Devolving Darwin (Evolution and other flawed origin stories)

Historical insights & thoughts about the world we live in - and the social conditioning exerted upon us by past and current propaganda.

Re: Devolving Darwin (Evolution and other flawed origin stor

Postby patrix on Tue May 09, 2017 1:50 pm

Flabbergasted » May 9th, 2017, 2:17 pm wrote:
patrix wrote:It's interesting to note how a controversial subject diet really is.

I don´t have problems with your observations on human diet (many of which are reasonable enough), nor do I reject the possibility that the WHO/FAO/WTO food pyramid is a scam. I was commenting on your fantastical evolutionary scenarios. After all, the thread is about Darwinism and other flawed origin stories.

I see. So "All that sushi you´ve been eating has spirited you into la-la land." was just your way of saying that you think is way to speculative to suggest that a seafood diet (rich in Omega 3 fatty acids) could promote brain growth over time? http://www.lifeextension.com/magazine/2 ... me/page-01
patrix
Member
 
Posts: 344
Joined: Wed Dec 14, 2016 10:24 am

Re: Devolving Darwin (Evolution and other flawed origin stor

Postby Flabbergasted on Tue May 09, 2017 3:18 pm

patrix wrote:So "All that sushi you´ve been eating has spirited you into la-la land." was just your way of saying that you think is way to speculative to suggest that a seafood diet (rich in Omega 3 fatty acids) could promote brain growth over time?

If by "growth over time" you mean the emergence of novel structures, systems and functions (rather than a mere increase in volume, or swelling, or improved tissue repair), then the answer is yes: it was an attempt to call out the nonsense of the idea, with a tad of humor.

Novel systems and functions require the addition of novel information to the genome.

The article you linked to claims the ingestion of omega-3 fatty acids can "optimize many facets of brain function", "reverse aspects of neurologic aging" and "combat mental disorders". It does not propose our genetic makeup is altered by a change in diet. A sentence like "the growth, development, and function[ing] of the human brain" is a description of the individual´s life cycle, not a reference to qualitative changes in brain architecture over time.
Flabbergasted
Member
 
Posts: 753
Joined: Mon Nov 12, 2012 12:19 am

Re: Devolving Darwin (Evolution and other flawed origin stor

Postby HonestlyNow on Wed May 10, 2017 2:21 am

patrix wrote:It's interesting to note how a controversial subject diet really is. I don't want to step on any toes, and I am speculating. I think that is pretty necessary to try and get to the bottom of these kind of subjects. And yes, I happen to suspect veganism is a psyop, and seeing these kind of in my opinion emotional out-lashes strengthens that suspicion.

See reply in this Chatbox post.
HonestlyNow
Member
 
Posts: 405
Joined: Mon Sep 12, 2011 11:15 pm

Re: Re2: Devolving Darwin (Evolution and other flawed origin

Postby Seneca on Wed May 10, 2017 7:52 am

Flabbergasted » 09 May 2017, 17:18 wrote:
patrix wrote:So "All that sushi you´ve been eating has spirited you into la-la land." was just your way of saying that you think is way to speculative to suggest that a seafood diet (rich in Omega 3 fatty acids) could promote brain growth over time?

If by "growth over time" you mean the emergence of novel structures, systems and functions (rather than a mere increase in volume, or swelling, or improved tissue repair), then the answer is yes: it was an attempt to call out the nonsense of the idea, with a tad of humor.

Novel systems and functions require the addition of novel information to the genome.

The article you linked to claims the ingestion of omega-3 fatty acids can "optimize many facets of brain function", "reverse aspects of neurologic aging" and "combat mental disorders". It does not propose our genetic makeup is altered by a change in diet. A sentence like "the growth, development, and function[ing] of the human brain" is a description of the individual´s life cycle, not a reference to qualitative changes in brain architecture over time.


"Novel systems and functions require the addition of novel information to the genome."

This is exactly what Eugene McCarthy tries to explain with his hypothesis that humans are of hybrid origin.
http://www.macroevolution.net/human-origins.html
He argues that humans inherited their genetic information both from an animal similar to a chimpanzee and from another mammal. He documented about 100 traits that we share with that other mammal but not with chimpanzees. Conventional science argues that all these traits arose independently during human evolution and similarities are all coincidences or "convergent evolution"
A few of the traits we have in common with this other mammal could explain why our brain is larger than that of chimpanzees, even when the animal itself doesn't have a brain larger than chimpanzees:

McCarthy argues that at birth there is not much difference in the size of the brain between humans and apes, if you compare it to total body weight. For both it is around 12%.
But the brain in a human child keeps growing for a longer time than that of a chimpanzee. There is a good reason why a chimpanzee brain should stop growing. Like all cells, brain cells produce heat but they can be damaged when the temperature is too high. Chimpanzees don't have a cooling system for their brains, all the excess heat has to move by convection through the skull. This places a limit on the size the brain can have without overheating.
I will explain this:
The amount of heat that can be transferred out of the brain in a certain amount of time is proportional to its surface area. The amount of heat generated by the brain is proportional to its volume. When an object becomes larger its volume increases more rapidly than its surface area.(for example for a sphere: volume is proportional to R³, surface is proportional to R²). So if the brain becomes a certain size, it can't be cooled properly. Unless it had an improved cooling mechanism. Simon will know this because it is the same with car engines.

McCarthy shows that humans do have a cooling mechanism that chimpanzees lack, whereby blood flows through the brain to the skin, where excess heat can be given off. These traits are rather uncommon but are on his list of about 100 traits I mentioned earlier.
.
Seneca
Member
 
Posts: 445
Joined: Wed Oct 21, 2009 2:36 pm

Re: Re2: Devolving Darwin (Evolution and other flawed origin

Postby patrix on Wed May 10, 2017 8:36 am

Seneca » May 10th, 2017, 8:52 am wrote:McCarthy argues that at birth there is not much difference in the size of the brain between humans and apes, if you compare it to total body weight. For both it is around 12%.
But the brain in a human child keeps growing for a longer time than that of a chimpanzee. There is a good reason why a chimpanzee brain should stop growing. Like all cells, brain cells produce heat but they can be damaged when the temperature is too high. Chimpanzees don't have a cooling system for their brains, all the excess heat has to move by convection through the skull. This places a limit on the size the brain can have without overheating.
.

Very interesting. Like a boy with a hammer seeing only nails, this of course strengthens the AAT. ;) Being in cooler water eating omega 3 rich food allowed our human ancestors brains to grow.
patrix
Member
 
Posts: 344
Joined: Wed Dec 14, 2016 10:24 am

Re: Devolving Darwin (Evolution and other flawed origin stor

Postby pov603 on Wed May 10, 2017 9:31 am

It is curious that, although the modern theory of evolution has its source in Charles Darwin’s great book On the Origin of Species (1859), the word evolution does not appear in the original text at all. In fact, Darwin seems deliberately to have avoided using the word evolution, preferring to refer to the process of biological change as ‘transmutation’.


http://blog.oxforddictionaries.com/2015/05/evolution-etymology/
pov603
Member
 
Posts: 797
Joined: Thu Jun 30, 2011 8:02 pm

Re: Re2: Devolving Darwin (Evolution and other flawed origin

Postby Flabbergasted on Wed May 10, 2017 1:34 pm

Seneca wrote:He argues that humans inherited their genetic information both from an animal similar to a chimpanzee and from another mammal.

I won´t carry the argument any further to avoid repetition. The above idea was refuted by dblitz on the first page of the thread:
Ultimately, the question of origins goes right back to the first life. This can't be explained by evolution or hybridisation because both require reproducing organisms to occur.
http://cluesforum.info/viewtopic.php?f= ... 5#p2403192

Selection, hybridization and mutation (whatever mechanisms you claim for them) presuppose the existence of a viable genome to be selected, hybridized or corrupted.

The genome is not unlike a 1000-page novel with well-defined characters and a meaningful and effective plot. Even if blind forces could merge "Hickory, Dickory Dock" and "Baa Baa Black Sheep" into a colossal upgrade, something along Dostoyevsky´s "Brothers Karamazov", modern science remains clueless as to the origin of the genetic information which you believe can be, or has been, commingled.
Last edited by Flabbergasted on Thu May 11, 2017 4:11 am, edited 1 time in total.
Flabbergasted
Member
 
Posts: 753
Joined: Mon Nov 12, 2012 12:19 am

Re: Devolving Darwin (Evolution and other flawed origin stor

Postby agraposo on Fri May 12, 2017 11:31 pm

I'm a bit late into this debate, but, have you realized that Eugene McCarthy's ridiculous theory says that humans parents are the chimpanzee and ... the pig! ?

Well, some months ago I discussed health and diet issues with friends, and we ended up discussing Darwin's evolution theory. The fact is that Darwin himself in his book dedicates a lot of pages acknowledging the fallacies of his own theory, and says that the problem is due to the lack of accurate geological records (fossils). After 158 years, the fossils for the intermediate species are still missing, so I think it's safe to discard the whole evolution theory.

Besides, it is easy to demonstrate how the science !? of paleontology is full of fake fossils and theories. It's amazing how paleontologists pretend us to believe that birds evolved from dinosaurs!

Consult for example the story of Ernst Haeckel embryo drawings.
agraposo
Member
 
Posts: 267
Joined: Fri Jun 10, 2011 9:48 pm

Re: Devolving Darwin (Evolution and other flawed origin stor

Postby Seneca on Sat May 13, 2017 2:04 pm

patrix, I had sent you a reply by PM. The message is still in my "outbox", I think this means don't know how to read it. So I'll post the info here.
patrix » 09 May 2017, 12:56 wrote:
Seneca » April 22nd, 2017, 10:44 am wrote:
patrix » 21 Apr 2017, 22:45 wrote:
Seneca » April 21st, 2017, 5:41 pm wrote:About the aquatic ape theory: I found a website where it is being criticised http://www.aquaticape.org/. Apparently someone took the effort to verify the sources that were cited by the proponents and found that they were cited incorrectly, and that conflicting data of the same sources was ignored.

Thank you. Very interesting but I find the writers objectiveness and neutrality a bit false however:
Unlike some, I really think of -- and treat -- the AAT/H as a theory

and then
The AAT/H, I hope you've seen, suffers a number of problems that render it incredibly unlikely to be true
http://www.aquaticape.org/summary.html

Can you show where the website is not objective or neutral? Your 2 quotes only show that he seems to have actually considered the theory. That was my conclusion and is why I mentioned this particular website, there are lots of others that just reject the aquatic ape theory without real arguments.

Apologies for a late reply Seneca.
It’s the overall impression I get from reading the site, and the quotes I highlighted stood out in my opinion. I get the general feeling the AAT is non grata in these circles but I’ve noted that David Attenborough have promoted AAT. And since he’s a Nutworker this could be a sign I’m wrong suspecting this is a theory they want to suppress. But I’ve also noted that Attenborough has been heavily criticized by other scientists for promoting the AAT and I’ve not seen much of a rebuttal from his part. So it could be a strawman thing – Have David, who is more of a TV celebrity than a real scientist, promote the theory and then have "real" paleoantropologists take it down (eg. https://www.theguardian.com/science/201 ... l-thinking ). But maybe I’m just seeing things that aren’t there.

Other things that make the Aquatic Ape Theory compelling to me:
If we don’t want to explain human origin by not explaining it (intelligent design, divine intervention, whatever), we have to try to explain how an animal went from having a normal brain to an exceptionally large one. Sea living mammals like dolphins and killer whales are intelligent so it seems seafood promotes brain development. Our ancestors could have figured out how to catch shellfish and this is what made our brains grow and gradually adopted us to a life near and in the sea.

We are exceptionally good swimmers and divers. We have numerous special abilities in common with sea mammals that enables us to dive http://www.discoveryourdepths.com/about ... physiology

We thrive on a diet high in animal fat. This is becoming common knowledge today and can be seen as proof that we are adopted to a high fat diet like sea mammals with higher cognitive abilities.

Much of our science today is psyence - pseudoscience with the objective to control our behavior. I know from personal experience how harmful a diet low in animal fat can be. When I passed 40 I started to get numerous health problems. Depression, brain fog and chronic fatigue being the most serious. Removing vegetable oils and replacing most of the sugar and starch in my diet with butter and cream has completely turned this around. And there is a rising awareness that a diet low in animal fat promotes diabetes, cancer and dementia to mention a few problems. Connecting our past with the so called humanoid apes can have the objective to make us believe that a vegetarian diet is suitable for humans. Grain based diets is a common denominator in highly hierarchical human societies (Egypt, Inca, Rome) and this may also be a reason this is promoted. I suspect many official diet recommendations, general health advice and medicine has the underlying objective to gradually impair our health and ability to think independently, thus making us healthcare customers and easier to control.

Thanks patrix but this is not the kind of response I was expecting. Like before, you tell me your feelings about the website and who is promoting or opposing the AAT. By what is missing in your answer, concrete textual evidence, I know enough so I will stop bothering you about it. By the way, I am not endorsing the website, people here are able to check it out for themselves.
I agree with HonestlyNow and Flabbergasted that you are quick to make hypotheses, based on a few similarities we share with aquatic mammals. The text you referred to about diving was very interesting. But this is the first sentence: "The mammalian dive reflex is our body's natural response to being in water."
It seems that all mammals have this reflex. So this does nothing to support the AAT.
Seneca
Member
 
Posts: 445
Joined: Wed Oct 21, 2009 2:36 pm

Re: Devolving Darwin (Evolution and other flawed origin stor

Postby Seneca on Sat May 13, 2017 4:34 pm

Hi aa5

I replied here.
Seneca
Member
 
Posts: 445
Joined: Wed Oct 21, 2009 2:36 pm

Re: Re2: Devolving Darwin (Evolution and other flawed origin

Postby Seneca on Sat May 13, 2017 4:52 pm

Flabbergasted » 10 May 2017, 15:34 wrote:
Seneca wrote:He argues that humans inherited their genetic information both from an animal similar to a chimpanzee and from another mammal.

I won´t carry the argument any further to avoid repetition. The above idea was refuted by dblitz on the first page of the thread:
Ultimately, the question of origins goes right back to the first life. This can't be explained by evolution or hybridisation because both require reproducing organisms to occur.
http://cluesforum.info/viewtopic.php?f= ... 5#p2403192

Selection, hybridization and mutation (whatever mechanisms you claim for them) presuppose the existence of a viable genome to be selected, hybridized or corrupted.

The genome is not unlike a 1000-page novel with well-defined characters and a meaningful and effective plot. Even if blind forces could merge "Hickory, Dickory Dock" and "Baa Baa Black Sheep" into a colossal upgrade, something along Dostoyevsky´s "Brothers Karamazov", modern science remains clueless as to the origin of the genetic information which you believe can be, or has been, commingled.


Actually the above idea was not refuted by dblitz. I agree with dblitz and you that this doesn't explain the origin of life.
But nobody claimed it did.
The first post on this topic was only about the origin of new "species", including humans, not about the origin of life.

I am interested to know if anyone has a better explanation for the coincidence that all the following traits are present in a particular mammal. (Can you guess which mammal?)

    A list of traits distinguishing humans from other primates
    DERMAL FEATURES
    Naked skin (sparse pelage)
    Panniculus adiposus (layer of subcutaneous fat)
    Panniculus carnosus only in face and neck
    In “hairy skin” region:
    - Thick epidermis
    - Crisscrossing congenital lines on epidermis
    - Patterned epidermal-dermal junction
    Large content of elastic fiber in skin
    Thermoregulatory sweating
    Richly vascularized dermis
    Normal host for the human flea (Pulex irritans)
    Dermal melanocytes absent
    Melanocytes present in matrix of hair follicle
    Epidermal lipids contain triglycerides and free fatty acids

    FACIAL FEATURES
    Lightly pigmented eyes common
    Protruding, cartilaginous nose
    Narrow eye opening
    Short, thick upper lip
    Philtrum/cleft lip
    Glabrous mucous membrane bordering lips
    Eyebrows
    Heavy eyelashes
    Earlobes

    FEATURES RELATING TO BIPEDALITY
    Short, dorsal spines on first six cervical vertebrae
    Seventh cervical vertebrae:
    - long dorsal spine
    - transverse foramens
    Fewer floating and more non-floating ribs
    More lumbar vertebrae
    Fewer sacral vertebrae
    More coccygeal vertebrae (long “tail bone”)
    Centralized spine
    Short pelvis relative to body length
    Sides of pelvis turn forward
    Sharp lumbo-sacral promontory
    Massive gluteal muscles
    Curved sacrum with short dorsal spines
    Hind limbs longer than forelimbs
    Femur:
    - Condyles equal in size
    - Knock-kneed
    - Elliptical condyles
    - Deep intercondylar notch at lower end of femur
    - Deep patellar groove with high lateral lip
    - Crescent-shaped lateral meniscus with two tibial insertions
    Short malleolus medialis
    Talus suited strictly for extension and flexion of the foot
    Long calcaneus relative to foot (metatarsal) length
    Short digits (relative to chimpanzee)
    Terminal phalanges blunt (ungual tuberosities)
    Narrow pelvic outlet

    ORGANS
    Diverticulum at cardiac end of stomach
    Valves of Kerkring present in small intestines
    Mesenteric arterial arcades
    Multipyramidal kidneys
    Heart auricles level
    Tricuspid valve of heart
    Laryngeal sacs absent
    Vocal ligaments
    Prostate encircles urethra
    Bulbo-urethral glands present
    Os penis (baculum) absent.
    Hymen
    Absence of periodic sexual swellings in female
    Ischial callosities absent
    Nipples low on chest
    Bicornuate uterus (occasionally present in humans)
    Labia majora

    CRANIAL FEATURES
    Brain lobes: frontal and temporal prominent
    Thermoregulatory venous plexuses
    Well-developed system of emissary veins
    Enlarged nasal bones
    Divergent eyes (interior of orbit visible from side)
    Styloid process
    Large occipital condyles
    Primitive premolar
    Large, blunt-cusped (bunodont) molars
    Thick tooth enamel
    Helical chewing

    OTHER TRAITS
    Nocturnal activity
    Particular about place of defecation
    Good swimmer, no fear of water
    Extended male copulation time
    Female orgasm
    Short menstrual cycle
    Snuggling
    Tears
    Alcoholism
    Terrestrialism (Non-arboreal)
    Able to exploit a wide range of environments and foods
    Heart attack
    Atherosclerosis
    Cancer (melanoma)

source: http://www.macroevolution.net/human-origins.html
Seneca
Member
 
Posts: 445
Joined: Wed Oct 21, 2009 2:36 pm

Re: Re2: Devolving Darwin (Evolution and other flawed origin

Postby agraposo on Sat May 13, 2017 8:33 pm

Seneca » 13 May 2017, 18:52 wrote:
I am interested to know if anyone has a better explanation for the coincidence that all the following traits are present in a particular mammal. (Can you guess which mammal?)

    A list of traits distinguishing humans from other primates
    DERMAL FEATURES
    Naked skin (sparse pelage)
    Panniculus adiposus (layer of subcutaneous fat)
    Panniculus carnosus only in face and neck
    In “hairy skin” region:
    - Thick epidermis
    - Crisscrossing congenital lines on epidermis
    - Patterned epidermal-dermal junction
    Large content of elastic fiber in skin
    Thermoregulatory sweating
    Richly vascularized dermis
    Normal host for the human flea (Pulex irritans)
    Dermal melanocytes absent
    Melanocytes present in matrix of hair follicle
    Epidermal lipids contain triglycerides and free fatty acids

    FACIAL FEATURES
    Lightly pigmented eyes common
    Protruding, cartilaginous nose
    Narrow eye opening
    Short, thick upper lip
    Philtrum/cleft lip
    Glabrous mucous membrane bordering lips
    Eyebrows
    Heavy eyelashes
    Earlobes

    FEATURES RELATING TO BIPEDALITY
    Short, dorsal spines on first six cervical vertebrae
    Seventh cervical vertebrae:
    - long dorsal spine
    - transverse foramens
    Fewer floating and more non-floating ribs
    More lumbar vertebrae
    Fewer sacral vertebrae
    More coccygeal vertebrae (long “tail bone”)
    Centralized spine
    Short pelvis relative to body length
    Sides of pelvis turn forward
    Sharp lumbo-sacral promontory
    Massive gluteal muscles
    Curved sacrum with short dorsal spines
    Hind limbs longer than forelimbs
    Femur:
    - Condyles equal in size
    - Knock-kneed
    - Elliptical condyles
    - Deep intercondylar notch at lower end of femur
    - Deep patellar groove with high lateral lip
    - Crescent-shaped lateral meniscus with two tibial insertions
    Short malleolus medialis
    Talus suited strictly for extension and flexion of the foot
    Long calcaneus relative to foot (metatarsal) length
    Short digits (relative to chimpanzee)
    Terminal phalanges blunt (ungual tuberosities)
    Narrow pelvic outlet

    ORGANS
    Diverticulum at cardiac end of stomach
    Valves of Kerkring present in small intestines
    Mesenteric arterial arcades
    Multipyramidal kidneys
    Heart auricles level
    Tricuspid valve of heart
    Laryngeal sacs absent
    Vocal ligaments
    Prostate encircles urethra
    Bulbo-urethral glands present
    Os penis (baculum) absent.
    Hymen
    Absence of periodic sexual swellings in female
    Ischial callosities absent
    Nipples low on chest
    Bicornuate uterus (occasionally present in humans)
    Labia majora

    CRANIAL FEATURES
    Brain lobes: frontal and temporal prominent
    Thermoregulatory venous plexuses
    Well-developed system of emissary veins
    Enlarged nasal bones
    Divergent eyes (interior of orbit visible from side)
    Styloid process
    Large occipital condyles
    Primitive premolar
    Large, blunt-cusped (bunodont) molars
    Thick tooth enamel
    Helical chewing

    OTHER TRAITS
    Nocturnal activity
    Particular about place of defecation
    Good swimmer, no fear of water
    Extended male copulation time
    Female orgasm
    Short menstrual cycle
    Snuggling
    Tears
    Alcoholism
    Terrestrialism (Non-arboreal)
    Able to exploit a wide range of environments and foods
    Heart attack
    Atherosclerosis
    Cancer (melanoma)

source: http://www.macroevolution.net/human-origins.html


As I said before,

agraposo » 13 May 2017, 01:31 wrote:I'm a bit late into this debate, but, have you realized that Eugene McCarthy's ridiculous theory says that humans parents are the chimpanzee and ... the pig! ?

http://cluesforum.info/viewtopic.php?p=2403368#p2403368

Even Darwin in his Origin of Species admits that hybridism generally leads to sterility, and that means death and extinction. And I suppose someone with time and effort can make a similar list of coincidences between a human and, let's say, a cow. I mean, that list is arbitrary and pointless: naked skin?, eyebrows?, nocturnal activity?, tears?, ... this is why our parent is the pig? Hilarious.
agraposo
Member
 
Posts: 267
Joined: Fri Jun 10, 2011 9:48 pm

Re: Re2: Devolving Darwin (Evolution and other flawed origin

Postby Seneca on Sat May 13, 2017 9:04 pm

agraposo » 13 May 2017, 22:33 wrote:As I said before,

agraposo » 13 May 2017, 01:31 wrote:I'm a bit late into this debate, but, have you realized that Eugene McCarthy's ridiculous theory says that humans parents are the chimpanzee and ... the pig! ?

http://cluesforum.info/viewtopic.php?p=2403368#p2403368

Even Darwin in his Origin of Species admits that hybridism generally leads to sterility, and that means death and extinction. And I suppose someone with time and effort can make a similar list of coincidences between a human and, let's say, a cow. I mean, that list is arbitrary and pointless: naked skin?, eyebrows?, nocturnal activity?, tears?, ... this is why our parent is the pig? Hilarious.


I think you misunderstand the point. It is not a list of coincidences between a human and another animal. It is a list of differences between humans and chimpanzees. And yes this includes naked skin, eyebrows, nocturnal activity and tears. And it happens that the common pig seems to possess all these traits as well. If somebody can find another animal that has even half of these traits I would be very happy, but I don't think there isn't.
Seneca
Member
 
Posts: 445
Joined: Wed Oct 21, 2009 2:36 pm

Re: Devolving Darwin (Evolution and other flawed origin stor

Postby patrix on Sun May 14, 2017 1:29 am

Seneca » May 13th, 2017, 3:04 pm wrote:patrix, I had sent you a reply by PM. The message is still in my "outbox", I think this means don't know how to read it. So I'll post the info here.
Thanks patrix but this is not the kind of response I was expecting. Like before, you tell me your feelings about the website and who is promoting or opposing the AAT. By what is missing in your answer, concrete textual evidence, I know enough so I will stop bothering you about it. By the way, I am not endorsing the website, people here are able to check it out for themselves.
I agree with HonestlyNow and Flabbergasted that you are quick to make hypotheses, based on a few similarities we share with aquatic mammals. The text you referred to about diving was very interesting. But this is the first sentence: "The mammalian dive reflex is our body's natural response to being in water."
It seems that all mammals have this reflex. So this does nothing to support the AAT.

Hi Seneca. Sorry about that. I've replied to you now but I guess the reply is much similar to the previous one. Main point being I'm not clear about what your definition of "concrete textual evidence" is. One thing I noticed now that I'm afraid I don't see the logic in is the problem you have with that the first sentence of that page stated that all mammals have a dive reflex. So does that invalidate the rest of the claims in your opinion? Just curious. To me it's a bit like saying I don't think this page supports the hypothesis that zebras and horses are related because the first statement is that both zebras and horses walk on four legs. Please PM me about it.
patrix
Member
 
Posts: 344
Joined: Wed Dec 14, 2016 10:24 am

Re: Re2: Devolving Darwin (Evolution and other flawed origin

Postby agraposo on Mon May 15, 2017 10:19 am

Seneca » 13 May 2017, 23:04 wrote:I think you misunderstand the point. It is not a list of coincidences between a human and another animal. It is a list of differences between humans and chimpanzees. And yes this includes naked skin, eyebrows, nocturnal activity and tears. And it happens that the common pig seems to possess all these traits as well. If somebody can find another animal that has even half of these traits I would be very happy, but I don't think there isn't.

I don't think that trait list is enough to conclude that the human parent is the pig. With the same logic, the zebra's parents would be the horse and the tiger, because the horse has not stripes, and the tiger has stripes. This is a simplistic example, but I hope you understand my point.

Besides, the assumptions made by the macroevolution.net site author, that humans are hybrids and that the chimpanzee is one of the parents, can be false, as the same author says. If those assumptions are false, then the whole site would be full of nonsense.

To support that humans are hybrids, he thinks that the human species is somewhat infertile, and that the human sperm is abnormal. Really? With some billions of people populating the planet?

And that the chimpanzee is our ancestor, maybe in Darwin's times that idea was popular, but not today, even among scientists.

So, my conclusion is that both hypotheses are false, and that the site is full of nonsense. The question is why the site's author dedicates so much effort to spread false science.
agraposo
Member
 
Posts: 267
Joined: Fri Jun 10, 2011 9:48 pm

PreviousNext

Return to General World Affairs

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 2 guests