Joined: Mar 2009 Posts: 3564 Location: Michigan
Thanks: 1321 Thanked: 1151 times in 844 posts
Re: 10th Foundational Falsehood of Creationism: Tree of evolution is not in evidence
I have commented extensively on this video in the "Yes. Evolution." thread.
I find this to be a compelling and interesting bit of knowledge. Why don't they teach us this stuff in school? haha.
This is exactly the argument you would have to have with someone who doesn't believe in our common ancestry with animals.
"My grammy wern't no dernd monkey!"
"Well, here's how we prove that she was. Was she alive?"
"She were! Afore she upndied!"
"That means she was of the class biota. Meaning all things that live. One comparison of shared traits she had with all living things on the planet, our most intrinsic relationship, and damning evidence that she shared at least that much in common with monkeys, though the correct terminology is apes."
"SHE WERNT NO APE NUTHER!"
"She had differentiated cell structures, though. That made her eukaryotic. Just like all her ancestors, all the way back to this point in the chain, she was also an opisthacant. She reproduced and the gamete cell involved had a single posterior flaggelum. That's the sperm cell."
"Well, that means she is related to all animals who share that trait. there are many others with entirely different plans that have flagellum at the head and pull themselves through material, or along the sides and do sort of a rowing motion.
She had to eat in order to live, correct? She didn't photo-synthesize?"
"That's the definition of metazoa. The animal kingdom. Animals must ingest and digest other organisms in order to survive. Your grandmother was an animal. And because your mother was her descendant, and in turn you are your mother's descendant, you too are an animal. You do that trick with a tubular internal digestive tract, which makes you a colemate. She was also bilaterally symetrical. As in, her right side was a mirror image of her left side, as opposed to radially symetrical organisms like trees."
"She had a spinal chord, skull, backbones and a jaw?"
"that categorically makes her a chordate, craniad, vertebrate, gnathostome, which means she shares heredity not only with apes, which have all of this, but also fish of most variety. At least she wasn't an arthropod. Those are disgusting."
"Nuh-uh! She didn't have no fins, or gills!"
"She had structures in her fetal development that were indistinguishable from gills in fetal fish. They went away as she developed, but they were there. No, she wouldn't have fins, because the kinds of fish she was related to were sarcopterygii. The kinds of fish that had lobe-like extrusions on their bodies. These lobey extrusions were proto-limbs which would one day come in handy to get themselves out of the water. Using a base of four of those, just like your grandmother some of those organisms became tetrapods, or four limbed creatures.
Do you see where i'm going with this? I am describing the cellular basis of your grandmother all the way up to the structure of her limbs and that is refining, and refining her description until we eventually get to Ape, which is irrefutably on the end of this list.
Denying that your grandmother was an ape is as futile as denying that she was a tetrapod. Humans are categorically apes. That's what it means to be human."
I could and would follow this progression all the way to our the utter explanation of every detail of our anatomy, but the point should have been made by then.
_________________ In the absence of God, I found Man. -Guillermo Del Torro
Have you tried that? Looking for answers? Or have you been content to be terrified of a thing you know nothing about?
Are you pushing your own short comings on us and safely hating them from a distance?
Is this the virtue of faith? To never change your mind: especially when you should?
Young Earth Creationists take offense at the idea that we have a common heritage with other animals. Why is being the descendant of a mud golem any better?
Confidence being an expectation built on past experience, evidence and extrapolation to the future. Faith being an expectation held in defiance of past experience and evidence.
Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 14 guests
You cannot post new topics in this forum You cannot reply to topics in this forum You cannot edit your posts in this forum You cannot delete your posts in this forum You cannot post attachments in this forum
BookTalk.org is a thriving book discussion forum, online reading group or book club. We read and talk about both fiction and non-fiction books as a community. Our forums are open to anyone in the world. While discussing books is our passion we also have active forums for talking about poetry, short stories, writing and authors. Our general discussion forum section includes forums for discussing science, religion, philosophy, politics, history, current events, arts, entertainment and more. We hope you join us!