Re: Atheists support evolution because evolution supports their

Suzanne wrote:
"John Harshman" <jharshman.diespamdie@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote in message news:LnnIk.5186$YU2.4317@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Suzanne wrote:
"John Harshman" <jharshman.diespamdie@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote in message news:FN***.4673$be.4215@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Suzanne wrote:
"John Harshman" <jharshman.diespamdie@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote in message news:sCSHk.2874$x%.2322@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
chris thompson wrote:
On Oct 10, 7:59 pm, "Suzanne" <shil...@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
"Mike Painter" <mddotpain...@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote in message

news:qjgHk.4351$be.3532@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx

Suzanne wrote:
<snip>
If I told you about baobab trees and you had never
seen one and no one you know ever wrote about
them or photographed them or saw them but me,
you would not believe me. But if I told you now
that the baobab tree supplied us with kapok for
pillows, would you believe that if you never heard
of kapok?
True, especially if it came from you.
However it would be possible to find proof for the existence of the tree
with little effort.
Further if you asked 10,000 people about the tree you would not get 10,000
different descriptions and stories about it.
If you could provide any evidence for your god that was 1/10th of the
evidence for the existence of the tree there would be no atheists.
Evidence, evidence, evidence. You live by evidence.
Life just doesn't always give you the luxury of having
evidence. Suppose someone said to you, (perish the
thought!) "Don't move!! It's important that you listen
to me and don't bat an eyelash. There is a snake by your
foot. I'll distract it, and when I tell you to, then move."
Sometimes you have to trust people.

Suzanne
Is there any reason to think this is one of those times?
Is it too late to mention that kapok doesn't come from baobab trees, though they're both in the same family?

No, it certainly is not too late. I hereby designate that you
should wear the true crown and hereby be knighted as the
genius of Adansonia.
...And thank you, I did not know that. : )
Suzanne
Speaking of which, how did you like my evidence for human evolution, which you did request if you will recall?

Was this the post about humans being related to chimps?
I'm sorry if I did not post an answer. Can you show me
where it is?
Suzanne
Since Google Groups isn't currently working, I'll just paste the whole thing here:

It's the massive amount of DNA sequence data that makes the strongest case, though we had enough to go on long before DNA sequencing. Here's a simple explanation.

If you compare the same DNA sequences from humans, chimps, gorillas, orangutans, gibbons, and any monkey (pick one) using a phylogenetic analysis program, you will find a consistent pattern: the first three will always go together, the orangutan will be next to them, and the gibbon will be next to the monkey. In about 60% of cases, the human and chimp will be neighbors, but in about 20% it will be human and gorilla, with another 20% chimp and gorilla. But the rest of the pattern will be nearly 100%. This will be true for genes with important functions, and for junk DNA with no function at all. And this is the nested hierarchy I keep telling you about.

And if you count not just the arrangement of species but the distances separating them, the monkey will be farthest from the others, then the gibbon from the great apes, then the orangutan from the African apes, and the chimp will be a little bit closer to us than to the gorilla.

Further, the sorts of differences that separate all these species are exactly the same sorts we see happening all the time as mutations. We understand the processes that make these differences happen quite well.

In addition to the overall pattern, some of the individual genetic differences are so strikingly inexplicable by anything other than common descent that they are conclusive all by themselves. The biggest of these is the fusion of two chimp (and other apes and monkeys) chromosomes into a single chromosome in humans. This fused chromosome has the remnants of an extra centromere just where we would expect it, and the remnants of two telomeres just at the point of fusion.

Separate creation can't explain any of this, unless the dust of the ground happened to contain a complete set of ape chromosomes.

I won't bother going into the anatomical and paleontological evidence. We don't need it here.

John, thank you first of all for supplying this. It's a bit too
simplified to be believed because there is no technical
information to look at. It's just someone accepting your
word for what you are saying if someone believes this.
I would rather hear the technical aspect of it, and also
why anyone opposes it as well, along with why you think
that they are wrong.

You really aren't equipped to understand the technical aspect. But if there's something specific you want more detail on, please tell me exactly what.

Now why anyone opposes it is simple: they have a sacred book that they think contradicts my evidence. I think they're wrong because sacred books don't trump physical evidence.

Suppose that the earth had two continents and there was
not a way to get from one to the other. Suppose that life
started on each of them, and they both had the same
climate. Do you think that both continents would have
the same animals develop?

No.

Do you think there would be
bears on each that are like one another? Do you think they
both would have giraffes? elephants, chimps, chickens,
humans? Or, do you think they would not be recognizable
by those familiar ones I named.

There's no need to make this a hypothetical. Real continents partake enough of the character of your little experiment to make real observation possible. Many continents have been isolated from the rest for long periods of time, often 50 million years or more. And we know that you don't get the same biota twice, though you get a number of interesting similarities. In Australia, animals that look much like wolves (thylacines), but on the other hand large grazers that look nothing like cows (kangaroos). Madagascar, having no woodpeckers, has a mammal that performs much the same tasks, but in a quite different way. And so on. How does this relate?

.

Quantcast