Denial of Evolution VI.

[Grumpy]

Jan Ardena

Is the evolution of the whale an observed fact?

Yes. Mammals all originated as land dwelling creatures with four legs, period. In fact they all descended from mammal-like predecessors not much different from a rat(and not aquatic at all)some 200 million years ago. All mammals currently evolved to live in water descended from mammals that did not live in water, just like the penguin descended from birds that flew through the air, not the water. That is the very definition of macroevolution being the result of many microevolutionary changes such that they are no longer able to occupy the same niche(land dwelling ungulants)as their ancestors. Just like the penguin, whale ancestors were once creatures occupying an entirely different environment(dry ground)from that they occupy today(ocean only), with major changes having occurred in their morphology to allow that to happen. If macroevolution has a meaning, that's it.

How do you know that the skull of the pakcetus was a primitive whale?
Was there any way it could not be a primitive whale?

It wasn't. Pakicetus was Pakicetus, not a whale of any sort, just like a chimp is not any sort of man. Pakicetus was a land dweller, maybe a river creature like the Hippo. But Pakicetus did have traits that we now see on modern whales, and the various fossils of creatures that descended from Pakicetus(ie having the Pakicetus traits plus new ones also seen on modern whales)have more and more whale-like traits as time passes. Eventually the descendants accumulated ALL the traits that distinguish whales, THEN it was a whale. An instance of parallel evolution is the manatee, it has already lost it's rear legs(just like the whales did millions of years ago), it is well on it's way to being another whale-like mammal, as are sea lions. They will never be whales, but form follows function and any underwater mammal will tend to look similar as their evolution continues.

How do you know the fossils have anything to do with the animals in question?

What are the clear lines?

The fossils have traits that show up in subsequent descendants, like having no back legs or various stages of losing those legs or nostrils on the back of the head, or creatures with intermediate position of the nostril showing a progressive move to the back of the head. We know we descended from amphibians because we still have the skeleton, bone for bone, that they developed first(and which was available ONLY to the amphibian's descendants).

There are two sides to this debate, those distinctions do well to keep that in mind.

No, there are the facts of the matter and the one side that deals with those facts and the other that tries to deny those facts because it conflicts with their religious beliefs. There is the informed and logical side and then there is everything else. Your OPINIONS on the matter mean nothing if you aren't dealing with reality. The Biblical view/story of the history of life is false, but how could we expect anything else when it was written by scientifically ignorant, ancient sheep-herds not really concerned with such topics. Those pushing views based on that are simply wrong. So, no, there are not two equally valid sides to this debate.

Grumpy

 

[wellwisher]

The Book of Genesis is also a contradiction if you believe in a literal interpretation of the the Book of Genesis!

The way I resolve this is to look at science, and the date of the bible/Genesis, and see what science can demonstrate coincides in time. One important invention was writing that corresponds to that date. The bible says in the beginning was the word and word was god. This is the only place both sides tries to look at it figuratively, while all the rest is defined as literal by science to dismiss and by religion as a basis for faith.

What writing does, which spoken language cannot do, is provide an informational consistency that is the same for all. If we had 100 people hearing a spoken story or witnessing any complex action, you will not get consistency in terms of memory, interpretation and playback. People are not always good recorders. But once you record the action and write it down, all can be on the same page. Picture college or high school with only lectures but no text books. It goes in one ear and out the other with no way to make it sink in, for most.

This change was important to the evolution of the human mind since the mind goes from solution/flux into solidification. The bible played a key role in that stage of human evolution where an external aid begins to mold the mind so light appears. To me the bible is about a particular aspect of human evolution, more about the mind=spirit and not the physical or DNA. Humans broke aware from the DNA and natural selection because of will power and invention; artificial selection began to be defined by man. I assume that is important, too, especially since today this skill allows us to tweak the DNA down to genes so the DNA is more of a slave to man.

If I was inventing written language, from spoken language, which I would have tried if I was back then ( I would have met with flack) I would start with one spoken word and break that one word down into its components sounds; The original word, in the beginning of the new mind of man was Yahweh which was God.

Then you think of others words that might contain either of these base sounds (ya or wa) and then expand the sound-letter pool by including any additional sounds these extra words bring to the table. Then you add more words from the collective that contain any of the larger collection of sounds, etc. You build the sound/letter base, like a pyramid, but from the top down, until all the spoken language of the tribe is organized into sounds/letters; universe appears. Then you can construct more words; image of god as a creator.

Once written language is set, thought become like a crystal instead of a fluid in flux; separate water from the water. I stay in thought flux to remain creative and generate new ideas in the 1000's. When I write, although my brain is still in the flux, there is an external crystal formed which I can learn from later. It does not matter if I am solidified since the written word does it form me.

 

[Write4U]

I knew of the constants, but was unaware of the term evolution being attached to it. Interesting!

This is why I believe anyways, that science isn't all that loosely connected to a 'Creator.'
'Man' discovers science. But, who or what created that which he discovers/discovered?
Thx for elabortaing on this.

I'll try to explain the properties of universal constants in this universe, being able exist in the abstract.

A constant merely means that it applies to everything in the universe. It also means that all actions and events must be compatible with that constant. If they are not they cannot happen, if the action or event is compatible with universal constants then in principle the action is allowed and may be expressed in reality.

Constants are the inherent mindless Potentials of this universe.

Gravity is a constant
E =Mc^2 is a constant.
c (the speed of light) is a constant

Basically all laws of nature are built on universal constants, they are our library of what functions are allowed and which functions are specifically disallowed. Scientific record of the mathematical application of inherent properties of the universe (evolving systems out of random Chaos).

but Billvon is correct, in this discussion it may not be pertinent to the issue of life on earth, but taken in greater context I thought it useful information.

 

[wegs]

I'll try to explain the properties of universal constants in this universe, being able exist in the abstract.

A constant merely means that it applies to everything in the universe. It also means that all actions and events must be compatible with that constant. If they are not they cannot happen, if the action or event is compatible with universal constants then in principle the action is allowed and may be expressed in reality.

Constants are the inherent mindless Potentials of this universe.

Gravity is a constant
E =Mc^2 is a constant.
c (the speed of light) is a constant

Basically all laws of nature are built on universal constants, they are our library of what functions are allowed and which functions are specifically disallowed. Scientific record of the mathematical application of inherent properties of the universe (evolving systems out of random Chaos).

Ok, I see what you are saying now! So, this is why these constants are thought/suggested to resemble universal truths...or intelligent design...or the possibility of a Creator.
Because of the constant being an objective truth, correct? A constant would be an objective truth. I'm just thinking out loud here, to the push in the direction from science to a Creator. lol

Could you answer my question when you get a moment, on the prior page about Jupiter? Thank you.
You're very patient.

 

[Stanley]

Sigh. Approximately three thousand... BCE --> "Before Current Era". This is 2013 CE (or AD)

Close, the C stands for "common". Why did the other member post that to refute me? Even the other link for Ötzi man looks to be closer to 2-3 thousand years, have you read up on him?

Admittedly, i may have low-balled my estimations a little.

Often. There is much amiss in this world.

Well, i mean getting things in perspective. Nature is nature, i dont think i implied that the world is amiss

Much longer than a few thousand years. Give me your definition of "humans" first and I'll be more precise.

I am not telling you what you should believe, if i have a feeling about something then why shouldn't i at least let it be heard? I think we all know what a human is so asking me to define it is a little strange.

Also, you never answered me:
What evidence would you accept for humans being here "longer than a few thousand years"?

Hard to say. Just seems bizarre to me that we dont have anything really concrete beyond 2-3 thousand years, thats all. Dont get me wrong, it is possible...just seems so strange. This is beginning to be like throwing a bag full of feathers at a moving fan.

 

[Stanley]

The kinder readers will assume (or work under the assumption) that you are simply ignorant and arrogant to the point where you think we care what you, in your ignorance, believe to be true in a factual situation. (SAD)
But most of us will admit the possibility exists that you are not so ignorant and are deliberately lying (BAD). The leading hypotheses on why you might lie is that you take sadistic pleasure in people reacting to you in a negative manner (BAD-BAD) or that you think you are supporting some authority but are actually undermining their purported authority by making easy-to-check lies. (BAD-SAD).
Finally, while none of us claim to be mental health professionals, the possibility that you actually are delusional or suffer irrational impulses to undermine your own credibility may occur to us. (MAD)

Whatever the reason, it's not really doing anything to support your cause by posting in such a manner.

Thats understandable. Although the same was said of Tesla.

 

[Robittybob1]

Well how many years ago was 1000BCE?

You add the current year i.e. 2013 to the 1000 BCE and then subtract 1. So that is 3013 - 1 = 3012 years, but the 1000 BCE is probably an estimate so the final answer would have the amount of uncertainty too.

 

[Write4U]

Ok, I see what you are saying now! So, this is why these constants are thought/suggested to resemble universal truths...or intelligent design...or the possibility of a Creator.
Because of the constant being an objective truth, correct? A constant would be an objective truth. I'm just thinking out loud here, to the push in the direction from science to a Creator. lol

Could you answer my question when you get a moment, on the prior page about Jupiter? Thank you.
You're very patient.

I can't recall mentioning Jupiter, did I?


But I may have posted this before, perhaps in another thread.

One of the most impressive theories emerging out of scientific cosmology respecting these ancient truths was set forth by the late physicist, David Bohm in his book, Wholeness and the Implicate Order. Using the language of mathematics, Bohm set out to describe the transcendent reality and its graded energetic hierarchy in four basic states or orders of energy beginning with the physical world, which he called the Explicate Order.

'The Explicate Order, weakest of all energy systems, resonates out of and is an expression of an infinitely more powerful order of energy called the Implicate order. It is the precursor of the Explicate, the dreamlike vision or the ideal presentation of that which is to become manifest as a physical object. The Implicate order implies within it all physical universes. However, it resonates from an energy field which is yet greater, the realm of pure potential. It is pure potential because nothing is implied within it; implications form in the implicate order and then express themselves in the explicate order. Bohm goes on to postulate a final state of infinite [zero point] energy which he calls the realm of insight intelligence. The creative process springs from this realm. Energy is generated there, gathers its pure potential, and implies within its eventual expression as the explicate order.' Will Keepin, David Bohm, Noetic Science Journal

When Bohm's resonant fields are arranged in a vibrational hierarchy they represent energy in successive states of manifestation from infinitely subtle to the gross physical reality.

The Zero Point Order which Bohm identified as the realm of insight-intelligence bears an unmistakable resemblance to the supreme spiritual realization of Indian metaphysics known as the Brahman, a perfectly inactive, pure noetic plenum realized as Absolute Being. The Brahman is characterized by a complete fusion of Time and Consciousness which is experienced as Timelessness, or undifferentiated Time. In this state Time-energy vibrates at such an intense rate that it appears static and thereby lacking any element of periodicity or denseness. Hence it cannot produce any form or any division of Consciousness-substance into distinct crystallised objects in Space.

http://www.quantumyoga.org/QuantumBrahman.html

It is another attempt to describe the "Wholeness and its functions"

 

[Write4U]

Interesting, but to me.... Science according to me that is...lol...I believe that planets for example should only be considered 'evolving' if they can host life.
If they can't...then, they haven't really evolved, when you think about it.
For example, Jupiter can't (and most likely will never) host life. How has it evolved, then?

It evolved from a giant cloud of cosmic dust to become an important member in the evolution of the our solar system. But our discussion is about organic evolution on earth, which has an entirely different environment than Jupiter.

But did Jupiter and it's gravitational properties evolve into the system it is today? Yes.

 

[wegs]

I can't recall mentioning Jupiter, did I?

Oh, no. I brought it up just to use as one example.

But I may have posted this before, perhaps in another thread.

http://www.quantumyoga.org/QuantumBrahman.html

It is another attempt to describe the "Wholeness and its functions"

Ok thank you. I will review later.

It evolved from a giant cloud of cosmic dust to become an important member in the evolution of the our solar system. But our discussion is about organic evolution on earth, which has an entirely different environment than Jupiter.

But did Jupiter and it's gravitational properties evolve into the system it is today? Yes.

Then that answers the question of if a planet can evolve despite not hosting life. It also answers my earlier question of evolution not be confined to living organisms. Or once living.

If the creator created science we would have to understand science to understand the creator. It appears to me a valid understanding of science universally would also deem someone a creator without an experiment having to be undertaken in the direction of understanding the creator. Though the effects wouldn't take place until after death without the experiment "being accomplished".

True. Thus the universal constant principle.
Did u see write4u's post about it above? It might be a page over.
Science pointing to universal truths and a Creator behind it all. (Write4u didn't state the latter part I'm suggesting that)
If there existed no Bible, no religious dogma, etc...it isn't such a leap to me to seeing a potential link from science to a Creator of it.


Thank u write4u for explaining some things.

 

[Randwolf]

Close, the C stands for "common".

Whichever you prefer. Why did you ask? Do you always play dumb?

Common Era (also Current Era or Christian Era), abbreviated as CE, is an alternative naming of the traditional calendar era, Anno Domini (abbreviated AD).[3] BCE is the abbreviation for Before the Common/Current/Christian Era (an alternative to Before Christ, abbreviated BC). Wiki​

Why did the other member post that to refute me?

Because of your absurd assertion that...

Originally Posted by Stanley
. . . . humans have been on this planet for only 2-3K years.

To which Fraggle replied...

Originally Posted by Fraggle Rocker
Huh??? That's got to be the stupidest thing I've read all week. (And that's saying a lot since I read the newspaper every day. ) We have written records older than 1000BCE! Who wrote them if not humans? Space aliens? Angels and demons? Men from our own future with a time machine? A race of highly intelligent raccoons who died out without leaving a trace of their existence?

We have well-documented continuity of civilizations going back further than that!

Better than that, we have �tzi, the perfectly preserved remains of a human who lived more than five thousand years ago!

Seems pretty obvious to me why he replied in that fashion. Don't come here and play coy, post stupid comments that defy common sense and then expect anything different.

Originally Posted by Stanley
Even the other link for �tzi man looks to be closer to 2-3 thousand years, have you read up on him?

Not recently. Whether I "have read up on him" is totally irrelevant to your brainless assertion that "humans have been on this planet for only 2-3K years."

Originally Posted by Stanley
Admittedly, i may have low-balled my estimations a little.

Perhaps just a little. A couple of orders of magnitude or so - depends on your definition of "human". Are you ever going to get around to answering that direct question or do you plan to keep up this evasive dancing a while linger?

Originally Posted by Stanley
Well, i mean getting things in perspective. Nature is nature, i dont think i implied that the world is amiss

Whatever. That's what I inferred. Where is "Just strange and you ever have a feeling that something is amiss?" going to occur if not within the world? Try to be a little clearer in the future.

Originally Posted by Stanley
I am not telling you what you should believe, if i have a feeling about something then why shouldn't i at least let it be heard?

You have.

Originally Posted by Stanley
I think we all know what a human is so asking me to define it is a little strange.

Really? Does Australopithecus count then? How about H. habilis? H. erectus? H. heidelbergensis? Or shall we start with H. Sapiens? It was an honest question to which you were unable to give a cogent answer.

Originally Posted by Stanley
Hard to say. Just seems bizarre to me that we dont have anything really concrete beyond 2-3 thousand years, thats all. Dont get me wrong, it is possible...just seems so strange. This is beginning to be like throwing a bag full of feathers at a moving fan.

Nothing "really concrete beyond 2-3 thousand years"? Really? For the third time, what would you accept as evidence for human presence before three thousand years ago?

 

[Grumpy]

These are bottlenose dolphins

And these are spinner dolphins

By all appearances they are almost identical, no one would argue that they are not just different varieties of dolphin. What's interesting about these two is that there is more genetic difference between their DNAs than there is between chimp's and human's DNA(quite a bit more), but we get all sorts of resistence to the fact that we are just a variety of ape. Just like between spinner and bottlenose dolphins, the major differences between chimps and humans is our mental capacities and communication sophistication(spinners are like cats, not much happening upstairs but very evolved killing machines, bottlenoses are more like really smart, mostly freindly dogs.

Grumpy

 

[rpenner]

Call me crazy and let the chips fall where they may.

[The trilemma of SAD/BAD/MAD.]
Whatever the reason, it's not really doing anything to support your cause by posting in such a manner.

Thats understandable. Although the same was said of Tesla.

What the hell are you talking about you mewling Scheißer? You asserted people would call you mad. I pointed out that there were two other reasonable assumptions. You did nothing to demonstrate my trilemma does not apply.

In short, you have not mastered the first law of holes, which is built-in to scientific and philosophical discussion.

 

[Robittybob1]

....
Nothing "really concrete beyond 2-3 thousand years"? Really? For the third time, what would you accept as evidence for human presence before three thousand years ago?

Are you confusing technology with human. How long have we had cars? How long have we had computers? How long have humans had writing?
Are you confusing Human to the existence of a written history? Well what about cave art then does that count for being human? Some of that cave drawings are a lot older than 3000 years.

Cave paintings are paintings found on cave walls and ceilings, and especially refer to those of prehistoric origin. The earliest such art in Europe dates back to the Aurignacian period, approximately 40,000 years ago, and is found in the El Castillo cave in Cantabria, Spain. The exact purpose of the paleolithic cave paintings is not known. Evidence suggests that they were not merely decorations of living areas, since the caves in which they have been found do not have signs of ongoing habitation. They are also often located in areas of caves that are not easily accessible. Some theories hold that cave paintings may have been a way of communicating with others, while other theories ascribe a religious or ceremonial purpose to them.

 

[Write4U]

Grumpy,

Grumpy

Thanks for that remarkable picture.

 

[Rav]

Thanks for that remarkable picture.

Indeed. Dolphins are awesome. Dogs are awesome too. And here's an awesome video to go with that awesome picture:

[video=youtube;tdd93lspM6w]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tdd93lspM6w[/video]

Awesome!

 

[Trippy]

Neil Degrasse Tysson - Stupid Design

 

[Aqueous Id]

Brilliant Trippy, just brilliant. Both Dr Tyson, and you for bringing his voice into this. I love it. Absolutely zeroing in on the hilarity of abject denial.

 

[Saturnine Pariah]

http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2013/07/130719104931.htm

http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2013/07/130718142417.htm
Enjoy.
Also at Trippy for the video :bravo:

 

[Fraggle Rocker]

Are you confusing technology with human. How long have we had cars? How long have we had computers? How long have humans had writing?
Are you confusing Human to the existence of a written history? Well what about cave art then does that count for being human? Some of that cave drawings are a lot older than 3000 years.

Evidence of humans:

• 800,000 years ago: Controlled fire and cooking
• 500,000 years ago: Stone spear tips (this was Homo heidelbergensis, an ancestral human species that lived before H. sapiens)
• 250,000 years ago: Hematite and limonite were used as crayons for drawing and decoration
• 100,000 years ago: Beads
• 100,000 years ago: Graves with flowers at Homo neanderthalensis sites, a closely-related, cold weather-adapted species of humans that lived in Europe before the Ice Age began to warm up, allowing H. sapiens to migrate to that continent
• 100,000 years ago: Sophisticated artist kit
• 77,000 years ago: Mattress made of sedges and grasses with laurel leaves, which emit insect-killing chemicals
• 77,000 years ago: Recorded symbols
• 70,000 years ago: Clothing--this was when body lice, which can only live under the protection of clothing, speciated from head lice.
• 35,000 years ago: Flute made from a mammoth tusk
• 12,000 years ago: The first cultivated plants, fig trees
• 11,000 years ago: The first Stone-Age city, Jericho
• 10,000 years ago: The first domesticated farm animals, cattle
• 5,500 years ago: Bronze metallurgy, the domesticated horse, the wheel, written language

The fundamental technologies that made civilization possible were all discovered long before the postulated date of 3,000 years ago.