Normally I don't double-post, but this is on the behalf of a friend of mine:
megman says:
Before I begin, a brief introduction:
Kagom and myself are both members of another board, and recently the same topic has been discussed there. Kagom pointed me in the direction of this thread, and I felt compelled to respond.
hovind said:
|
We did not come from monkeys.
|
-No, we didn’t. Our current understanding of evolution indicates our lineage originated with apes, which in turn evolved from prosimians. “Monkey” actually refers to two distinct groups of animals, one of which evolved from apes separately, and one of which evolved from prosimians. To even suggest that proponents of evolution believe we evolved from monkeys shows a complete lack of understanding of the topic.
hovind said:
|
If we came from monkeys why is it that a monkey doesn't produce A human now? Obviously monkeys only make other monkeys. We couldn't have come from monkeys.
|
-Again, you’re showing a complete lack of understanding of the subject. Evolution is not deterministic, it does not dictate that one type of animal will turn into another, or that a specific evolutionary path will be followed. We would not see monkeys (or, more accurately, apes) following the same evolutionary path we have because evolution does not work like that. If we were to observe a species long enough to be able to note speciation, we would not see all related species following the same evolutionary path. Species evolve in response to specific forces and pressures, which can and do vary between species and even populations. Thus, if we were to watch monkeys evolve, they could evolve into something entirely different from humans, or something similar, depending on the pressures and forces driving their evolution. We would not, however, see monkeys (or apes) evolving into humans.
Further, your argument assumes that while we have continued evolving, monkeys (or apes) have not. Just as we have evolved and changed from our common ancestor, so have apes- in fact, the aforementioned monkeys which evolved from apes are proof of this.
hovind said:
|
How anyone can believe in the crap theory of evilution? Think for yourself people...dont just believe everything they tell u in school. Question everything.
|
-Perhaps if you actually took the time to understand evolution, instead of the constantly-parroted misinterpretations and misconceptions of it, you would understand why it is such a compelling argument.
hovind said:
|
I'm not saying that things don't change and adapt. Definately bacterias and viruses change and there our mutations and stuff, but when a bacteria or a virus makes a person then you come talk to me.
|
-Again, you’re relying on the (false) notion that evolution is deterministic. It isn’t.
hovind said:
|
You can't believe in both evilution and creation in the way that it is taut by the bible.
|
-What people can and cannot believe is entirely up to them, not you.
hovind said:
|
I understand plenty of evilution.
|
-Then perhaps you should learn how to spell it.
hovind said:
|
Having things change from something they are not.
|
-That’s an oversimplified and only semi-accurate definition of evolution.
hovind said:
|
Just tell me the last time that one thing was seen giving birth to something totally different.
|
-You’re either contradicting yourself or relying on a false assumption. You’ve already stated that organisms are capable of changing in response to their environment, something they achieve through modification and reproduction. If, on the other hand, you’re arguing we will see evolution achieving speciation or drastic differences in morphology in one generation, again, you are relying on a false assumption. Evolution occurs within populations, not with single individuals.
hovind said:
|
Show me once when a dog changed into a platypus and I'll believe you.
|
-Again, you’re relying on the idea that evolution is deterministic. You’ll never see any other animal “turning into” a platypus or some other previously existing animals because that’s not how it works. We can 9and have) seen organisms undergo modification to the point where they are considered new species. We have, in fact, observed speciation in the lab.
hovind said:
|
Also, EVILoution leads to lawlessness and genocide.
|
-Only when misapplied by weak minds.
hovind said:
|
If only the strong are supposed to survive, why don't we just kill of all the weak ones? Your THEORY is EVIL so I'm going to call it eviloution.
|
-Again, you display the fact you don’t know what you’re talking about. Evolution by means of natural selection only deals with fitness,. Fitness, in the evolutionary sense, does not mean “better”, “faster”, or “smarter”. “Fitness” merely refers to fecundity- it’s about who has the most kids. The more kids you have, the more fit you are, and the better off you are from an evolutionary standpoint.
That’s all.
Only weak minds would assume that evolution necessitates the intentional and willful killing of people for the purpose of furthering evolution.
hovind said:
|
If u look up "human evolution" on wikipedia or any biology textbook you will see a bunch of trees showing how humans came from monkeys, apes, gorillas, etc.
|
-No, it won’t, because we did not evolve from monkeys. We evolved from apes. If you’re going to discuss this stuff, you should know the difference.
hovind said:
|
That may be PART OF the theory of evilution. What about macroevolution? What about the stuff that says that one animal can give birth to a totally different type of animal?
|
-Again, you don’t know what you’re talking about. Evolution acts on populations, not single individuals, and the type of evolution you’re talking about cannot occur over a single generation. Either you’re intentionally misrepresenting the issue (Straw Man fallacy) or you really haven’t got a clue what you’re talking about.
hovind said:
|
Then why do so many textbooks show evilution as one species changing into another?
|
-Because what you call macroevolution and microevolution are the same thing, just over different periods of time. Modifications and adaptations add up, and in populations isolated from each other, result in speciation.
hovind said:
|
Why does it always say that humans came from apes?
|
-Because we do. And I thought you were claiming evolution states we came from monkeys- which is it, monkeys or apes? You’re not being very consistent.
hovind said:
|
What about people like Darwin's own cousin who tried to use his theory to promote eugenics?
|
-This question was already answered:
KagomJack said:
|
Evolution is a neutral thing. Man makes his own decisions.
|
hovind said:
|
Isn't that what the theory of evolution says? Doesn't it say that we were once mud, and then lightning struck the ground and we became these living cells and then the cells just decided to stop being cells and they became more complicated organisms and then they became human?
|
-No, it doesn’t. Evolution does not deal with the origin of life, only its modification.
Your interpretation of what we think we can conclude about the origin of life (which, again, is not part of evolutionary theory) is a combination of misconception and misunderstanding.
hovind said:
The tiny bombardier beetle could not possibly have evolved. His defence mechanism is amazingly complicated, and could only have been created with all the parts working together perfectly. From twin ‘exhaust tubes’ at his tail, this beetle fires into the face of his enemies boiling-hot noxious gases with a loud pop.
How can this be? German chemist Dr Schildknecht discovered that the beetle mixes two chemicals (hydrogen peroxide and hydroquinone) which would usually form a dirty ugly mixture. The well-designed beetle uses a special ‘inhibitor’ chemical to keep the mixture from reacting. How then can the explosion instantaneously occur when needed?
Dr Schildknecht discovered that in the beetle’s specially designed combustion tubes are two enzymes called catalase and peroxidase which make chemical reactions go millions of times faster. These chemicals catalyze the extremely rapid decomposition of hydrogen peroxide into water and oxygen and the oxidation of hydroquinone into quinone, causing them to violently react and explode—but not so soon as to blow up the beetle, of course!
Common sense tells us that this amazing little insect cannon which can fire four or five ‘bombs’ in succession could not have evolved piece by piece. Explosive chemicals, inhibitor, enzymes, glands, combustion tubes, sensory communication, muscles to direct the combustion tubes and reflex nervous systems—all had to work perfectly the very first time—or all hopes for ‘Bomby’ and his children would have exploded!
|
-If you’re going to “borrow” another person’s work, you should at least give them credit. Failure to do so is highly frowned upon.
The source of the above material:
http://www.answersingenesis.org/crea...bombardier.asp
Not exactly unbiased…
In any case, evolution is completely able to account for the origin of such mechanisms. I am, unfortunately, not an expert in beetles, but I would hypothesize that such a mechanism may have started as a simpler defense mechanism such as those seen in stink beetles which allowed the production of an irritant (the peroxidase described in the article could be considered such a substance), and successive modifications, possibly as a result of duplications or other coding errors, may have added the ability to produce a second compound, and eventual modifications may have eventually resulted in a combination of substances which, when mixed, produced a much more potent irritant.
For a more in-depth explanation of the topics than I could ever hope to provide, I suggest reading the following:
http://www.ncseweb.org/resources/art...yth%20Exploded
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/bombardier.html
Oh, and cute name. I actually saw Hovind speak once. He utterly ignored many argument presented to him when he asked for explanations, and did not address the issues he himself raised when others offered arguments that contradicted his, choosing instead to ignore them and move on to another of his “arguments”, which were largely based on misinterpretations and even flat-out deceit. I even distinctly remember him contradicting himself when discussing the argument concerning the second law of thermodynamics (another argument based on misconceptions).
In any case, I find it interesting you’ve named yourself after a man who is currently in federal prison for acts including evasion and corrupt obstruction (related to tax laws).