The Official Perfection KOs Creationism Thread Part Five: The Revenge of Mike Shermer

[Simple Simon]

The definition of Homo isn't "fully human". You may want to consider all members of the genus to be "fully human", but it's no more definitionally necessary than it is to consider a donkey (Equus asinus) "fully horse".

For most of the 19th century, and also large parts of the 20th, the man/ape distinction was actually defined like this but many parties: scientists, politicians, religious leaders. Even today you will often hear people say 'it's only an ape' as soon as an animal falls outside Homo. For a very long time, the main charachteristics distinguishing man from pre-Homo-animals were supposed to be language, culture, and complex social structures. Today we know that that's wrong, and that man is either a Great Ape, or Orang falls outside that clade. But in the general public opinion, this distinction is still made based on these characters, and I use the term 'fully human' in that sense - and that sense only.

That is not (I think) true either. Darwin didn't come up with evolution, he just figured out that it happened by natural selection. And not everyone was terrified of contradicting religion - Darwin didn't invent atheism either.

Yes, and yes, and Lamarck comes to mind. I never said Darwin invented atheism, nor 'evolution' in the broad meaning of the term. But Darwin and Wallace were the first to publish the concept of evolution through natural selection, despite (at least for Darwin) massive misgivings about the theological implications. In that respect, they are special.

There were many other thinkers who voiced criticism re god, but nobody before Darwin (rather: his bulldog, actually) based atheism on natural sciences publicly! Usually, philosophical or theological arguments were used. If I missed someone who did predate Darwin, please point him (or her?) out to me

 

[The Last Conformist]

For most of the 19th century, and also large parts of the 20th, the man/ape distinction was actually defined like this but many parties: scientists, politicians, religious leaders. Even today you will often hear people say 'it's only an ape' as soon as an animal falls outside Homo. For a very long time, the main charachteristics distinguishing man from pre-Homo-animals were supposed to be language, culture, and complex social structures.

Creationists also routinely reject Homo habilis as "only an ape".

Today we know that that's wrong, and that man is either a Great Ape, or Orang falls outside that clade.

What? The topology is (Pongo(Gorilla(Pan,Homo))) and man is a great ape even if one for some reason where to exclude the the orangutan (genus Pongo).

But in the general public opinion, this distinction is still made based on these characters, and I use the term 'fully human' in that sense - and that sense only.

I very much doubt that general public opinion would consider Homo habilis to be "fully human".

 

[warpus]

Then you explain how the Zulu have a myth about interacting with ape men.

Sure, right after you explain Bigfoot.

 

[Perfection]

Odd as it may sound, the Sun's contribution to the total angular momentum is tiny, whereas Jupiter accounts for about 60%.)

Doesn't sound odd at all, Mr. Sun is too near the center of the solar system to have decent sized displacement vector.

 

[Demetrias]

I though it might be that the consitancy of the Sun's gravitational pull lessoned its displacement of the planets. While Jupiter because it too rotates around the Sun,Jupiters gravity well has relatively sudden impacts on other planets. Which could cause more displacement.

Also I would like to say I think Berserk is nuts. Genesis does say God created the Universe and our planet Earth. Verse 1 when God creates the Heavens and the Earth means God created everything. Just like calling himself the alpha and the omega covers all the letters in between. If the order is important then the order is important if its not, like for me, then its not. Only the strictest of literalist who allow for not analogies, similies, or metaphors would say the order is exactly like that and if your one of them you refute the evolutionist arguements by saying the fossil record is a test of mans faith not argue about of this means insects and great whales does not mean mamals. If you allow for literary devices then you don't have to worry about there being plants before the sun or plants before sea life. You simply say God was not trying to give the scientific step by step process of his creation to Moses but rather a plausable creation story that emphasized his might and power but was still similar to the creation myths the Jews would be used to hearing from there neighbors. Its about his might and power and right to be worhsiped above all others not exact this is how I did it.

And on to the evolution debate. Here's one of the big question no evoutionist has given me a good answer to besides the whole something from nothing idea. How does an atom transform itself into a single cell organism?

For me thats easy "God took some clay (couple elements but no life) and formed Adam." How do you answer it?

 

[El_Machinae]

Clay is heavily made of Aluminum.

Figuring out how to get life from falling cascades of chemical reactions is childsplay compared to figuring out how Eve fed Aluminum-filled breastmilk to her offspring.

 

[Yuri2356]

And on to the evolution debate. Here's one of the big question no evoutionist has given me a good answer to besides the whole something from nothing idea. How does an atom transform itself into a single cell organism?

For me thats easy "God took some clay (couple elements but no life) and formed Adam." How do you answer it?

From the basic rundown of modern abiogenesis theories that I know of-

Early Earth's atmosphere and landscape were rich in all the basic elements needed for life (C N O H) in various molecular forms. Electrical discharges can cause those base molecules to become basic organic compounds. (Sugars, phosphates, lipids, amino acids, etc) These compounds get washed into the oceans. When tidal pools containing these compounds form, the evaporation of water concentrates them can causes some to form into larger polymers. My knowledge of the process gets sketchy from there, but it more or less continues with more and more organic molecules forming until a few key protiens manage to form and become a self-replicating entity.


Someone more qualified can probably explain in more detail, or just point you to some relevant articles.

Clay is heavily made of Aluminum.

Figuring out how to get life from falling cascades of chemical reactions is childsplay compared to figuring out how Eve fed Aluminum-filled breastmilk to her offspring.

Adam was a robot!

 

[Demetrias]

Not really as I am just continueing a metaphor from the bible. There were no Aluminum filled breast. But I still don't see how random elements on the earths surface developed into organized entities who while not intellegent still had a purpose and knew what it was. Bacteria know what they are supposed to do but iron, oxygen, carbon, or hydrogen don't. So how does that step occure.

 

[Demetrias]

I like that Adam was a robot Idea gives a good excuse for why he lived almost a thousand years.

 

[brennan]

How does an atom transform itself into a single cell organism?

It doesn't.

 

[warpus]

Not really as I am just continueing a metaphor from the bible. There were no Aluminum filled breast. But I still don't see how random elements on the earths surface developed into organized entities who while not intellegent still had a purpose and knew what it was. Bacteria know what they are supposed to do but iron, oxygen, carbon, or hydrogen don't. So how does that step occure.

How does oxygen "know" to bond with hydrogen to produce water?

 

[Perfection]

But all the planets have been getting hit by debris over time, and aside from a relative few earth crossing asteroids with elliptical orbits taking them outward, what is the evidence of a collision in our orbit?

Earth/Lunar composition/structure, (it appears that lunar and Earth material shared a common origin within the solar system) and the Earth crossing asteroids wouldn't be from the collision.

Hmm...aint the asteroid belt a trail of debris? I wonder if anyone has charted the asteroids and tried to pinpoint an orbital range for their origin.

Asteroid orbits are completely dominated by Jupiter. Asteroids are debris from the formation of the solar system that failed to form a planet due to Jupiter's gravitational interaction they are not the result of such an impact.

Are there any patterns with the Earth removed from this location and placed elsewhere?

None known but it's not infeasible for a solar system to have different configurations.

Unless the planet aint there any more. Is this why the theory requires hardly no change in Earth's orbit? Because the Earth has swept up the evidence of the collision?

No, the theory calls for no change in orbit because it would explain lunar composition better (that is impactor material and Earth material were similar)

Okay, I'm familiar with that. But thats our collision. One theory says the Moon formed from this collision, but it looks to me like the Moon was present when the Earth got smacked. The serious damage done to the Moon occurred on one side, the side facing us.

Where do you get that?

Was the giant impact theory devised to explain the Moon?

Yes

Why does the theory make the assumption the impactor was at a LaGrange point?

It doesn't, but it's the most likely canidate and best explains the composition

Where did the impactor go? Surely it would have survived such a glancing low velocity impact.

It didn't (and this conclusion is based on extensive computer simulation). Most of the impactor ended up as part of Earth, the lion's share of the rest became the moon,.

Ah, okay, so the big impact at 4 bya did not result in the Moon. I swear the docu I was watching attributed the formation of the Moon to the 4 bya impact. That timeline works better since it has the Moon present at the time of the 2nd collision.

LHB was not a single massive impact event, but a large number of smaller impact events.

I understand some suspected comets have ceased outgassing. But they outgas as they approach Mars, so comets following highly elliptical orbits only come by once every few thousand years (or even longer).

But comets like Haley's with relatively short orbits still outgas.

And how do we know comets cant recoup lost gases while flying around the outer solar system?

Not enough gas, not enough gravity.

And why the preponderance of retrograde long term orbits? Is the disturbance following a retrograde orbit?

They're from outside the planetary disk, prograde and retrograde don't matter there.

 

[Demetrias]

How does oxygen "know" to bond with hydrogen to produce water?

It doesn't but then you also don't see Oxygen go swimming up to hydrogen and grabbing it to make water. Also that brings up that isn't it odd that electrons orbit around a nucleus and don't fall into it. But that's a seperate field. I just want to know why a bunch of random junk in a pool could turn into something with a purpose and self motivation. I mean bacteria have the prime directive of be fruitfull and multiply and boy are they good at it but elements don't.

 

[brennan]

You're kinda loading the question there. There's a massive range of intermediate steps between talking about atoms bonding and talking about large complex organic molecules, like amino acids, from which life may first have formed.

 

[Demetrias]

Hey thats just the first question. Wait for the others.

 

[brennan]

One of them better not be about 'loss of genetic information'...

 

[Demetrias]

Are you talking aging or did I miss this part in schooL?

 

[brennan]

Nope. But it would serve as proof that you are a creationist nut not worth replying too. Your ignorance of this terminology fills me with hope.

Why do we have to wait for questions? get posting dammit!

 

[Babbler]

And on to the evolution debate. Here's one of the big question no evoutionist has given me a good answer to besides the whole something from nothing idea. How does an atom transform itself into a single cell organism?

In a strict sense, abiogensis and evolution is different theories. Abiogensis is how life originates from inert chemical into simple biological systems. The theory of evolution tells us how (once life begins) populations of organisms change over time. But they are kind of tied together in the popular imagination.

The key is as brennan said: we should consider abiogensis as not a single "let life be, and life became moment", but occur over with many steps over a long period of time - like evolution itself.

It doesn't but then you also don't see Oxygen go swimming up to hydrogen and grabbing it to make water. Also that brings up that isn't it odd that electrons orbit around a nucleus and don't fall into it. But that's a seperate field.

*Incorrect statement here*. Elements combine into compounds due to election exchange/sharing.

Basic chemistry, really.

I just want to know why a bunch of random junk in a pool could turn into something with a purpose and self motivation. I mean bacteria have the prime directive of be fruitfull and multiply and boy are they good at it but elements don't.

You seem to be assigning some purpose to bacteria, which it doesn't have. It is just following it genetic code.

 

[brennan]

Electrons are electrical negative and the nucleus is full of positive charge (protons), so they repeal each other.

Wrong. Opposite charges attract, like charges repel. Electron orbits do not decay because it would violate the exclusion principle.