2248 replies to this topic

[Riddle]

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.

I agree that our voices are not coherent. Mainly its because religion contradicts with a huge range of topics.

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.

No it's not. There isnt a switch you can turn on and off. Can you GRASP the notion that evolution is a gradual process and the only way to determine when a new species is formed is by looking at the bigger picture? There is no need to explain any further. The answer im expecting to hear from you is either a yes or a no.

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
which is false (google it).

So we came from Adam and Eve? or later Noah and either one of his wives? It is entirely possible that traits such as skin color came from our own ancestors. Probably was. But to point to a single ancestor, you will need to show more proof of how this single ancestor carries a multitude of genetic diversity. He would probably need to carry ALL human traits that we have from the start. He would also have to live in a place where ALL those human traits would be used because natural selection dictates that if a trait is not fully utilised, it will be discarded.

For example, melanin is the primary cause for skin color. In places where sunlight is prevalent, such as Africa, melanin is produced more and therefore Africans have black skin. This also acts as "natural sun-block" and prevents skin cancer. Natural selection will favour those who have black skin for survival in Africa. When the sun doesnt shine bright such as in Greenland, less melanin will be needed and if a community were to evolve in Greenland, they will be fair skinned. This also allows them to recieve precious Vitamin D from the weak sunlight preventing bone diseases like rickets. Again, natural selection will favour those with fair skin for survival in Greenland. I've purposely taken the extremes because you need to prove how humans have survived the harshest of conditions if we came from a single ancestor that cant be either extremely black or extremely white and expect to survive conditions which require the opposite traits.

Another interesting point of note.
God created all land animals on the 6th day. Including the dinosaurs. So according to the bible, dinosaurs would have been living and breathing amongst men. Looking through history, we do sort of see accounts of dinosaurs in writing and ancient drawings such as Dragons and sea serpeants. But that also means we SHOULD be finding human fossils amongst the dinosaurs (solid hard evidence). Also, Death, disease and suffering all came after Adams sin. If living things cant die or suffer before Adams sin, then explain how the plants we ate would not have died or even suffered. Because we all know that that things are dead by the time they come out of a digestive system, probably suffered extremely if it went in alive. This shows the bible is so full of conflicting and contradicting claims. Also, it shows that someone is telling a lie. Either the evolutionists with their claim that dinosaurs ruled the world millions of years ago long before the first humans appeared or the biblical account that dinosaurs were walking with men 6000 years ago. Also, plants are either living things or just artificial food.

This is what I meant when I said it's about finding out the truth.

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.

Who's to say that we cant? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Humanzee
The key is that it is POSSIBLE to outer-species breed. Therefore, you cannot discard the notion that neanderthals and humans were able to mate.

The difference between what I claim as evidence as compared to what you claim in religion is that I have scientific backing, at least in theory and also by experiments with other species breeding such as the horse and donkey case.

Edited by Riddle, 09 April 2010 - 05:24 AM.

[way2lazy2care]

I agree that our voices are not coherent. Mainly its because religion contradicts with a huge range of topics.

so broad a range that none of you has been able to contradict it in any of them yet.

No it's not. There isnt a switch you can turn on and off. Can you GRASP the notion that evolution is a gradual process and the only way to determine when a new species is formed is by looking at the bigger picture? There is no need to explain any further. The answer im expecting to hear from you is either a yes or a no.

I am aware that it is gradual. That does not change the fact that there is a trivial point where it switches. Just because we don't know where that point is does not mean it doesn't exist. There must be a point where the clay becomes a pot or a species becomes a new species because if not there will be no new pot/species.

So we came from Adam and Eve? or later Noah and either one of his wives? It is entirely possible that traits such as skin color came from our own ancestors. Probably was. But to point to a single ancestor, you will need to show more proof of how this single ancestor carries a multitude of genetic diversity. He would probably need to carry ALL human traits that we have from the start. He would also have to live in a place where ALL those human traits would be used because natural selection dictates that if a trait is not fully utilised, it will be discarded.

http://en.wikipedia....tochondrial_Eve
http://en.wikipedia....hromosomal_Adam

failasaurus rex.

Who's to say that we cant? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Humanzee
The key is that it is POSSIBLE to outer-species breed. Therefore, you cannot discard the notion that neanderthals and humans were able to mate.

The difference between what I claim as evidence as compared to what you claim in religion is that I have scientific backing, at least in theory and also by experiments with other species breeding such as the horse and donkey case.

There's more evidence against what you said in that wikipedia article than for what you said.

[Riddle]

http://en.wikipedia....tochondrial_Eve
http://en.wikipedia....hromosomal_Adam


failasaurus rex.

Did you even do any research before posting??
From what I understand, Mitochondrial Eve is the most RECENT common genetic Matrilineality that all women share. Mitochondrial Eve is no more common than two people who share the same surname but come from different heritage.

The ME represents that woman whose mitochondrial DNA (with mutations) exists in all the humans now living on Earth. That does not mean that she is our lone woman ancestor.

http://www.talkorigi...ms/mitoeve.html
Consider yourself debunked. I find it funny how I got that link from the wikipedia page. You seem to have a keen eye for scientific terminology with direct reference to your Bible. Even though the contents of the scientific meaning is actually damaging to the biblical claims.

and thanks for posting something that SUPPORTS my argument (humans did not come from a single ancestor).

There's more evidence against what you said in that wikipedia article than for what you said.

Please, kindly point out to me.

I am aware that it is gradual. That does not change the fact that there is a trivial point where it switches. Just because we don't know where that point is does not mean it doesn't exist. There must be a point where the clay becomes a pot or a species becomes a new species because if not there will be no new pot/species.

Lets just leave it at you dont understand evolution and genetic at all. And quite frankly, you are now choosing not to listen to the facts and answers of why there cannot be a single first homo sapien.

Edited by Riddle, 09 April 2010 - 01:40 PM.

[way2lazy2care]

http://www.talkorigi...ms/mitoeve.html
Consider yourself debunked. I find it funny how I got that link from the wikipedia page. You seem to have a keen eye for scientific terminology with direct reference to your Bible. Even though the contents of the scientific meaning is actually damaging to the biblical claims.

and thanks for posting something that SUPPORTS my argument (humans did not come from a single ancestor).

I will concede that I misunderstood MRCA, but racial traits of humans happened long after we split and the other homonids were extinct. Blue eyes for example didn't happen until 10,000 years ago. Skin color is an adaptation that has to do with vitamin D production. Sherpa's can breathe in low oxygen environments. They did not get that trait because someone had sex with a yak.

And the eve and adam names had little affect on me noticing them. I'm an intelligent design proponent. I believe genesis to be majority parable.

Please, kindly point out to me.

the fact that despite having scientific tests in the best possible scenario for chimpanze human mating there has never been a pregnancy, let alone a successful birth.

Lets just leave it at you dont understand evolution and genetic at all. And quite frankly, you are now choosing not to listen to the facts and answers of why there cannot be a single first homo sapien.

Hello pot. I am kettle.

[Flamescale]

Hello pot. I am kettle.

oh god... Look, we've tried to explain this every way we can. We've done it using terms a 5-year old could understand. There is nothing else I can say except: You. Are Wrong. Okay? Wrong you are. I know you think you have this little bit of infallible clever insight. I understand it. But it's just wrong. It's completely utterly wrong. Because it's incompatible with basic definitions.

Please. Go look it up somewhere, such as Talk Origins, I'm sure they have the whole "first of a species" thing somewhere in their creationist claims archives.

Edited by Flamescale, 10 April 2010 - 01:00 AM.

[way2lazy2care]

oh god... Look, we've tried to explain this every way we can. We've done it using terms a 5-year old could understand. There is nothing else I can say except: You. Are Wrong. Okay? Wrong you are. I know you think you have this little bit of infallible clever insight. I understand it. But it's just wrong. It's completely utterly wrong. Because it's incompatible with basic definitions.

Please. Go look it up somewhere, such as Talk Origins, I'm sure they have the whole "first of a species" thing somewhere in their creationist claims archives.

it doesn't matter. Math is the purest science. A hell of a lot purer than Biology. What you are saying is mathematically impossible.

[Flamescale]

it doesn't matter. Math is the purest science. A hell of a lot purer than Biology. What you are saying is mathematically impossible.

please stop trolling

[Myth]

it doesn't matter. Math is the purest science. A hell of a lot purer than Biology. What you are saying is mathematically impossible.

lol mathematics as a science is a heavily debated topic. pure mathematics isnt seen by many as a science. i think you're confusing yourself with the idea that mathematics is the universal language or something.

[way2lazy2care]

lol mathematics as a science is a heavily debated topic. pure mathematics isnt seen by many as a science. i think you're confusing yourself with the idea that mathematics is the universal language or something.

so the debate is whether it should be considered a science or whether it should be something else because it is more factual than science. I fail to see how this proves me wrong.

please stop trolling

Hello pot... I am kettle.

[Flamescale]

so the debate is whether it should be considered a science or whether it should be something else because it is more factual than science. I fail to see how this proves me wrong.

I don't think he was trying to prove you wrong. It's just that the only thing left to do is to laugh at how awful your argument is because you are convinced that your little "hurp durp 1 comes before 2" thing is somehow superior to what basically any credible biologist anywhere would tell you.

[way2lazy2care]

I don't think he was trying to prove you wrong. It's just that the only thing left to do is to laugh at how awful your argument is because you are convinced that your little "hurp durp 1 comes before 2" thing is somehow superior to what basically any credible biologist anywhere would tell you.

any credible mathematician anywhere would agree with me.

edit: The only thing "hurp durp" about this argument is that you continue to press a trivial argument.

Edited by way2lazy2care, 10 April 2010 - 02:33 PM.

[Flamescale]

Hmm yes I'm sure "one precedes two" is really something to invoke credible mathematicians for. some real fancy calculus there, champ.

Actually, I think just about any scientist in any field would hit you with a blunt object at this point.

Edited by Flamescale, 10 April 2010 - 03:09 PM.

[Rob`]

Why is what we are saying mathematically impossible?* Using the definition of a species it is impossible for there to be a first of a species. This has been explained to you over and over and you still do not get it.

*Oh let me guess, you think every human can be neatly put into the set {human} and therefore this implies that first human is a well defined concept. It's about as well defined as min(0, infinity)

Edited by Rob`, 10 April 2010 - 03:33 PM.

[Flamescale]

Why is what we are saying mathematically impossible?* Using the definition of a species it is impossible for there to be a first of a species. This has been explained to you over and over and you still do not get it.

*Oh let me guess, you think every human can be neatly put into the set {human} and therefore this implies that first human is a well defined concept. It's about as well defined as min(0, infinity)

He is also arguing that just because we do not have a solid definition of what constitutes a human that doesn't mean there isn't one, and indeed that there has to be one even though we don't know it.

Which is somewhat true I guess if you live in magical fairy land or don't care about science and how/why species are classified in a particular way.

Edited by Flamescale, 10 April 2010 - 03:57 PM.

[way2lazy2care]

Why is what we are saying mathematically impossible?* Using the definition of a species it is impossible for there to be a first of a species. This has been explained to you over and over and you still do not get it.

*Oh let me guess, you think every human can be neatly put into the set {human} and therefore this implies that first human is a well defined concept. It's about as well defined as min(0, infinity)

they can be put into the set human by definition. If they can't, then they are not human.

At a scale of infinite accuracy it is impossible for any 2 humans to have been born at the same time. That makes all additions to the group of humans a singular addition. Knowing that there was a point where there were 0 humans, and that there are now >0, going backwards it is mathematically impossible for there not to have been a first one.

Also, 0.

[Flamescale]

they can be put into the set human by definition. If they can't, then they are not human.

tautology ftw

At a scale of infinite accuracy it is impossible for any 2 humans to have been born at the same time. That makes all additions to the group of humans a singular addition. Knowing that there was a point where there were 0 humans, and that there are now >0, going backwards it is mathematically impossible for there not to have been a first one.

But the problem is that the categorization of "human" at that precise point is, by definition, impossible. It's not a matter of not having the standards.

Edited by Flamescale, 10 April 2010 - 04:45 PM.

[way2lazy2care]

tautology ftw

hey. If I don't hear stupid things like some humans are not in the group humans I won't have to say things so obvious.

But the problem is that the categorization of "human" at that precise point is, by definition, impossible. It's not a matter of not having the standards.

it is not by definition impossible. it is very very hard, but not impossible.

[Flamescale]

it is not by definition impossible. it is very very hard, but not impossible.

No. I'm not saying it's impossible because it's "really really hard". It's impossible like 2 = 3 is impossible, because it CONTRADICTS THE BASIC DEFINITION OF A SPECIES.

hey. If I don't hear stupid things like some humans are not in the group humans I won't have to say things so obvious.

Ugh the entire problem is categorizing. You still don't get it at all; this is physically painful.

Edited by Flamescale, 10 April 2010 - 05:20 PM.

[Rob`]

they can be put into the set human by definition. If they can't, then they are not human.

At a scale of infinite accuracy it is impossible for any 2 humans to have been born at the same time. That makes all additions to the group of humans a singular addition. Knowing that there was a point where there were 0 humans, and that there are now >0, going backwards it is mathematically impossible for there not to have been a first one.

But by definition for something to be the same species as us (homo sapien) it just has to be able to produce fertile offspring with a homo sapien. So if there was a first homo sapien then everything genetically similar enough to reproduce with that first homo sapien would be the same species. Some of those would be older than the first homo sapien which contradicts what we said about first homo sapien. It's as simple as that.

Also, 0.

(0,infinity) is another way of saying "every real number greater than 0", the minimum of a set if the smallest element of that set. So obviously it isn't 0 because that would imply 0>0.

And let's not forget this entire argument started because you seem to think evolution implies we all come from some "Adam and Eve" even if it isn't the Adam and Eve of the Genesis story.

What you don't seem to understand is the species changes as a whole so even if you define a human to be something adequately similar to us (choose your similarities however you like it doesn't matter) then yes in that case you could say "first human appears here at time x" but in the same groups of near humans other humans would also be born independently of the first human. So you'd suddenly have a lot of what could be considered humans in a few generations and there's no reason to assume that these humans would be directly related.

So the problem Riddle had with the Adam and Eve story doesn't apply to evolution.

Edited by Rob`, 10 April 2010 - 05:41 PM.

[way2lazy2care]

(0,infinity) is another way of saying "every real number greater than 0", the minimum of a set if the smallest element of that set. So obviously it isn't 0 because that would imply 0>0.

I'm used to ()s being used in computer science. I didn't know you were using interval notation. Anyways, we know that min(0,whatever) exist even if we are not able to say what it is. We know it to be some number infinitely close to 0 and that it exists in the realm of real numbers. Which is exactly why there is a first human. We can't necessarily say who the first human was, but it must exist.

Unless there's some part of the definition of species that says "Species also ignore the laws of mathematics," then there is a first of a species.