelling the difference in a certain gene. Humans can smell the difference between the mice strains using solely their sense of smell. (Gilbert) Dog owners can identify which blanket their pet slept compared to other dogs. Humans can also discern what kind of wood a popsicle stick is made of by just smelling the ice cream it was sitting in (of course, they also could refer to original samples of wood). They can also follow a chocolate trail with smell when their other senses are inhibited, but when smell is inhibited they cannot follow it at all. Furthermore, when humans are trained to follow scent trails, their tracking speed increases greatly. Also, humans and dogs have the same sensitivity to the smell that we use to track cocaine. (Gilbert)

Macrosmatic means with a good sense of smell and microsmatic means with a poor sense of smell. Conventionally, scientists judge a species' ability to smell by the internal surface area of the nasal cavity, but that has no effect on the amount of sensory tissue in the nose or the number of olfactory nerve cells in a certain area. We have in fact discovered that humans and animals have somewhat equivalent senses of smell.

http://appsychtextbk.wikispaces.com/Animal+vs.+Human+Smell

so again proving wyc..ignorant.

what relatives other than primates are you failing to alude to. ?



How closely related are humans to apes and other animals? How do scientists measure that? Are humans related to plants at all? ::Ask the Experts::October 23, 2000::2 Comments::Email:rint.How closely related are humans to apes and other animals? How do scientists measure that? Are humans related to plants at all?


humans, chimpanzees, gorillas, orangutans and their extinct ancestors form a family of organisms known as the Hominidae. Researchers generally agree that among the living animals in this group, humans are most closely related to chimpanzees, judging from comparisons of anatomy and genetics.

If life is the result of "descent with modification," as Charles Darwin put it, we can try to represent its history as a kind of family tree derived from these morphological and genetic characteristics. The tips of such a tree show organisms that are alive today. The nodes of the tree denote the common ancestors of all the tips connected to that node. Biologists refer to such nodes as the last common ancestor of a group of organisms, and all tips that connect to a particular node form a clade. In the diagram of the Hominidae at right, the clade designated by node 2 includes gorillas, humans and chimps. Within that clade the animal with which humans share the most recent common ancestor is the chimpanzee.



Source: COURTESY OF BERNHARD HAUBOLD
FAMILY TREE of the Hominidae shows that chimpanzees are our closest living relatives.

There are two major classes of evidence that allow us to estimate how old a particular clade is: fossil data and comparative data from living organisms. Fossils are conceptually easy to interpret. Once the age of the fossil is determined (using radiocarbon or thermoluminescence dating techniques, for example), we then know that an ancestor of the organism in question existed at least that long ago. There are, however, few good fossils available compared with the vast biodiversity around us. Thus, researchers also consider comparative data. We all know that siblings are more similar to each other than are cousins, which reflects the fact that siblings have a more recent common ancestor (parents) than do cousins (grandparents). Analogously, the greater similarity between humans and chimps than between humans and plants is taken as evidence that the last common ancestor of humans and chimps is far more recent than the last common ancestor of humans and plants. Similarity, in this context, refers to morphological features such as eyes and skeletal structure.

One problem with morphological data is that it is sometimes difficult to interpret. For example, ascertaining which similarities resulted from common ancestry and which resulted from convergent evolution can, on occasion, prove tricky. Furthermore, it is almost impossible to obtain time estimates from these data. So despite analyses of anatomy, the evolutionary relationships among many groups of organisms remained unclear due to lack of suitable data.

This changed in the 1950s and 1960s when protein sequence data and DNA sequence data, respectively, became available. The sequences of a protein (say, hemoglobin) from two organisms can be compared and the number of positions where the two sequences differ counted. It was soon learned from such studies that for a given protein, the number of amino acid substitutions per year could--as a first approximation--be treated as constant. This discovery became known as the "molecular clock." If the clock is calibrated using fossil data or data on continental drift, then the ages of various groups of organisms can theoretically be calculated based on comparisons of their sequences.

Using such reasoning, it has been estimated that the last common ancestor of humans and chimpanzees (with whom we share 99 percent of our genes) lived five million years ago. Going back a little farther, the Hominidae clade is 13 million years old. If we continue farther back in time, we find that placental mammals are between 60 and 80 million years old and that the oldest four-limbed animal, or tetrapod, lived between 300 and 350 million years ago and the earliest chordates (animals with a notochord) appeared about 990 million years ago. Humans belong to each of these successively broader groups.

How far back can we go in this way? If we try to trace all life on our planet, we are constrained by the earth's age of 4.5 billion years. The oldest bacteria-like fossils are 3.5 billion years old, so this is the upper estimate for the age of life on the earth. The question is whether at some point before this date a last common ancestor for all forms of life, a "universal ancestor," existed. Over the past 30 years the underlying biochemical unity of all plants, animals and microbes has become increasingly apparent. All organisms share a similar genetic machinery and certain biochemical motifs related to metabolism. It is therefore very likely that there once existed a universal ancestor and, in this sense, all things alive are related to each other. It took more than two billion years for this earliest form of life to evolve into the first eukaryotic cell. This gave rise to the last common ancestor of plants, fungi and animals, which lived some 1.6 billion years ago.

The controversies surrounding biological evolution today reflect the fact that biologists were late in accepting evolutionary thinking. One reason for this is that significant modifications of living things are difficult to observe during a lifetime. Darwin never saw evolution taking place in nature and had to rely on evidence from fossils, as well as plant and animal breeding. His idea that the differences observed within a species are transformed in time into differences between species remained the most plausible theory of biodiversity in his time, but there was an awkward lack of direct observations of this process. Today this situation has changed. There are now a number of very striking accounts of evolution in nature, including exceptional work on the finches of the Galapagos Islands--the same animals that first inspired Darwin's work.

FURTHER READING:


The Beak of the Finch : A Story of Evolution in Our Time (Vintage Books, 1995)

one more just for fun 3. "we are the strongest of our species" because we are the only extant creatures of our kind.
you ignorant asshat!

Wrong that was just going from one creature you claim we are related to, the ape. If you use the argument that all organisms are related which you have to since all life origionated from one source, Your sides argument is DNA similarity proves ancestry. So we all came from the same genepool and according to evolutionist we are definitely in the ape genepool. Now actually the answer why these traits did not get passed on to humans or if the ape evoleved from us how did they end up with the superior traits why didn't they end up with brains like ours ?

could you possibly rewrite this post in english and not when you are drunk or on your meds ?

1.apes did not evolve FROM US you asshat!
we (apes and humans share a common ancestor BUT took separate evolutionary paths)
once again your willful ignorance shines.

Unraveling Where Chimp And Human Brains Diverge
ScienceDaily (Nov. 17, 2006) — Six million years ago, chimpanzees and humans diverged from a common ancestor and evolved into unique species. Now UCLA scientists have identified a new way to pinpoint the genes that separate us from our closest living relative -- and make us uniquely human. The Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences reports the study in its Nov. 13 online edition.


"We share more than 95 percent of our genetic blueprint with chimps," explained Dr. Daniel Geschwind, principal investigator and Gordon and Virginia MacDonald Distinguished Professor of Human Genetics at the David Geffen School of Medicine. "What sets us apart from chimps are our brains: homo sapiens means 'the knowing man.'

"During evolution, changes in some genes altered how the human brain functions," he added. "Our research has identified an entirely new way to identify those genes in the small portion of our DNA that differs from the chimpanzee's."

By evaluating the correlated activity of thousands of genes, the UCLA team identified not just individual genes, but entire networks of interconnected genes whose expression patterns within the brains of humans varied from those in the chimpanzee.

"Genes don't operate in isolation -- each functions within a system of related genes," said first author Michael Oldham, UCLA genetics researcher. "If we examined each gene individually, it would be similar to reading every fifth word in a paragraph -- you don't get to see how each word relates to the other. So instead we used a systems biology approach to study each gene within its context."

The scientists identified networks of genes that correspond to specific brain regions. When they compared these networks between humans and chimps, they found that the gene networks differed the most widely in the cerebral cortex -- the brain's most highly evolved region, which is three times larger in humans than chimps.

Secondly, the researchers discovered that many of the genes that play a central role in cerebral cortex networks in humans, but not in the chimpanzee, also show significant changes at the DNA level.

"When we see alterations in a gene network that correspond to functional changes in the genome, it implies that these differences are very meaningful," said Oldham. "This finding supports the theory that variations in the DNA sequence contributed to human evolution."

Relying on a new analytical approach developed by corresponding author Steve Horvath, UCLA associate professor of human genetics and biostatistics, the UCLA team used data from DNA microarrays -- vast collections of tiny DNA spots -- to map the activity of virtually every gene in the genome simultaneously. By comparing gene activity in different areas of the brain, the team identified gene networks that correlated to specific brain regions. Then they compared the strength of these correlations between humans and chimps.

Many of the human-specific gene networks identified by the scientists related to learning, brain cell activity and energy metabolism.

"If you view the brain as the body's engine, our findings suggest that the human brain fires like a 12-cylinder engine, while the chimp brain works more like a 6-cylinder engine," explained Geschwind. "It's possible that our genes adapted to allow our brains to increase in size, operate at different speeds, metabolize energy faster and enhance connections between brain cells across different brain regions."

Future UCLA studies will focus on linking the expression of evolutionary genes to specific regions of the brain, such as those that regulate language, speech and other uniquely human abilities.

The study was supported by the James S. McDonnell Foundation, the National Institute of Neurological Disorders and Stroke, and the National Institute of Mental Health.

Unraveling Where Chimp And Human Brains Diverge


origin and related don't mean what you wish them to mean.

More conjecture

Are we realated to apes ?did apes come before humans? who evolved from who ? why do humans have different superior survival traits over our ape relatives ? Why do apes have superior survival traits that humans don't have ?

 

[Lonestar_logic]

The paradigm of ID / creationism is inherently illogical as it relies on supernaturalism and magic. Certainly, it is true that the two creationists posture their arguments for supermagical intervention of their gods as attacks on science and rationality. That is the hopeless position of ID creationism. There is no positive assertion of supernaturalism available so the arguments for supermagicalism devolves into strident and, as we see so often, screaming, juvenile name-calling from the desperate fundies.

It relies soley on faith.

Not unlike the faith you have in science.

bullshit!

: Several people have written that they have thoroughly studied both creation and evolution and find that both are forms of faith in that they assume events that occurred before the time of man. They both have an element of trust needed to believe that either are correct or incorrect. Please comment.

Panelist Responses: < back to intro page


Francisco Ayala

First, the way in which the word "faith" is used by the person who poses the question is quite different in science and in religious beliefs. All scientific constructs or so-called theories are constructs of the mind. In that sense, we accept them just in terms of whatever evidence we can gather in their favor or against them. In the case of scientific theories, what we do is to formulate them in such a way that they can be used to make predictions about the states of affairs in the real world. And then we do confirm or corroborate the theories by making those observations or experiments that deal with predictions derived from the theories.

So if we have a theory, which is a construct of the mind, and we are able to corroborate it or reject it by subjecting it to verification or corroboration, as I said, we're confronting it with observations or experiments that we make. Religious faith belongs to a completely different realm of knowledge. In the case of faith, we are accepting revelation or teachings that we do not expect to corroborate in an empirical way. We corroborate them or accept them in terms of the implications they may have, the effects they may have for our own personal life and the life of other individuals.

But this is a very different kind of corroboration from what we do in science, where any experiment or observation made in favor or against a theory can, in turn, be confirmed or rejected by other individuals. That is, it is possible always to replicate the observations or to make alternate observations derived from the same theory. In the case of religious faith, we don't have this kind of experimental verification, the possibility of subjecting theories to verification by reproducible testing, the possibility of having other individuals doing the same observations for experiment.


Robert Pollack

As a scientist I would argue that, as Ronald Reagan said famously about dealing with the Soviet Union, "trust but verify." It is necessary to trust in both cases, but in the case of science it is possible to verify what one trusts is so, by the accumulation of predictions tested by experiments which generate results predicted by the model. This notion that your faith can be buttressed by evidence is the difference between science as a human enterprise, a "faith," if you will, and other faiths, which depend on equally strong certainty emerging from within, but not testable by evidence.

Now within a religion, one may say the evidence is that which stands off from nature. So a miracle is, in a sense, evidence for faith. And the singular moment of creation instantaneously is, in fact, a miraculous event outside the laws of science as we understand them. So if one has the faith that that happened, it is indeed a valid faith, but it is not testable by science. That makes the faith of creation different from the evidence for natural selection and a single, natural origin of the universe and life within it.

The reasons for the emergence of the curiosity that generates evidence in science are similar, I think, to the reasons that allow the emergence of religious faith. That is, we are a species that must give meaning to our surroundings. But these -- science and religious faith -- are different tools that generate different results because they start from different premises. No serious religious person, I think, is a believer because of the proof they have from nature; they are believers because of the certainty they have in their hearts.

Evolution: Religion: Science and Faith

Reading comprehension is your friend.

 

[Youwerecreated]

The paradigm of ID / creationism is inherently illogical as it relies on supernaturalism and magic. Certainly, it is true that the two creationists posture their arguments for supermagical intervention of their gods as attacks on science and rationality. That is the hopeless position of ID creationism. There is no positive assertion of supernaturalism available so the arguments for supermagicalism devolves into strident and, as we see so often, screaming, juvenile name-calling from the desperate fundies.

It relies soley on faith.

Not unlike the faith you have in science.

bullshit!

: Several people have written that they have thoroughly studied both creation and evolution and find that both are forms of faith in that they assume events that occurred before the time of man. They both have an element of trust needed to believe that either are correct or incorrect. Please comment.

Panelist Responses: < back to intro page


Francisco Ayala

First, the way in which the word "faith" is used by the person who poses the question is quite different in science and in religious beliefs. All scientific constructs or so-called theories are constructs of the mind. In that sense, we accept them just in terms of whatever evidence we can gather in their favor or against them. In the case of scientific theories, what we do is to formulate them in such a way that they can be used to make predictions about the states of affairs in the real world. And then we do confirm or corroborate the theories by making those observations or experiments that deal with predictions derived from the theories.

So if we have a theory, which is a construct of the mind, and we are able to corroborate it or reject it by subjecting it to verification or corroboration, as I said, we're confronting it with observations or experiments that we make. Religious faith belongs to a completely different realm of knowledge. In the case of faith, we are accepting revelation or teachings that we do not expect to corroborate in an empirical way. We corroborate them or accept them in terms of the implications they may have, the effects they may have for our own personal life and the life of other individuals.

But this is a very different kind of corroboration from what we do in science, where any experiment or observation made in favor or against a theory can, in turn, be confirmed or rejected by other individuals. That is, it is possible always to replicate the observations or to make alternate observations derived from the same theory. In the case of religious faith, we don't have this kind of experimental verification, the possibility of subjecting theories to verification by reproducible testing, the possibility of having other individuals doing the same observations for experiment.


Robert Pollack

As a scientist I would argue that, as Ronald Reagan said famously about dealing with the Soviet Union, "trust but verify." It is necessary to trust in both cases, but in the case of science it is possible to verify what one trusts is so, by the accumulation of predictions tested by experiments which generate results predicted by the model. This notion that your faith can be buttressed by evidence is the difference between science as a human enterprise, a "faith," if you will, and other faiths, which depend on equally strong certainty emerging from within, but not testable by evidence.

Now within a religion, one may say the evidence is that which stands off from nature. So a miracle is, in a sense, evidence for faith. And the singular moment of creation instantaneously is, in fact, a miraculous event outside the laws of science as we understand them. So if one has the faith that that happened, it is indeed a valid faith, but it is not testable by science. That makes the faith of creation different from the evidence for natural selection and a single, natural origin of the universe and life within it.

The reasons for the emergence of the curiosity that generates evidence in science are similar, I think, to the reasons that allow the emergence of religious faith. That is, we are a species that must give meaning to our surroundings. But these -- science and religious faith -- are different tools that generate different results because they start from different premises. No serious religious person, I think, is a believer because of the proof they have from nature; they are believers because of the certainty they have in their hearts.

Evolution: Religion: Science and Faith

Nope,design is not achieved by miracles it is achieved by purposefl design. If you believe as you do you had to rely on miracles that can't be duplicated in the labs around the world. Even if the labs achieve it was done by intelligence and purposeful design.

 

[Youwerecreated]

This is what I don't understand about this thread:


If you were hypothetically able to completely debunk evolution or the big bang theory, that would not do anything to prove
1.) God's existence
2.) that God created the universe
3.) and that God created life or mankind

You still need to actually prove these positive claims yourself. The tactic here seems to be that for any point won against evolution, is a point for creationism. But this is epistemically incoherent. This is not a zero sum game. The assumption with creationists is that evolution and creation are diametrically opposed, and that by debunking one, you prove the other. Logic 101 says otherwise.

Yes the bible alone prevents us in believing in this theory not to mention all the rational view on the evidence.

wrong! the bible has no intrinsic power it's an inanimate (Definition of INANIMATE
1: not animate: a : not endowed with life or spirit <an inanimate object> b : lacking consciousness or power of motion <an inanimate body>
object.
any actions or thoughts attributed to it are in them mind of the reader.
by definition a supernatural view of evidence is NOT rational.

I believe what the scriptures say.

 

[Youwerecreated]

The paradigm of ID / creationism is inherently illogical as it relies on supernaturalism and magic. Certainly, it is true that the two creationists posture their arguments for supermagical intervention of their gods as attacks on science and rationality. That is the hopeless position of ID creationism. There is no positive assertion of supernaturalism available so the arguments for supermagicalism devolves into strident and, as we see so often, screaming, juvenile name-calling from the desperate fundies.

Give us the miracle you believe that cause the beginning of life. I believe the creator did not use miracles like any other designer.

another false comparison ...

A miracle (Definition of MIRACLE
1: an extraordinary event manifesting divine intervention in human affairs )
assumes facts not in evidence i.e. an intention.

Dodge!

So the persons that designed cars or medicine used miracles ?

 

[daws101]

Wrong that was just going from one creature you claim we are related to, the ape. If you use the argument that all organisms are related which you have to since all life origionated from one source, Your sides argument is DNA similarity proves ancestry. So we all came from the same genepool and according to evolutionist we are definitely in the ape genepool. Now actually the answer why these traits did not get passed on to humans or if the ape evoleved from us how did they end up with the superior traits why didn't they end up with brains like ours ?

could you possibly rewrite this post in english and not when you are drunk or on your meds ?

1.apes did not evolve FROM US you asshat!
we (apes and humans share a common ancestor BUT took separate evolutionary paths)
once again your willful ignorance shines.

Unraveling Where Chimp And Human Brains Diverge
ScienceDaily (Nov. 17, 2006) — Six million years ago, chimpanzees and humans diverged from a common ancestor and evolved into unique species. Now UCLA scientists have identified a new way to pinpoint the genes that separate us from our closest living relative -- and make us uniquely human. The Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences reports the study in its Nov. 13 online edition.


"We share more than 95 percent of our genetic blueprint with chimps," explained Dr. Daniel Geschwind, principal investigator and Gordon and Virginia MacDonald Distinguished Professor of Human Genetics at the David Geffen School of Medicine. "What sets us apart from chimps are our brains: homo sapiens means 'the knowing man.'

"During evolution, changes in some genes altered how the human brain functions," he added. "Our research has identified an entirely new way to identify those genes in the small portion of our DNA that differs from the chimpanzee's."

By evaluating the correlated activity of thousands of genes, the UCLA team identified not just individual genes, but entire networks of interconnected genes whose expression patterns within the brains of humans varied from those in the chimpanzee.

"Genes don't operate in isolation -- each functions within a system of related genes," said first author Michael Oldham, UCLA genetics researcher. "If we examined each gene individually, it would be similar to reading every fifth word in a paragraph -- you don't get to see how each word relates to the other. So instead we used a systems biology approach to study each gene within its context."

The scientists identified networks of genes that correspond to specific brain regions. When they compared these networks between humans and chimps, they found that the gene networks differed the most widely in the cerebral cortex -- the brain's most highly evolved region, which is three times larger in humans than chimps.

Secondly, the researchers discovered that many of the genes that play a central role in cerebral cortex networks in humans, but not in the chimpanzee, also show significant changes at the DNA level.

"When we see alterations in a gene network that correspond to functional changes in the genome, it implies that these differences are very meaningful," said Oldham. "This finding supports the theory that variations in the DNA sequence contributed to human evolution."

Relying on a new analytical approach developed by corresponding author Steve Horvath, UCLA associate professor of human genetics and biostatistics, the UCLA team used data from DNA microarrays -- vast collections of tiny DNA spots -- to map the activity of virtually every gene in the genome simultaneously. By comparing gene activity in different areas of the brain, the team identified gene networks that correlated to specific brain regions. Then they compared the strength of these correlations between humans and chimps.

Many of the human-specific gene networks identified by the scientists related to learning, brain cell activity and energy metabolism.

"If you view the brain as the body's engine, our findings suggest that the human brain fires like a 12-cylinder engine, while the chimp brain works more like a 6-cylinder engine," explained Geschwind. "It's possible that our genes adapted to allow our brains to increase in size, operate at different speeds, metabolize energy faster and enhance connections between brain cells across different brain regions."

Future UCLA studies will focus on linking the expression of evolutionary genes to specific regions of the brain, such as those that regulate language, speech and other uniquely human abilities.

The study was supported by the James S. McDonnell Foundation, the National Institute of Neurological Disorders and Stroke, and the National Institute of Mental Health.

Unraveling Where Chimp And Human Brains Diverge


origin and related don't mean what you wish them to mean.

More conjecture

Are we realated to apes ?did apes come before humans? who evolved from who ? why do humans have different superior survival traits over our ape relatives ? Why do apes have superior survival traits that humans don't have ?

asked and answerd asshat:apes did not evolve FROM US you asshat!
we (apes and humans share a common ancestor BUT took separate evolutionary paths)
once again your willful ignorance shines.


why do humans have different superior survival traits over our ape relatives ? Why do apes have superior survival traits that humans don't have ?YWC

separate evolutionary paths
apes do not have Superior survival traits then humans, they have just the traits needed to survive and reproduce nothing more.
the same is true of humans.
different evolutionary paths different dominate traits.
as always you're comparing apples to screwdrivers

 

[daws101]

It relies soley on faith.

Not unlike the faith you have in science.

bullshit!

: Several people have written that they have thoroughly studied both creation and evolution and find that both are forms of faith in that they assume events that occurred before the time of man. They both have an element of trust needed to believe that either are correct or incorrect. Please comment.

Panelist Responses: < back to intro page


Francisco Ayala

First, the way in which the word "faith" is used by the person who poses the question is quite different in science and in religious beliefs. All scientific constructs or so-called theories are constructs of the mind. In that sense, we accept them just in terms of whatever evidence we can gather in their favor or against them. In the case of scientific theories, what we do is to formulate them in such a way that they can be used to make predictions about the states of affairs in the real world. And then we do confirm or corroborate the theories by making those observations or experiments that deal with predictions derived from the theories.

So if we have a theory, which is a construct of the mind, and we are able to corroborate it or reject it by subjecting it to verification or corroboration, as I said, we're confronting it with observations or experiments that we make. Religious faith belongs to a completely different realm of knowledge. In the case of faith, we are accepting revelation or teachings that we do not expect to corroborate in an empirical way. We corroborate them or accept them in terms of the implications they may have, the effects they may have for our own personal life and the life of other individuals.

But this is a very different kind of corroboration from what we do in science, where any experiment or observation made in favor or against a theory can, in turn, be confirmed or rejected by other individuals. That is, it is possible always to replicate the observations or to make alternate observations derived from the same theory. In the case of religious faith, we don't have this kind of experimental verification, the possibility of subjecting theories to verification by reproducible testing, the possibility of having other individuals doing the same observations for experiment.


Robert Pollack

As a scientist I would argue that, as Ronald Reagan said famously about dealing with the Soviet Union, "trust but verify." It is necessary to trust in both cases, but in the case of science it is possible to verify what one trusts is so, by the accumulation of predictions tested by experiments which generate results predicted by the model. This notion that your faith can be buttressed by evidence is the difference between science as a human enterprise, a "faith," if you will, and other faiths, which depend on equally strong certainty emerging from within, but not testable by evidence.

Now within a religion, one may say the evidence is that which stands off from nature. So a miracle is, in a sense, evidence for faith. And the singular moment of creation instantaneously is, in fact, a miraculous event outside the laws of science as we understand them. So if one has the faith that that happened, it is indeed a valid faith, but it is not testable by science. That makes the faith of creation different from the evidence for natural selection and a single, natural origin of the universe and life within it.

The reasons for the emergence of the curiosity that generates evidence in science are similar, I think, to the reasons that allow the emergence of religious faith. That is, we are a species that must give meaning to our surroundings. But these -- science and religious faith -- are different tools that generate different results because they start from different premises. No serious religious person, I think, is a believer because of the proof they have from nature; they are believers because of the certainty they have in their hearts.

Evolution: Religion: Science and Faith

Reading comprehension is your friend.

true! you should take a course in it!

 

[daws101]

It relies soley on faith.

Not unlike the faith you have in science.

bullshit!

: Several people have written that they have thoroughly studied both creation and evolution and find that both are forms of faith in that they assume events that occurred before the time of man. They both have an element of trust needed to believe that either are correct or incorrect. Please comment.

Panelist Responses: < back to intro page


Francisco Ayala

First, the way in which the word "faith" is used by the person who poses the question is quite different in science and in religious beliefs. All scientific constructs or so-called theories are constructs of the mind. In that sense, we accept them just in terms of whatever evidence we can gather in their favor or against them. In the case of scientific theories, what we do is to formulate them in such a way that they can be used to make predictions about the states of affairs in the real world. And then we do confirm or corroborate the theories by making those observations or experiments that deal with predictions derived from the theories.

So if we have a theory, which is a construct of the mind, and we are able to corroborate it or reject it by subjecting it to verification or corroboration, as I said, we're confronting it with observations or experiments that we make. Religious faith belongs to a completely different realm of knowledge. In the case of faith, we are accepting revelation or teachings that we do not expect to corroborate in an empirical way. We corroborate them or accept them in terms of the implications they may have, the effects they may have for our own personal life and the life of other individuals.

But this is a very different kind of corroboration from what we do in science, where any experiment or observation made in favor or against a theory can, in turn, be confirmed or rejected by other individuals. That is, it is possible always to replicate the observations or to make alternate observations derived from the same theory. In the case of religious faith, we don't have this kind of experimental verification, the possibility of subjecting theories to verification by reproducible testing, the possibility of having other individuals doing the same observations for experiment.


Robert Pollack

As a scientist I would argue that, as Ronald Reagan said famously about dealing with the Soviet Union, "trust but verify." It is necessary to trust in both cases, but in the case of science it is possible to verify what one trusts is so, by the accumulation of predictions tested by experiments which generate results predicted by the model. This notion that your faith can be buttressed by evidence is the difference between science as a human enterprise, a "faith," if you will, and other faiths, which depend on equally strong certainty emerging from within, but not testable by evidence.

Now within a religion, one may say the evidence is that which stands off from nature. So a miracle is, in a sense, evidence for faith. And the singular moment of creation instantaneously is, in fact, a miraculous event outside the laws of science as we understand them. So if one has the faith that that happened, it is indeed a valid faith, but it is not testable by science. That makes the faith of creation different from the evidence for natural selection and a single, natural origin of the universe and life within it.

The reasons for the emergence of the curiosity that generates evidence in science are similar, I think, to the reasons that allow the emergence of religious faith. That is, we are a species that must give meaning to our surroundings. But these -- science and religious faith -- are different tools that generate different results because they start from different premises. No serious religious person, I think, is a believer because of the proof they have from nature; they are believers because of the certainty they have in their hearts.

Evolution: Religion: Science and Faith

Nope,design is not achieved by miracles it is achieved by purposefl design. If you believe as you do you had to rely on miracles that can't be duplicated in the labs around the world. Even if the labs achieve it was done by intelligence and purposeful design.

nope what? another false comparison ...

A miracle (Definition of MIRACLE
1: an extraordinary event manifesting divine intervention in human affairs )
assumes facts not in evidence i.e. an intention.
Today 12:39 PM

 

[Hollie]

This is what I don't understand about this thread:


If you were hypothetically able to completely debunk evolution or the big bang theory, that would not do anything to prove
1.) God's existence
2.) that God created the universe
3.) and that God created life or mankind

You still need to actually prove these positive claims yourself. The tactic here seems to be that for any point won against evolution, is a point for creationism. But this is epistemically incoherent. This is not a zero sum game. The assumption with creationists is that evolution and creation are diametrically opposed, and that by debunking one, you prove the other. Logic 101 says otherwise.

The paradigm of ID / creationism is inherently illogical as it relies on supernaturalism and magic. Certainly, it is true that the two creationists posture their arguments for supermagical intervention of their gods as attacks on science and rationality. That is the hopeless position of ID creationism. There is no positive assertion of supernaturalism available so the arguments for supermagicalism devolves into strident and, as we see so often, screaming, juvenile name-calling from the desperate fundies.

Give us the miracle you believe that cause the beginning of life. I believe the creator did not use miracles like any other designer.

There is no reason to believe a "miracle" was required for life to begin. As usual, you dodge and sidestep the functional reality that "miracles" are of myth and legend.

You dwell in this fantasy world of miracles, supernaturalism, designer gods surrounded by fat, naked babies playing harps and winged horses pulling chariots, cruising through the clouds. These are the takes and fables you were taught as a child and you believe them still.

It's interesting to note that had you been raised in a different culture, you would have simply accepted the tales and fables of that predominant society. Had you been raised in the Islamic Middle East, I can easily envision you being one of the many clones spilling out of a madrassah on a mission for muhammud.

This "creator" you posit is a mere recycled version of many earlier "creators", " designer gods" and mythical figures. Get to the back of the line with your gods. Scoot!

 

[Youwerecreated]

No. There is no requirement for faith in science.

Have your gods created a life form out of nothing? There is no reason to believe your claims to supermagicalism.

Your "I don't think so" claim regarding evolutionary processes is consistent with a religious claim that only through supermagical processes could life have magically popped into existence, however, in the grown-up world, "magic" is decidedly an unreliable explanation

Purposeful design does not require miracles your theory does, get it ?

again no proof of purpose or design.

get it?

There is plenty of evidence of purposeful design.

Can you imagine life absent of any of these.

1.DNA
2. Amino acids
3. Proteins
4. Heart
5. Lungs
6. Blood
7. Veins
8. Bones
9. Liver
10. Red an White blood cells
11. A nervous system
12. A brain that runs the nervous system
13. Oxygen
14. Water

Yes if you hold on to your views you believe in miracles.

 

[daws101]

Yes the bible alone prevents us in believing in this theory not to mention all the rational view on the evidence.

wrong! the bible has no intrinsic power it's an inanimate (Definition of INANIMATE
1: not animate: a : not endowed with life or spirit <an inanimate object> b : lacking consciousness or power of motion <an inanimate body>
object.
any actions or thoughts attributed to it are in them mind of the reader.
by definition a supernatural view of evidence is NOT rational.

I believe what the scriptures say.

that's no proof and a shitty argument.

 

[Youwerecreated]

could you possibly rewrite this post in english and not when you are drunk or on your meds ?

1.apes did not evolve FROM US you asshat!
we (apes and humans share a common ancestor BUT took separate evolutionary paths)
once again your willful ignorance shines.

Unraveling Where Chimp And Human Brains Diverge
ScienceDaily (Nov. 17, 2006) — Six million years ago, chimpanzees and humans diverged from a common ancestor and evolved into unique species. Now UCLA scientists have identified a new way to pinpoint the genes that separate us from our closest living relative -- and make us uniquely human. The Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences reports the study in its Nov. 13 online edition.


"We share more than 95 percent of our genetic blueprint with chimps," explained Dr. Daniel Geschwind, principal investigator and Gordon and Virginia MacDonald Distinguished Professor of Human Genetics at the David Geffen School of Medicine. "What sets us apart from chimps are our brains: homo sapiens means 'the knowing man.'

"During evolution, changes in some genes altered how the human brain functions," he added. "Our research has identified an entirely new way to identify those genes in the small portion of our DNA that differs from the chimpanzee's."

By evaluating the correlated activity of thousands of genes, the UCLA team identified not just individual genes, but entire networks of interconnected genes whose expression patterns within the brains of humans varied from those in the chimpanzee.

"Genes don't operate in isolation -- each functions within a system of related genes," said first author Michael Oldham, UCLA genetics researcher. "If we examined each gene individually, it would be similar to reading every fifth word in a paragraph -- you don't get to see how each word relates to the other. So instead we used a systems biology approach to study each gene within its context."

The scientists identified networks of genes that correspond to specific brain regions. When they compared these networks between humans and chimps, they found that the gene networks differed the most widely in the cerebral cortex -- the brain's most highly evolved region, which is three times larger in humans than chimps.

Secondly, the researchers discovered that many of the genes that play a central role in cerebral cortex networks in humans, but not in the chimpanzee, also show significant changes at the DNA level.

"When we see alterations in a gene network that correspond to functional changes in the genome, it implies that these differences are very meaningful," said Oldham. "This finding supports the theory that variations in the DNA sequence contributed to human evolution."

Relying on a new analytical approach developed by corresponding author Steve Horvath, UCLA associate professor of human genetics and biostatistics, the UCLA team used data from DNA microarrays -- vast collections of tiny DNA spots -- to map the activity of virtually every gene in the genome simultaneously. By comparing gene activity in different areas of the brain, the team identified gene networks that correlated to specific brain regions. Then they compared the strength of these correlations between humans and chimps.

Many of the human-specific gene networks identified by the scientists related to learning, brain cell activity and energy metabolism.

"If you view the brain as the body's engine, our findings suggest that the human brain fires like a 12-cylinder engine, while the chimp brain works more like a 6-cylinder engine," explained Geschwind. "It's possible that our genes adapted to allow our brains to increase in size, operate at different speeds, metabolize energy faster and enhance connections between brain cells across different brain regions."

Future UCLA studies will focus on linking the expression of evolutionary genes to specific regions of the brain, such as those that regulate language, speech and other uniquely human abilities.

The study was supported by the James S. McDonnell Foundation, the National Institute of Neurological Disorders and Stroke, and the National Institute of Mental Health.

Unraveling Where Chimp And Human Brains Diverge


origin and related don't mean what you wish them to mean.

More conjecture

Are we realated to apes ?did apes come before humans? who evolved from who ? why do humans have different superior survival traits over our ape relatives ? Why do apes have superior survival traits that humans don't have ?

asked and answerd asshat:apes did not evolve FROM US you asshat!
we (apes and humans share a common ancestor BUT took separate evolutionary paths)
once again your willful ignorance shines.


why do humans have different superior survival traits over our ape relatives ? Why do apes have superior survival traits that humans don't have ?YWC

separate evolutionary paths
apes do not have Superior survival traits then humans, they have just the traits needed to survive and reproduce nothing more.
the same is true of humans.
different evolutionary paths different dominate traits.
as always you're comparing apples to screwdrivers

Talk about ignorance,if we share a common ancestor we share common traits.

 

[Hollie]

could you possibly rewrite this post in english and not when you are drunk or on your meds ?

1.apes did not evolve FROM US you asshat!
we (apes and humans share a common ancestor BUT took separate evolutionary paths)
once again your willful ignorance shines.

Unraveling Where Chimp And Human Brains Diverge
ScienceDaily (Nov. 17, 2006) — Six million years ago, chimpanzees and humans diverged from a common ancestor and evolved into unique species. Now UCLA scientists have identified a new way to pinpoint the genes that separate us from our closest living relative -- and make us uniquely human. The Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences reports the study in its Nov. 13 online edition.


"We share more than 95 percent of our genetic blueprint with chimps," explained Dr. Daniel Geschwind, principal investigator and Gordon and Virginia MacDonald Distinguished Professor of Human Genetics at the David Geffen School of Medicine. "What sets us apart from chimps are our brains: homo sapiens means 'the knowing man.'

"During evolution, changes in some genes altered how the human brain functions," he added. "Our research has identified an entirely new way to identify those genes in the small portion of our DNA that differs from the chimpanzee's."

By evaluating the correlated activity of thousands of genes, the UCLA team identified not just individual genes, but entire networks of interconnected genes whose expression patterns within the brains of humans varied from those in the chimpanzee.

"Genes don't operate in isolation -- each functions within a system of related genes," said first author Michael Oldham, UCLA genetics researcher. "If we examined each gene individually, it would be similar to reading every fifth word in a paragraph -- you don't get to see how each word relates to the other. So instead we used a systems biology approach to study each gene within its context."

The scientists identified networks of genes that correspond to specific brain regions. When they compared these networks between humans and chimps, they found that the gene networks differed the most widely in the cerebral cortex -- the brain's most highly evolved region, which is three times larger in humans than chimps.

Secondly, the researchers discovered that many of the genes that play a central role in cerebral cortex networks in humans, but not in the chimpanzee, also show significant changes at the DNA level.

"When we see alterations in a gene network that correspond to functional changes in the genome, it implies that these differences are very meaningful," said Oldham. "This finding supports the theory that variations in the DNA sequence contributed to human evolution."

Relying on a new analytical approach developed by corresponding author Steve Horvath, UCLA associate professor of human genetics and biostatistics, the UCLA team used data from DNA microarrays -- vast collections of tiny DNA spots -- to map the activity of virtually every gene in the genome simultaneously. By comparing gene activity in different areas of the brain, the team identified gene networks that correlated to specific brain regions. Then they compared the strength of these correlations between humans and chimps.

Many of the human-specific gene networks identified by the scientists related to learning, brain cell activity and energy metabolism.

"If you view the brain as the body's engine, our findings suggest that the human brain fires like a 12-cylinder engine, while the chimp brain works more like a 6-cylinder engine," explained Geschwind. "It's possible that our genes adapted to allow our brains to increase in size, operate at different speeds, metabolize energy faster and enhance connections between brain cells across different brain regions."

Future UCLA studies will focus on linking the expression of evolutionary genes to specific regions of the brain, such as those that regulate language, speech and other uniquely human abilities.

The study was supported by the James S. McDonnell Foundation, the National Institute of Neurological Disorders and Stroke, and the National Institute of Mental Health.

Unraveling Where Chimp And Human Brains Diverge


origin and related don't mean what you wish them to mean.

More conjecture

Are we realated to apes ?did apes come before humans? who evolved from who ? why do humans have different superior survival traits over our ape relatives ? Why do apes have superior survival traits that humans don't have ?

asked and answerd asshat:apes did not evolve FROM US you asshat!
we (apes and humans share a common ancestor BUT took separate evolutionary paths)
once again your willful ignorance shines.


why do humans have different superior survival traits over our ape relatives ? Why do apes have superior survival traits that humans don't have ?YWC

separate evolutionary paths
apes do not have Superior survival traits then humans, they have just the traits needed to survive and reproduce nothing more.
the same is true of humans.
different evolutionary paths different dominate traits.
as always you're comparing apples to screwdrivers

What is most troubling about fundies such as ywc are his calculated and purposeful lies about accepted evolutionary science.

 

[daws101]

Give us the miracle you believe that cause the beginning of life. I believe the creator did not use miracles like any other designer.

another false comparison ...

A miracle (Definition of MIRACLE
1: an extraordinary event manifesting divine intervention in human affairs )
assumes facts not in evidence i.e. an intention.

Dodge!

So the persons that designed cars or medicine used miracles ?

false comparison

there is no actual proof that A paranormal sentient life form designed anything.
attempting to argue it's existence with nothing but faith ...is fucking ignorant.

 

[Hollie]

More conjecture

Are we realated to apes ?did apes come before humans? who evolved from who ? why do humans have different superior survival traits over our ape relatives ? Why do apes have superior survival traits that humans don't have ?

asked and answerd asshat:apes did not evolve FROM US you asshat!
we (apes and humans share a common ancestor BUT took separate evolutionary paths)
once again your willful ignorance shines.


why do humans have different superior survival traits over our ape relatives ? Why do apes have superior survival traits that humans don't have ?YWC

separate evolutionary paths
apes do not have Superior survival traits then humans, they have just the traits needed to survive and reproduce nothing more.
the same is true of humans.
different evolutionary paths different dominate traits.
as always you're comparing apples to screwdrivers

Talk about ignorance,if we share a common ancestor we share common traits.

Some. Yes.

Consider that your first lesson.

 

[Lonestar_logic]

bullshit!

: Several people have written that they have thoroughly studied both creation and evolution and find that both are forms of faith in that they assume events that occurred before the time of man. They both have an element of trust needed to believe that either are correct or incorrect. Please comment.

Panelist Responses: < back to intro page


Francisco Ayala

First, the way in which the word "faith" is used by the person who poses the question is quite different in science and in religious beliefs. All scientific constructs or so-called theories are constructs of the mind. In that sense, we accept them just in terms of whatever evidence we can gather in their favor or against them. In the case of scientific theories, what we do is to formulate them in such a way that they can be used to make predictions about the states of affairs in the real world. And then we do confirm or corroborate the theories by making those observations or experiments that deal with predictions derived from the theories.

So if we have a theory, which is a construct of the mind, and we are able to corroborate it or reject it by subjecting it to verification or corroboration, as I said, we're confronting it with observations or experiments that we make. Religious faith belongs to a completely different realm of knowledge. In the case of faith, we are accepting revelation or teachings that we do not expect to corroborate in an empirical way. We corroborate them or accept them in terms of the implications they may have, the effects they may have for our own personal life and the life of other individuals.

But this is a very different kind of corroboration from what we do in science, where any experiment or observation made in favor or against a theory can, in turn, be confirmed or rejected by other individuals. That is, it is possible always to replicate the observations or to make alternate observations derived from the same theory. In the case of religious faith, we don't have this kind of experimental verification, the possibility of subjecting theories to verification by reproducible testing, the possibility of having other individuals doing the same observations for experiment.


Robert Pollack

As a scientist I would argue that, as Ronald Reagan said famously about dealing with the Soviet Union, "trust but verify." It is necessary to trust in both cases, but in the case of science it is possible to verify what one trusts is so, by the accumulation of predictions tested by experiments which generate results predicted by the model. This notion that your faith can be buttressed by evidence is the difference between science as a human enterprise, a "faith," if you will, and other faiths, which depend on equally strong certainty emerging from within, but not testable by evidence.

Now within a religion, one may say the evidence is that which stands off from nature. So a miracle is, in a sense, evidence for faith. And the singular moment of creation instantaneously is, in fact, a miraculous event outside the laws of science as we understand them. So if one has the faith that that happened, it is indeed a valid faith, but it is not testable by science. That makes the faith of creation different from the evidence for natural selection and a single, natural origin of the universe and life within it.

The reasons for the emergence of the curiosity that generates evidence in science are similar, I think, to the reasons that allow the emergence of religious faith. That is, we are a species that must give meaning to our surroundings. But these -- science and religious faith -- are different tools that generate different results because they start from different premises. No serious religious person, I think, is a believer because of the proof they have from nature; they are believers because of the certainty they have in their hearts.

Evolution: Religion: Science and Faith

Reading comprehension is your friend.

true! you should take a course in it!

You're the one needing it .

You took a lot of words to basically say the same thing I said. The faith you have in evolution isn't unlike the faith I have in creationism.

Why is there no recorded history before app. 4000 BC?

If mankind evolved from the same primitive life source, then why are there 7000 different languages spoken? Did they not communicate?

 

[daws101]

Purposeful design does not require miracles your theory does, get it ?

again no proof of purpose or design.

get it?

There is plenty of evidence of purposeful design.

Can you imagine life absent of any of these.

1.DNA
2. Amino acids
3. Proteins
4. Heart
5. Lungs
6. Blood
7. Veins
8. Bones
9. Liver
10. Red an White blood cells
11. A nervous system
12. A brain that runs the nervous system
13. Oxygen
14. Water

Yes if you hold on to your views you believe in miracles.

since I don't "believe" your insistence that I do is just more desperate ignorance..
as to your list, none of it is proof of conjecture or purposeful design.
BTW, how long are we going to have to put up with your soup of the day buzz words,
(purposeful design.and miracles.) before you have an epiphany and realize we're not buying the bullshit?

 

[Hollie]

again no proof of purpose or design.

get it?

There is plenty of evidence of purposeful design.

Can you imagine life absent of any of these.

1.DNA
2. Amino acids
3. Proteins
4. Heart
5. Lungs
6. Blood
7. Veins
8. Bones
9. Liver
10. Red an White blood cells
11. A nervous system
12. A brain that runs the nervous system
13. Oxygen
14. Water

Yes if you hold on to your views you believe in miracles.

since I don't "believe" your insistence that I do is just more desperate ignorance..
as to your list, none of it is proof of conjecture or purposeful design.
BTW, how long are we going to have to put up with your soup of the day buzz words,
(purposeful design.and miracles.) before you have an epiphany and realize we're not buying the bullshit?

I'm curious to know if un-purposeful design (those oops moments that the gods get now and then), would be:

1. Blueprint for the cancer cell
2. AIDS virus
3. The rotation of the planet (tornadoes and such)
4. Movement of tectonic plates (earthquakes and such)

What, the gods never heard of "review your work", like we all got in grammar school?