Author Topic: Creation or Evolution - articles and discussion  (Read 163845 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Offline RU9

  • Trade Count: (+3)
  • DVD Addict
  • ***
  • Posts: 634
  • “While we have time, let us do good”
  • Liked:
  • Likes Given: 4
Re: Creation or Evolution - articles and discussion
« Reply #840 on: Nov 05, 2014 at 11:24 PM »
You tell me, when the site itself says "none of the animals are the direct ancestors of any other". All we see are fully formed animals in the past, but no proof that one evolved to another.

Simply stated they Don't Know of any direct ancestors in the fossil records!

To avoid misconceptions-What are evograms?

http://evolution.berkeley.edu/evolibrary/article/0_0_0/evograms_02



To the left of the colored drawings is a set of branching lines — an evolutionary tree, or phylogeny, showing the relationships among these animals. It shows that, among the forms pictured here, Tulerpeton is the animal most closely related to today's tetrapods. Ichthyostega is equally closely related to Tulerpeton and to living tetrapods. Acanthostega is the next most closely related to these three groups. And so on. It's important to remember that none of these animals is directly ancestral to the other; they are just the closest relatives that we have yet discovered in the fossil record. This is a bit like comparing you, your sibling, your first cousin, and your second cousin: none of them is directly ancestral to you or to the others, but they are successively less closely related to you. You are most closely related to your sibling because you only have to go back one generation to find a common ancestor, whereas you have to go back two generations to find the common ancestor linking you to your cousin. Similarly, Tulerpeton is most closely related to living forms because it shares the most recent common ancestor with these forms compared to the other organisms on the phylogeny.

Offline dpogs

  • Trade Count: (+95)
  • PinoyDVD Legend
  • *****
  • Posts: 4,397
  • love and discipline
  • Liked:
  • Likes Given: 483
Re: Creation or Evolution - articles and discussion
« Reply #841 on: Nov 06, 2014 at 03:21 AM »
"Evolution is a theory universally accepted, not because it can be proved to be true, but because the only alternative, 'special creation,' is clearly impossible." (D.M.S. Watson, Professor of Zoology, London University)


in our faith though: "For God, none is impossible." :)
for others: "All things is possible if you add billion of years."
« Last Edit: Nov 06, 2014 at 03:42 AM by dpogs »
There is none righteous, no not one.

Offline bumblebee

  • Trade Count: (+1)
  • PinoyDVD Legend
  • *****
  • Posts: 4,371
  • Liked:
  • Likes Given: 2
Re: Creation or Evolution - articles and discussion
« Reply #842 on: Nov 06, 2014 at 10:08 AM »
"Evolution is a theory universally accepted, not because it can be proved to be true, but because the only alternative, 'special creation,' is clearly impossible." (D.M.S. Watson, Professor of Zoology, London University)


in our faith though: "For God, none is impossible." :)
for others: "All things is possible if you add billion of years."

From wikipedia:

“   the theory of evolution itself, a theory universally accepted not because it be can proved by logically coherent evidence to be true but because the only alternative, special creation, is clearly incredible.   ”

This quotation of Watson is often used in Creationist writings in an attempt to show that Watson, and thus by extension promoters of evolution in general, dismiss creationism due to antitheistic bias. A slightly different version of the quotation, derived from a secondhand source,[3] is sometimes used (e.g., by C. S. Lewis[4]):

“   [Evolution is] accepted by zoologists not because it has been observed to occur or . . . can be proved by logically coherent evidence to be true, but because the only alternative, special creation, is clearly incredible.   ”
Sometimes the words in square brackets are incorrectly incorporated into the quotation, and/or the ellipsis is omitted.[5]

Watson's original statement first appeared in a 1929 article, "Adaptation," in the journal Nature:[6] The second version of the quotation, given above, is formed by combining parts of two similar passages in Watson's paper, one from the first page and one from the third. The first passage reads:

“   [1] Evolution itself is accepted by zoologists not because it has been observed to occur or is supported by logically coherent arguments, but because it does fit all the facts of taxonomy, of paleontology, and of geographical distribution, and because no alternative explanation is credible.[7]   ”
The second passage reads:

“   [2] If so, it will present a parallel to the theory of evolution itself, a theory universally accepted not because it can be proved by logically coherent evidence to be true, but because the only alternative, special creation, is clearly incredible[8]   ”

The ellipses in the second version of the standard quotation from Watson elide his statement in [1] that evolution fits "all the facts" of taxonomy, paleontology, and geographical distribution. They also omit his statement, which directly follows quotation [1] above, that "Whilst the fact of evolution is accepted by every biologist, the mode in which it has occurred and the mechanism by which it has been brought about are still disputable."

Watson thus considered evolution a fact, belief in which was supported by its fit to a wide range of other facts. He thought "special creation" unbelievable and the mechanisms of evolution disputable (his article was devoted to emphasizing the inadequacy of contemporary theories of adaptation, and mentions "special creation" only in passing). This was in 1929, several years before the inception of evolutionary biology's Modern Synthesis, which integrated Mendelian genetics into Darwinian thought and produced widespread scientific consensus about basic evolutionary mechanisms. Stephen Jay Gould describes 1900–10 as “the period of greatest agnosticism and debate about evolutionary mechanisms” and adds that even the 1920s were still “not happy times of consensus for evolutionary theory in general.”[9]

When it was made, over 80 years ago, Watson's complaint that the mechanisms of evolution were poorly understood was accurate. His statement that evolution was believed "because the only alternative, special creation, is clearly incredible" was a provocative exaggeration, contradicted by his own remarks (i.e., evolution already "fit all the facts" of several major knowledge fields).

Offline tigkal

  • Trade Count: (+15)
  • Collector
  • **
  • Posts: 373
  • 9 going 10
  • Liked:
  • Likes Given: 24
Re: Creation or Evolution - articles and discussion
« Reply #843 on: Nov 06, 2014 at 11:57 AM »
http://www.rappler.com/science-nature/life-health/74197-ichthyosaur-fossil-solves-reptile-riddle

For years, proof that this sea-dwelling species had ever had terrestrial adaptations was missing. Now, that vital evidence has been found.

Offline docelmo

  • Trade Count: (+28)
  • DVD Addict
  • ***
  • Posts: 940
  • Hi, I'm new here!
  • Liked:
  • Likes Given: 8
Re: Creation or Evolution - articles and discussion
« Reply #844 on: Nov 06, 2014 at 06:58 PM »
To avoid misconceptions-What are evograms?

http://evolution.berkeley.edu/evolibrary/article/0_0_0/evograms_02



To the left of the colored drawings is a set of branching lines — an evolutionary tree, or phylogeny, showing the relationships among these animals. It shows that, among the forms pictured here, Tulerpeton is the animal most closely related to today's tetrapods. Ichthyostega is equally closely related to Tulerpeton and to living tetrapods. Acanthostega is the next most closely related to these three groups. And so on. It's important to remember that none of these animals is directly ancestral to the other; they are just the closest relatives that we have yet discovered in the fossil record. This is a bit like comparing you, your sibling, your first cousin, and your second cousin: none of them is directly ancestral to you or to the others, but they are successively less closely related to you. You are most closely related to your sibling because you only have to go back one generation to find a common ancestor, whereas you have to go back two generations to find the common ancestor linking you to your cousin. Similarly, Tulerpeton is most closely related to living forms because it shares the most recent common ancestor with these forms compared to the other organisms on the phylogeny.

So now the way to show evolution is through "evograms" which shows "second, first cousins and siblings and not great grandparents, grandparents or parents". So if you want to know the ancestor of say pakicetus or ambulocetus.....the whale evogram won't be able to show that!

Here is an interesting read.......Intelligent Evolution.

THe author said this about:

ID....it is nonsense!( i disagree )

Darwinian Evolution........While Darwin-mechanism can explain some species/sub-species movements, there is not a single evidence to show that Darwin-mechanism is the cause of any taxonomic diverging point (not a single one, either in the fossil records or in the molecular biology). In fact, all (not a single exception) biological evolutionary mechanisms do not depend on the Darwin-mechanism.

http://tienzengong.wordpress.com/2014/10/11/intelligent-evolution/
Denon/ GoldenEar Technology/Onkyo/Optoma/Sansui/SVS

Offline barrister

  • Trade Count: (+7)
  • PinoyDVD Legend
  • *****
  • Posts: 5,028
  • cessante ratione legis, cessat ipsa lex
  • Liked:
  • Likes Given: 0
Re: Creation or Evolution - articles and discussion
« Reply #845 on: Nov 06, 2014 at 07:38 PM »
http://www.rappler.com/science-nature/life-health/74197-ichthyosaur-fossil-solves-reptile-riddle

For years, proof that this sea-dwelling species had ever had terrestrial adaptations was missing. Now, that vital evidence has been found.

In other words, the reptile remained a reptile. 
 

Offline RU9

  • Trade Count: (+3)
  • DVD Addict
  • ***
  • Posts: 634
  • “While we have time, let us do good”
  • Liked:
  • Likes Given: 4
Re: Creation or Evolution - articles and discussion
« Reply #846 on: Nov 06, 2014 at 09:04 PM »
So now the way to show evolution is through "evograms" which shows "second, first cousins and siblings and not great grandparents, grandparents or parents". So if you want to know the ancestor of say pakicetus or ambulocetus.....the whale evogram won't be able to show that!

Evograms are diagrams that convey information about how a group of organisms and their particular features evolved. Evograms are consistent with the scientific definition of evolution.



« Last Edit: Nov 06, 2014 at 11:32 PM by RU9 »

Offline RU9

  • Trade Count: (+3)
  • DVD Addict
  • ***
  • Posts: 634
  • “While we have time, let us do good”
  • Liked:
  • Likes Given: 4
Re: Creation or Evolution - articles and discussion
« Reply #847 on: Nov 06, 2014 at 09:14 PM »

ID....it is nonsense!( i disagree )


The vast majority of the scientific community is opposed to intelligent design. Critics argue that it is based on shoddy scientific arguments and that it attempts to reconcile two mutually exclusive bodies of human thought, science and religion. While they concede that evolutionary theory has not been proven totally and that gaps in the evolutionary record exist, they argue that science has amassed a wide amount of knowledge on these matters and is successfully working to fill in the gaps.

http://connection.ebscohost.com/science/intelligent-design/overview-intelligent-design-and-evolution

Offline RU9

  • Trade Count: (+3)
  • DVD Addict
  • ***
  • Posts: 634
  • “While we have time, let us do good”
  • Liked:
  • Likes Given: 4
Re: Creation or Evolution - articles and discussion
« Reply #848 on: Nov 06, 2014 at 10:10 PM »

In other words, the reptile remained a reptile. 
 

You want the reptile change to a bird?:)

Is this your definition of evolution?



Magic :) No wonder...

Seriously, the article shows that :

1.  vital evidence has been found that this sea-dwelling species had terrestrial adaptations

2.  your favorite --

The fossil shows "the transition," said Ryosuke Motani of the University of California at Davis.:)

« Last Edit: Nov 06, 2014 at 11:17 PM by RU9 »

Offline barrister

  • Trade Count: (+7)
  • PinoyDVD Legend
  • *****
  • Posts: 5,028
  • cessante ratione legis, cessat ipsa lex
  • Liked:
  • Likes Given: 0
Re: Creation or Evolution - articles and discussion
« Reply #849 on: Nov 06, 2014 at 11:41 PM »
You want the reptile change to a bird? :)

Yes. 
 
Are you admitting that reptiles did not evolve into birds?
 

 
You want the reptile change to a bird? :)


Magic :) No wonder...

In other words, you are admitting that it is "magic" to say that reptiles evolved into birds?
 
Maybe my question should be, "Do you even know what you're talking about?"  ;D 

 
 
The fossil shows "the transition," said Ryosuke Motani of the University of California at Davis. :)
 
Ikaw pala sir, nabasa mo lang yung "University of California at Davis," bilib na bilib ka na at hindi ka na nag-iisip.
 
Transition from what to what?
 
From an ichthyosaur that dwells on water to an ichtyosaur that can walk on land. 
 
From reptile to bird? 
 
No.  From reptile to reptile. 
 
Naging ano yung ichthyosaur?  Ichthyosaur pa rin.  Wala naman palang kakuwenta-kuwenta.
 
 
 
===================================
 

 
Gusto mo, isda --- naglakad sa lupa, isda pa rin:
 
 

Mudskipper
 
 
It can even jump up to 2 feet in the air --- from land, not from the water.  That's anatomical and behavioral adaptation, not a transition from fish to reptile.  The fish remained a fish.   
 
Siguro naman sir, naintindihan mo na ngayon kung ano yung sinasabing "terrestrial adaptations"?
 
 
Seriously, the article shows that :

1. vital evidence has been found that this sea-dwelling species had terrestrial adaptations
« Last Edit: Nov 07, 2014 at 12:37 AM by barrister »

Offline RU9

  • Trade Count: (+3)
  • DVD Addict
  • ***
  • Posts: 634
  • “While we have time, let us do good”
  • Liked:
  • Likes Given: 4
Re: Creation or Evolution - articles and discussion
« Reply #850 on: Nov 07, 2014 at 09:05 AM »
Hehe... the first part is me having fun. kaya nga me seriously ako sa part 2. Sorry if I was not clear.

The fossil shows "the transition," said Ryosuke Motani of the University of California at Davis.

Si Motani ang nagsabi niyan.  Is he wrong? Mas tama ka ba?

Siya ay

Ryosuke Motani
Ph.D., University of Toronto, Canada (1997)
Professor

Major research focus is on the use of physics-based functional morphology to probe physical constraints behind the evolution of animal shapes. Questions along this line include: what made tunas, lamnid sharks, cetaceans, and ichthyosaurs all look similar in silhouette; what constraints were behind the long necks of elasmosaurs (long-necked plesiosaurs)?

« Last Edit: Nov 07, 2014 at 09:06 AM by RU9 »

Offline dpogs

  • Trade Count: (+95)
  • PinoyDVD Legend
  • *****
  • Posts: 4,397
  • love and discipline
  • Liked:
  • Likes Given: 483
Re: Creation or Evolution - articles and discussion
« Reply #851 on: Nov 07, 2014 at 09:52 AM »
ang scientist na yan atheist yan... :)
There is none righteous, no not one.

Offline docelmo

  • Trade Count: (+28)
  • DVD Addict
  • ***
  • Posts: 940
  • Hi, I'm new here!
  • Liked:
  • Likes Given: 8
Re: Creation or Evolution - articles and discussion
« Reply #852 on: Nov 07, 2014 at 10:00 AM »
The vast majority of the scientific community is opposed to intelligent design. Critics argue that it is based on shoddy scientific arguments and that it attempts to reconcile two mutually exclusive bodies of human thought, science and religion. While they concede that evolutionary theory has not been proven totally and that gaps in the evolutionary record exist, they argue that science has amassed a wide amount of knowledge on these matters and is successfully working to fill in the gaps.

http://connection.ebscohost.com/science/intelligent-design/overview-intelligent-design-and-evolution

Intelligent design (ID) is the view that it is possible to infer from empirical evidence that "certain features of the universe and of living things are best explained by an intelligent cause, not an undirected process such as natural selection" [1] Intelligent design cannot be inferred from complexity alone, since complex patterns often happen by chance. ID focuses on just those sorts of complex patterns that in human experience are produced by a mind that conceives and executes a plan. According to adherents, intelligent design can be detected in the natural laws and structure of the cosmos; it also can be detected in at least some features of living things.

This to my mind is a more plausible explanation than the belief that life came by chance. You have more chance of winning the lotto than creating the complexity of life by natural selection on mutations!

The author of the article Intelligent Evolution did not mince words when he said...
Claiming that Darwin-mechanism is the ‘major’ evolution force and the ‘only’ mechanism for adaptation is a total nonsense. the Darwin-mechanism is also powered by the ideology, not by science.

The body's immune system for example is very similar to a nation's armed forces. In both cases when an "invading force" is present it responds accordingly to identify, mobilize a response and neutralize the threat. In both cases an "intelligent agent" must be present to have a coherent responds.
Denon/ GoldenEar Technology/Onkyo/Optoma/Sansui/SVS

Offline docelmo

  • Trade Count: (+28)
  • DVD Addict
  • ***
  • Posts: 940
  • Hi, I'm new here!
  • Liked:
  • Likes Given: 8
Re: Creation or Evolution - articles and discussion
« Reply #853 on: Nov 07, 2014 at 10:49 AM »
Evograms are diagrams that convey information about how a group of organisms and their particular features evolved. Evograms are consistent with the scientific definition of evolution.




I can identify who my great grandparents, grandparents, parents, 1st, 2nd and 3rd cousins and siblings in our geneology based on records, pictures and other means. But to say that this exactly the same as evolution is a stretch to say the least!

Based on the evolution diagram or evogram as they fondly call it.....There should be MORE common ancestors for each of the supposed branch in the family right?
But where are these supposed "common ancestors" for fish and reptiles, reptiles and birds....and so on.

Sa ngayon Parang Fill in Blanks.....they just speculate that  they will eventually  find these common ancestors!
Not very scientific.....
« Last Edit: Nov 07, 2014 at 11:54 AM by docelmo »
Denon/ GoldenEar Technology/Onkyo/Optoma/Sansui/SVS

Offline barrister

  • Trade Count: (+7)
  • PinoyDVD Legend
  • *****
  • Posts: 5,028
  • cessante ratione legis, cessat ipsa lex
  • Liked:
  • Likes Given: 0
Re: Creation or Evolution - articles and discussion
« Reply #854 on: Nov 07, 2014 at 11:56 AM »
The fossil shows "the transition," said Ryosuke Motani of the University of California at Davis.

Si Motani ang nagsabi niyan.  Is he wrong? Mas tama ka ba?

Siya ay

Ryosuke Motani
Ph.D., University of Toronto, Canada (1997)
Professor

Major research focus is on the use of physics-based functional morphology to probe physical constraints behind the evolution of animal shapes. Questions along this line include: what made tunas, lamnid sharks, cetaceans, and ichthyosaurs all look similar in silhouette; what constraints were behind the long necks of elasmosaurs (long-necked plesiosaurs)?

 
That's exactly what I meant. 
 
You read the credentials, assumed that Motani cannot possibly be wrong, then immediately concluded that this is unquestionable evidence of evolution.
 
You did not see any picture of the discovered fossil.  You do not know if there is sufficient morphological basis for saying that the fossil is amphibious.  Yet you immediately accept his word as unimpeachable truth.
 
Assuming that the fossil was correctly interpreted.  Motani did not say it was transitional from reptile to bird, but only only that it was transitional from aquatic reptile to amphibious reptile.
 
Clearly, the reptile remained a reptile.
 
 
 
 
Hehe... the first part is me having fun. kaya nga me seriously ako sa part 2. Sorry if I was not clear.

OK lang sir.  Puwede rin naman ako sa asaran, basta hindi ako ang mag-uumpisa...  ;)
 
What is clear to me is that you thought it was ridiculous for a reptile to turn into a bird, until I pointed out that it was in fact part of evolution theory.
 
So now, you are saying that you agree that reptiles evolved to birds.
 
Don't just agree without thinking.  Tell us why scientists say reptiles evolved to birds, and I'll tell you why they are wrong. 
« Last Edit: Nov 07, 2014 at 01:11 PM by barrister »

Offline Moks007

  • Trade Count: (+51)
  • PinoyDVD Legend
  • *****
  • Posts: 3,682
  • Bond, James Bond
  • Liked:
  • Likes Given: 2385
Re: Creation or Evolution - articles and discussion
« Reply #855 on: Nov 07, 2014 at 12:27 PM »
ru9 question lang, let's say year 1 up to now year 2014, we as human beings looks the same right? Our inside organs are the same? So when will we evolve to a different kind? Maybe to a hulk? Aquaman? Maleficent? Four kidneys, four eyes? Billion years dapat? or human evolution is not like that? Or From now we will just have longer legs, fingers, private parts?

Curious lang. Kasi if it takes billion of years we will not be able to see new kind of humans. Sayang. Or are we the supreme being now and wala na evolution tayo?

I believe in creation so i say we will look the same. For evolutionists? Or you guys have to wait for evidences muna?
« Last Edit: Nov 07, 2014 at 02:15 PM by Moks007 »

Offline Moks007

  • Trade Count: (+51)
  • PinoyDVD Legend
  • *****
  • Posts: 3,682
  • Bond, James Bond
  • Liked:
  • Likes Given: 2385
Re: Creation or Evolution - articles and discussion
« Reply #856 on: Nov 07, 2014 at 01:02 PM »
Another question naman, when will we be able to survive on our own once we are born? Kasi diba dapat meron existing human to take care of us like breastfeeding, change diaper diba.?

Kasi i believe in adam and eve. Humans are created.  we reproduce babies and take care of them. There are some animals like elephant that can take care of themselves once they are born. Did we start like that? Sample lang something evolved to a monkey, an animal that can take care of themselves once born, then become humans, but then we need somebody to take care of us now.

From evolutionist standpoint, how did this happen?


« Last Edit: Nov 07, 2014 at 02:04 PM by Moks007 »

Offline Tempter

  • Trade Count: (+9)
  • DVD Guru
  • ****
  • Posts: 1,657
  • Liked:
  • Likes Given: 17
Re: Creation or Evolution - articles and discussion
« Reply #857 on: Nov 07, 2014 at 01:27 PM »
Another question naman, when will we be able to survive on our own once we are born? Kasi diba dapat meron existing human to take care of us like breastfeeding, change diaper diba.?

Kasi i believe in adam and eve. Humans are created.  we reproduce babies and take care of them. There are some animals like elephant that can take care of themselves once they are born. Did we start like that? Sample lang something evolved to a monkey, an animal that can take care of themselves once born, then become humans, but then we need somebody to take care of us now.

From evolutionist standpoint, how did this happen?




Train an animal not to do anything then he/she will be dependent... look at the modern dogs. Sure they can eat by themselves kung may pagkain na ihahain, subukan mong ilagay sa wild tingnan naten kung magsusurvive yan. ;)
"Great minds discuss ideas; average minds discuss events; small minds discuss people."

Offline Moks007

  • Trade Count: (+51)
  • PinoyDVD Legend
  • *****
  • Posts: 3,682
  • Bond, James Bond
  • Liked:
  • Likes Given: 2385
Re: Creation or Evolution - articles and discussion
« Reply #858 on: Nov 07, 2014 at 01:43 PM »
Train an animal not to do anything then he/she will be dependent... look at the modern dogs. Sure they can eat by themselves kung may pagkain na ihahain, subukan mong ilagay sa wild tingnan naten kung magsusurvive yan. ;)

Ya those are animals nga, that is why I said mga elephants, zebras etc kaya. Let's do an experiment. Let's say you have a newborn human baby. Lagay mo lang siya sa cavite sa mga plant fields, you really think after 1 month na survive yan on its own? Come on now. Kahit 10 to 20 human newborn, lagay mo lang sa open field with food around them he/she will not survive.

That's why I believe humans are created. Then they take care of their generations after.
« Last Edit: Nov 07, 2014 at 01:48 PM by Moks007 »

Offline barrister

  • Trade Count: (+7)
  • PinoyDVD Legend
  • *****
  • Posts: 5,028
  • cessante ratione legis, cessat ipsa lex
  • Liked:
  • Likes Given: 0
Re: Creation or Evolution - articles and discussion
« Reply #859 on: Nov 07, 2014 at 01:51 PM »
Sample lang something evolved to a monkey, an animal that can take care of themselves once born, then become humans, but then we need somebody to take care of us now.

From evolutionist standpoint, how did this happen?

 
Wala namang problema yon from the evolutionist view.
 
You mean nung lumitaw yung human baby, walang human mother na nag-alaga?
 
No, hindi ganon yon sir.
 
Una may ape - nanay is ape, baby is ape.
Sumunod, transitional ape-human - nanay is ape, baby is transitional.
Sumunod, human - nanay is transitional, baby is human.
 
Sino ang nag-alaga sa baby na human?  E di yung nanay niya na transitional. 
« Last Edit: Nov 07, 2014 at 01:56 PM by barrister »

Offline Tempter

  • Trade Count: (+9)
  • DVD Guru
  • ****
  • Posts: 1,657
  • Liked:
  • Likes Given: 17
Re: Creation or Evolution - articles and discussion
« Reply #860 on: Nov 07, 2014 at 03:04 PM »
Ya those are animals nga, that is why I said mga elephants, zebras etc kaya. Let's do an experiment. Let's say you have a newborn human baby. Lagay mo lang siya sa cavite sa mga plant fields, you really think after 1 month na survive yan on its own? Come on now. Kahit 10 to 20 human newborn, lagay mo lang sa open field with food around them he/she will not survive.

That's why I believe humans are created. Then they take care of their generations after.

You did not get my point.

Ang ibig kong sabihin, maaring nabago tayo or ang pamamaraan naten dahil yung mga ancestors naten ginawa tayong super dependent. So yung mga nauna saten hindi ganyan, dahil may nagumpisa later on ganyan na tayong lahat.

Palagay mo noon may asong dependent sa amo?
"Great minds discuss ideas; average minds discuss events; small minds discuss people."

Offline Moks007

  • Trade Count: (+51)
  • PinoyDVD Legend
  • *****
  • Posts: 3,682
  • Bond, James Bond
  • Liked:
  • Likes Given: 2385
Re: Creation or Evolution - articles and discussion
« Reply #861 on: Nov 07, 2014 at 03:35 PM »
You did not get my point.

Ang ibig kong sabihin, maaring nabago tayo or ang pamamaraan naten dahil yung mga ancestors naten ginawa tayong super dependent. So yung mga nauna saten hindi ganyan, dahil may nagumpisa later on ganyan na tayong lahat.

Palagay mo noon may asong dependent sa amo?

that is just purely impossible imo. How can our ancestors make us super dependent? Unless we are born 10 to 15 years old agad pag labas ka ng womb ng mom natin. It doesn't change the fact that when humans are born somebody has to take care of us. Do you mean before when humans were born, we can walk, crawl, with teeth to eat grass, climb trees to get the fruit to eat etc.? That's impossible. Tulog and higa lang tayo for several months. You are comparing us to animals (like the dogs). Animals are different. Nakita mo yun mga deers na pag labas sa womb, takbo agad sila. Making us super dependent doesn't change the fact that we are born helpless and need somebody to take care of us.

We are the supreme beings on earth imo. Our human body and its organs are one of a kind. And the world has changed to the more sophisticated. How can we be more super dependent now than before when there is nothing on earth back then? Also, It is just purely impossible to say adaptation yan. We adapt as environment changes. No way in terms or newborn survival.

« Last Edit: Nov 07, 2014 at 03:37 PM by Moks007 »

Offline barrister

  • Trade Count: (+7)
  • PinoyDVD Legend
  • *****
  • Posts: 5,028
  • cessante ratione legis, cessat ipsa lex
  • Liked:
  • Likes Given: 0
Re: Creation or Evolution - articles and discussion
« Reply #862 on: Nov 07, 2014 at 03:39 PM »
 
 
National Geographic 2009:  The missing link is finally found!
 
 
 
 
Oldest Skeleton of Human Ancestor Found
Jamie Shreeve
Science editor, National Geographic magazine
October 1, 2009
 
Move over, Lucy. And kiss the missing link goodbye.
 
Scientists today announced the discovery of the oldest fossil skeleton of a human ancestor. The find reveals that our forebears underwent a previously unknown stage of evolution more than a million years before Lucy, the iconic early human ancestor specimen that walked the Earth 3.2 million years ago.
 
http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2009/10/091001-oldest-human-skeleton-ardi-missing-link-chimps-ardipithecus-ramidus.html
 
« Last Edit: Nov 07, 2014 at 03:40 PM by barrister »

Offline Tempter

  • Trade Count: (+9)
  • DVD Guru
  • ****
  • Posts: 1,657
  • Liked:
  • Likes Given: 17
Re: Creation or Evolution - articles and discussion
« Reply #863 on: Nov 07, 2014 at 03:46 PM »
that is just purely impossible imo. How can our ancestors make us super dependent? Unless we are born 10 to 15 years old agad pag labas ka ng womb ng mom natin. It doesn't change the fact that when humans are born somebody has to take care of us. Do you mean before when humans were born, we can walk, crawl, with teeth to eat grass, climb trees to get the fruit to eat etc.? That's impossible. Tulog and higa lang tayo for several months. You are comparing us to animals (like the dogs). Animals are different. Nakita mo yun mga deers na pag labas sa womb, takbo agad sila. Making us super dependent doesn't change the fact that we are born helpless and need somebody to take care of us.

We are the supreme beings on earth imo. Our human body and its organs are one of a kind. And the world has changed to the more sophisticated. How can we be more super dependent now than before when there is nothing on earth back then? Also, It is just purely impossible to say adaptation yan. We adapt as environment changes. No way in terms or newborn survival.



Nakita mo ba ang mga unggoy kung pano iraise ng magulang nila? Tingin mo hindi sila dependent at first? Maybe not as helpless as us, but that's precisely the point. Because we after many generations the newer ones became different.

"Great minds discuss ideas; average minds discuss events; small minds discuss people."

Offline Moks007

  • Trade Count: (+51)
  • PinoyDVD Legend
  • *****
  • Posts: 3,682
  • Bond, James Bond
  • Liked:
  • Likes Given: 2385
Re: Creation or Evolution - articles and discussion
« Reply #864 on: Nov 07, 2014 at 03:55 PM »

 
Wala namang problema yon from the evolutionist view.
 
You mean nung lumitaw yung human baby, walang human mother na nag-alaga?
 
No, hindi ganon yon sir.
 
Una may ape - nanay is ape, baby is ape.
Sumunod, transitional ape-human - nanay is ape, baby is transitional.
Sumunod, human - nanay is transitional, baby is human.
 
Sino ang nag-alaga sa baby na human?  E di yung nanay niya na transitional. 

Hi atty. na misunderstand ata yun question ko hehe. I was in a rush kanina and did not get to proofread. For me kasi, evolution is something that gets better and better. We don't change to something worse than we are hundreds of years ago. My question is in relation to the response to tempter. Some animals can take care of themselves when they are born. We humans cannot. We need somebody to take care of us. So if we evolve to something better, assuming we were apes or any animal before (which can take care of themselves when born), why is it now we can't take care of ourselves (newborn)?

Unless their argument is of course,

Example lang
Algae evolve to ape (or any animal that can take care of themselves when born) then which evolve to humans. Because I don't believe when our human ancestors are newly born during that time, they will be able to take care of themselves.

« Last Edit: Nov 07, 2014 at 04:03 PM by Moks007 »

Offline Tempter

  • Trade Count: (+9)
  • DVD Guru
  • ****
  • Posts: 1,657
  • Liked:
  • Likes Given: 17
Re: Creation or Evolution - articles and discussion
« Reply #865 on: Nov 07, 2014 at 03:59 PM »
Hi atty. na misunderstand ata yun question ko hehe. I was in a rush kanina and did not get to proofread. For me kasi, evolution is something that gets better and better. We don't change to something worse than we are hundreds of years ago. My question is in relation to the response to tempter. Some animals can take care of themselves when they are born. We humans cannot. We need somebody to take care of us. So if we evolve to something better, assuming we were apes before (which can take care of themselves when born), why is it now we can't take care of ourselves (newborn)?


Looks like you are very sure of yourself... ;)

Better is relative.
« Last Edit: Nov 07, 2014 at 03:59 PM by Tempter »
"Great minds discuss ideas; average minds discuss events; small minds discuss people."

Offline Moks007

  • Trade Count: (+51)
  • PinoyDVD Legend
  • *****
  • Posts: 3,682
  • Bond, James Bond
  • Liked:
  • Likes Given: 2385
Re: Creation or Evolution - articles and discussion
« Reply #866 on: Nov 07, 2014 at 04:16 PM »
Nakita mo ba ang mga unggoy kung pano iraise ng magulang nila? Tingin mo hindi sila dependent at first? Maybe not as helpless as us, but that's precisely the point. Because we after many generations the newer ones became different.



But why does it have to take so long before we change? Again the argument of million or billion of years before something change. Like I say, start tayo kahit sa year 1800 up to now. It has been 214 years, bakit ganun pa rin tayo? Helpless when we are born?

The evolutionists or non believers argument is always before may be different (possible naman), pero bakit palagi ang tagal? I use year 1800 above to be conservative. Can you give me a year you think we are born the way we are now?   then lets count how many years na up to now ganun tayo?

And also around when will we start to evolve to something independent, where we can walk, with teeth and eat on the first day?

Don't tell me we are not independent now. A lot of us now are independent sa young age pa, especially the squatters (no offense meant) where they just leave the kids run around. Pero meron pa rin aalaga. :P Kahit ilan years na ganun, it will not change the fact we are born helpless.
« Last Edit: Nov 07, 2014 at 04:28 PM by Moks007 »

Offline sardaukar

  • Kagawad
  • Trade Count: (+12)
  • DVD Guru
  • *****
  • Posts: 1,775
  • Don't Panic!
  • Liked:
  • Likes Given: 2
Re: Creation or Evolution - articles and discussion
« Reply #867 on: Nov 07, 2014 at 04:56 PM »
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Obstetrical_dilemma

The obstetrical dilemma began when human ancestors started to evolve into a bipedal creature. Because humans are the only obligately bipedal primates, meaning their body shape requires them to only use two legs, major alterations had to be made to the shape of the female pelvis.[1] A number of structures in the body changed size, proportion, or location in order to accommodate bipedal locomotion and allow a person to stand upright and face forward. To help support the upper body, a number of structural changes were made to the pelvis. The ilial pelvic bone shifted forward and broadened, while the ischial pelvic bone shrank, narrowing the pelvic canal. These changes were occurring at the same time as humans were developing larger craniums. Therefore, in order to successfully undergo childbirth, the infant must be born earlier and earlier, thereby making the child increasingly developmentally premature.[4] The concept of the infant being born underdeveloped is called altriciality. Other ways of evolving to cope with bipedalism and larger craniums were also important such as neonatal rotation of the shoulders to allow the infant to fit through the canal, shorter gestation length which allows the infant to be born smaller, assistance with birth, and a malleable neonatal head which is softer and leaves the birth canal more easily.

Offline Tempter

  • Trade Count: (+9)
  • DVD Guru
  • ****
  • Posts: 1,657
  • Liked:
  • Likes Given: 17
Re: Creation or Evolution - articles and discussion
« Reply #868 on: Nov 07, 2014 at 05:27 PM »
But why does it have to take so long before we change? Again the argument of million or billion of years before something change. Like I say, start tayo kahit sa year 1800 up to now. It has been 214 years, bakit ganun pa rin tayo? Helpless when we are born?

The evolutionists or non believers argument is always before may be different (possible naman), pero bakit palagi ang tagal? I use year 1800 above to be conservative. Can you give me a year you think we are born the way we are now?   then lets count how many years na up to now ganun tayo?

And also around when will we start to evolve to something independent, where we can walk, with teeth and eat on the first day?

Don't tell me we are not independent now. A lot of us now are independent sa young age pa, especially the squatters (no offense meant) where they just leave the kids run around. Pero meron pa rin aalaga. :P Kahit ilan years na ganun, it will not change the fact we are born helpless.

Do you really believe that 200 years is a long time? Especially for a insignificant(universally speaking) specie like us?
"Great minds discuss ideas; average minds discuss events; small minds discuss people."

Offline Tempter

  • Trade Count: (+9)
  • DVD Guru
  • ****
  • Posts: 1,657
  • Liked:
  • Likes Given: 17
Re: Creation or Evolution - articles and discussion
« Reply #869 on: Nov 07, 2014 at 05:29 PM »
But why does it have to take so long before we change? Again the argument of million or billion of years before something change. Like I say, start tayo kahit sa year 1800 up to now. It has been 214 years, bakit ganun pa rin tayo? Helpless when we are born?

The evolutionists or non believers argument is always before may be different (possible naman), pero bakit palagi ang tagal? I use year 1800 above to be conservative. Can you give me a year you think we are born the way we are now?   then lets count how many years na up to now ganun tayo?

And also around when will we start to evolve to something independent, where we can walk, with teeth and eat on the first day?

Don't tell me we are not independent now. A lot of us now are independent sa young age pa, especially the squatters (no offense meant) where they just leave the kids run around. Pero meron pa rin aalaga. :P Kahit ilan years na ganun, it will not change the fact we are born helpless.

Isa pang tanong, sigurado ka ba na simula noong unang panahon walang nabago sa katawan naten? Pinagaralan mo ba lahat ng parte ng katawan ng lahat ng tao noon at ngayon???
"Great minds discuss ideas; average minds discuss events; small minds discuss people."