2248 replies to this topic

[Riddle]

We are homo sapien sapiens... There is only one human species. that species is homo sapien sapiens. There were competing species that evolved from homo erectus and homo sapien sapiens are the end of the line of the winning species. The racial traits happened long after homo sapien sapiens emerged as the dominant species.

Your point being?

and I never said we didn't evolve from apes. I believe in Intelligent Design. Evolution does not in any way contradict my beliefs.

Yes it does contradict your beliefs. Because evolution DOESNT need an omnipotent being added in the equation for it to work. Infact, it's better to remove it. Unknowns that arent important.

That's right, evolution works perfectly without the need of a creator.

[way2lazy2care]

Your point being?

You said homo sapien sapiens (us) received their racial traits from other homonids, which is false. Racial traits happened for the most part long after other homonids went extinct.

Yes it does contradict your beliefs. Because evolution DOESNT need an omnipotent being added in the equation for it to work. Infact, it's better to remove it. Unknowns that arent important.

That's right, evolution works perfectly without the need of a creator.

So does a car that's already built.

I don't need steak to survive. I still eat steak. The lack of a need for something does not disprove it's existence.

Ugh... There is no specific point. There is no first homo sapien sapien because that whole notion is incompatible with the definition of a species, and with the most basic mechanics of evolution.

There is a first! without a first there can be no second middle current or last one. It is impossible.

Say you have a time Tx and a time Ty. At Tx there are 0 homo sapien sapiens. at Ty there are 1000. It cannot just jump to 1000. Like I said, we are arguing semantics. I fully understand the changes are gradual, but there is a first because there must be a first or we cannot have others.

[Flamescale]

There is a first! without a first there can be no second middle current or last one. It is impossible.

Say you have a time Tx and a time Ty. At Tx there are 0 homo sapien sapiens. at Ty there are 1000. It cannot just jump to 1000. Like I said, we are arguing semantics. I fully understand the changes are gradual, but there is a first because there must be a first or we cannot have others.

You still don't understand what a species is. Based on your misconception you are making incorrect claims. This is not semantics.

Please learn something before you post again on the subject. Tia.

[way2lazy2care]

You still don't understand what a species is. Based on your misconception you are making incorrect claims. This is not semantics.

Please learn something before you post again on the subject. Tia.

I am entirely aware of what a species is. You do not understand how unimportant the argument you are making is to the whole debate nor the fact that neither of us is wrong.

[Flamescale]

If you properly understood the concept you would not even use the term "first homo sapien sapien" since you would realize that is entirely nonsensical. Iunno, maybe something for you to consider next time you brag about your knowledge of evolution.

But by all means continue thinking you understand the issue better than I do and handwave away any criticism as "semantics" or "meaningless".

Edited by Flamescale, 07 April 2010 - 04:59 PM.

[way2lazy2care]

If you properly understood the concept you would not even use the term "first homo sapien sapien" since you would realize that is entirely nonsensical. Iunno, maybe something for you to consider next time you brag about your knowledge of evolution.

But by all means continue thinking you understand the issue better than I do and handwave away any criticism as "semantics" or "meaningless".

ok... lets say that we go all the way back to the first definitively human human. Look at their parents and ask are they human if yes, then the older of their parents is the first. If no then the child is the first. We may not possess the necessary information nor the standards to say which is officially the first, but there is a point where it stops being gray and becomes white even if it might be less than noticeable. And there will probably come a time where we have reached a set of standards where we can say that one thing is definitively human and one is not.

If at one time you have zero, and at a later time you have many, there must have been a first. Which member was first is trivial, but there must have been a first or there would still be none.

[Flamescale]

ok... lets say that we go all the way back to the first definitively human human. Look at their parents and ask are they human if yes, then the older of their parents is the first. If no then the child is the first. We may not possess the necessary information nor the standards to say which is officially the first, but there is a point where it stops being gray and becomes white even if it might be less than noticeable. And there will probably come a time where we have reached a set of standards where we can say that one thing is definitively human and one is not.

If at one time you have zero, and at a later time you have many, there must have been a first. Which member was first is trivial, but there must have been a first or there would still be none.

Yes, thank you for elaborating on how little you understand evolution.

Edited by Flamescale, 07 April 2010 - 05:36 PM.

[way2lazy2care]

Yes, thank you for elaborating on how little you understand evolution.

thank you for not understanding math.

[Riddle]

You said homo sapien sapiens (us) received their racial traits from other homonids, which is false. Racial traits happened for the most part long after other homonids went extinct.

The Neanderthals were alive during the same time modern human beings appeared. Who are you to say that we did not mate with them and pick up the racial trait from them?

And to quote me from one section but miss out an entirely true statement is just a low blow. We picked up traits from other homonids, care to point this out as false? This isnt about defending a theory that we know works and is true, this is about discussing where religion fits in the context of things. When it comes to seeking out the truth, religion is coming up short with proper answers. Not the you got to believe it for it to come true BS.

The lack of a need for something does not disprove it's existence.

Nope, it doesnt. But it is equally unimportant to dwell on something that doesnt affect the outcome no matter what in terms of evolution by natural selection. Therefore god can be discarded.

[way2lazy2care]

The Neanderthals were alive during the same time modern human beings appeared. Who are you to say that we did not mate with them and pick up the racial trait from them?

http://www.nytimes.c...nce/15nean.html

oh the science!

Nope, it doesnt. But it is equally unimportant to dwell on something that doesnt affect the outcome no matter what in terms of evolution by natural selection. Therefore god can be discarded.

you do not affect whether or not I will throw away the tinfoil ball on my table. Therefore you can be discarded. By your own argument, you do not exist.

[Flamescale]

you do not affect whether or not I will throw away the tinfoil ball on my table. Therefore you can be discarded. By your own argument, you do not exist.

His point (and mine, which I made earlier) is that adding God into the equation doesn't help science in any way. Whether or not God exists actually has no bearing on scientific theory, so for all intents and purposes it's simpler to act as if there were no God.

If the theory of evolution works, which it does, what's the point of adding "but maybe god did it" after every sentence?

Edited by Flamescale, 08 April 2010 - 02:30 AM.

[Riddle]

http://www.nytimes.c...nce/15nean.html

oh the science!

Are you beating about the bush? Kindly explain to me why you posted this article. Because all I can deduce from that article is that there are assumptions that are currently unknown. The same assumptions I have made and havent been proven true or false.

Again, what is your point? Stick to the topic of discussion.

[Rob`]

"My church feeds the poor and hungry and comforts the dying, what has your church done?"

Well let's see what have scientists achieved for us.

Discovered the cure to a multitude of diseases and ways of treating incurable diseases.
Discovered methods of treating injuries and disabilities which drastically increase quality of life for the injured/disabled parties involved.
Discovered the means to provide us with electricity.
Discovered the means to provide us with clean water.

I could go on but to put it in the most general way possible, science is what has made our modern international civilization possible.

And as you keep trying to insist that there was a single first homo sapien it is obvious you lack the understanding of what a species is. Allow me to explain why.

Definition: "A group of organisms capable of interbreeding and producing fertile offspring of both genders, and separated from other such groups with which interbreeding does not (normally) happen."

So now let's assume that there is a first homo sapien in generation x, we know that this first homo sapien would be capable of breeding with a member of generation x-1 (not necessarily related by blood) to produce fertile offspring. Therefore there is a homo sapien in generation x-1. Therefore by contradiction there is no first homo sapien.

Edited by Rob`, 08 April 2010 - 06:33 AM.

[way2lazy2care]

Well let's see what have scientists achieved for us.

Discovered the cure to a multitude of diseases and ways of treating incurable diseases.
Discovered methods of treating injuries and disabilities which drastically increase quality of life for the injured/disabled parties involved.
Discovered the means to provide us with electricity.
Discovered the means to provide us with clean water.

I could go on but to put it in the most general way possible, science is what has made our modern international civilization possible.

I am well aware that science has done many good things. I was contradicting the fact that all the good things religion has done seem to get ignored for the bad things it's done, which are even condemned by the current church.

But again, science can do no wrong and religion has done nothing positive to our society.

And as you keep trying to insist that there was a single first homo sapien it is obvious you lack the understanding of what a species is. Allow me to explain why.

Definition: "A group of organisms capable of interbreeding and producing fertile offspring of both genders, and separated from other such groups with which interbreeding does not (normally) happen."

So now let's assume that there is a first homo sapien in generation x, we know that this first homo sapien would be capable of breeding with a member of generation x-1 (not necessarily related by blood) to produce fertile offspring. Therefore there is a homo sapien in generation x-1. Therefore by contradiction there is no first homo sapien.

There is a logical fallacy in this argument. If a homo-sapien sapien can reproduce with generation x-1, x-1 must also be homo-sapien sapien (using your definition of a species). Using induction we cannot have evolved from a previous species, which we know to be false.

Are you beating about the bush? Kindly explain to me why you posted this article. Because all I can deduce from that article is that there are assumptions that are currently unknown. The same assumptions I have made and havent been proven true or false.

you brought it up. I have shown that homo sapiens weren't even in the areas as most other homonids, specifically our closest related species, at the same time as those homonids with scientific evidence. Suddenly my argument is off topic.

[Myth]

There is a logical fallacy in this argument. If a homo-sapien sapien can reproduce with generation x-1, x-1 must also be homo-sapien sapien (using your definition of a species). Using induction we cannot have evolved from a previous species, which we know to be false.

...so you dont think we evolved from previous species because we cant mate with previous species in the homo genus and produce offsprings? evolution doesnt radically change species (at least, of our complexity) suddenly in one giant step. its a gradual change. slight genetic variations of different groups of similar species mix resulting in slightly different genetic make up of their offsprings which act on their phenotype. the different phenotypes are then culled by natural selection over very, very long peroid of time. the ones which survive in the long run may display vastly different characteristics to their ancestors, so great that it could be classified as a different species (or if you're talking much, much longer peroids of time, differnt genus/kingdom/order/class etc). it makes logically sense too if you read into it. you're probably right though- we probably wont be able to produce offsprings if we went back in time and got it off with our ape ancestors millions and millions of years ago. but gradual changes mean we can produce offsprings along the way.

Edited by Myth, 08 April 2010 - 09:14 AM.

[way2lazy2care]

...so you dont think we evolved from previous species because we cant mate with previous species in the homo genus and produce offsprings?

if we can produce hybrid offspring with the previous species naturally, then we shouldn't be a new species.

[Flamescale]

See this is why we don't classify a new species based on a single member, and why trying to say that a particular organism was the first of a species is nonsensical.

I'm hoping now maybe you will realize how ridiculous your arguments have been up to this point; there can't be the first of a species because that goes against the very basic definition of a species. That's really all there is to it.

Edited by Flamescale, 08 April 2010 - 12:37 PM.

[way2lazy2care]

See this is why we don't classify a new species based on a single member, and why trying to say that a particular organism was the first of a species is nonsensical.

so if you classify by a group instead. It stands that there would be an oldest member of that group, and that would be the first.

[Riddle]

I am well aware that science has done many good things. I was contradicting the fact that all the good things religion has done seem to get ignored for the bad things it's done, which are even condemned by the current church.

But again, science can do no wrong and religion has done nothing positive to our society.

It isnt about whether religion has done wrong or right. It's how truthful it can be. And the church rightly gets condemned for the atrocious acts it has done in the past. Specifically when we now know better.

There is a logical fallacy in this argument. If a homo-sapien sapien can reproduce with generation x-1, x-1 must also be homo-sapien sapien (using your definition of a species). Using induction we cannot have evolved from a previous species, which we know to be false.

Sigh.. You are so stubborn..

Think about molding a pot out of clay. You cant really say when the clay first became a pot because from the start to the end, the clay remains a work in progress. All you can do is watch as the pot takes shape/ I would like to see you try to estimate when the clay first became a pot. Nearly impossible. Do you get what we are trying to tell you? Seriously, this has become 'a shove it down your throat' situation with you because your mind cant seem to fathom such simple analogy. It's not that hard to understand.

you brought it up. I have shown that homo sapiens weren't even in the areas as most other homonids, specifically our closest related species, at the same time as those homonids with scientific evidence. Suddenly my argument is off topic.

I didnt bring it up. Stop putting words in my mouth. You were asked to produce some proof of your statement and as a response you produced an article stating the SAME assumptions that I have made. The irony..
Look, it's a logical assumption, modern humans may have mated with other human species, taking on some of their traits in the process. If two species who have millions of years of evolutionary divergence such as a donkey and a horse can mate and produce offspring, who's to say that modern humans could not mate and produce offspring with other human species, especially the neanderthalis who were only evolving separately from us by some 200 thousand years at the very most.

No, you have not shown that homo sapiens werent even in the areas as most other homonids. We were, go check the digging grounds of human fossils. Infact, we have found our ancestors fossils in the same caves as those of other homonids species such as the homo erectus and neanderthals. If that doesnt show enough solid evidence that we were living and breathing in close proximity of other human species, I dont know what else will.

May I suggest that we get back on topic because you are arguing a point that I will not concede and trying and failing to out argue me on this point is wasting yours and my time.

Edited by Riddle, 08 April 2010 - 05:28 PM.

[way2lazy2care]

It isnt about whether religion has done wrong or right. It's how truthful it can be. And the church rightly gets condemned for the atrocious acts it has done in the past. Specifically when we now know better.

listen. If you and Myth and Rob are all going to bring up arguments and each of you is going to argue that my arguments against those arguments are beside the point, you can argue with each other over whether it's relevant.

Sigh.. You are so stubborn..

Think about molding a pot out of clay. You cant really say when the clay first became a pot because from the start to the end, the clay remains a work in progress. All you can do is watch as the pot takes shape/ I would like to see you try to estimate when the clay first became a pot. Nearly impossible. Do you get what we are trying to tell you? Seriously, this has become 'a shove it down your throat' situation with you because your mind cant seem to fathom such simple analogy. It's not that hard to understand.

You can't say because you don't have a set of standards that say when it becomes a pot. It definitely becomes a pot, and because it becomes a pot there is a point in time when it becomes a pot. The time it switches is trivial, but that time is a single time.

I didnt bring it up. Stop putting words in my mouth. You were asked to produce some proof of your statement and as a response you produced an article stating the SAME assumptions that I have made. The irony..
Look, it's a logical assumption, modern humans may have mated with other human species, taking on some of their traits in the process. If two species who have millions of years of evolutionary divergence such as a donkey and a horse can mate and produce offspring, who's to say that modern humans could not mate and produce offspring with other human species, especially the neanderthalis who were only evolving separately from us by some 200 thousand years at the very most.

I am debating with 3 people. Each of you is affectively arguing against a third of one. I am sorry if I pick out parts or miss other parts of what each of you says. However, you did infer that we have no single ancestor with this statement:

Adam and Eve were two modern day human beings (fully developed humans). If our entire human race came from these ancestors, we would be doomed. Why do you think you dont mate with people within your family? It's because you share the same genes and therefore diversity is diminished. Also, the chances of producing a baby with down syndrome increases tenthfold.

which is false (google it).

No, you have not shown that homo sapiens werent even in the areas as most other homonids. We were, go check the digging grounds of human fossils. Infact, we have found our ancestors fossils in the same caves as those of other homonids species such as the homo erectus and neanderthals. If that doesnt show enough solid evidence that we were living and breathing in close proximity of other human species, I dont know what else will.

reread the article. And a horse and a donkey can mate in nature, but they cannot produce offspring of both sexes that can reproduce.

We are similarly related to chimpanzes as we were to neanderthals. Go have sex with one of them and let me know how the baby turns out.