Evolution

[Achilles]

besides the numbered part of Hovind's article were the definitions of evolution,

Nope, not even close. Hovind does not get to arbitrarily decide what evolution is.

 

there is only one kind of evolution that is observed today, micro-evolution

"Micro-evolution" is a term created by creationists. There is evolution. Some of it can be observed directly and some of it cannot because of human life expectancies, etc. It's all the same process.

 

and, if evolution is true then how do we judge right from wrong?

This isn't a question for evolution, it's a question for moral philosophy.

[M@RS]

nope you're wrong this time... his definitions were from a dictionary, look it up, and yes my last question is relevant so answer it because you seem hesitant

 

what are you a professor or something?!

[Achilles]

nope you're wrong this time... his definitions were from a dictionary, look it up,

He found "Theory of Evolution" in a dictionary? I doubt it.

 

and yes my last question is relevant so answer it because you seem hesitant

It is not relevant for reasons I have already provided.

 

The Theory of Evolution explains biological processes. Not cosmology, not chemistry, not philosophy. Biology.

[M@RS]

I was talking about the definition of "evolution"

 

and you're still not answering my question makes me wonder if you can't, and if you can then answer it regardless of if it's relevant or not just answer it...

 

Stop baiting people into going into off-topic discussion. As Achilles said, if you want to discuss morals, go to the appropriate thread. Do not derail it from the original topic.

 

~9

[Achilles]

I was talking about the definition of "evolution"

But he's trying to discount the Theory of Evolution right? If he's concerned about the dictionary's use of the word "evolution" (ambiguous), then he needs a requirement for geo-political economics too doesn't he (: a process of gradual and relatively peaceful social, political, and economic advance)?

 

Can't have it both ways.

 

and you're still not answering my question makes me wonder if you can't, and if you can then answer it regardless of if it's relevant or not just answer it...

No sir, I am quite prepared to discuss moral philosophy in the thread of your choosing, however it has no place and no relevance here.

[M@RS]

you won't answer it because you can't and you know it just humor me and watch these videos (all of them) it may take a few days, it is Kent Hovind and you need to watch these to understand where I'm coming from... He does talk against taxes and that's wrong because in the bible it says give to caesar what belongs to him and give to God what belongs to God, so eat the meat and spit out the bones, watch them though and it will all make sense...

 

http://www.blueletterbible.org/audio_video/hovind_kent/creation/creation_template.html

[Achilles]

you won't answer it because you can't and you know it

There are multiple ethics threads here the Senate Chambers. Feel free to resurrect any of them that you wish.

 

just humor me and watch these videos (all of them) it may take a few days

I've watch Kent Hovind's videos. I know what he says and his arguments have already been discounted (repeatedly). He really doesn't have any idea what he's talking about.

 

If you like see some of specific critiques, try

.

[M@RS]

it was blocked I have an internet blocker and yes Hovind does know what he's talking about, he's spent over 30 years studying science he was even a science teacher for 15 years yes he does know what he's talking about...:|

[Achilles]

it was blocked I have an internet blocker and yes Hovind does know what he's talking about, he's spent over 30 years studying science he was even a science teacher for 15 years yes he does know what he's talking about...:|

What Hovind taught was not "science"

He taught "creation science" at baptist school that did not require teaching credentials.

 

Now either you have some arguments to discuss here or you don't. Which is it?

[Rev7]

What Hovind taught was not "science"

He taught "creation science" at baptist school that did not require teaching credentials.

Well, it still technically has 'science' in it.

 

I don't really want to get in to a heated discussion, and I don't feel like getting on anyones bad side.

 

My question is:

 

Why are we humans so special?

 

We are the smartest species on this planet, so why aren't all other creatures on this Earth as smart as us? (I guess that you could say that this is a really 'loose' question...I guess....)

 

I know that evolution is a change over a long period of time. I don't deny that this has happened. The human race has changed over time. I just don't think that, well we happened by chance.

 

M@RS-- You should probably stick to the subject. You probably shouldn't go overboard either...

[M@RS]

thanks man and we are special because God made us in his image and didn't want any other

species to be smarter, but from what I've observed evolution tries to make us simply animals and that we can act like them too, no wonder the murder has spike up and sex out of marriage too, mankind is going to be judged, Billy Graham says that if God doesn't judge us soon then he'll have to apologize to Sodom an Gomorrah yes we've adapted to certain things and have gained more knowledge (electronics) but evolution is a step backwards

[Achilles]

My question is:

 

Why are we humans so special?

I guess I'd have to know what you mean by "special"

 

We are the smartest species on this planet, so why aren't all other creatures on this Earth as smart as us? (I guess that you could say that this is a really 'loose' question...I guess....)

Err, well, you kinda answered your own question in the asking didn't you (if the other species were as smart, then we couldn't be "the smartest" now could we )?

 

Apes can do math.

Dolphins use language and have "names".

Chimps use spears and tools to hunt.

 

There are lots of other intelligent species on the planet. We just happen to be the smartest of them.

[Tyrion]

how do you tell right from wrong?

 

Depends. You can base your moral foundation on religious authority, often consisting of "divine" laws that serve to both establish the authority of the religious sect and to place into scripture the wisdom accumulated through the ages - see the taboo of mixing meat and milk in Judaism. Or, you can attempt to establish an ethical code based on reason, wherein you attempt to judge the outcomes of a given act or event and determine its overall value.

 

We are the smartest species on this planet, so why aren't all other creatures on this Earth as smart as us?

 

We are not, however, the biggest species. We are not the strongest species. We are not the sturdiest species. We are not the species best fit for survival.

 

Intelligence is only one facet of survival, and survival is all that matters for evolution.

[Rev7]

I guess I'd have to know what you mean by "special"

 

Err, well, you kinda answered your own question in the asking didn't you (if the other species were as smart, then we couldn't be "the smartest" now could we )?

 

Apes can do math.

Dolphins use language and have "names".

Chimps use spears and tools to hunt.

 

There are lots of other intelligent species on the planet. We just happen to be the smartest of them.

I think that you are being too technical.

 

I really just wanted this discussion to get moving, and I guess that I was trying to ask why we are the only 'smart', so to say, species out there. I certainly know that monkeys, dolphins, and apes are pretty smart, but they don't have the intelligence that we humans have. I guess a run off of my question would be, why are we all not the same? Mutations?

[Achilles]

I think that you are being too technical.

Not at all. I think I know what you mean by "special" but I rather not assume, especially because if you mean what I think you do then I disagree that we are.

 

I really just wanted this discussion to get moving, and I guess that I was trying to ask why we are the only 'smart', so to say, species out there. I certainly know that monkeys, dolphins, and apes are pretty smart, but they don't have the intelligence that we humans have.

Now I guess I'd have to know what you mean by "intelligence that we humans have". Are you referring to being self-aware (which many animals are) or do you mean "able to do advanced math", etc? I've already pointed out the argument for former, but as for the latter, that's just how the cookie crumbled.

 

I guess a run off of my question would be, why are we all not the same? Mutations?

Precisely. Random mutation and natural selection. At some point in our evolutionary history an ape-like ancestor was born with a mutation. That mutation offered some benefit in the environment and was thus passed on to the next generation. Thousands of generations from there to hear and we go from basic self-awareness to tabloids and professional wrestling (definitely evolved, but I don't know if I'd call it progress ).

[M@RS]

if we are completely evolved then why don't have tails? hmm I could really use and don't say we don't need imagine how nice it would be, you're carrying groceries and can just turn around and open the door with your tail, or drive and text without taking one hand off the steering wheel?

[Tyrion]

if we are completely evolved then why don't have tails? hmm I could really use and don't say we don't need imagine how nice it would be, you're carrying groceries and can just turn around and open the door with your tail, or drive and text without taking one hand off the steering wheel?

 

You can never be "completely evolved." More to the point, evolution is biased towards emphasizing mutations that serve to increase the organism's fitness. A tail would not increase the inherent fitness of a human in daily life, and would in fact act against their survival when others cry witch. As well, evolution is an incredibly long and subtle process. Proliferating a mutation through the gene pool enough to have it well developed in the majority of the population would take many hundreds or thousands of years.

[M@RS]

do you believe in evolution Tyrion or well read of it?

[Achilles]

if we are completely evolved then why don't have tails?

We do, they're simply vestigial. Occasionally a child is born with the genes activated, as seen here:

Luckily there are procedures that can safely remove it at birth. For the rest of us, we just have to settle for having a boring old coccyx

More on human tails

 

hmm I could really use and don't say we don't need imagine how nice it would be, you're carrying groceries and can just turn around and open the door with your tail, or drive and text without taking one hand off the steering wheel?

Right except that tails are typically for balance rather than tensile usage.

[M@RS]

that is not a tail there is fat in the spine and occasionaly the fat is pushed out and it looks like a tail but it's not

[Tyrion]

do you believe in evolution Tyrion or well read of it?

 

I believe in evolution much like I believe the Earth revolves around the sun.

[Achilles]

that is not a tail there is fat in the spine and occasionaly the fat is pushed out and it looks like a tail but it's not

Kent Hovind tell you that?

[Rev7]

We are not, however, the biggest species. We are not the strongest species. We are not the sturdiest species. We are not the species best fit for survival.

 

Intelligence is only one facet of survival, and survival is all that matters for evolution.

This is true. However, I think that we are the superior species. The rhino might be big and tough, but we can still kill it. I guess that you might have the advantage in this area, because of the theory. It is our intelligence that makes us superior to all other species.

Not at all. I think I know what you mean by "special" but I rather not assume, especially because if you mean what I think you do then I disagree that we are.

 

Now I guess I'd have to know what you mean by "intelligence that we humans have". Are you referring to being self-aware (which many animals are) or do you mean "able to do advanced math", etc? I've already pointed out the argument for former, but as for the latter, that's just how the cookie crumbled.

 

Precisely. Random mutation and natural selection. At some point in our evolutionary history an ape-like ancestor was born with a mutation. That mutation offered some benefit in the environment and was thus passed on to the next generation. Thousands of generations from there to hear and we go from basic self-awareness to tabloids and professional wrestling (definitely evolved, but I don't know if I'd call it progress ).

Perhaps, but how do we know for sure that this happened? Are you saying that if I had a son, potentially he could sprout a tail, and grow massive amounts of hair all over his body? How do you know the difference between mutation and defects?

[Achilles]

Perhaps, but how do we know for sure that this happened?

Because that's what all the evidence and research tells us. The discovery of DNA simply confirmed what Darwin predicted.

 

Are you saying that if I had a son, potentially he could sprout a tail, and grow massive amounts of hair all over his body?

Yep. If the right (or should I say "wrong") genes are activated then that could absolutely happen (I provided a picture of a human born with a tail above).

 

How do you know the difference between mutation and defects?

They are the same thing. "Mutation" is what it is. "Defect" is the label that we assign to it. Every human born has undergone "mutations" (as they are not an exact DNA replica of either parent but a unique combination of both parents' DNA). Most are common or otherwise unnoticeable.

[M@RS]

Kent Hovind tell you that?

 

partly but if you look at the picture closely you'll notice that the "tail" is of centered and that happens when the fat from the spines is pushed out

 

also on wikipedia the "More on human tails" article talks about the "tail" when we are embrios is the fat that is pushed into the spine

 

And also what is the missing link? what all of the other "links" half of them where found with human bones the scientists just never say that