Hobbits are a real species

[angus]

As a born-again Christian I have no problem with science, cosmology or even evolution.  I am enthralled by science.  I have read many articles and watched many programs featuring explanations of evolution and the cosmos.  Some I beleive, some i don't.  I just have a problem accepting theories such as the big bang and macro-evolution.  micro-evolution and linguistic evolution are both proven facts.  That is why we have 200 different types of dogs instead of one wolf and why we all speak different langauges.  There are boundaries for micro andlinguistic evolution.  All human lanaguages operate within certain parameters and follow a basic universal grammar of sorts.

Okay.  I appreciate the response.  I hadn't heard of Gentry.  I'll take a look at it. 

You know about the Miller-Urey experiment, I assume.  There are plausible explanations about how proteins can organize out of the primordial soup.  And on the surface it looks contradictory to the Second Law, or that Shiva was sleeping that day, or something.  But you have to remember to consider universal entropy, not the entropy of the system.

I also think it's reasonable not to get too hyped up in groupthink, by the way.  I think it's probably best that you're a little skeptical about theories.

I've heard of the miller-urey experiment and I don't doubt its conclusions.  However showing something that can be done in a laboratory does not mean it occurs naturally in nature, only possibly that it coud have.  I don't know if "could have" is scientific.

i saw a special on 60 minutes about the genetic engineering of tomatoes and salmon.  scientists inserted a gene from a tomato into a fish and the fish grew double its normal size.  I believe that is what happened in a lab; i have no doubt it can be done.  However, i fail to see how that could happen in nature.

Well, Miller and Urey were showing just that:  the plausibility of the formation of alpha amino acids from reduced compounds and some water. 

That tomato gene inserted into salmon probably has a different goal.  I'm not familiar with that one, but I don't imagine that the investigators are claiming that a tomato can, in situ, insert pieces of its genes into a fish.  Maybe they were examining genetic modification.  And this is at least one reason some scientists from Europe are migrating to the USA.   We don't have, as a society, those hangups about mucking about with nature.  Clearly, we have others.  I, for one, am not too excited about the prospect of creating a race of slaves, or living organ-farms.  That's a bit too Crighton-esque even for my warped mind.

[senatortombstone]

I got a question for you Jfern.

If human evolved from monkeys (or whatever primate evolutionists think we did) why are there still monkeys?

just answer it if you can.

Bad question; evolution doesn't state we evolved from monkeys.

2. Haven't you heard about Darwin's finches?

Bad example; finch beaks are an example of microevolution, not macroevolution, which senatortombstone is attempting to dispute.  I know of no person who disagrees that microevolution is fact.  Macroevolution is an entirely different matter.

The credit for bad arguments and faulty reasoning go to both sides of the debate, sadly.

Let me take this opprotunity to say that I knew that my arguement was faulty before I made it.  I had intended for it to go elsewhere and create a trap, but i realized after the post that the logic was flawed and i never bothered to edit.  Oh well.

But still, you ahve to wonder, if humans and apes do share a common ancestor.  Why did one species stay primitive and the other evolve into various intelligent forms and how is that comparatively intelligent pecies like homo erectus died out while dumbass monkeys and apes survived?

you'd think that if anything there would be several intelligent humanoid species today.


Another thing about evolution that puzzles me is why we don't see new drastic mutations in the human population. 

I understand that in order for a mutation to be passed on, the gene pool must be small in order ofr that change to over take the species. 

I realize that if an evoloved human wer to be born her/she would not be able to signifgantly improve or change the gene pool. 

However, with several millions of births every year you would think that eventually an evolved human would be born.  In today's era of technology and widespread communication, such a person would eventually be discovered.

How is that we don't see any dramatic changes in Humans with a gene pool of 6.5 billion but expect a species to evolve when their numbers are only in the hundreds?

If dramatic changes don't occur in such large numbers, it is very doubtful that they do in small numbers.

[○∙◄☻¥tπ[╪AV┼cVê└]

Crazy Americans and their creationism..... No wonder scientists are moving to Europe.

http://www.biblicalcreation.org.uk/

Uh-oh, it looks like you've got crationists in your own back yard.

Other countries have tiny numbers compared to the US.  Even heaviliy religious countries like Poland have far fewer creationists.

Creationists in Japan are about as rare as a saber toothed tiger.

[○∙◄☻¥tπ[╪AV┼cVê└]

I got a question for you Jfern.

If human evolved from monkeys (or whatever primate evolutionists think we did) why are there still monkeys?

just answer it if you can.

Bad question; evolution doesn't state we evolved from monkeys.

2. Haven't you heard about Darwin's finches?

Bad example; finch beaks are an example of microevolution, not macroevolution, which senatortombstone is attempting to dispute.  I know of no person who disagrees that microevolution is fact.  Macroevolution is an entirely different matter.

The credit for bad arguments and faulty reasoning go to both sides of the debate, sadly.

Let me take this opprotunity to say that I knew that my arguement was faulty before I made it.  I had intended for it to go elsewhere and create a trap, but i realized after the post that the logic was flawed and i never bothered to edit.  Oh well.

But still, you ahve to wonder, if humans and apes do share a common ancestor.  Why did one species stay primitive and the other evolve into various intelligent forms and how is that comparatively intelligent pecies like homo erectus died out while dumbass monkeys and apes survived?

you'd think that if anything there would be several intelligent humanoid species today.


Another thing about evolution that puzzles me is why we don't see new drastic mutations in the human population. 

I understand that in order for a mutation to be passed on, the gene pool must be small in order ofr that change to over take the species. 

I realize that if an evoloved human wer to be born her/she would not be able to signifgantly improve or change the gene pool. 

However, with several millions of births every year you would think that eventually an evolved human would be born.  In today's era of technology and widespread communication, such a person would eventually be discovered.

How is that we don't see any dramatic changes in Humans with a gene pool of 6.5 billion but expect a species to evolve when their numbers are only in the hundreds?

If dramatic changes don't occur in such large numbers, it is very doubtful that they do in small numbers.

What do you mean eventually an evolved human would appear?
Humans have about 3 billion base pairs of DNA. Typically there are around 60 mutations in each generation. There's evolution of new genes going on all the time, it's just that most of these don't make a significant difference, since only 0.000002% of the stuff is different.

[senatortombstone]

Crazy Americans and their creationism..... No wonder scientists are moving to Europe.

http://www.biblicalcreation.org.uk/

Uh-oh, it looks like you've got crationists in your own back yard.

Other countries have tiny numbers compared to the US.  Even heaviliy religious countries like Poland have far fewer creationists.

Creationists in Japan are about as rare as a saber toothed tiger.

So, what does that prove.  Being the majority, doesn't mean they're right about evolution.

[senatortombstone]

I got a question for you Jfern.

If human evolved from monkeys (or whatever primate evolutionists think we did) why are there still monkeys?

just answer it if you can.

Bad question; evolution doesn't state we evolved from monkeys.

2. Haven't you heard about Darwin's finches?

Bad example; finch beaks are an example of microevolution, not macroevolution, which senatortombstone is attempting to dispute.  I know of no person who disagrees that microevolution is fact.  Macroevolution is an entirely different matter.

The credit for bad arguments and faulty reasoning go to both sides of the debate, sadly.

Let me take this opprotunity to say that I knew that my arguement was faulty before I made it.  I had intended for it to go elsewhere and create a trap, but i realized after the post that the logic was flawed and i never bothered to edit.  Oh well.

But still, you ahve to wonder, if humans and apes do share a common ancestor.  Why did one species stay primitive and the other evolve into various intelligent forms and how is that comparatively intelligent pecies like homo erectus died out while dumbass monkeys and apes survived?

you'd think that if anything there would be several intelligent humanoid species today.


Another thing about evolution that puzzles me is why we don't see new drastic mutations in the human population. 

I understand that in order for a mutation to be passed on, the gene pool must be small in order ofr that change to over take the species. 

I realize that if an evoloved human wer to be born her/she would not be able to signifgantly improve or change the gene pool. 

However, with several millions of births every year you would think that eventually an evolved human would be born.  In today's era of technology and widespread communication, such a person would eventually be discovered.

How is that we don't see any dramatic changes in Humans with a gene pool of 6.5 billion but expect a species to evolve when their numbers are only in the hundreds?

If dramatic changes don't occur in such large numbers, it is very doubtful that they do in small numbers.

What do you mean eventually an evolved human would appear?
Humans have about 3 billion base pairs of DNA. Typically there are around 60 mutations in each generation. There's evolution of new genes going on all the time, it's just that most of these don't make a significant difference, since only 0.000002% of the stuff is different.

How does totally brand new information enter into the DNA?  Isn't a mutation merely the rewriting of previously existing information?

New information has to come from some where. 

i bet that in 1000 years Windows XP will have evolved into an errorless operating system.

[senatortombstone]

What do you mean eventually an evolved human would appear?
Humans have about 3 billion base pairs of DNA. Typically there are around 60 mutations in each generation. There's evolution of new genes going on all the time, it's just that most of these don't make a significant difference, since only 0.000002% of the stuff is different.

Again, just microevolution.  Cell mutation isn't rare at all, nor is it disuputed, nor does it prove much.

Humans having 3 billion base pairs of DNA would seem to imply some sort of intelligent design, because it's a little risky to believe that something so complex would occur after nothing but mutation after mutation.  Of course there's also the tricky one about where that first cell came from.

don't be daft, dude!  The frst lving cell was formed when 20 different types of amino acids combined after emerged from a puddle of chemicals that was struck by lightening.

If you believe anything else, you're living in the dark ages.

[○∙◄☻¥tπ[╪AV┼cVê└]

I got a question for you Jfern.

If human evolved from monkeys (or whatever primate evolutionists think we did) why are there still monkeys?

just answer it if you can.

Bad question; evolution doesn't state we evolved from monkeys.

2. Haven't you heard about Darwin's finches?

Bad example; finch beaks are an example of microevolution, not macroevolution, which senatortombstone is attempting to dispute.  I know of no person who disagrees that microevolution is fact.  Macroevolution is an entirely different matter.

The credit for bad arguments and faulty reasoning go to both sides of the debate, sadly.

Let me take this opprotunity to say that I knew that my arguement was faulty before I made it.  I had intended for it to go elsewhere and create a trap, but i realized after the post that the logic was flawed and i never bothered to edit.  Oh well.

But still, you ahve to wonder, if humans and apes do share a common ancestor.  Why did one species stay primitive and the other evolve into various intelligent forms and how is that comparatively intelligent pecies like homo erectus died out while dumbass monkeys and apes survived?

you'd think that if anything there would be several intelligent humanoid species today.


Another thing about evolution that puzzles me is why we don't see new drastic mutations in the human population. 

I understand that in order for a mutation to be passed on, the gene pool must be small in order ofr that change to over take the species. 

I realize that if an evoloved human wer to be born her/she would not be able to signifgantly improve or change the gene pool. 

However, with several millions of births every year you would think that eventually an evolved human would be born.  In today's era of technology and widespread communication, such a person would eventually be discovered.

How is that we don't see any dramatic changes in Humans with a gene pool of 6.5 billion but expect a species to evolve when their numbers are only in the hundreds?

If dramatic changes don't occur in such large numbers, it is very doubtful that they do in small numbers.

What do you mean eventually an evolved human would appear?
Humans have about 3 billion base pairs of DNA. Typically there are around 60 mutations in each generation. There's evolution of new genes going on all the time, it's just that most of these don't make a significant difference, since only 0.000002% of the stuff is different.

How does totally brand new information enter into the DNA?  Isn't a mutation merely the rewriting of previously existing information?

New information has to come from some where. 

i bet that in 1000 years Windows XP will have evolved into an errorless operating system.

There's a few different things going on

1. Mutations create new genetic information
2. Existing genetic information combines in different ways
3. Some genes are selected for or against (sometimes both at the same time), although most are pretty neutral

There are things called genetic algorithms, which essentially are programs that use evolution on a set of parameters to get a desired result. This can be hardware too.

Walking robots
http://www.demo.cs.brandeis.edu/golem/

Circuits more efficient than those designed directly by humans
http://evonet.lri.fr/evoweb/news_events/news_features/article.php?id=109

[○∙◄☻¥tπ[╪AV┼cVê└]

What do you mean eventually an evolved human would appear?
Humans have about 3 billion base pairs of DNA. Typically there are around 60 mutations in each generation. There's evolution of new genes going on all the time, it's just that most of these don't make a significant difference, since only 0.000002% of the stuff is different.

Again, just microevolution.  Cell mutation isn't rare at all, nor is it disuputed, nor does it prove much.

Humans having 3 billion base pairs of DNA would seem to imply some sort of intelligent design, because it's a little risky to believe that something so complex would occur after nothing but mutation after mutation.  Of course there's also the tricky one about where that first cell came from.

don't be daft, dude!  The frst lving cell was formed when 20 different types of amino acids combined after emerged from a puddle of chemicals that was struck by lightening.

If you believe anything else, you're living in the dark ages.

There are many theories, and you're incorrectly stating that one.

[○∙◄☻¥tπ[╪AV┼cVê└]

What do you mean eventually an evolved human would appear?
Humans have about 3 billion base pairs of DNA. Typically there are around 60 mutations in each generation. There's evolution of new genes going on all the time, it's just that most of these don't make a significant difference, since only 0.000002% of the stuff is different.

Again, just microevolution.  Cell mutation isn't rare at all, nor is it disuputed, nor does it prove much.

Humans having 3 billion base pairs of DNA would seem to imply some sort of intelligent design, because it's a little risky to believe that something so complex would occur after nothing but mutation after mutation.  Of course there's also the tricky one about where that first cell came from.

RNA is simpler. You don't need to start with 3 billion base pairs. Here's some addition information.

http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CB/CB015.html

[○∙◄☻¥tπ[╪AV┼cVê└]

What do you mean eventually an evolved human would appear?
Humans have about 3 billion base pairs of DNA. Typically there are around 60 mutations in each generation. There's evolution of new genes going on all the time, it's just that most of these don't make a significant difference, since only 0.000002% of the stuff is different.

Again, just microevolution.  Cell mutation isn't rare at all, nor is it disuputed, nor does it prove much.

Humans having 3 billion base pairs of DNA would seem to imply some sort of intelligent design, because it's a little risky to believe that something so complex would occur after nothing but mutation after mutation.  Of course there's also the tricky one about where that first cell came from.

RNA is simpler. You don't need to start with 3 billion base pairs. Here's some addition information.

http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CB/CB015.html

The RNA would still need to form and people are not exactly sure what the first RNA could have been formed by -- "could have had simpler precursors" -- and despite that, the DNA still would have to come from the RNA after long processes of evolutionary mutation.  I'm not sure when it's possible to stop simplifying in order to get a source that could have actually been formed without 'divine intervention.' :-/

If you're interesetd, these article probably explain some.....

 Böhler, C., P. E. Nielsen, and L. E. Orgel. 1995. Template switching between PNA and RNA oligonucleotides. Nature 376: 578-581. See also: Piccirilli, J. A., 1995. RNA seeks its maker. Nature 376: 548-549.