Is Mankind A Fluke?

[Cooky]

Well this five category can't be correct because the avian and non-avian dinosaurs are not in it.
And those flying wonders the pterosaurs are not dinosaurs, and so on, so on.

Of course, those are the currently living animal categories only.

Also notice, mammals are synapsids, but synapsids aren't on the list either... Just like birds are on the list but not dinosaurs.

 

[Cooky]

Only the small Synapsids survived great extinctions:

...While our large synapsid family members died (just like dinosaurs)... The following is a synapsid:

 

[blü 2]

Oh, okay, thanks.
You could say that the physical variables are "intelligent design"
or that an evolving mutli-verse is "intelligent design"
and so forth.
I don't understand where creationists come from on this - Genesis 1
does not really support them, and it's their primary text.

BTW, Genesis states that the early earth was dark. Just this month
we have the first evidence that earth's atmosphere was similar to
Venus' at one stage.

I suggest you don't get carried away by the cosmology of the bible. The bible thinks the earth is flat, and immovably fixed at the center of the universe. It thinks that the sun, moon and stars go round the earth. It thinks the sky ('firmament') is a hard dome you can walk on, to which the stars are affixed, such that if they come loose, they'll fall to earth. You can read some quotes >here<.

The conclusions of science are carefully and transparently reasoned from examinable evidence: that the universe started with the Big Bang something like 13-14 bn years ago, that our sun and its planets formed about 4.5 bn years ago, that life formed on earth more than 3.5 bn years ago, and that all living things have evolved from that origin. It's good to keep one's statements about reality grounded in fact.

 

[PruePhillip]

I suggest you don't get carried away by the cosmology of the bible. The bible thinks the earth is flat, and immovably fixed at the center of the universe. It thinks that the sun, moon and stars go round the earth. It thinks the sky ('firmament') is a hard dome you can walk on, to which the stars are affixed, such that if they come loose, they'll fall to earth. You can read some quotes >here<.

The conclusions of science are carefully and transparently reasoned from examinable evidence: that the universe started with the Big Bang something like 13-14 bn years ago, that our sun and its planets formed about 4.5 bn years ago, that life formed on earth more than 3.5 bn years ago, and that all living things have evolved from that origin. It's good to keep one's statements about reality grounded in fact.

Agreed, but as often is the case - it's not all that simple.
The original Genesis account of 'creation' (there being two of them in Genesis)
which is interpreted in symbolic form and written in a manner we are not used
to - is quite accurate.
Dark, oceanic and sterile earth
Life appears on land
Life appears in the seas
Emergence of man.

The dark earth was made clearer in 2020
The ocean bit was understood about 2005
Life beginning on land was agreed in 2020

When Solomon, for instance, said the sun rises, sets and hastens back to where
it began - that's a Jewish king giving his interpretation. In a sense he is correct,
FROM THE PERSPECTIVE OF THE OBSERVER. And the earth being the
center of the universe - not sure if that's in the bible, but if it is then it's also correct,
EVERY OBSERVER SITS AT THE CENTER OF THE UNIVERSE.

 

[ADigitalArtist]

There are 5 classifications of animals:

-Mammals
-Reptiles
-Fish
-Amphibians
-Birds

So to say that a bird is to a dinosaur as a human is to a primate, seems out of order... It would make more logical sense to say that a bird is to a dinosaur as a mammal is to a synapsid.

- Or -

...humans are to synapsids, like chickens are to dinosaurs.

That's not an actual taxonomic classification. Those are groups under tetrapod that you generalize for like year 1 students. For actual classes of animals, examples of classes of animals there's like...well over 100.
wiki/List_of_animal_classes

Under tetrapods there's also more of those. For example synapsids who are not mammals or dinosaurs that are not birds are also tetrapods.
Tetrapod - Wikipedia
Also fish aren't tetrapods and your 'class of animals' also left out invertebrates which are also animals but not tetrapods.

 

[Stevicus]

If a tornado went crashing through a junkyard and left behind a Boeing 747, fully fueled and ready to go, would that be a fluke?

View attachment 46308
pexels.com

My dad told me a story about a town he knew in the Midwest which had a water tower on a hill outside of town. At the center of town there was always this pickup trucked parked on the main street. One day, a tornado hit, and it apparently whisked the pickup truck away, which was later found on top of the water tower.

 

[osgart]

My best guess is

I think nature is akin to a neural network. Very much like the brain. It is intelligently trying to achieve fitness to the environment. It can go devastatingly wrong, or achieve ingenious results. Adaptive trial and error to me is an intelligent natural process. So evolution adapts and learns its environment and makes its best attempt to produce optimal results. The universe is its training ground. So no mankind is no fluke.

So from the formation of stars and planets to the processes of life the universe is constantly adapting where possible. It builds on its successes, and learns from it's setbacks. Like a giant network, or an A I.

https://futurism.com/physicist-entire-universe-neural-network

 

[Cooky]

synapsids who are not mammals or dinosaurs that are not birds are also tetrapods.
Tetrapod - Wikipedia

There is no such thing as a synapsid dinosaur or bird.

 

[ADigitalArtist]

There is no such thing as a synapsid dinosaur or bird.

View attachment 46344

I never said synapsid dinosaur or bird. I said:
Synapsids who are not mammals
OR
Dinosaurs which are not birds.
As in non-mammalian synapsids and non-avian dinosaurs are also tetrapods.

I notice you are increasingly not answering questions. Just finding small things to nitpick (regardless of if they're actually things to nitpick.)

 

[PruePhillip]

There is no such thing as a synapsid dinosaur or bird.

Totally irrelevant to the discussion - why are marsupials so dumb? I mean, placentals
and marsupials appear to have 'begun' at the same time. In general marsupials simply
can't compete with placentals. I know, I rear kangaroos - dumb as.

 

[Cooky]

I never said synapsid dinosaur or bird. I said:
Synapsids who are not mammals
OR
Dinosaurs which are not birds.
As in non-mammalian synapsids and non-avian dinosaurs are also tetrapods.

Ah, okay. I guess I misinterpreted that just like you accidentally misinterpreted me earlier.

What the heck's going on here..!?

 

[Valjean]

which leans then to the notion.....
the chemistry had some....assistance

Doesn't follow. All 'occurrences' are relatively quick, from this perspective.

A notion with neither reason to consider it an option nor any supporting evidence.

 

[Valjean]

There are 5 classifications of animals:

-Mammals
-Reptiles
-Fish
-Amphibians
-Birds

So to say that a bird is to a dinosaur as a human is to a primate, seems out of order... It would make more logical sense to say that a bird is to a dinosaur as a mammal is to a synapsid.

- Or -

...humans are to synapsids, like chickens are to dinosaurs.

These are Classes, below Phyla but above Orders.
And there are a few more: List of animal classes - Wikipedia

 

[Thief]

Doesn't follow. All 'occurrences' are relatively quick, from this perspective.

A notion with neither reason to consider it an option nor any supporting evidence.

too many hoops in a short amount of time

several species have been here before us......at great length
no change

Man however......had a leap.....of evolution

I believe there was a 'tweak' performed in the garden event

 

[PureX]

If a tornado went crashing through a junkyard and left behind a Boeing 747, fully fueled and ready to go, would that be a fluke?

Are we that rare, do you think?

I think that what exists, exists as the result of a combination of planned possibility, and chance. So we are rare, and unique, but not all that rare and unique.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

If a tornado went crashing through a junkyard and left behind a Boeing 747, fully fueled and ready to go, would that be a fluke?

What it definitely isn't, is a proper analogy to evolution theory.

Seriously, this must be one of the oldest PRATTs out there. How people can still make this "argument" and expect to be taken seriously, is laughable at best.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

If a tornado set down on a junkyard for millions of years, then?

No amount of years added to the "tornado storm" would make it a proper analogy to biological evolution.

Here's a completely crazy and wild idea: next time you wish to argue against a scientific theory, perhaps first at least read up on the basics of said theory.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

I'm trying to make it as complex as is any conscious person.

I don't think this is true at all.
"you" are not trying anything at all.

What "you" are doing, is repeating a silly non-argument you read on some creationist propaganda site somewhere. Let's not pretend as if you have thought this through at all or even have given it a split second of intellectually honest reflection.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

But "common sense" should tell us that mutations must occur prior to selection.

And they do. The mutations ARE the things that are being selected for (or against). Why do you say this as if anyone claimed otherwise?

And that in nature, we're essentially seeing tornadoes produce fully fueled 747's many times over, with convergent evolution.

Not at all.
Do you even know what convergent evolution is? It sounds like you don't.

...Do you realize how many times crabs have evolved independently..?

Crabs and Convergent Evolution: Carcinization Explained

Don't misrepresent it please.

No, "crabs" (as in the specific various specious of crab) did NOT evolve multiple times.
Not a single species evolved multiple times.

The article is only talking about crab-like morphology.

It even explicitly distincts "TRUE crabs" from the "crab-like". As in: the crab-like are NOT "crabs".

No: crabs did NOT evolve "multiple" times at all.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

But why must we ignore that the mutation must occur first, which is the real catalyst. And that selection is only a refining (secondary) process in evolution.

Who here is asking anyone to ignore that mutation occurs and that selection follows the manifestation of mutations?