layi:

ooops how can i miss wes' post?Where are they? Point them out.
Is it not?
A theory is as unreliable as a myth. Anybody can come out with a thoery. It needs to be Proven
Its obvious you know nothing about evolution as well else you wont ask us to wait for nferyn.

Work out your own salvation baby

My point is: You're trying to dismiss a theory in favor of a MYTH. which has more credence??
a theory is not as unreliable as a myth. anyone just can't come up with a theory. In order to create a scientific theory, you need to confirm an explanation with a "substantial number of experiments and observations".
a myth on the other hand is just "a traditional story accepted as history"

You can say i know nothing about evolution but at least I know i wouldn't be asking ignorant questions as this:

i'll want the pro-evolutionists to answer Icon's question first.

Quote from: Icon on Today at 12:04:18 PM
Alright, just a quick one for the pro-evolutionists.
If Humans evolved from apes, why are there still apes?

that's a type question someone who just heard about evolution would ask.

that's just as saying "if rocks got crushed into stones, why are there still rocks around? well it's because not all rocks got crushed into stones!".


well, obviously my knowledge of the theory of evolution is excessively limited compared to Nferyn's. (i learned just a little about it 2 years ago. and that's about all i know (maybe when i get to college) . . and yes, almost every one knows the ever popular creation myth. haha)
But i don't know compared to you Layi.  why present a case against evolution? instead create a thread that asks "what is evolution". That's what i would do if i were you. Lol.
Knowledge first, then attack.



I almost certainly know that there are way more problems with the creation myth than the evolution theory.

layi:

A pathologist is a biologist. Infact a "higher" biologist and he deals more with microbiology (supposed antecedents of macrobiology).

I was under the impression that a pathologist was a medical doctor.
Biology-online.org defines a pathologist as A doctor [/b]who specialises in identifying diseases by studying cells and tissues under a microscope. (http://www.biology-online.org/dictionary/pathologist)
Medicine is an applied science. It relates to biology the same way engineering relates to physics and chemistry.

layi:

nferyn link=topic=6208.msg195493#msg195493 date=1139039097:

Could you explain the context in which he made that statement, because it is a clear sign of his ignorance on the subject matter.

Thats inconsequential, its a statement with a vivid meaning that can't change for the opposite with context

Let me reiterate the statement here:
I want all of you to understand that evolution is [b]just a theory and hasn't been proven yet, but in this class, we will be referring to hard and fast scientific evidence that makes it a believable and widely accepted idea of creation and how life arose.
He says that:
[list]
[li]It's just a theory - nobody with a proper understanding of the meaning of a scientific theory would make such a statement unless he's got a hidden agenda[/li]
[li]it hasn't been proven yet - nobody with a proper understanding of the meaning of a scientific theory would ever use the term proven in this context, unless he's got a hidden agenda[/li]
[li]creation - the mere mention of creation in the context of the Theory of Evolution means that he assumes creation is part of the mix of life. This is indeed completely inconsequential in this context and show an ulterior motive[/li]
[li]how life arose - is not part of the Theory of Evolution and - again - either shows a lack of understanding or a hidden agenda[/li]
[/list]
Context is [b]definitely [/b]needed to understand whether or not he understands the Theory of Evolution or has an ulterior motive

layi:

Then what does evolution explain? Evolution explains the origin of Life through abiogenesis. I am surprised at your statement (except u've got your own version of evolution).
The explanation of the origin of life offered by evolution theory is roughly this: Once upon a time, there was no life. Purely by chance, there came to be simple organisms capable of reproducing themselves. Random mutations introduced variety into the population of these organisms, with the result that some of them were better suited for competition than others. A scarcity of the natural resources necessary for these organisms to survive introduced competition for those resources. Those least fit for competition were unable to secure the resources that they needed to survive, and died without reproducing. Those best able to compete multiplied, with random mutations again introducing further variety. As this process was repeated, the organisms developed on an upward curve: each round of mutations introduced better organisms, and each round of competition killed off the weaker organisms. We are the result of the repetition of this process over millions of years.

See these links for more info :
http://www.daviddarling.info/encyclopedia/L/lifeorigin.html
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Origin_of_life

Once more you are putting up a strawman. You are mixing up the Theory of Evolution with Abiogenesis. The Theory of evolution only [/b]deals with how [b]already existing life evolves from a common ancestor to the diversity of life we see today.
As you mentioned in you other post, Abiogenesis isn't even close to finding out how life arose on this planet, but that has nothing to do whatsoever with the Theory of Evolution. You can believe that the first replicators came into existence through a special act of creation for all I care. At this moment in time, science just doesn't know

layi:

nferyn link=topic=6208.msg195493#msg195493 date=1139039097:

I wonder how much experience the man has in the scientific field? If he does have a research background, it will most definitely [b]not [/b]be in biology.

Beign a prof in the field of biology, i know he's definitely got more experience than you- a communication scientist.

Obviously, layi, but I am not debating him, am I? I am debating you.
If you use that prof as a source, I am in my full right to ask what exactly his credentials are in the field we're discussing. My sources all have have ample experience as researchers in biology and are considered experts in their field (biology) by their peers. What about your sources? Pardon me my blunt way of putting this, but - to make a fair comparison - if I really want to understand how an engine works, I am going to ask the engineer who designed it, not the auto-mechanic who services it.

layi:

Evolution theory is merely an interpretation of facts. Creationism also does the same. Its just an alternative interpretation of those facts. There are evidences supporting creationism which We'll delve into that later.

The theory of Evolution is not merely and interpretation of the facts. It is a coherent framework, that not only interprets the facts (the fact of evolution int his case), but , as a scientific theory, it also is:
• Consistent (internally and externally)
• Parsimonious (sparing in proposed entities or explanations)
• Useful (describes and explains observed phenomena)
• Empirically Testable & Falsifiable
• Correctable & Dynamic (changes are made as new data is discovered)
• Progressive (achieves all that previous theories have and more)
• Tentative (admits that it might not be correct rather than asserting certainty)
Now, on what counts exactly can creationism be considered a scientific theory?

layi:

In actual fact, if there are 2 sides of a coin, and 1 side is not it. U don't need evidence or proof to tell you its definitely the other side.

Do you honestly consider creationism as another side of the coin and obviously of the only coin in existence? Which creationism then are you talking about? The Yoruba creation myths, perhaps? Or maybe it's intelligent design by the flying spaghetti monster? You do have a funny way of finding the truth by ellimination

layi:

Evolution is also a religion ..though with no god. You are guilty as well. You can't think out of the box called "logic". I have seen several things in life that are illogical (not abnormal)

If you are pondering over the functioning of the natural world, logic and evidence is indeed the material you work with. Faith is not really useful when trying to advance science. And to be honest, the fact that you do not find a logical explanation for a phenomenon, does not mean that none exists. This type of argument from personal incredulity is not befitting you, layi.

layi:

So without "chance" the evolutionary process can't work. What are we saying then?

Sigh.... Indeed, without chance , evolutionary processes cannot work. Without chance nothing whatsoever can work. Ever heard of Quantum Mechanics?

layi:

Evolution does not deal with origin of universe and origin of life? Then what does it deal with. Origin of what? What explains your obsession for www.talkorigins.org .You've referred me there a thousand times and all they talk there is origin. Am i missing something?

You obviously have not read the talkorigins archives ab extenso if you think that all they talk about is origin. You are definitely missing something. You are missing an opportunity to increase your knowledge and understanding of evolutionary processes. Something that is definitely needed if you want to discuss it.

layi:

Man could have a relatively longer generational span, but we have had over 20,000 generations since homo sapiens evolved acoording to evolutionist. Is that not enough to observe evolution in man? Afterall the present man evolved from Homo Habilis *according to Evolutionists* over 400,000yrs ago. It takes roughly 300,000 - 500,000 years for species in the HOMO genus to evolve into the next and the transition phase gets considerably shorter down the *tree*. We should have observed evolution in modern man - Homo Sapiens (Homo Sapiens Sapiens).

Which evolutionist claimed that Homo Sapiens evolved from Homo Habilis over 400.000 years ago? Which evolutionist claimed that over 20.000 generations passed since Homo Sapiens evolved? Or are these once again part of your Strawman of Evolution? Could you be so kind to give the sources for these ridiculous claims? I won't comment on your other remarks because they are just as much off the mark

And, by the way, we have observed evoluton in Homo Sapiens Sapiens ([i]evolutionist [/i]now use the term Homo Sapiens without the added Sapiens, as Homo Neanderthalensis is no longer considered to be Homo Sapiens). Lactose tolerance has evolved in some groups of herders and the Sickle cell trait has evolved in African populations after the start of agriculture. Obviously this relatively minor kind of evolution has not lead to speciation and will not lead to speciation as humans are no longer reproductively isolated for long enough periods to make that possible.

layi:

Its a clever question sir. If Natural selection is responisble for the evolution of man and apes from the same ancestors, then they shouldnt be living under the same enviroment/natural habitat. The 'forest' is inconsequential afterall ther are trees and gardens in the cities. The point here is the region. Chimpazees and Man both live in tropical region. Morphological similarity does not indubitably explain a relationship.

Hominids are unlikely to have moved back into a tropical rainforrest habitat before enough adaptations had accumulated to allow them to survive in that habitat. Regions have nothing to do with evolution at all. Changing habitats provide selection pressure, not climatological regions. I have no idea what you're trying to say with your remark on morphological similarity.

layi:

Scientists have identified the skeletal structures of Homo sapiens in different parts of the world. The main conroversy centers around the question of whether Homo sapiens evolved from a single population in Africa or simultaneously in different parts of the world. Some evidence (molecular genetics) supports the "Out of Africa"model, other evidence (morphology) supports the "Multiregional Evolution"model.

See http://hypertextbook.com/facts/1997/TroyHolder.shtml and http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Human_evolution

You are referring to Homo Sapiens, I was talking about Hominids is general, thus including older hominid species (more precisely the australopethicae). These species did not move out of Africa at all. We had to wait untill the Homo Erectus before we find evidence of hominids outside of Africa. You are answering to a point I never made.

layi:

Evolution theory holds that we have evolved incrementally over time, gradually changing from one state that works to another state that works better. If evolution theory is true, therefore, then there must be a succession of states, each of which allows us to survive, through which we have evolved on an upward curve.
This, though, doesn’t seem to be the case; we seem to be irreducibly complex. To illustrate (actual examples are a bit more complex than this): think of the organs that make human beings work, our hearts, lungs, stomachs, brains, etc. A human being that lacks any of these won’t just have less survival value than one with all of them; it won’t have any survival value at all. A human being without a heart is a dead human being, as is one without either lungs, or a stomach, or a brain. We therefore can’t have incrementally acquired these things, first getting one, then another, and so on; we must have acquired them all at once. That, though, isn’t evolution. Evolution is a gradual process.

Can you properly define irreducibly complex and give specific examples of what exactly is irreducibly complex, so that I can properly refute your argument? And please don't come with any of the Behe arguments. These are far too easy to refute and pose no challenge whatsoever.

Maybe you can throw in some specified complexity as well. With a bit of luck, you will have brought all the fellows of the Discovery Institute in the picture and then we could have a chat about the Wedge document as well.

layi:

Evolution, then, cannot explain the origin of irreducibly complex biological organisms. If we are such organisms, then there must be more to how we got here than evolution.

See above

Could I just quickly chip in that a Pathologist is a Medical Doctor. I am a Medical Doctor and right now I'm training to specialise in pathology. When I finish, I become a Pathologist. I'm not on anybody's side though. I just wanted to clarify that. Thanks.

Thank You sir
I must add at this juncture. I am happy the thread is movin this way. Hot, yet no name calling so far. We are all learning i guess. I am learning as well. Just wondering why we are having just 3-4 participants.

Seun:

I want to make one point that layi may be missing:

Theories cannot be "proven" as such. They can only be supported with evidence.
1) Einstein's Theory of Relativity has not been "proven" any more than the theory of evolution. But we are using it in various aspect of modern lfife and it works for us. It has been supported with a lot of evidence.
2) Gravity itself, like evolution, is "just a theory". So can I jump off a skyscraper and expect not to break my head because gravity is "just a theory"? Come on, folks, be reasonable!

I am also reasonable enough not to treat theory explaining origin as trivial as theories explaining the present - everyday occurence (e.g gravity et all). Einstein's Theory of Relativity is beign used to supplant the Theory of gravity for more advanced work in gravitation. The ultimate cause of the gravitational force remains an open question just like the force behind evolution. this makes both qualify as theories but the difference is this: a great deal is now known about the properties of gravity to an infallible conclusion but a major tool used by evolution to arrive at their conclusion-Radiometric Dating has been faulted by geochronologists. They claim that the error range in radiometric (radio-carbon) dating increases drastically once you pass 50,000 years due to contamination and some other biological factors. Moreover radiometric ages do not agree with each other. That may not sound too problematic but if conclusions were made on those errors, i'm reasonable enough to know that a second look at the facts is needed.
See this: http://www.palaeos.com/Geochronology/radiometric_dating.htm

Seun, There is another belief system held to be as true and is probably more widespread than the belief in Darwin's theory of Evolution; that is belief in Astrology. This theory parallels belief in evolution in the respect that it is persistent, without an explainable mechanism, and tautologous in the sense that predictions of behavior of an individual can be made based solely on time of birth, but seemingly cannot be made without this information.
Darwin's theory on the other hand, explains the reasons for characteristics of organisms after knowing whether or not they are survivors. The similarities between the two theories are just so striking. You should have placed them together instead of bringin in gravity

WesleyanA:

My point is: You're trying to dismiss a theory in favor of a MYTH. which has more credence??

U are obviously the one using a strawman approach here. You call it a MYTH. I call it Creationism. Why don't you start a thread on your case against the supposed myth and we battle it there. This thread is on the errors in the evolution theory. Thank You

WesleyanA:

a theory is not as unreliable as a myth. anyone just can't come up with a theory. In order to create a scientific theory, you need to confirm an explanation with a "substantial number of experiments and observations".
a myth on the other hand is just "a traditional story accepted as history"

There you go ahead with your "myth" illusion. Well, i'm the least surprised since what you know is what evrybody knows. You are oblivious of the truth about creationism. Ther are historical proofs of the so called stories u call myth.

that's a type question someone who just heard about evolution would ask.

Its the type of question any critical thinker would ask. You say natural selection is responsible for the continous evolution of the Homo Genus. Yet for about 1 millions years the apes we see have not evolved considerably. Most of the new ape species we have are could pass for hybrids

WesleyanA:

why present a case against evolution? instead create a thread that asks "what is evolution". That's what i would do if i were you. Lol.
Knowledge first, then attack.

Its english baby, Its my case against evolution. I present it. Its left for you to refute it. If u know so little about evolution, you are not in a position to tell me i know nothing about it. Your statement "Knowledge first, then attack" is absolutely irrelevant here. You should adhere to that not me.

I was under the impression that a pathologist was a medical doctor.

We have specialist pathologists who are qualified pathologists with expertise in histopathology (tissues), cytology (cells), immunohistochemistry, immunoflowcytometry, molecular biology (which is relevant here) and post-mortem pathology.

Which evolutionist claimed that Homo Sapiens evolved from Homo Habilis over 400.000 years ago? Which evolutionist claimed that over 20.000 generations passed since Homo Sapiens evolved? Or are these once again part of your Strawman of Evolution? Could you be so kind to give the sources for these ridiculous claims? I won't comment on your other remarks because they are just as much off the mark

And, by the way, we have observed evoluton in Homo Sapiens Sapiens (evolutionist now use the term Homo Sapiens without the added Sapiens, as Homo Neanderthalensis is no longer considered to be Homo Sapiens). Lactose tolerance has evolved in some groups of herders and the Sickle cell trait has evolved in African populations after the start of agriculture. Obviously this relatively minor kind of evolution has not lead to speciation and will not lead to speciation as humans are no longer reproductively isolated for long enough periods to make that possible.

Firstly i accept the mistake of putting habilis in place of erectus (unknowingly). However it doesnt change the fact that Homo Sapiens evolved about 400,000 years ago.
Here is a quote from http://hypertextbook.com/facts/1997/TroyHolder.shtml
"Most anthropologist believe that between about 400000 & 300000 years ago, Homo erectus evolved into a new species called Homo sapiens."
Also check www.wsu.edu:8001/vwsu/gened/learn-modules/top_longfor/timeline/timeline.html and
http://www.as.ua.edu/ant/ant100/pdf/LaterHominidEvolution.pdf.

If Lactose tolerance and the Sickle cell trait is considered Evolution, then Resistance to malaria and other pathological disorders like Small Pox is Evolution as well. Biological adaptation has now been termed evolution instead of beign a factor. I have evolved several times then.

As you mentioned in you other post, Abiogenesis isn't even close to finding out how life arose on this planet, but that has nothing to do whatsoever with the Theory of Evolution.

True Abiogenesis is about the origin of life. Evolution, technically, is about what happened after life arose on Earth. Abiogenesis concerns itself wit the evolution of amino acids and proteins.
Here is a quote from http://www.csulb.edu/~jmastrop/data3.html
"The foundation of evolution is abiogenesis, life spontaneously generated from nonlife. The superstructure placed upon that foundation is monogenesis, myriad spontaneously generated structures to produce every kind of simple life form then by countless spontaneous generations every kind of complex life form. The other “definitions” of evolution are change over time, common descent and natural selection".

Seems you are outrightly dissociating evolution from abiogenesis. You may wish to check these out
www.nwcreation.net/abiogenesis.html
Just in case you don't know Abiogenesis is also known as the theory of pre-biological evolution or the theoryof spontaneous generation
http://www.ourworld-top.cs.com/mikegriffith1/abiogenesis.htm
In actual fact Evolution is baseless without a good theory of abiogenesis, which it you claim it does not have.

Pardon me my blunt way of putting this, but - to make a fair comparison - if I really want to understand how an engine works, I am going to ask the engineer who designed it, not the auto-mechanic who services it.

A real auto mechanic knows how an engine works else servicing would be by trial and error.

Faith is not really useful when trying to advance science. And to be honest, the fact that you do not find a logical explanation for a phenomenon, does not mean that none exists. This type of argument from personal incredulity is not befitting you, layi.

Awww I'm sorry But i didnt create those illogical events. Its an interpretation of my perceptions. The term logic could be a relative term. I only used illogical looking at it from your standpoint. To a theists a miracle is logical because there is a direct causal relationship between an invisble beign and the benefactor. And yes, its not a placebo effect. It is faith in action a.k.a creative faith. To the atheist, thats illogical and false.
Faith is absolutely useful in Life. The issue should be advancing life not science. Science is only 1 of the tools in advancing life. Speculations and risks are a type of faith and they have been found to be useful.

Humans can recycle what already exists in nature all they want and call it invention and discovery but the world will remain forever. The form might change over time due to human interference.

A US$2,000 Reward To The Pro-Evolutionists

Nferyn, You referred me to take up the Randy Challenge offering 1Million
I'll like you to Take up the Challenge here
http://www.geocities.com/Athens/Aegean/8830/rewards.html
and smile to the Bank
$2000 may be change to you but it sure will reduce dem bills

who cares whatever anybody thinks about evolution. we can believe whatever... inteligent design, God, myth...  the list goes on......

layi:

I am also reasonable enough not to treat theory explaining origin as trivial as theories explaining the present - everyday occurence (e.g gravity et all). Einstein's Theory of Relativity is beign used to supplant the Theory of gravity for more advanced work in gravitation. The ultimate cause of the gravitational force remains an open question just like the force behind evolution.

You should really explain what you mean by ultimate cause and by origin. These terms are rather blurry and vague without context.

layi:

this makes both qualify as theories but the difference is this: a great deal is now known about the properties of gravity to an infallible conclusion

Meaning?

layi:

but a major tool used by evolution to arrive at their conclusion-Radiometric Dating has been faulted by geochronologists.

Really? What exactly do you mean by being faulted, as your link only talks about the fact that one of the radiometric dating methods (Radio-Carbon dating) cannot be used for specific age ranges. Therefore radio carbon dating is hardly ever used in the dating of fossils.

layi:

They claim that the error range in radiometric (radio-carbon) dating increases drastically once you pass 50,000 years due to contamination and some other biological factors.

No, that's because the remaining unstable carbon isotopes are too few to properly determine an exact date. Contamination can be determined through other methods.

layi:

Moreover radiometric ages do not agree with each other.

Obviously not, as the isotopes they look at have different half lives and the margin of error of the different methods is different. Could you be more specific about what you mean here, because maybe we're talking about different things.

layi:

That may not sound too problematic but if conclusions were made on those errors, i'm reasonable enough to know that a second look at the facts is needed.
See this: http://www.palaeos.com/Geochronology/radiometric_dating.htm

No self respecting scientist is going to make conclusions based on only one line of evidence. Could you give and example of where those errors have been used, and, if they would somehow still be used, how that falsifies evolution?

From http://www.ncseweb.org/resources/rncse_content/vol20/4180_radiometeric_dating_does_work_12_30_1899.asp

It is rare for a study involving radiometric dating to contain a single determination of age. Usually determinations of age are repeated to avoid laboratory errors, are obtained on more than one rock unit or more than one mineral from a rock unit in order to provide a cross-check, or are evaluated using other geologic information that can be used to test and corroborate the radiometric ages. Scientists who use radiometric dating typically use every means at their disposal to check, recheck, and verify their results, and the more important the results the more they are apt to be checked and rechecked by others. As a result, it is nearly impossible to be completely fooled by a good set of radiometric age data collected as part of a well-designed experiment.

layi:

Seun, There is another belief system held to be as true and is probably more widespread than the belief in Darwin's theory of Evolution; that is belief in Astrology. This theory parallels belief in evolution in the respect that it is persistent, without an explainable mechanism, and tautologous in the sense that predictions of behavior of an individual can be made based solely on time of birth, but seemingly cannot be made without this information.
Darwin's theory on the other hand, explains the reasons for characteristics of organisms after knowing whether or not they are survivors. The similarities between the two theories are just so striking. You should have placed them together instead of bringin in gravity

Now evolution has been promoted to a belief system. Nice to know. Actually, it is no belief system at all. It is:
1. A fact: evolution happened
2. A scientific theory explaining the mechanisms underlying that fact

How exactly does astrology qualify as a scientific theory? I would be very interested to know how you can come to that conclusion.
Anyway, once more you have your own, peculiar way of characterising the Theory of Evolution. Or maybe, using the same method of reasoning, you're going to characterise me as a murderous villain, based on the similarities between me and a murderer. After all, we both eat food and have to go to the bathroom every now and then

layi:

Its the type of question any critical thinker would ask. You say natural selection is responsible for the continous evolution of the Homo Genus. Yet for about 1 millions years the apes we see have not evolved considerably. Most of the new ape species we have are could pass for hybrids

How exactly do you know that those apes (If you're talking about the non-hominid apes) have not evolved? It's not that there is a big chance of finding fossils in the natural habitat of those apes. A tropical climate and forrest habitat are not directly beneficial for the fossilisation of remains.

And even if they did not undergo much morphological evolution, once more you fail to see one of the main characteristics of evolutionary theory. Mutations only [/b]lead to [b]adaptations [/b]when there is a [b]selection pressure. If the habitat remains the same and the other species within that habitat remain the same or similar (as is the case for the other great apes) you will not see much morphological change. The habitat of the Coulacanth has not changed considerably for millions of years and thus as there was no selection pressure, the coulacanth did not go through a lot of morphological change.

layi:

We have specialist pathologists who are qualified pathologists with expertise in histopathology (tissues), cytology (cells), immunohistochemistry, immunoflowcytometry, molecular biology (which is relevant here) and post-mortem pathology.

And that makes your prof a credible source? The fact that you have expertise in molecular biology? How does that make them qualified in matters of evolutionary theory? Has he falsified one of the main pillars of evolutionary theory through his research work in pathology?

layi:

Firstly i accept the mistake of putting habilis in place of erectus (unknowingly). However it doesnt change the fact that Homo Sapiens evolved about 400,000 years ago.
Here is a quote from http://hypertextbook.com/facts/1997/TroyHolder.shtml
"Most anthropologist believe that between about 400000 & 300000 years ago, Homo erectus evolved into a new species called Homo sapiens."

Ah exactly. A web page written in 1997 says that a source from 1996 says that most anthropologist (this should actually be paleo-anthropologists, but maybe the writer misquoted the source) between 400.000 and 300.000 years ago Homo Erectus evolved into Homo Sapiens. Since that time quite a few discoveries have been done that indicate that there are candidate intermediate species between Homo Erectus (who still lived up to 30.000 years ago). The most likely candidate is the species Homo Heidelbergensis of whom we have fossil evidence between 600.000 and 100.000 years ago.

Mind you, even within Homo Erectus fossil materials there are huge differences based on chronology and geographic location of the finds.

layi:

Also check www.wsu.edu:8001/vwsu/gened/learn-modules/top_longfor/timeline/timeline.html and
http://www.as.ua.edu/ant/ant100/pdf/LaterHominidEvolution.pdf.

Thank you, but I'd rather use my more recent and accurate material. The new book by Carl Zimmer, The Smithsonian Intimate Guide to Human Origins, is an excellent summary of the most recent research on human evolution.

layi:

If Lactose tolerance and the Sickle cell trait is considered Evolution, then Resistance to malaria and other pathological disorders like Small Pox is Evolution as well. Biological adaptation has now been termed evolution instead of beign a factor.

I thought the sickle cell trait constitutes a level of resistance against malaria or am I wrong? Anyway, lactose tolerance is an evolved trait, as it manifests itself in the human DNA and only omong these people that historically consume considerable amounts of dairy products. As for resistance against specific viral and bacterial pathological disorders, these are fundamentally different as they are built up within the human immune system and does not manifest itself in human cellular DNA, but only in that of the B lymphocytes. I had this discussion one with our fiend nicetohave [/i]here on this board. I better link to the relevant entries for the details (https://www.nairaland.com/nigeria/topic-3833.msg137480.html#msg137480). Let me just repeat the conclusion here that our human[b] immune system[/b] is an excellent example of the principles of evolution in action.

layi:
I have evolved several times then.

You have not, but your immune system has undergone significant evolution

layi:

True Abiogenesis is about the origin of life. Evolution, technically, is about what happened after life arose on Earth. Abiogenesis concerns itself wit the evolution of amino acids and proteins.
Here is a quote from http://www.csulb.edu/~jmastrop/data3.html
"The foundation of evolution is abiogenesis, life spontaneously generated from nonlife. The superstructure placed upon that foundation is monogenesis, myriad spontaneously generated structures to produce every kind of simple life form then by countless spontaneous generations every kind of complex life form. The other “definitions” of evolution are change over time, common descent and natural selection".

The foundation of evolution as a fact is indeed abiogenesis, just as the foundation of human beings as a fact is energy contained in matter. Of that foundation, the most important building block is the manifestation of energy contained in matter in the form of water.
When you're talking about Evolution [i]as a scientific theory, abiogenesis is absolutely not a foundation of Evolution. It falls wholly outside the scope of evolutionary theory.
When you're referring to abiogenesis and using definitions or explanations either of abiogenesis or evolution, rather use material from scientists working in the respective fields than creationist pamphlets by people with no credentials either in biology or abiogenesis.

layi:

Seems you are outrightly dissociating evolution from abiogenesis. You may wish to check these out
www.nwcreation.net/abiogenesis.html

I'm dissociating it from the Theory of Evolution, yes, because once more, if falls outside it's scope. Evolutionary theory only deals with already existing replicators, not with the formation of replicators.

layi:

Just in case you don't know Abiogenesis is also known as the theory of pre-biological evolution or the theoryof spontaneous generation
http://www.ourworld-top.cs.com/mikegriffith1/abiogenesis.htm

By creationists yes. Anyway, abiogenesis has not yet produced any meaningful results and there are currently only working hypothesis concerning it's possible functioning. It does not have anything yet approaching the status of theory. By putting God in the gap of how the first replicators were formed, you solve nothing though, as this explains nothing about any underlying processes. The principle of inscrutability at work - it is anti-intellectual.

layi:

In actual fact Evolution is baseless without a good theory of abiogenesis, which it you claim it does not have.

No it is not. Explain what you mean with baseless and why it is baseless?

layi:

A real auto mechanic knows how an engine works else servicing would be by trial and error.

Yes, but he does not know how it is designed and built and if he does know, he should change profession.

layi:

Awww I'm sorry But i didnt create those illogical events. Its an interpretation of my perceptions. The term logic could be a relative term. I only used illogical looking at it from your standpoint.

Logic does not depend on it's user. It can be just as well applied by theists. The main difference is that theists accept premisses within their logical system that are insrutable and block it from further investigation. Within that system, they can be perfectly logical.

layi:

To a theists a miracle is logical because there is a direct causal relationship between an invisble beign and the benefactor. And yes, its not a placebo effect. It is faith in action a.k.a creative faith. To the atheist, thats illogical and false.

It is not illogical to the atheist. It is false to the atheist, as the underlying premises are either inscrutable or self-contradictory within a rational epistemiological framework.

layi:

Faith is absolutely useful in Life. The issue should be advancing life not science. Science is only 1 of the tools in advancing life. Speculations and risks are a type of faith and they have been found to be useful.

I never have said that faith cannot have it's purpose or use. It is irrational and unscientific though and therefore not suitable for the study of the natural world.

layi,

One more thing. If you present something as My case against evolution, you better make sure that it is [b]your [/b]case. It is not very honest to present it as your case when you mainly engage in copy-and-paste from another website:
http://www.gnmagazine.org/booklets/EV/index.htm

If i had gotten those question froma book offline and pasted themhere. Would that have made me honest?
Did your own points arrive from thing air?
Would it have made a diference if i had paraphrased them?
The fact that those points made me rethink on evolution makes it My Case as well. Its English language Sir.
Evrything u wrote on this thread, U read somewhere else (a bulk of it from www.talkorigin.org). Paraphrasing makes no difference.
You have killed this debate by coming up wit such approach. If i wasnt able to counter your points intelligibly, it would have been a different case. Your last post is can be likened to this:

"Its dishonest to tell me that you know smoking is bad when in actual fact you only read is somewhere else"

Thats a bad debating style. Leaving out the pointin discourse to attack the person. In this case,you loose cos there is nothing dishonest here. If i amto argue elsewhere,i would still bring those points. it doesnt make them less my points.

layi:

Did your own points arrive from thing air? Would it have made a diference if i had paraphrased it. The fact that those points made me rethink on evolution makes it My Case as well. Its English language Sir. Evrything u wrote on this thread, U read somewhere else. Paraphrasing makes no difference.

What you call paraphrasing, I call copying and pasting without mentioning the source. In technical terms, it is called plagiarism. Not that I think your source would mind you using their material like that, after all, you are defending the same case they make.

My postings have been different in the sense that I use my own words and reason from the knowledge I acquired. I do not blindly copy other people's reasoning without explicitely mentioning the source. Also, the way you characterise Evolutionary Theory shows that you get your knowledge almost exclusively from creationist sources. You don't seem to bother to really study evolution, you rather study a strawman version of evolution, as only this strawman can be refuted, not the real thing.

layi:

You have killed this debate by coming up wit such approach. If i wasnt able to counter your points intelligibly, it would have been a different case.
Thanks

How have I killed the debate? I have just exposed the fact that you copied somebody elses case against evolution and not really presented your own case. I don't mind you defending somebody elses ideas, just be honest to admit that they are not coming from you.

And you have not refuted any of my points. I have refuted yours and refuted your counter refutations. Can he get back to the debate or don't you have any counter-counter refutations left?

What you call paraphrasing, I call copying and pasting without mentioning the source.

Is that your own meaning of paraphrasing?

Anyway here is the dictionary meaning:
par·a·phrase    (pr-frz) KEY 

NOUN:

A restatement of a text or passage in another form or other words.

If i had paraphrased would it have made them my points? Everything you pasted here. U learnt from somewhere else. They are not YOUR points as well.
My question again is what makes them less my points. Does posing someones questions that i totally agree with make them less my own questions? Would u have been satisfied if i said Creationists Case Against Evolution or GnMagazine Case against evolution (when in actual fact it is not)? You are obviously not making any point with that accusation. If you accuse me of plagiarism, go through my posts again where quotes were made I gave props to the source.
This style is unbefitting of an intellectual debate. Its of no relevance here

layi:

If i had gotten those question froma book offline and pasted themhere. Would that have made me honest?
Did your own points arrive from thing air?

No, they come from my vivid interest in evolution, which makes me, as a non-specialist, read up on the subject whenever I have the chance. I have sufficient knowledge about the subject to construct my own arguments and only quote others when I think that a more reputable source is required or when the argument is much better constructed than I could have done myself.

layi:

Would it have made a diference if i had paraphrased them?

It would have been better if you referenced the source. I generally do not paraphrase other people's arguments, but construct my own. That's why it usually takes me a little longer to reply to your posts. The links are there for further clarification (I could also reference to my personal library, but that would take even longer).

layi:

The fact that those points made me rethink on evolution makes it My Case as well. Its English language Sir.

Does that justify plagiarism?

layi:

"Its dishonest to tell me that you know smoking is bad when in actual fact you only read is somewhere else"

What do you mean with this statement?

layi:

Thats a bad debating style. Leaving out the pointin discourse to attack the person. In this case,you loose because there is nothing dishonest here. If i amto argue elsewhere,i would still bring those points. it doesnt make them less my points.

I don't attack the person. I appreciate you too much as a person to do that. What I do attack is the debating style. Make sure that if the arguments are not yours, you properly indicate where they come from

Layi, why couldn't you just have indicated that you just copied and pasted the arguments from another site without editing them or using other words.

An example:
from http://www.gnmagazine.org/booklets/EV/index.htm

If evolution is the guiding force in human development, how is it that higher forms of life evolved with male and female sexes? If humans are the pinnacle of the evolutionary process, how is it that we have the disadvantage of requiring a member of the opposite sex to reproduce, when lower forms of life—such as bacteria, viruses and protozoa—are sexless and far more prolific? If they can reproduce by far simpler methods, why can't we? If evolution is true, what went wrong?

from your case:

If evolution is the guiding force in human development, how is it that higher forms of life evolved with male and female sexes? If humans are the pinnacle of the evolutionary process, how is it that we have the disadvantage of requiring a member of the opposite sex to reproduce, when lower forms of life—such as bacteria, viruses and protozoa—are sexless and far more prolific? If they can reproduce by far simpler methods, why can't we? If evolution is true, what went wrong?

Edited: reason: misreading of words last post layi

This is what i said

If i had paraphrased would it have make them my points?

Should I call it an oversight on your part or what? I said I did not paraphrase those words and u keep hitting on that.

I still don't see the relevance here. I read this points all over the net and when i can't paraphrase i copy them. U insist i always give the links which is absolutely uncessary. Its of no use here. they are not articles under such intelectual properties that can be plagiarised. This is obviously not plagiarising. And i don't see why the links are neccessary. I could write my own book around those points and it wont be plagiarism.Go check wit a lawyer what plagiarism entails.

Good we have obviously veered of course. Seems we wont be able to keep such sensitive matters like this flowing without touching some strings. Since my debating style seems dishonest to you when in actual fact it is not, no need countering or continuing. I agree Evolution theory is flawless. 

Oh no! 

I have enjoyed  this thread up until now. While not supporting any party creationsim  or Evolution..i have to mention that Nferyn latest style in uncalled  for. You sound too intelligent to bring in the debating style used by partisan politicians - Trying to fault your  opponent debating  style or oratory skills rather than treating the issue at hand is a sign of weakness on your part.
There is no plagiarism in Layi's  first post. Like he said He couldnt find better words to replace such statements. If he had added links,it wont change a thing. It would still have been HIS CASE. Its irrelevant bringing in such accusation at this point. Its just too trivial an issue.
Whether they be hispoints or someelse's is ofnouse. Thefact thathe has been able to raise pointsover pointsin repose to ur debate is enough to know he knows what he's doing. I'm totally against such accusations.

Some else's thought automatically becomes yours if u agree with it.

I  am not a creationist or evolutionist. I am not adept in  the study of both but you have both brought up interesting points that makes me give a second look to both creationism and evolution. Perhaps they both wont answer to Life most  pertinent question. Origin. I still believe Layi's side the more. So many things inLife are caused. They don't occur by chance. Intelligent design seem more credible.  If the earth and  universe is eternal then whyis it deteriorating? It sure has a beginning.

from http://sja.ucdavis.edu/avoid.htm

WHAT IS PLAGIARISM?

Plagiarism means using another's work without giving credit. You must put others' words in quotation marks and cite your source(s) and must give citations when using others' ideas, even if those ideas are paraphrased in your own words.

I like to know where the ideas are coming from, so that I can evaluate their merit. Paraphrasing would just have hid their origin. If the ideas are not your own, giving the sources is the courteous thing to do, both to the author of the sources and your debating opponent.

layi, I do believe that you did not intentionally make this slip, so I will no longer fault you for it.

I hope this settles the point.

layi:

Good we have obviously veered of course. Seems we wont be able to keep such sensitive matters like this flowing without touching some strings. Since my debating style seems dishonest to you when in actual fact it is not, no need countering or continuing. I agree Evolution theory is flawless.

I have no problem as long as you give sources for your ideas, especially when you present them as your own. As you now made clear that you did not [b]intentionally [/b]hid the origin of your statements, I retract my view that your debating style was dishonest.

Anyway, can we get back to the debate or do you truly believe that Evolution theory is flawless (I certainly don't)

oladeoye:

Oh no!

I have enjoyed this thread up until now. While not supporting any party creationsim or Evolution..i have to mention that Nferyn latest style in uncalled for. You sound too intelligent to bring in the debating style used by partisan politicians - Trying to fault your opponent debating style or oratory skills rather than treating the issue at hand is a sign of weakness on your part.

If that was the only thing I did, I would agree, but I have refuted [b]all [/b]of layi's objections against Evolutionary theory up to this point and he has yet to answer to the bulk of mine.

oladeoye:

There is no plagiarism in Layi's first post.

Actually, there was. Unintentionally by layi's admission, as he did not want to hide his sources, but still, tecnically it was plagiarism.

oladeoye:

Like he said He couldnt find better words to replace such statements. If he had added links,it wont change a thing.

If I cannot find any better words, I do use quotations to the relevant sources. It does not change the information, but it shows where tho origin of the ideas lies. This is extremely important in any intellectual debate. A scientific paper also always includes the source material it is based on, as it allows the reviewer to properly weigh the arguments on their merit and see where the auther brought novel ideas and where he is rehashing other people's arguments.
You may not be aware of this practice of quotations and citations in the scientific literature, but this is the way it is done.

oladeoye:

It would still have been HIS CASE.

It would have made clear what were his ideas and what were the ideas from others.

oladeoye:

Its irrelevant bringing in such accusation at this point. Its just too trivial an issue.

Actually it is not. I consider the debating ground here to be just as meticulous and methodical as in a scientific debate. Maybe I should lower my standards.

oladeoye:

Whether they be hispoints or someelse's is ofnouse. Thefact thathe has been able to raise pointsover pointsin repose to your debate is enough to know he knows what he's doing. I'm totally against such accusations.

Actually, he hasn't. Can you point out a refutation of my arguments that I have not been able to counter?

oladeoye:

Some else's thought automatically becomes yours if u agree with it.

That would obviously mean that you do not investigate the arguments on their merits. Your agreement needs to be based on something.

oladeoye:

I am not a creationist or evolutionist. I am not adept in the study of both but you have both brought up interesting points that makes me give a second look to both creationism and evolution.

Please do so, Sir. It is a fascinating subject

oladeoye:

Perhaps they both wont answer to Life most pertinent question. Origin.

Evolutionary Theory does not claim to answer questions of origin. Creationism does, without evidence, though.

oladeoye:

I still believe Layi's side the more. So many things inLife are caused. They don't occur by chance. Intelligent design seem more credible. If the earth and universe is eternal then whyis it deteriorating? It sure has a beginning.

I urge you to investigate Evolutionary Theory in more detail. Don't settle for arguments from personal incredulity, but study to see whether or not evolutionary theory answers your questions. Do know though that Evolutionary theory makes no claims about the origin of the universe or the origin of life. There needs to be no contradiction between a belief in God and acceptance of Evolutionary Theory.
Please read:
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/faq-god.html
http://www.uwosh.edu/colleges/cols/clergy_project.htm
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/faq-intro-to-biology.html

@Oladeoye And how is the universe deteriorating may I ask?

The sun is deteriorating (loosing heat). I'll try get authentic sources for your reference. Will be back.

I have heard that several times as well. 5 billion yrs more for the earth. If its not deteriorating why would it be timed? I've heard its loosing heat gradually.
Here is a link: http://www.los-molinos.hlpusd.k12.ca.us/Signature/The%20Sun
"The sun is the only star in our solar system. The average density is 1.4 times the density of water. The mass of the sun is 1.99 million, trillion, trillion tons. Nuclear reactions in the heart of the sun turn 5 million tons of matter each second. Even so the sun has another 5 billion years to live. "

Another: http://www.astrosociety.org/education/publications/tnl/39/sun2.html
"And how much longer will it continue to shine? For an idea of the Sun's life expectancy, astronomers look to clusters of stars, such as one named Messier 67, which is about the same age as our Sun. By simulating the life cycles of these stars on a computer, astronomers have ascertained how long stars live. They predict that the Sun will be able to fuse hydrogen into helium in its core at about the same rate for another 5 billion years."

Also go through this link http://www-astronomy.mps.ohio-state.edu/~pogge/Lectures/vistas97.html by astrologers
You'll learn about the projected life of the sun and how it'll end.

I gotta be careful how i post now. I might use just links and lil texts from now on

layi its ironic that you're now calling on scientific theory to support the end of the universe while it is not sufficient to explain its origin or its evolution. don't you think?

Anyway to clarify I was expecting biblical explanation. Maybe a reference in the Revelation or something about the ends of days. I wasn't expecting those science links.

Dont box me to a corner. I am against the evolution theory not science. .
Creationism tells us there was a beginning and there will be an end.
I'm glad science now agrees to that.
If i quote scripture you'ld cry foul so i had to even use science.

What u also fail to realise is that we have scientists as creationists. We can use science to refute science. I Have been using science since the thread started. I have not resulted to scripture yet.

Its only becomes Ironical if i quote the same source i have been refuting to back up a point.

I am a christian who believes that if scriptures is true, it should have back ups from other sources. I mustn't always use scripture to explain scripture. I'll be deceiving myself that way. I'm well aversed wit scriptures but i prefer to debate science wit science.

You have to understand that even if the sun finally 'run out of gas' and gets turns off and no more life that the universe will still leaves on and new forms of life will evolve intelligent or not. We humans were not here 10 million years ago remember?

So we'll become extinct like the dinosaurs and other beigns will take over?