Chimps Stronger Than Humans?

Off Topic
81

[quote]Bane wrote:
PGJ wrote:
How does a platypus prove anything? If anything it proves creation. Why would anything evolve into that?

I wanted to address this specifically, as this baffled scientists during the 19th century. However, we have now discovered fossil records of the platypus’s ancestors showing that it did evolve. The answer to your question “why would anything evolve into that” is a simple one: because it was adaptive to.

(Platypus - Wikipedia if you’d like to check for yourself)[/quote]
I read it.

No, scientists discovered a fossel jawbone and some teeth that they speculate is similar to today’s platypus. It’s amazing how scientists make wild assumptions. They find parts of bones and then are able to tell us everything about it. Then 10 years later they say “oh, never mind”.

I believe that there used to be a lot more variety of animals. Some survived, some didn’t.

82

[quote]PGJ wrote:
…
No, scientists discovered a fossel jawbone and some teeth that they speculate is similar to today’s platypus. It’s amazing how scientists make wild assumptions. They find parts of bones and then are able to tell us everything about it. Then 10 years later they say “oh, never mind”.

I believe that there used to be a lot more variety of animals. Some survived, some didn’t.

[/quote]

I firmly believe in evolution but these points are true.

No one really knows what the fuck happened in the past and scientists have said some pretty stupid things in the last century in this field. There is no reason to believe they have it correct now.

83

[quote]Zap Branigan wrote:
PGJ wrote:
…
No, scientists discovered a fossel jawbone and some teeth that they speculate is similar to today’s platypus. It’s amazing how scientists make wild assumptions. They find parts of bones and then are able to tell us everything about it. Then 10 years later they say “oh, never mind”.

I believe that there used to be a lot more variety of animals. Some survived, some didn’t.

I firmly believe in evolution but these points are true.

No one really knows what the fuck happened in the past and scientists have said some pretty stupid things in the last century in this field. There is no reason to believe they have it correct now.[/quote]

My problem with evolution is that it is being taught/presented as scientific fact. It’s a plausible theory, but it is far from absolute fact. I believe in creation. I can’t scientifically prove it, but I have seen nothing to disprove it either.

Yes, it’s a religious belief, but even when I wasn’t a Christian, I still had a deep-down feeling that everything is for a specific reason. Things just didn’t happen by accident. And now when I weigh the evidence of both sides (and yes I do consider the other side), evolution, in my opinion, is wild speculation.

I have no problem with people discussing evolution, but don’t call it scientific fact. Everyone is entitled to their opinion. Just don’t call people names because they don’t buy into the program (ZAP, I’m not talking about you. You are very good at being non-judgemental).

84

[quote]PGJ wrote:
How does a platypus prove anything? If anything it proves creation. Why would anything evolve into that?[/quote]

How does it prove creation (or even lend itself in support of?) and which account of creation does it prove?

I agree that the platypus is somewhat outside current evolutionary theory and scientists are making intuitive leaps to account for it, but to assert that “it proves creation” indicates to me that you’ve rocketed off the path of objectivity and rational thought.

85

[quote]lucasa wrote:
PGJ wrote:
How does a platypus prove anything? If anything it proves creation. Why would anything evolve into that?

How does it prove creation (or even lend itself in support of?) and which account of creation does it prove?

I agree that the platypus is somewhat outside current evolutionary theory and scientists are making intuitive leaps to account for it, but to assert that “it proves creation” indicates to me that you’ve rocketed off the path of objectivity and rational thought.

[/quote]

It lends proof in that it is such a rediculous creature, how could it have evolved from anything. There is no way a duck and a beaver could have mated. So where did it come from? There is nothing else on the planet that looks like it. No other mammal lays eggs or has poisonous spines. It’s totally unique in so many ways. Evolution can not explain this thing. What did it used to be? It must have been created that way.

86

[quote]PGJ wrote:
lucasa wrote:
PGJ wrote:
How does a platypus prove anything? If anything it proves creation. Why would anything evolve into that?

How does it prove creation (or even lend itself in support of?) and which account of creation does it prove?

I agree that the platypus is somewhat outside current evolutionary theory and scientists are making intuitive leaps to account for it, but to assert that “it proves creation” indicates to me that you’ve rocketed off the path of objectivity and rational thought.

It lends proof in that it is such a rediculous creature, how could it have evolved from anything. There is no way a duck and a beaver could have mated. So where did it come from? There is nothing else on the planet that looks like it. No other mammal lays eggs or has poisonous spines. It’s totally unique in so many ways. Evolution can not explain this thing. What did it used to be? It must have been created that way.

[/quote]
Your understanding of evolution is very weak. Too weak for you to be able to consider such things. The Platypus doesn’t need to look or be like anything else. If it has no close relatives, it simply means it took a lone evolutionary path. There were no successful branch outs. There are lots of successful “branches” of Ants and Crocodiles and Primates, but only one successful lineage of the Platypus.

87

[quote]PGJ wrote:

It lends proof in that it is such a rediculous creature, how could it have evolved from anything.[/quote]

Your assertion of creation is based on ridiculousness? The more ridiculous a creature is, the more likely it was created that way? Also, you neglected to answer the second part of my question, which version of creation does it support? I see the case for Hinduism as there are a lot of extinct species that would probably like to be reincarnated as a platypus.

This is a non-sequitur. You might as well have said, “An apple can’t be crossed with an ear of corn, so oranges must have been created the way we see them today.”

Beavers are a younger species from the Northern Hemisphere. And given that the platypus’ bill is bone and skin and actually comprises a sensory-based appendage rather than an articulated bony protrusion, I’d say it definitely didn’t get its bill from a duck.

Echidnas (a close relative) lays eggs. And there are several other animals that produce exogenous toxins. It shares much in common with the divergent species of its native continent (weird huh?).

And while evolution can’t currently explain it, and that doesn’t invalidate the whole of evolution (much the same way wholesale acceptance of evolution need not invalidate the “existence” of a “designer”). Moreover, evolution is the axiom of the only current school seeking cohesive and usable answers.

88

[quote]PGJ wrote:
lucasa wrote:
PGJ wrote:
How does a platypus prove anything? If anything it proves creation. Why would anything evolve into that?

How does it prove creation (or even lend itself in support of?) and which account of creation does it prove?

I agree that the platypus is somewhat outside current evolutionary theory and scientists are making intuitive leaps to account for it, but to assert that “it proves creation” indicates to me that you’ve rocketed off the path of objectivity and rational thought.

It lends proof in that it is such a rediculous creature, how could it have evolved from anything. There is no way a duck and a beaver could have mated. So where did it come from? There is nothing else on the planet that looks like it. No other mammal lays eggs or has poisonous spines. It’s totally unique in so many ways. Evolution can not explain this thing. What did it used to be? It must have been created that way.

[/quote]

You’re still not understanding how evolution works. Evolution doesn’t require currently existing species to mate to produce another new species. Even if no fossilized evidence has been found, that is not evidence that a platapus did not evolve. 99.9% of creatures don’t fossilize, you are aware of this right?

Even still, we do have some fossile evidence. You need to re-read the article. You say all that they’ve found was a jawbone. You’re right in saying that they did. However, the article lists a number of OTHER fossils that were found. Moreover, don’t limit yourself just to wikipedia. I merely provided that as a quick fact check, but there is a wide variety of literature that goes much more indepth than a few paragraphs.

This is my point. You really NEED to read a book on evolution. Evolutionary arguements DO say that at some point mice and apes came from the same divergent creature. Whatever that creature was is long dead and all the creatures on the various branches are too. The theory does NOT say that mice came DIRECTLY from apes (or vice versa) but at some point in biological history they share the same common ancestor (that very well looked nothing like either of them).

As far as scientific evidence goes it IS a fact. Realize what a “fact” is. We call some natural phenomenon fact when there is so much evidence supports it, and none contradict it. To say something is “fact” requires that it goes under scientific scrutiny, which evolution has and continues to. Outside of mathematics there are no “absolute” facts, by the way. That means even gravity is not an absolute fact, but if you’re going to tell me that gravity isn’t real I think we have a bigger problem!

You say that you believe in creationism. Science relies on the ability for something to be disproved. By definition, you cannot disprove a creationist hypothesis therefor it isn’t a scientific one. It is possible to disprove an evolutionary hypothesis (for example, if dating techniques revealed the earth was 10,000 years old, the theory of evolution wouldn’t work because it no longer allows time for natural selection). I challenge you to tell me how creationism could ever be disproved. The fact that it cannot, by definition, makes it an unscientific hyopthesis.

Nails on a chalkboard! Accident!?!!!?! Natural selection is the very OPPOSITE of an accident! This is THE largest misunderstanding of darwin’s natural selection, and it arises from people confusing gene mutation and natural selection. The mutation of genes is the “accidental” part (although, remember that there are very specific things that cause gene mutations), natural selection, however, can’t be random. The animals that survive to reproduce do so because they are phenotypically supperior to those that do not. If natural selection were random, it wouldn’t matter which genes you had because only at random would any one creature survive to reproduce.

I don’t believe that between yesterday and today you’ve read everything on evolution. You haven’t weighted the evidence because you haven’t read any. This thread contains perhaps .001% of any evidence of evolution, and most of it has been dedicated not to showing you the evidence of evolution, but trying to get you to recognize what evolution actually is claiming.

I do apologize if you’ve thought I have called you names. I don’t think I have, but I have implied a number of times that you “don’t get it” which is a round about way of saying you are ignorant of the theory. I don’t mean that pejoratively, but rather I mean it in its literal meaning: To not know.

This is not a very logical argument. Penn and Teller perform amazing tricks. Some of them rather elaborate. Just because I cannot guess how it was done does NOT mean that they actually are magical. Just because you cannot think of an alternative to evolution, doesn’t make creationism true. What makes evolution fact is the volumes and volumes of physical evidence which supports it.

Oh, and there are other egg laying mammals. Google “Spiny Anteater” or “Echidna” Please check your facts before posting them!!

89

[quote]on edge wrote:
PGJ wrote:
lucasa wrote:
PGJ wrote:
How does a platypus prove anything? If anything it proves creation. Why would anything evolve into that?

How does it prove creation (or even lend itself in support of?) and which account of creation does it prove?

I agree that the platypus is somewhat outside current evolutionary theory and scientists are making intuitive leaps to account for it, but to assert that “it proves creation” indicates to me that you’ve rocketed off the path of objectivity and rational thought.

It lends proof in that it is such a rediculous creature, how could it have evolved from anything. There is no way a duck and a beaver could have mated. So where did it come from? There is nothing else on the planet that looks like it. No other mammal lays eggs or has poisonous spines. It’s totally unique in so many ways. Evolution can not explain this thing. What did it used to be? It must have been created that way.

Your understanding of evolution is very weak. Too weak for you to be able to consider such things. The Platypus doesn’t need to look or be like anything else. If it has no close relatives, it simply means it took a lone evolutionary path. There were no successful branch outs. There are lots of successful “branches” of Ants and Crocodiles and Primates, but only one successful lineage of the Platypus.
[/quote]

Your “you’re stupid” argument is weak. You want to drink the evolution kool-aide, that’s your business. But I’m not stupid for not believing your scientific theory. Science will continue to rewrite itself and everything you are preaching now will be scientifically false.

90

[quote]PGJ wrote:

You want to drink the evolution kool-aide, that’s your business.[/quote]

ROFLMAO

91

[quote]lucasa wrote:
PGJ wrote:

It lends proof in that it is such a rediculous creature, how could it have evolved from anything.

Your assertion of creation is based on ridiculousness? The more ridiculous a creature is, the more likely it was created that way? Also, you neglected to answer the second part of my question, which version of creation does it support? I see the case for Hinduism as there are a lot of extinct species that would probably like to be reincarnated as a platypus.

There is no way a duck and a beaver could have mated.

This is a non-sequitur. You might as well have said, “An apple can’t be crossed with an ear of corn, so oranges must have been created the way we see them today.”

Beavers are a younger species from the Northern Hemisphere. And given that the platypus’ bill is bone and skin and actually comprises a sensory-based appendage rather than an articulated bony protrusion, I’d say it definitely didn’t get its bill from a duck.

So where did it come from? There is nothing else on the planet that looks like it. No other mammal lays eggs or has poisonous spines. It’s totally unique in so many ways. Evolution can not explain this thing. What did it used to be? It must have been created that way.

Echidnas (a close relative) lays eggs. And there are several other animals that produce exogenous toxins. It shares much in common with the divergent species of its native continent (weird huh?).

And while evolution can’t currently explain it, and that doesn’t invalidate the whole of evolution (much the same way wholesale acceptance of evolution need not invalidate the “existence” of a “designer”). Moreover, evolution is the axiom of the only current school seeking cohesive and usable answers.[/quote]

Very intellectual response. You did some research. Why is this such an emotional topic? I don’t believe in the theory of evolution, that man and other creatures evolved from other, genetically different creatures. It is amazing what some people are willing to believe and not believe just because some “scientist” says it’s so.

Dogs have always been dogs, birds have always been birds and man has always been man.

I do not believe life started as tiny bacteria in the primordial soup. I believe in a creator who made everything as is.

I believe there were lots of weird animals in the past that do not exist today.

I believe in survival of the fittest that eliminated the weaker species.

I believe it is arrogant and rediculous for some archeologist to dig up a fragment of a bone and claim to be able to tell us all about the “new species” it came from.

It is arrogant to believe you have cornered the market on intelligence because your belief is backed by a lot a scientific sounding evidence.

Some scientists believe dinosaurs are more closely related to birds than reptiles and speculate that dinosaurs actually had feathers. Which is it? 10 years from now, everything will be rewritten based on new evidence.

Yet you guys are ready to criticize someone who doesn’t believe the current popular scientific theories.

92

I think we are at a point where neither of us are making any progress in convincing the other of anything. There are many very well thought out posts here. The horse has been beaten to death. We know where each of us stands. Let’s shake hands, break it off and get back to the gym. Overall, I think this thread was pretty civil compared to other similar threads. I’m not caving in, just ready to go home (actually I have a dentist appointment I’m late for).

Peace.

93

[quote]PGJ wrote:
Listen guys, perhaps my definition of “evolution” is different than yours.
[/quote]
This could be.

Yes. Well… sort of. “Evolution” usually occurs when a group of one species are cut off from the rest of their species for an extended period of time. Both groups experiencing their own separate random mutations and they only become separate “species” when they can no longer successfully reproduce with one another.

Hence horses and donkeys can reproduce with each other, but they are genetically distant enough from one another that their offspring come out sterile and screwed up.

There is fossil evidence that neanderthals and humans bred with one another, but we have no idea whether those offspring were sterile or not. If we still had neanderthals kicking around, this debate might be a whole lot easier.

[quote]
Swimming lizards is adaptation, not evolution. Is that a wrong definition? [/quote]
If the group of lizards that adapted to swim are no longer able to breed with their parent species, then that is evolution of a new species from another.

This doesn’t mean the previous species must disappear.

There are fossil records of many species of human wandering the earth before the climate changed and food became scarce.

We probably survived because with our giant brains and emaciated bodies, we were smart enough to find new ways of gathering food and were small enough that we didn’t need that much food to survive.

If food didn’t become scarce with climate change, we may have been wiped out by the stronger species of man who would have flourished in a food-rich environment, out-hunted, and out-bred us into extinction.

– ElbowStrike

94

Uhm, my recollection of my study of mathematics (from 40 years or so ago when I had the great pleasure of attending an institution of higher learning full time and had no cares in the world but to study mathematical systems and how to get some) is that a system of mathematics is created by making a set of assumptions and then building logically on that set of assumptions through mathematical/logical proofs and thereby creating a mathematical system. If that mathematical system happens to fit with or allow you to explain some observed phenomena then it is a somewhat practical mathematical system and therefore is studied more. But, as a mathematical system it is no more absolutely factual or correct than any other mathematical system.

In fact some mathematical systems that at first seemed to be completely useless, but were never the less developed further by abstract thinking mathematicians, have later proved to be very useful when they reached a certain degree of development and measurement and observation techniques allowed us to see new dimensions and details that we could not previously…

So bottom line, even mathematics is NOT absolute fact.

95

[quote]PGJ wrote:
I don’t believe in evolution. You guys are doing a great job of making the evidence fit your theory.

The fact that you don’t have an answer to my questions shows that you are not as smart as you think. When did evolution become fact? It is inconceivable that we are the only creature on the planet to have evolved. Every other creature on the planet is about on the same “evolutionary” scale, except humans (fish still swim, monkeys still swing from trees, dogs still walk on four legs, humans are building spaceships and performing brain surgery and writing poetry). Why is that? Why are humans so far advanced compared to all other creatures?

[/quote]

There are of course two ways of approaching this: taking all the facts and making a theory of them or testing and retesting theories with all known facts to get a “best fit.” That is where the “theory” of evolution is at. It has been tested and retested innumerable times in the last 150 years with more and more complete evidence and continues to hold up and become more and more defined. Every biologist or biological anthropologist I have every worked, studied under, read their works with has stated that it has become fact in all but political correct enforced name.

An open mind assumes that you are opening it to knowledge and fact, not choosing NOT to read up on it, study it, learn it and critically think about to the point of understanding before denying it.

As to not answering your question. I have to say it seems to be more a your seeing the answer but not seeing it situation. A reading of your last paragraph tells me that you have actually no real basis/fundament/background for a discussion of this subject. If you were a student in one of my classes I would try to get you to understand that this is a subject so very different from a humanities based religious perspective that it can take a lot of practice to break free from such ideas as evolution works towards some goal, or that because humans have dvd players we are “more advanced” or “more evolved” than other lifeforms. That is very human-centric way of looking at it but it doesn’t fit the subject.

A great short book on the subject by a world famous biologist who contributed more to 20th century biology than anyone is Ernst Mayr’s WHAT EVOLUTION IS.

96

PGJ
A great example of what the science of evolution is NOT is morality. It has nothing to do with this. On another thread you are discussing a child molester who was caught two hours away from me. As a personal opinion I think the guy should be strung up by his balls until dead and the whole thing filmed in front of a live studio audience of other child molesters.

If I was approaching this from a scientific perspective there would be no comment on the moral aspect of it only the comparing and contrasting with animal and insect models. Some creatures use disguises to get “breeding” access to otherwise unaccessible females. You can write whole papers on it,read books on it, whatever. But it isn’t part of a moral perspective.

We look at interesting things like this mutate gene affecting strength in Chimpanzees and the same gene’s effect on humans. Nothing to do with “advanced” or “primitive” their. Just dry old science.

I think this idea you have of an “evolutionary scale” is the old idea of Scala Naturae ( Great chain of being - Wikipedia ) which was part of a belief system. I remember students in a humanities class having a hard time wrapping their heads around the idea as incorrect for the modern scientific perspective.

97

From my experience, the crux of Creationism is that people seem to believe that in order to be a “true” Christian, they MUST believe in the creation myth of Genesis. Otherwise, they aren’t “Christian enough”.

I spent three years in my Christian youth group and was not allowed to receive training to become a youth leader because I didn’t believe that the earth was created in seven days, among over miscellaneous, very-strictly-literal, interpretations of small portions of the Bible.

It’s essentially a group-pressure influenced, emotional decision to believe in Creationism as far as I’m concerned.

If you take an evidence-based look at the world, evolution is the one which mostly makes sense – especially from a free market perspective.

I find it kind of ironic that all these hardcore Christians have absolute faith in the free market to find the most efficient businesses, yet a free market of genes is somehow incapable of selecting the most efficient genetic codes and organisms? Ha!

– ElbowStrike

98

[quote]PGJ wrote:
Petedacook wrote:
PGJ wrote:

Teenage girls entering puberty and breats size IS NOT evolution. Evolution is women slowly changing into someting else.

you are missing it brother. Evolutionary change as you speak of takes centuries. You cannot identify it around you except to note differences as I have pointed out to you. For the most part, humans have developed a solid grasp of things to minimize elements that force change.

How do you explain the duck billed Platypus? Where the hell did he come from?

Evolution takes a great deal of time. I can also tell you, the average height of people has been getting higher. The average height of people during the Revolutionary war was significantly shorter than today.

You see, if the pattern continues, over the next few thousand years, what will become of height?

Why is height increasing? I would speculate height is desirable, more to women than to men, but nonetheless, desirable by both sides. Man wants tall woman, woman wants a tall man, they have tall kids. And after one generation, what 70 years have gone by?

And yet you wonder why people are not evolving into something different? Like growing gills or something?

I tell you what brother, stick around for the next million - 2 million years and tell me what differences you see.

You think we will look the same as we do today? To think for as second the changes I have pointed out, or the Galapagos islands are not evidence of evolution boggles my mind.

What if dark clouds consume the planet, and only people that have a gene allowing them to live in that environment survive? And suppose with that one gene, also comes a hunch back trait that gets worse with that gene pool? All modern marvels aside.

How does a platypus prove anything? If anything it proves creation. Why would anything evolve into that?

People were shorter 200 years ago because they were a lot less healthy. Their life expectancy was about half of what it is today. People died of colds and tooth decay. They had all sorts of weird diseases that do not exist today.

You are talking about adaptation, not evolution. Evolution is changing genetically from one thing to another. Has science been able to show that one creature today has been altered genetically from what it used to be?

Galapagos Islands? A bunch of birds and lizards learned to do unusual things out of necessity. A bird growing a long beak is not evolution. A lizzard that swims is not evolution.

[/quote]

Adaptation is EVOLVING. You see, it is theorized humans were tree dwelling monkeys that ADAPTED to life on the plains. Having no real skills, cant run fast, not super strong, no huge teeth, humans ADAPTED to life in the more threatening plains by breeding intelligence, and the intelligent gene pools surviving natural selection (something that seems absent in modern society). Humans became the con artists of the animal kingdom, constantly testing their environment and trying new things.

Do you honestly think evolutionary changes happen over night? Within a few hundred years? A few thousand yaers?

Evolution that we are speaking about takes a very long time. I have read that if one of the oldest human reamins found was raised from a baby in society today, they would be little different from everyone else. Do you know how old the earth is?

Evolution = change
The Galapagos island is an example of change.

I would like to add that regardless of the reason the changes occur, i.e. improved nutrition, it is still change/adaptation/evolving.

99

[quote]ElbowStrike wrote:

If you take an evidence-based look at the world, evolution is the one which mostly makes sense – especially from a free market perspective.

I find it kind of ironic that all these hardcore Christians have absolute faith in the free market to find the most efficient businesses, yet a free market of genes is somehow incapable of selecting the most efficient genetic codes and organisms? Ha!

– ElbowStrike[/quote]

Bravo

100

The human tendency towards teleologism tends to be one of the biggest obstacles to understanding in so many fields, not least this one.

PGJ, I suggest like many others have that you get a book on the topic rather than trying to get an fair treatment on a complex topic out of an internet message board. Even if it doesn’t change your mind in the slightest, a proper scientific treatment of the subject will cover numerous theories and disciplines with a great deal of use outside of biology.