Jump to content

iCambrian

Advanced Members
  • Content count

    2,153
  • Joined

  • Last visited

3 Followers

About iCambrian

  • Rank
    The Scientist

Profile Information

  • Religion
    Christian Humanist

Previous Fields

  • Gender
    Male

Recent Profile Visitors

2,612 profile views
  1. Atheism Everywhere

    It took me a minute to figure out how to put that misconception into words. ^
  2. Atheism Everywhere

    For @dragonxx, ill also add that, any trait that evolves, by a more specific definition, is something that proliferates throughout a species. Properties that are evolved are those that fill pre existing niches (they fill a pre existing demand for them). The demand for empathy pre exists the evolution of empathy. I hope that makes sense. For example, Its not that the tetrapods moved onto land from the sea, then later land became beneficial for them to live on. Land was beneficial for them to live on, before they moved onto land and so they filled the niche that allowed land based traits to proliferate and evolve. They didnt evolve land based traits before it was beneficial for them to evolve those traits.They evolved those traits after it was already beneficial for them to do so. Because if it wasnt already beneficial, the trait would not have succeeded through time (detrimental mutations result in death and extinction). ------------------------------------ So regarding empathy, humans or proto-humans, evolved empathy after it was already beneficial for them to have empathy. They didnt evolve empathy first, before it was beneficial to them. So this idea you have about...proto humans evolving empathy before it was beneficial to them, is like a misconception or misunderstanding of how evolution occurs. Non beneficial traits result in extinction (or they are neutral and just sort of hide out in our dna for a rainy day). For example, many species of the cambrian explosion and the ediacara went extinct. Their traits were not beneficial enough for their success.The demand for their traits were not long term or simply didnt exist. Thus they died. Later, the demand was present for traits of fish (demand for teeth, eyes, scales etc), before fish existed. And so, fish came to exist by the demand of the environment. Fish didnt evolve, then the environment came to change around them (that doesnt make sense). Fish (proto fish) became fish, only because it was already beneficial for fish to come into existence. @hasanhh Do you think I am explaining this well? reminds me of those little memes with the primordial ape standing up on two legs and walking, then at the end of the walk, the advanced human does something stupid, like plays video games
  3. Atheism Everywhere

    The beings that evolved to become human, if we could make any comparison of them with modern day animals, it would be a comparison to chimpanzees. Why do you think that...say, a chimpanzee, would be better off not having empathy for their baby, than if they did have empathy for their baby? This is a loaded question. Of course a chimpanzee species would be better off if their mothers cared and demonstrated empathy for their young, as opposed to leaving them to die. Chimpanzees without a doubt are very social as well, so of course it would benefit them to have empathy amongst themselves for other chimpanzees in their families and communities. And they do. And it makes them stronger as a chimpanzee community. Proto humans, like all the common ones you hear, sahelanthropus or lucy, erectus and heidelbergensis and all them, they too benefited from having society or community like families. Hence why their skeletons are often found in groups together. They lived together as families, and in that, it was beneficial for them to have feelings for one another. So, even if we looked a those that evolved into us, empathy was good for them as well. -----------------------------
  4. When you are ready to actually respond to my posts, let me know. Otherwise, I'll be on my way. The good news is, the war is already won. We already have established truth in biological evolution and common descent, its foundations go back 200-300 years and have only advanced since. So, i have nothing to prove here. I'll just continue to watch the deniers uncomfortably squirm as more and more evidence is uncovered, as it has since the olden days of darwin. The scientists know whats going on and that's good enough for me.
  5. The proof was given. I think you just dont want to accept it. And I dont think there is any evidence you could ever be given that could convince you. You have not rationally disputed any of the propositions. Nor have you described why those propositions are insufficient in formulating the conclusion. You are simply irrationally rejecting it all.
  6. I think the biggest challenge in this discussion, isnt about whether biological evolution is a reality or not. The challenge is whether or not people are willing to accept it. I can throw a rock into the air and it can fall and land on the ground. But people do not have to accept that it was gravity that pulled that rock down. Regardless of if gravity is proven, if people do not want to accept that it exists, that is just the way it will be and they will not accept it. They may not have any alternative explanation for the existence of gravity, but it doesnt matter, if they dont want to believe in it, then they wont. Regardless of any evidence that demonstrates its existence.
  7. The proof is in the patterns. For example, DNA patterns match those of comparative anatomy. The conclusion is that anatomy is a product of our DNA. We know this is true. Ok. So whats next? Patterns of comparative anatomy, and patterns in genetics, match patterns of the fossil succession and biogeography. The conclusion here is also pretty straight forward. Fossils are bones, comparable to bones used in understanding comparative anatomy. Fossils (their traits) of prehistoric life, were also a product of genetics. Also, straight forward, and simple. And true. DNA changes through time. Common ancestors (like our parents) give birth to us, our DNA is slightly different than our parents, and so our comparative anatomy and morphology is slightly different as well. Also straight foward, well understood, true. There are no questions about this, its just the way it is. Now, the conclusion, DNA changes, therefore comparative anatomy changes, therefore fossils through time change. And thats it. That is all there is to evolution. It is all very straight foward, it is simple, and it is well understood. ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Now that we understand this simple and straight foward truth. It becomes as clear as day, that fossils through time are a direct depiction of genetics through time, ie evolution. Fossils, and DNA and comparative anatomy, all show oder of common descent. Now, the example of common ancestry. Reptiles come before birds and mammals in the fossil succession. Reptiles come before birds and mammals in comparative anatomy. Reptiles come before birds and mammals in genetics. Therefore, the only conclusion that any rational person could have, is that reptiles, or more specifically, species or a species of reptile, is the common ancestor of both birds and mammals. Every proposition is known, is clear, understood and true. Therefore the conclusion is known. The conclusion being that common descent is a reality of life. ie mankind evolved from prehistoric apes.
  8. You arent really giving responses to anything, youre just kind of moving on to other topics. Like, what is your response to my last post? That there isnt a tree of life, but rather its a web of life? Ok? Thats not really a response.
  9. Atheism Everywhere

    Question: "Why the heck would humans evolve empathy, "? Answer: "sure it may be beneficial for sentient beings" Ok, case closed, question answered. We as sentient beings might evolve a more complex understanding of empathy, as it is beneficial for us (as you have said yourself). When say, we are walking down the street and we see a child getting robbed at gunpoint, the child might be a family member of ours or someone of our community that we know and like. The robber, may be someone who poses a mutual threat to both of us. By having empathy for the child, we may be supporting our community and further supporting our own life. Simultaneously, by understanding the danger that the robber creates, we might save not only the child, but ourselves by having awareness of the dangers the robber poses. This is basic stuff.
  10. Relatedness isnt simply about what living things are made of. It is the patterns found in that relatedness that is the focus of all the articles you posted. The patterns identified in our genes indicate common ancestry. Its the same for the ERVs, the same for fused chromosome #2, same for patterns of mutations. The patterns of common ancestry are repeated time and time again in countless tests. And these same patterns are even present in the fossil succession, biogeography, comparative anatomy, and a whole host of other fields. The patterns are so repetitive, that you even get cross over. Where teams will look at DNA, and use patterns in DNA to predict where fossils will be found in the earth.
  11. Atheism Everywhere

    I've never known anyone to hold this perspective, so i cannot say. As far as I am aware, no one on this website holds this perspective either.
  12. Atheism Everywhere

    Whether someone recognizes that they are an animal or not, is independent of the question of if whether they believe they have purpose. I am well aware that I am an animal, but i dont view my life as something without purpose. The point being that the two concepts are independent of one another. Who, or what organization i wonder, teaches "you are an ape and nothing beyond that"?
  13. The cat-mouse-human report is pretty interesting. I like the figures they give. The results are a bit difficult to understand (as im not a geneticist, i have to sit and translate word for word and sentence for sentence to understand the lingo). But theyre discussing mammalian radiation in the tertiary (in part). Or post dinosaur radiation of mammals (even toed ungulates, and pre existing eutherians). And i guess just taking their findings and unpacking them for further discussion. Looks like theyre pointing out similarities, differences, and comparing various qualities between cat, mouse, man and other mammals.
  14. These appear fine. Looks like a good read.
  15. The article is centered around data from answers in genesis, sourced from someone who is self contradicting and is not peer reviewed. I have every reason to distrust and to doubt AIG. And with that, I can't be bothered to dive into a topic that is beyond my field to discern it's fine details. I simply discard it. young earth creationism is kind of like a black hole. On the surface there is apparent credibility. But if you dig, you will come to discover that they're not interested in truth. They are interested in proving the Bible, by any means. Even if it means contradicting ones self. I'd be curious to see what you SMHA, found in digging into these aig claims.
×