Made or Born?

Posted By: Nems

Made or Born? - 04/05/07 05:58

I remember reading a long while ago that the makeup of our spinal nerves, cortex and brain stem were all different as in 'typically seen in other species'.
These were,
1. Reptilian
2. Cetaceous
3. Primate

...and apparently explained as an evolutionary map but I wonder....

Did the Man in the Moon splice them all together and after 3 odd attempts, settle on Homo Sapiens?

Perhaps some supporting anecdotes like the way we feel at varying times or think could port over to the idea e.g Most times I am a blank minded creature who can react stunningly fast with no emotional fuel to incite fight or flight (Reptilian?), sometimes I am an emotional mess (Primate?)and sometimes I feel so disconnected from the thrumming masses that I wonder "Where did you all come from?"(Cetaceous? original inhabitants?)

Disturbingly, there is the matter of affinity with these genus's as well as the supposed deadlink to 85 odd% of our brain or mind functions to ponder over and then, who the hell put all those receptors into our brains for hallucinogenics questions.

Somehow the standard 'evolutionary' generalisation just doesnt make sense, I mean, 3 million years to get to where we are now, common, give me a break here... and as for God, well you can toss cultism to winds for all I care.
But perhaps the most disturbing is the self evident fact we are all just animals but why do we always seek to distance ourselves from our fellow animals with all those purile self justifications about 'civilized accomplishments, tool wielding and complex languages or the way we distance ourselves from nature even when we are all so obviously an integral componant of nature?

Who are we trying to kid and why?

Is there a secret audiance watching us for entertainment value perhaps that we feel we have to constantly address each other in a third person perspective?

Hey..what gives ???
Posted By: zazang

Re: Made or Born? - 04/05/07 06:08

The impossible exists and the possible does not exist..lol
Posted By: broozar

Re: Made or Born? - 04/05/07 06:51

i wanna be made

and that "earthTV" idea you got from south park for sure ok... i have really understanding problems reading your post, i don't get your point.
Posted By: TheStonerunner

Re: Made or Born? - 04/05/07 10:46

I thought you were made, then born.

And as for why we separate ourselves, we have become weak due to our dependence on ever advancing technology, and have alienated our fellow animals by destroying their environments. If all living creatures were able to communicate we would be too ashamed to speak to them. Of course, we might not have done what we have done given the ability of global communication.
Posted By: NITRO777

Re: Made or Born? - 04/05/07 12:53

Quote:

3 million years to get to where we are now, common, give me a break here.

There are 100 billion cells in the neurological system alone. 100 billion/3 million means that an average 33333.333 new complete neuron cells evolved per year, 91 per day. Not only did they evolve perfectly, but they also had to fit perfectly among hundreds of connections.

Even if you trace neurological evolution back to one cell 3 billion years ago it still represents 33 per day, an enormous and impossible task. If mutation caused the added brain cells in such a frequency, why doesnt it still add them today? And what caused such incredible rates of mutation? To discuss how random chance would be responsible for the addition of any one brain cell would be very enlightening to the scientific and medical community indeed.

Quote:

Who are we trying to kid and why?

We are trying to kid ourselves and why? So that we dont have to accept the moral obligations of a creator.
Posted By: PHeMoX

Re: Made or Born? - 04/05/07 17:04

Quote:

Did the Man in the Moon splice them all together and after 3 odd attempts, settle on Homo Sapiens?



Which is exactly why God couldn't 'have done it', even if he would exist.

Quote:

Somehow the standard 'evolutionary' generalisation just doesnt make sense, I mean, 3 million years to get to where we are now, common, give me a break here... and as for God, well you can toss cultism to winds for all I care.
But perhaps the most disturbing is the self evident fact we are all just animals but why do we always seek to distance ourselves from our fellow animals with all those purile self justifications about 'civilized accomplishments, tool wielding and complex languages or the way we distance ourselves from nature even when we are all so obviously an integral componant of nature?



And right here you forget that we are indeed 'just animals' and evolved from animal species who existed before us, and those evolved from species before them and so on. Thus 3 million years is not all the time 'we had to evolve' at all.
Besides, not every mutation takes place at every place either, but it's about those who survive, not those who mutate.

Quote:

Even if you trace neurological evolution back to one cell 3 billion years ago it still represents 33 per day, an enormous and impossible task. If mutation caused the added brain cells in such a frequency, why doesnt it still add them today? And what caused such incredible rates of mutation? To discuss how random chance would be responsible for the addition of any one brain cell would be very enlightening to the scientific and medical community indeed.



Actually, this is not much of an argument, because most brain cells are rather similar. Remember that there has to be mutation before or during the process of 'growing a brain'. Any being that has a mutation that is lethal won't survive, so any 'wrong mutations' are wiped out rather quick.

About why it doesn't happen this fast today. Not that hard either, people probably do not get that much children anymore as 3 million years ago (birth mortality was high, so to survive as species many children were needed ) together with modern medical healthcare this seems to slow evolution down, especially since the natural selection processes are being influenced and the 'environment' we live in is simply way different compared to back then.

Quote:

We are trying to kid ourselves and why? So that we dont have to accept the moral obligations of a creator.



The evidence really speaks for itself though when it comes to evolution. Even if God created the very very first pre-cell life, the rest definitely came into existence through evolution.

Cheers
Posted By: Doug

Re: Made or Born? - 04/05/07 18:25

Quote:

To discuss how random chance would be responsible for the addition of any one brain cell would be very enlightening to the scientific and medical community indeed.



There isn't anything random about it. Take any two humans and count their brain cells, you'll find that they vary by millions if not billions of cells.

There are a lot of reasons why this is (genetics, diet, environment, etc.) but it isn't truly random.
Posted By: Ran Man

Re: Made or Born? - 04/05/07 18:41

Quote:

So that we dont have to accept the moral obligations of a creator.



Haha! Get's right to the point. Good job bro.
Posted By: NITRO777

Re: Made or Born? - 04/05/07 19:26

@Phemox
I dont think you understand my statement, though I indeed understand your point, however I am not talking about the mutation involved in the design of the neuron itself, I am talking about the mutations involved in the genome which would call for the addition_of_those_neurons.

Logically, the neuron itself supposedly evolved at some point in time, if, as the scenario was presented states, that the neuron as we know it today evolved 3 million years ago, there would be some genetic information which would state how many neurons would exist, call it "quantitative info" or whatever. Then, there would also be genetic information which would tell each neuron how to connect with the others call that "connect info". Those different types of info are seperate and distinct from the mere design of the neuron itself.

@Doug
Quote:

There isn't anything random about it. Take any two humans and count their brain cells, you'll find that they vary by millions if not billions of cells.

Sure, depending upon the age and other factors, however most estimates give a number of 100 billion at your prime age of 20. web page Your right. I was incorrect to think that the addition of one brain cell itself would be a monumental discovery, thank you for clearing that up. What I meant to say was that one cell is very very complex, and science does not yet know how even one cell could have 'evolved', I can see how you might have thought I was refering to the addition of one cell by the way I phrased it, I will clear it up in a future post about cell structure perhaps.

My overall point is that the growth of the human brain would follow two rules if evolution were true:

1.dna coding for more cells, the positioning, functioning and interconnections of those cells has grown by a certain rate(unless it all evolved spontaneously)

2.Given the amount of time proportional to the amount of dna involved in coding the current amount of interconnected brain cells, we would be able to see marked differences in brain sizes and cell amounts today. Which we cannot observe, at least not at the rate which evolution would require.

If I have my estimates wrong, please tell me how much we can expect the brain to grow in size, neuron amount and function within, say, a hundred year period. Or even in one years time. I would be very curious to know what this evolution rate is and even more curious to find out HOW this evolution occurs. If you say that evolution would not occur randomly, what mechanism will cause the addition of brain cells in our head?

Evolutionists estimate that our brain has grown in size from 400 to 1350 cubic centimeters. I think overall my estimates at least represent a simple picture of the alleged evolution. Perhaps someone has a better rate?
Posted By: Nems

Re: Made or Born? - 04/06/07 06:56

Yes, perhaps 3 Billion years worth of existance and growth can account for the existance of what we know to be real today but then again perhaps not.

The presumption here is that an evolutionary line maintains a constant existential geneology over the duration of that timeline and as far as the interpretation of our history goes from every conceivable science looking into the matter, this is simply not possible at all.
We see this now in our world with climate changes, planetary axical shifts, solarsystem orbital dangers and so on presenting definate possibilities of life extinction to all, let alone ourselves.

It is the one factor evolutionists overlook and one which needs to be raised into the light of any argument or discussion concerning the "WHY" that such threads fish for perhaps.

If the Universe was indeed a controlled laborototy then I would certainly favour an evolutionary angle..however, to my mind, both Evolution and God should be seen as one and the same, an anomolous factor never to be seen again.

Both are retrospectivly discernable in one form or another but contemporanous or probable forward temporal discernment is always dim and therefore unkbown.

In short, its a wild guessing game on many fronts.

As for moral obligations to a theory, no That doesnt gell with me at all.
To my mind each and every individual has a moral obligation only to the self as part and parcel of the self preservation drive, and therefore to each other as a dependancy drive for mutual coexistance.

So if our arguments or presented cases for discussions can reach a platau of agreement that defines our probale creation or moments of evolutioary growth (Be they mutations or "Thy Will Be Done")at a more immediate timeline spanning perhaps 120 to 250k years as would seem to be the most likely period to look at given the limited genetic diversity we currently have, can we honestly 'assume' that we are the result of an unbroken genetic mutable line spanning this impossible 3 Billion year duration?

As pointed out previously, the structure and composition of our genes intergrate amazingly well to produce life as we know it but how could this have possibly been the result of random selection? Its as though a programmer wrote the genetic code! It is so complex and co-dependant as to seem 'Designed'.

The point of this post?

To gather the background of my game project in order to base it on a solid storyline foundation.

You may recall my prior posts of test levels and demo's and maybe you even read my then 'Storyline', well, its a game that pursues these questions in a (I hope) serious tone and porjected to span the above timelines, 3 Billion or 300K years.

The question of and for life, its definitions, variety and direction given over to a computer game may spark more light on the subject for me as well as resolve or add to the many questions the first post laid out.
Posted By: PHeMoX

Re: Made or Born? - 04/06/07 09:07

Quote:

The presumption here is that an evolutionary line maintains a constant existential geneology over the duration of that timeline and as far as the interpretation of our history goes from every conceivable science looking into the matter, this is simply not possible at all.



It is possible, this is exactly what has happened with many species. Don't forget that not well-adapted forms of species did go extinct throughout history and remember that some species 'come and go' in a relative short timespan for which there can be many reasons. Just because 'our' species has never gone extinct doesn't mean it's 'invincible' either.

Quote:

at a more immediate timeline spanning perhaps 120 to 250k years as would seem to be the most likely period to look at given the limited genetic diversity we currently have, can we honestly 'assume' that we are the result of an unbroken genetic mutable line spanning this impossible 3 Billion year duration?



No, definitely not. We're looking at a timespan exceeding way 3 million years, the Hominoidea 'family' started about 7 million years ago with Sahelanthropus tchadensis. Infact, the 'primate' evolution has an approx. timespan of around 60 million years and (we) are part of one of the longest surviving mammal-groups.

About 5 million years ago there was a clear separation between 'human-like species' and 'apes' (when using the 'molecular clock'). But when looking at the current-day similarities between us and apes, it's pretty clear the biggest part of the evolutionary process has probably taken place before 5 million years ago, all that came after is still very very important off course though, but basic things like eyes, ears, brain etc. already became close to what they are now.

There's actually a big genetic diversity amongst the modern human race by the way, there are all kinds of different humans. You've also got to realize how 'diversity' works. For some kinds of species diversity is a extra weapon to survive as a species. More individuals and a higher diversity usually means a species is more likely to survive, because it's more flexible to drastic changes (chances are higher that because of the high diversity there are already species who can survive those drastic changes.)

Not all species 'need' this per say to survive. When I say need, I mean there were no selective factors which demanded such things in order to be able to survive as a species. On the other hand there have been important events in our evolutionary history in which a certain degree of 'diversity' has played a major role for us to be able to survive. When it comes to mammals, remember that dinosaurs went extinct because of a meteor impact eventhough many mammal species survived...

Quote:

In short, its a wild guessing game on many fronts.



What exactly are the 'wild guesses' involved then 'on many fronts'? Most if not everything is based on pure evidence, the fossilrecord, DNA studies, morphological studies and what more all quite clearly support evolution and vice-versa.

Quote:

As pointed out previously, the structure and composition of our genes intergrate amazingly well to produce life as we know it but how could this have possibly been the result of random selection? Its as though a programmer wrote the genetic code! It is so complex and co-dependant as to seem 'Designed'.



Natural selection and the survival of the fittest, the mechanisms of evolution, are not random at all. Apart from that there are a lot of things on this planet that 'look to be designed to us', but we are biased. There have been people in the past that said to have found 'old stone man-made figurines'. Fact was those particular stones simply got carried by a river downstream, polishing them and shaping them into something we, with our bias, consider to be humanoid figure shapes, eventhough these stones were simply shaped into their form by collisions with other rocks inside the river.

Complexity says absolutely nothing by the way. Something primitive can evolve into something complex. It's a long way from 'one cell' to 'human' perhaps (and it definitely took a long long time), but there's no logical reason nor evidence against it to assume it has not happened. Infact, it's legit to consider our direct ancestors, the apes, to be 'more primitive' than we are.

Cheers
Posted By: AlbertoT

Re: Made or Born? - 04/06/07 17:45

In the first stages of the embrion development some bones of the human head can not be distinguished from the ones of a reptile
Also the inner part of the human brain is almost the same as the one of a snake
This is a further prove in favour of evolutionism even though you can not exclude in principle that God got started from a common model
Posted By: Doug

Re: Made or Born? - 04/06/07 19:57

NITRO777: If you want to learn more about how evolution works you are going to need to find somebody else. I only have enough knowledge about it to be dangerous.

I would avoid using web-sites for facts. The internet is full of lies and half-truths. Even well meaning articles (like this one that talks about how the brain is still evolving today) leave out a lot of details.

I can suggests some good books on the subject if you are really interested.
Posted By: NITRO777

Re: Made or Born? - 04/06/07 21:00

@Doug
Quote:

I can suggests some good books on the subject if you are really interested.

Sure. If youve got the time please do suggest, I'll read 'em. Im definitely interested in anything about the brain and brain evolution, or just evolution on the cellular level. Particularly the "how" on genetic mutation is of interest to me, though I dont know how much information you'll find on that because quite frankly evolution on a cellular level is pretty much either a)beyond our current understanding or b)non-existent.

There was a lot missing in the article you posted, but I did find it very interesting nevertheless. One of the things that interested me was the time of divergence. There seemed to be a period from 5800-7000 years ago which a certain change occured. As I said the change itself is still unclear to me, or how the conclusions were drawn were kind of omitted, but nevertheless the findings of ANY change in the human brain during that particular time frame would be interesting to me because as you probably know, the Bible places the emergence of Adam and Eve right about then. I believe that the Bible shows a great amount of evidence for previous human-like races(before Adam) and an old earth which would account for dinosaurs and all that but that is another thread. Suffice it to say that I find it an interesting coincidence that brain changes were found in humans starting at that time frame. The article doesnt give me much more to go on though.

@Phemox and others
Im reading a little before I reply, its been a while since the last evolution talk we had and I need to get things lined up in my head a little. I know what I want to say already, but I need to refresh some of the facts first.
Posted By: AlbertoT

Re: Made or Born? - 04/06/07 21:10





I believe that the Bible shows a great amount of evidence for previous human-like races(before Adam) and an old earth which would account for dinosaurs and all




This is interesting
Where can you find these evidences in the Bible ?
Posted By: NITRO777

Re: Made or Born? - 04/06/07 21:46

Hi,
Basically my belief follows this description to a certain degree, although I dont agree 100% with the wikipedia's article. The main points of the gap theory that I believe is that

1)the gap occurs between verse 1 and 2 or genesis 1
"In the beginning God created the heavens and earth .....GAP OF UNSPECIFIED TIME...and the earth was without form and void"

The theory is that God did not create the world without form and void it became that way, and there are many different Hebrew words which, when translated will point to this. One such word is "was"(above) which can be translated "became"

One of the main Biblical proofs(though there are entire books written about this) is found in the Hebrew translation of "without form and void". Those words are the Hebrew "tohu" and "bohu".

Basically I arrived at the theory from a variety of sources, but you can read it from an expert online here. Book By Arthur Custance Dr. Custance is one of the worlds outstanding scholars in Middle eastern languages,he was one of the first to have been involved in serious cuneiform study under Dr. Meek he is a Christian but he has a lot of scholarly education. I dont even know if he is alive today..
Posted By: PHeMoX

Re: Made or Born? - 04/07/07 00:27

Quote:

In the first stages of the embrion development some bones of the human head can not be distinguished from the ones of a reptile
Also the inner part of the human brain is almost the same as the one of a snake
This is a further prove in favour of evolutionism even though you can not exclude in principle that God got started from a common model



At a very early stage we also look like a 'fish' hehehe. It's quite funny, but it's all evidence indeed.

You are right, we can't exclude God from the period before evolution, however we cán exclude God from 'interfering' somewhere around the middle of evolution, if that's what you suggest with 'a common model'. If you've simply meant a common model as in 'the first pre-cell almost 'life' which evolved like it did', then yes perhaps God could be responsible for that...

Quote:


The theory is that God did not create the world without form and void it became that way, and there are many different Hebrew words which, when translated will point to this. One such word is "was"(above) which can be translated "became"




It's pretty cool you agree with that translation, it's true those are the proper meanings indeed ('became') or at least I've read the same from an entire different source, so I suppose it's right. However doesn't this pose another question? Namely the question 'what díd God create then?' If the earth 'became' through all sorts of effects, physical laws that just 'are' and what more, then what's the thing God has been responsible for? These laws?

In a way, I wonder if it's anything at all, perhaps "God" is simply the somewhat philosophical 'breakpoint' to make clear that there has been time and 'development' before earth ever 'came into existence', before nature existed, before anything? If time and space have been there forever (something I do believe, since going from 'no time' (everything freezed) to 'time' sounds a bit strange to me, although not impossible), if time and space have been there forever, whether collapsed, spread out or twisted doesn't matter, you could go on and on about it, but and one point you'd have to stop and say, before this 'we don't know' ór 'make things up' in a more poetic way and say 'God did it'. Perhaps the concept of this evolved because it gave meaning to the unknown and more and more it started getting different additional meanings. Like, pray and you will get help or support in return, or perhaps pure the basic 'hope' it can give and so on and so forth. The 'concept of religion' is very very old and humans have been able to imagine a LOT and stories always evolve. No-one tells each story twice exactly the same, so 'changes' have always been inevitable,

Cheers
Posted By: AlbertoT

Re: Made or Born? - 04/07/07 12:23

Yes we "look like" fishes and reptiles but we dont look like birds
This is because we are in the same evolution line : fish - reptile - mammals
It seems strange but it is like that
People normally prefer birds over snakes but snakes are our closer relatives
Posted By: PHeMoX

Re: Made or Born? - 04/07/07 12:37

I like birds better than snakes too, I guess we'll have to live with it.

Indeed, it's all pretty clear evidence for the 'branching of species' like evolution also more or less 'predicts'. There's really no way you could fit God into it either. A different branch of species or different line of evolution, is not an indication of 'divine selection' or something. (I had the 'and he took away the snakes legs and made him crawl n his belly' thing in mind there.)

Cheers
Posted By: NITRO777

Re: Made or Born? - 04/07/07 12:38

Quote:

It' However doesn't this pose another question? Namely the question 'what díd God create then?' If the earth 'became' through all sorts of effects, physical laws that just 'are' and what more, then what's the thing God has been responsible for? These laws?



Genesis 1:1-2 To help understand the theory I will break up Genesis 1:1-2 into component parts. It will also help to visualize Genesis 1:1-2 as completely seperate from the remainder of Genesis 1, I will show this in the list below:

----------------
Genesis 1:1 "In the beginning God created the Heaven and Earth"
---THE GAP OF UNSPECIFIED TIME---
Genesis 1:2(a)"And the earth was(became) without form and void(tohu and bohu)"
Genesis 1:2(b)"And darkness was upon the face of the deep."***

Genesis 1:3-31 A new creation was placed upon the earth, and the light from starts and sun was accelerated to the "firmament"

***Darkness was upon the face of the "deep" meaning the "water", therefore it is logical to conclude that the first, pre-adamite creation was destroyed by a pre-Noahic flood!
Posted By: NITRO777

Re: Made or Born? - 04/07/07 12:42

Quote:

Yes we "look like" fishes and reptiles but we dont look like birds
This is because we are in the same evolution line : fish - reptile - mammals
It seems strange but it is like that
People normally prefer birds over snakes but snakes are our closer relatives

Thats ridiculous because number 1)we dont look like fish or reptiles in emryonic stages and 2)even if we did it wouldnt make any difference. Just because a fork has similarities to a spoon does not mean one is derived from another. When making these outlandish claims, please provide some link to your sources

Id like to refer you to the following source:
web page
Posted By: AlbertoT

Re: Made or Born? - 04/07/07 13:05

Some link ? This is the ABC of evolutionism
For example the similarity of some human head bones with the one of the reptiles , in the early stage of life, has been found out by the famous German writer Goethe who was also a serious hobbyest scientist
Posted By: PHeMoX

Re: Made or Born? - 04/07/07 13:05

Quote:

***Darkness was upon the face of the "deep" meaning the "water", therefore it is logical to conclude that the first, pre-adamite creation was destroyed by a pre-Noahic flood!



Why would this be logical?? Don't they mean 'deep' as in 'the sea'. Isn't it a bit far fetched to interpret this as a cryptic description of the effects of a 'flood'?

Quote:

Darkness was upon the face of the "deep"



'face' = surface, right? 'deep' = water or sea, right? Well, if 'darkness was upon the surface of the sea', it could simply mean 'it was night'.


As for the embryonic stages, please take a look at these pictures Nitro: http://embryology.med.unsw.edu.au/wwwhuman/Stages/Images/Cst800.jpg

Between 20 and 30 days we do look like what fish look like at a certain stage. Both our anatomy and morphology have huge similarities during that period of embryonic growth, só many similarities that it's a little hard to deny actually. A spoon and a fork share similarities because they have partially the same function, same goes for our 'embryonic-fish' stage, so an analogy would actually be more or less correct, as long as you remember that a fork is not a spoon nor vice-versa. We don't say we áre 'fishes' before we grow into humans, because that's ridiculous indeed.

Quote:

Just because a fork has similarities to a spoon does not mean one is derived from another.



The spoon was derived from a fork actually.

Cheers
Posted By: NITRO777

Re: Made or Born? - 04/07/07 13:48

All speculation. The embryos only look remotely similar, and even if they did, it does not prove that one evolved from another.

Quote:

Why would this be logical?? Don't they mean 'deep' as in 'the sea'. Isn't it a bit far fetched to interpret this as a cryptic description of the effects of a 'flood'?

No, a flood is the logical conclusion to the existence of the "deep" in verse 2. The reason is that in verse 1 the original heavens and earth is created, right? In verse 2 it states that the earth "became" without form and void. To "become" is causative, something happened to the original earth for it to "become" without form and void, the presence of the "deep" covering the earth and verse two shows HOW it "became" without form and void. There was a pre-Noahic flood. There is more to this also.

Quote:

Some link ? This is the ABC of evolutionism
For example the similarity of some human head bones with the one of the reptiles , in the early stage of life, has been found out by the famous German writer Goethe who was also a serious hobbyest scientist




This is providing us with a good example of the kind of confident announcement with which uninformed evolutionists abound. What you said is purely a presumption. Just because members of a family, or embryos, or silverware are apt to look alike, it is not at all safe to assume that all "look-alikes" are related. You present your statement as though it were factual, and it is a simple supposition without any positive proof whatever. Within the embryos there might be some similarity(there is not but I give you the benefit of the doubt) from an anatomical point of view, but it is quite another thing to state categorically that they are closely related to each other. Resemblance and relationship are by no means the same thing. You make this statement but you are not sure how far removed the relationship is, but the basic assumption still remains that the evolutionary relationship exists. All that the facts might appear to you for similarity(though you have shown me no comparitive links or pictures). Relationship is totally unprovable by an appeal to morphology. You are confusing hypothesis with fact.

I ask that you would at least show me the courtesy which I have shown you. If you think embryo bones and reptile bones are similar, please show me a photo, tell me of a book where you read it or at least tell me that maybe your Mommy told you so Give me something, anything, but please dont tell me that it is "the abc's of evolution" I already know the "abc's of evolution" and I know that the one your trying to tell me is pure speculation and presumption.

Quote:

The spoon was derived from a fork actually.

This is increasingly silly.


I dont see many similarities here.
Posted By: Matt_Aufderheide

Re: Made or Born? - 04/07/07 14:08

Quote:

Somehow the standard 'evolutionary' generalisation just doesnt make sense, I mean, 3 million years to get to where we are now



Why not? Maybe you dont know how long a million years is..

And what do you mean by a "generalization"? There is nothing general about human evolutionary evidence.. fossils are pretty specific..
Posted By: PHeMoX

Re: Made or Born? - 04/07/07 14:54

Quote:

This is increasingly silly.



Hey, you brought it up, not me.

Quote:

I dont see many similarities here.



No offense but if you don't see the vast similarities between the entire top row of pictures then you must be blind for the truth, infact they are even marked in that picture. Truth is, those stages below that first row are stages that start after 30 days. So no wonder that the differences are bigger and bigger. Just like evolution itself, growth goes gradually, not in huge steps skipping the inbetween stuff Nitro!

Cheers
Posted By: NITRO777

Re: Made or Born? - 04/07/07 15:30

Quote:

No offense but if you don't see the vast similarities between the entire top row of pictures then you must be blind for the truth, infact they are even marked in that picture. Truth is, those stages below that first row are stages that start after 30 days. So no wonder that the differences are bigger and bigger. Just like evolution itself, growth goes gradually, not in huge steps skipping the inbetween stuff Nitro

No. The top row is Ernest Haeckels fraudulent drawings which Doctor Richardson exposed. Richardson is Englishman and a real buddy of evolution, perhaps you should go out and visit him at the Lieden University right there in Netherlands, ask him yourself about embryo similarities, I am sure he would make time to tell you.

All of these photos on the bottom row are from the same stage of embryonic development, "the tailbud stage".

Here are some better pictures and information:

web page
web page
web page
Posted By: AlbertoT

Re: Made or Born? - 04/07/07 18:04

I found for example this article on the web

News
Humans ear bones began as reptile jaws
Friday, 16 March 2007 by Sarah Bartlett
Cosmos Online

The first one who noticed such similarities was Wolfang Goethe
Posted By: NITRO777

Re: Made or Born? - 04/07/07 18:25

The article is also here and it has nothing whatsoever to do with embryonic development.

edit:anyone can also read the abstract to Richardson's research here. Its a pretty observable, conclusive study.
Posted By: AlbertoT

Re: Made or Born? - 04/07/07 20:52

Fom Richardson's article

"Embryos of different species of vertebrate share a common organisation and often look similar. Adult differences among species become more apparent through divergence at later stages"

Even though Richardson explains that he does not agree with above claim I dont really undestand how you can claim that it has nothing to do with what we have been talking about
If someone does not agree with a certain theory it means that some else support that theory
At an early stage embryos look similar.This is a matter of fact
Just by chance ?
Maybe ,but for sure it is an "hint" if not a "prove" of a common origin
Posted By: PHeMoX

Re: Made or Born? - 04/09/07 12:52

Quote:

No. The top row is Ernest Haeckels fraudulent drawings which Doctor Richardson exposed. Richardson is Englishman and a real buddy of evolution, perhaps you should go out and visit him at the Leiden University right there in Netherlands, ask him yourself about embryo similarities, I am sure he would make time to tell you.



I've actually had a guest lecture about evolution from Michael Richardson once and his story really is more or less the same. He's not even talking about a 'fraudulent' drawing, more so an 'inaccurate' drawing.

Those pictures are rather bad for comparing anyways, not only is ónly the human species featured on both pictures, all in all Haeckels isn't that far off at all considering his 1834-1919 life. You do know that his drawings are from 1874? You do know Haeckels simply cutted species open to look and made drawings (that can get rather messy)? You do know Michael Richardson is from 1963 or so and used a x-ray photography technique for making those pictures? You can hardly call it a fraud (a matter of details), apart from that Haeckel wasn't quite wrong either. 'Early tailbud embryo' is rather unspecified, when you read the article that accompanies it, you'll see that it's not very contradicting at all. It's just a bit more specified and earlier in the stage.

Quote:

At an early stage embryos look similar.This is a matter of fact



Indeed, as other high resolution photos made with the same technique show.

Quote:

Even though Richardson explains that he does not agree with above claim



He does agree, he's just skeptic about morphological features and whether or not that means anything when comparing cross-species... he doesn't disagree with his 'own' pictures,

Cheers
© 2024 lite-C Forums