Abiogenesis

I understand the issue very well.

There is no proof whatsoever for the reason why the nerve is so long. Using a giraffe so that the extraordinary number of 15 feet could be used makes it even more reaching. Speculating that the head was lower and the heart was higher somewhere along the line of evolution is nothing but drivel and no more prove-able than me saying that our brains are on the tops of our bodies so that our thoughts are closer to God.

It's just another theory, that's all. You believe it. I don't. (Sound familiar?)

 

Um, no. It is not quite that superficial. The location and length of the nerve strongly suggests a "fishy" ancestry. It is not "just another theory", but one that is most strongly supported by evidence.

 

I'm sure I could make plenty of cases that "strongly suggest" any theory I conjur up. Still no proof.

There is more proof that God exists than there is to support this theory.

I will take your stance on this. When you can prove it, I will believe.

 

Wolverine - Isn't simply amazing that in todays Super Information Highway where information is at your finger tips in seconds, that we could still have such ignorance in the world?

Boggels the mind really.

 

Please lay out this 'evidence' for this 'god' you speak of.

 

Your imagined evidence for god is non-existent. The evidence to support the many aspects of biological science is very different.

 

Information is Google search away. There really isn't much an excuse in today's world.

 

Can you be a little broader? I thought we were talking about a giraffe that was once a fish?

 

A giraffe that shares a common ancestor with a marine animal.

 

His great great great great great great great great great (x1000) grandfather was a fish?

Did you find that on ancestory.com?

And you say Christians are crazy?? Next you're gonna tell me that Santa Clause used to be the Easter Bunny.

 

I am not the one denying gradual biological changes over vast expanses of time.

If you have a better means of describing the world's biological diversity, go right ahead.

 

I believe that is what evidence supports, yes. Or do you think that nothing ever changes in nature?

 

You mean like growth? Sure. That's natural. But a bird isn't a monkey, isn't a lizard, isn't a human. I have eyes, and so do fish. Does that make a fish human?

You guys are nuts. Seriously.

 

You see class, this is a typical "argument" against evolution.

Nothing more than a strawman which clearly demonstrates a complete lack of understanding of evolutionary theory, including the basic points that are suggested by evolution.

Note how the poster says a bird is not a monkey, lizard, or human. Also note how he says we have eyes like fish. Realize that no one in the thread suggested such a thing. A classic strawman. A red herring to avoid talking about evolution in a scientific context, but to repeat their church pamphlet scientific education.

The very premise of the "argument" is a strawman. A fallacy. It is not to be considered an argument at all, but to be dismissed as nonsense.

 

ahaha.

First of all, do you actually think that reproduction between two individuals of a species works like taking two colors of paint and mixing them together to get a hybrid between the two?

 

Do you believe Cleopatra existed? Do you have proof?

That's like asking for evidence of love. Look around you. Stand on a mountain and look at the beauty of nature. Watch a baby laugh or a puppy play. What need does simple evolutionary survival have for those things?

Historical writings of the existence of God exist in abundance, even by eye witnesses. Show me the historical scientific journals written by the witnesses of conversion of one species to another.

 

Those attributes socially benefited us. As we spent less time surviving and gathered an abundance of "free time" those attributes simply grew further.

The writings of "god existence" are silly.... most consist of visions. Well, I dream too.

As for the conversion of species, I suggest reading The Coming Plague. An easy 700 page work on the emergence of disease, with one hefty chapter being dedicated to the rapid evolution of pathogens rendering many drugs ineffective.

As for macroscopic evolution in larger plants and animals, genetics and taxidermy is where you will find your answers.

 

Yes, I know its where I go to find all my answers.......NOT!!

 

Yup.

That explains a lot.

 

In other words, you don't have a clue.

 

I suggest a membership to the Scientific American Bookclub.

 

No, a fish is not human... it's a fish. I don't think you fully understand the theories of evolution of life. They do not suggest that all animals are the same or that one evolved from the other... that is a very uninformed view. Please try to understand the theories a little better before discrediting them. If you need some help, just explain what you believe the theory to be and I can try to correct any misunderstandings. From your above statement you have clearly demonstrated that you don't fully understand what it is you are criticizing.

 

Since the video of the giraffe was posted it's been suggested that a giraffe was once a fish.

 

Strawman much?

 

That's not what I asked. Your previous comment suggested that since your eyes tell you that two organisms are different in appearance they cannot be evolutionarily related.

As for the laryngeal nerve example, you misrepresented the conclusion that Dr. Dawkins was suggesting. He is not saying that a giraffe was once a fish; rather that both a giraffe and some modern fish shared a common ancestor. This ancestor was neither a giraffe nor a modern fish, but the evolutionary predecessor of both. The user 'Wolverine' tried to clarify this but you scoffed at it with some nonsense about 'ancestry.com.'

There is nothing wrong with criticizing theories or ideas that you do not agree with. What you are doing, however, is mocking them while misrepresenting their meaning. i.e. attacking a straw man.