Create a New Forum Admin Login Member Login Contribute to Voyager Search VoyForums Help Desk VoyForums Exchange VoyForums Directory/Categories VoyForums Homepage VoyForums News FAQ - Frequently Asked Questions

[ Show ]

Support VoyForums

[ Shrink ]

VoyForums Announcement: Programming and providing support for this service has been a labor of love since 1997. We are one of the few services online who values our users' privacy, and have never sold your information. We have even fought hard to defend your privacy in legal cases; however, we've done it with almost no financial support -- paying out of pocket to continue providing the service. Due to the issues imposed on us by advertisers, we also stopped hosting most ads on the forums many years ago. We hope you appreciate our efforts.

Show your support by donating any amount. (Note: We are still technically a for-profit company, so your contribution is not tax-deductible.) PayPal Acct: Feedback:

Donate to VoyForums (PayPal):

Saturday, September 07, 06:55:22pm

[ Login ] [ Main index ] [ Post a new message ] [ Search | Check update time | Archives: 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, [10] ]

Subject: Ridiculous? Author: Wade A. Tisthammer [ Next Thread | Previous Thread | Next Message | Previous Message ] Date Posted: 01/28/02 9:43am In reply to: ozboy 's message, "Hanumann, the Monkey Temple" on 01/27/02 3:28am >To look at monkeys and say that they are not related >to us… seems quite ridiculous!!! …. after all we’re >both tetrapods... but then so are whales. It's not that ridiculous. You seem to make the “similarity” argument more conclusive than it really is. Similarity does not by itself imply common descent. Tisthammerw’s Algebra Toolkit V 1.1 and V 1.2 are similar, but it certainly doesn’t mean they evolved from previous programs via natural processes. Another possible explanation is a common designer. If one is to choose between intelligent design and naturalistic evolution, I think one has a bit more work to do than simply pointing out that two things possess similarities, since both theories provide explanatory power here. What about extrapolation? It should be noted that the “extrapolation” procedure of mutation-selection is not quite as easy to demonstrate in evolving new types as some might think. What is a type? Groups of organisms can be recognized as the same type if they possess alternate forms of the same genes. But as far as all observations go, mutations have only produced new alleles in genes that already exist. If that’s all mutations can do, then they can’t possibly create any new types because they do not create new genes, only different alleles within pre-existing genes. As an analogy, picture a slot machine. The windows represent genes, and the alleles (one of two or more varied forms of a gene) as different pictures (lemons, cherries etc.) in the windows. No matter how many times you pull the lever (representing a mutation) you’ll never create a new window, even though you get different pictures (alleles) within a window (gene). Whether evolution is right or wrong, one cannot simply extrapolate the directly observable changes we see in living organisms to evolve new types. I have yet to be convinced that such extrapolation is reasonable. >…. let’s go totally crazy for a moment and say that >god did make us ….. if so, then why would he make >monkeys so similar to us?? Because those chimps are so darn cute:) (TIC) [ Next Thread | Previous Thread | Next Message | Previous Message ]

Replies:

Subject Author Date "extrapolation" ... does one do that with the lights on or off?? ozboy 01/29/02 9:28am I have no idea what that title meant. -- Wade A. Tisthammer, 01/29/02 9:49am No title????? -- ozboy, 02/ 3/02 2:20am This post has a title. -- Wade A. Tisthammer, 02/ 5/02 11:28am I have an invisible dragon -- Ben, 02/ 5/02 3:26pm Interpretation. -- Wade A. Tisthammer, 02/ 6/02 8:17am Getting on out there again -- Damoclese, 02/ 6/02 9:21am And again. -- Wade A. Tisthammer, 02/ 6/02 10:01am Some more -- Damoclese, 02/ 6/02 1:14pm And some more. -- Wade A. Tisthammer, 02/15/02 9:24pm Not so much more -- Damoclese, 02/23/02 5:41pm As I see it ..... -- Don, 06/ 7/02 9:25am A fundamental question... -- Ben, 02/ 6/02 3:09pm A fundamental answer. -- Wade A. Tisthammer, 02/ 7/02 6:24pm A fundamental misconception -- Ben, 02/23/02 11:29am Fundamental beliefs. -- Wade A. Tisthammer, 02/24/02 12:32pm Fundamental... ah, I can't think of any more -- Ben, 02/25/02 7:15pm A fundamental order to the universe. -- Wade A. Tisthammer, 03/20/02 5:37pm You put the FUN in fundamental -- Ben, 03/20/02 10:43pm Thank you. -- Wade A. Tisthammer, 03/27/02 11:43am You put the bop in the bop-shoo-bop-shoo-bop -- Ben, 04/ 1/02 8:40pm Tying up. -- Wade A. Tisthammer, 05/25/02 2:22pm Thank you. -- Wade A. Tisthammer, 03/27/02 11:59am Thank you. -- Wade A. Tisthammer, 03/28/02 10:12am Symbolilc Pitfall? -- Damoclese, 03/28/02 12:02pm Not yet. -- Wade A. Tisthammer, 04/ 1/02 12:50pm How do you solve a problem like the God-a? -- Ben, 04/ 1/02 8:02pm Elucidation. -- Wade A. Tisthammer, 04/15/02 1:11pm There is no "why," there is only Zeul -- Ben, 04/15/02 5:13pm Huh? -- Wade A. Tisthammer, 04/16/02 10:22am I'll tell you why you're wrong, why you're really really wrong -- Ben, 04/16/02 2:38pm Lol. -- Wade A. Tisthammer, 04/18/02 1:50pm Why don't we all just bow out? (except for Wade) -- Ben, 04/20/02 4:34pm On bowing out. -- Wade A. Tisthammer, 05/25/02 2:19pm Still a potential pitfall looms -- Damoclese, 04/ 1/02 10:45pm How so? -- Wade A. Tisthammer, 04/15/02 2:15pm Like This -- Damoclese, 04/15/02 3:58pm Huh -- David, 04/16/02 2:12am A response. -- Wade A. Tisthammer, 04/16/02 10:47am Christian God is greatest possible? -- David, 04/16/02 1:20pm Perhaps, but that would require an additional case. -- Wade A. Tisthammer, 04/16/02 2:37pm Hm? -- David, 04/16/02 9:50pm Definitions. -- Wade A. Tisthammer, 04/18/02 12:24pm Relevence? -- David, 04/18/02 9:17pm To me you are correct Dave. -- Don, 06/ 7/02 7:31pm Yes. -- Wade A. Tisthammer, 06/21/02 3:52pm response -- drago, 06/ 3/02 1:48pm Not like that. -- Wade A. Tisthammer, 04/16/02 10:39am Muddling a simple point -- Damoclese, 04/16/02 3:47pm Attempting to get a strait answer. -- Wade A. Tisthammer, 04/18/02 1:14pm Trying to keep my patience -- Damoclese, 04/18/02 7:06pm I'll try to keep mine as well. -- Wade A. Tisthammer, 04/24/02 11:59am Cutting to the chase -- Damoclese, 04/24/02 2:22pm What's the chase? -- Wade A. Tisthammer, 04/26/02 11:05am Foxes -- Damoclese, 04/26/02 12:19pm Logical flaw perhaps -- David, 04/15/02 3:00am Continued -- David, 04/15/02 3:18am Please clarify. -- Wade A. Tisthammer, 04/16/02 11:03am Hehe -- David, 04/16/02 1:16pm Tee hee. -- Wade A. Tisthammer, 04/18/02 12:06pm *giggle* -- David, 04/18/02 12:57pm Ha ha. -- Wade A. Tisthammer, 04/18/02 1:29pm Hohoho -- David, 04/18/02 9:29pm toung twister -- Emma, 12/22/02 7:04pm Perhaps not. -- Wade A. Tisthammer, 04/16/02 10:50am you now have a definition ........... -- Don, 06/ 7/02 1:28pm not this again. .......... -- Don, 06/ 7/02 10:06am Dream a Little Dream. -- ozboy, 02/ 6/02 9:49am Ok Wade, if logic........... -- Don, 06/ 7/02 3:23pm