Does A Bigfoot/ufo Connection Exist?

[Incorrigible1]

Are you asking me?

How's about you and Will? Do you doubt evolution occurs? (I rather assume Will does doubt such.)

Do you not see the kinship/relationship between Man and the great apes? Or do you separate us from them?

Curious, not a trap question. Personally, I think Darwin had a rare "whack upside the head" moment that propelled mankind's understanding of the big picture an enormous distance further.

If you don't, I respect that, but at the same time can't understand not seeing the inexorable march forward, in the fossil record. That record doesn't necessarily depict "improvement" or "modernization," but seems to me does depict change, which is a true force in nature.

[Guest Jodie]

See Ta Cah- With all due respect, I sensed that Will knew what direction he wanted to go with the topic and deliberately steered it that way for the express purpose of confronting the forum members. By all means, everyone and anyone is entitled to their personal beliefs, but I will say this yet again, make sure the beliefs are yours and not a regurgitated version of someone else's.

You left one version of creation off and it is similar to the Australian Aboriginies version of dream time, that being that we are the creators of the design and that there is no seperate entity running the show. We exist on different levels, here as seperate beings, elsewhere as one entity, we decide what happens, what doesn't, and how it gets done with the eventual goal of reunification.

[See-Te-Cah NC]

How's about you and Will? Do you doubt evolution occurs? (I rather assume Will does doubt such.)

Do you not see the kinship/relationship between Man and the great apes? Or do you separate us from them?

Curious, not a trap question. Personally, I think Darwin had a rare "whack upside the head" moment that propelled mankind's understanding of the big picture an enormous distance further.

If you don't, I respect that, but at the same time can't understand not seeing the inexorable march forward, in the fossil record. That record doesn't necessarily depict "improvement" or "modernization," but seems to me does depict change, which is a true force in nature.

I will do my best to answer your question. Admittedly, my background is in Theological Studies, so I don't want to get too far into my actual stance because I don't want to violate the forum rules. If this doesn't suffice, I'd be happy to correspond on a personal level.

I do not doubt that things evolve. However, I do find it hard to believe that a creature can just morph into a different species over a period of time. Adaptation within species would be the term I would use to describe the evolution process, at least in the random sense. I am also aware that species can be manipulated through selective breeding. I believe that a creature can evolve to adapt to its surroundings in its current form. For example, I fully believe that an animal can evolve to adapt to a change of temperature in its environment or become a variant based on finding itself isolated in a different environment, i.e. - growing thicker hair or becoming a variation of a species when separated by a glacier, ocean or mountain range. I do not personally believe that a fish can become a land-dwelling animal like I was taught in school (coelacanth).

I do not feel a kinship with the great apes, not as an evolutionary step at least. I see the apes as remarkably wonderful beings and I have great regard for them as intelligent creatures. I believe that they are to be protected and admired for their remarkable similarity to humans. Humans should be good stewards of all animals... particularly those that are so similar to us. They're apes, not humans, but have a value nonetheless.

It is my opinion that the fossil record doesn't hold enough evidence to conclude that we evolved from apes. When we find a relic hominid, we assume that it is part of an evolutionary chain. Why couldn't it be just another extinct animal? There have been many, many animals that have become extinct over time. Perhaps these relics are similar to us, just as the gorilla is, but not an evolutionary ancestor.

Darwin's theory was indeed brilliant. Truth be known, his explanation could be as factual as any. Yet there are too many "ifs" and questions involved for my taste.

As for seeing a march forward, I just don't. Evolution claims order from chaos, while true science claims disorder from order. Entropy (AS taught from the 1800's until about a decade ago, now MEP, which just hasn't convinced me) states that order becomes disorder - stars burn out, living things die, etc. Evolution tells us that order comes from disorder. I personally don't buy that. If Evolution is a step forward, it has not convinced me of such because we still have inferior animals (apes) that have incredibly specialized niches in their environment and therefore have no need to evolve any further. In this case, the ape, being inferior to us as a primate, is superior to us in its niche. I believe that everything has a purpose and was designed to fill its niche. I don't believe it was a random happenstance. As you've stated above, the ape has no need to evolve... to improve, because it was designed to do what it does. This, to me, indicates the lack of change because it’s not needed.

I respect your views, too. I realize that we probably won't agree, but I appreciate the opportunity to discuss this with you anyway.

See Ta Cah- With all due respect, I sensed that Will knew what direction he wanted to go with the topic and deliberately steered it that way for the express purpose of confronting the forum members. By all means, everyone and anyone is entitled to their personal beliefs, but I will say this yet again, make sure the beliefs are yours and not a regurgitated version of someone else's.

You left one version of creation off and it is similar to the Australian Aboriginies version of dream time, that being that we are the creators of the design and that there is no seperate entity running the show. We exist on different levels, here as seperate beings, elsewhere as one entity, we decide what happens, what doesn't, and how it gets done with the eventual goal of reunification.

I understand that I wasn't all-inclusive of every Creationist view, Jodie. I couldn't be all inclusive of every single belief and entity, so I attempted to use that term to be inclusive of the major world beliefs.

I think you're right, but I won't judge Will's intentions. You guys are pretty good at taking care of yourselves and at identifying a smokescreen when you see it.

Jodie, you're always respectful to me, and it is much appreciated.

[Incorrigible1]

If Evolution is a step forward, it has not convinced me of such because we still have inferior animals (apes) that have incredibly specialized niches in their environment and therefore have no need to evolve any further. In this case, the ape, being inferior to us as a primate, is superior to us in its niche.

Respectfully, and treading lightly, I've bolded "inferior animals." My bolding. Why are they inferior? Evolution doesn't point to "improvement" not advancement. It merely states a species will evolve to best fill and adapt to the niche its presented. There is no "inferior" nor superior. Life, nature, and evolution is what it is.

Again, evolution does not inexorably march to "improvement," whatever that is. Evolution does seek to help any species best survive in its environment.

Respectfully, the Incorrigible 1.

[See-Te-Cah NC]

Respectfully, and treading lightly, I've bolded "inferior animals." My bolding. Why are they inferior? Evolution doesn't point to "improvement" not advancement. It merely states a species will evolve to best fill and adapt to the niche its presented. There is no "inferior" nor superior. Life, nature, and evolution is what it is.

Again, evolution does not inexorably march to "improvement," whatever that is. Evolution does seek to help any species best survive in its environment.

Respectfully, the Incorrigible 1.

My mistake - I did not mean to imply that apes are inferior. I used that term, albeit very poorly, to denote its place in the evolutionary ladder, presuming that they are our evolutionary cousins.

My apologies, I1.

Edited December 31, 2011 by See-Te-Cah NC

[Incorrigible1]

I'm a little saddened you don't see great apes as evolutionary "cousins" to man, to you and me.

I see so many, many traits and behaviors of humans to be absolutely apeish. We (men) are merely and wondrously miraculous great apes. Our behavior and mannerisms are remarkably similar, and I fail to find the spark of crafting by a deity somehow imbued within us. You see, another human tool to greater understanding I subscribe to is that of Occam's razor. I don't expect you to feel the same nor believe the same as me, and while I believe in a great wonderment, I don't necessarily believe it had to emanate from a divine provenance.

Edited December 31, 2011 by Incorrigible1

[Guest Jodie]

And on a lighter note, there are fish that do crawl on land and lizards that run on water. Snakes are born with legs and people are born with tails sometimes. Those might be examples of the transition state, there continues to be debate on how slow or quickly that happens and those kinds of changes stick.

The DNA is all there for everything, it just takes a push of some kind for it express in a certain direction, hence the reason I'm not overly concerned with a few missing fossils. I think the platypus got misdirected a few times by the environment and it hasn't decided what it wants to be yet.

[See-Te-Cah NC]

I'm a little saddened you don't see great apes as evolutionary "cousins" to man, to you and me.

I see so many, many traits and behaviors of humans to be absolutely apeish. We (men) are merely and wondrously miraculous great apes. Our behavior and mannerisms are remarkably similar, and I fail to find the spark of crafting by a deity somehow imbued within us. You see, another human tool to greater understanding I subscribe to is that of Occam's razor. I don't expect you to feel the same nor believe the same as me, and while I believe in a great wonderment, I don't necessarily believe it had to emanate from a divine provenance.

I'm sorry to have saddened you, Incorrigible1. You are a fine individual and I respect your opinions greatly. Your intelligence and humor are grand for certain.

I agree with you in some respects. In most cases, the apes act better than humans. Maybe they wouldn't want to claim us as evolutionary cousins.

I see your point of view... and I respect it and you. I also suscribe to Occam's Razor, but my simplicity is from the other direction.

It doesn't really matter what I believe, does it? I've stated my opinion, and its worth what you paid for it.

If I see a design, I look for a designer. That's how I see it, and I realize that others may see it differently.

Thanks for expanding my thought process with your opinions.

[Incorrigible1]

By Gadfrey, more power to you (and me), See-Te-Cah.

[Guest MikeG]

Evolution claims order from chaos, while true science claims disorder from order.

Incorrigible 1 has dealt with most of your points rather well, so I won't repeat. I would, however, comment on this quote of yours.

Firstly, evolution is true science. Your statement implies that it isn't. There are testable hypotheses, and predictions which have, with time, been confirmed. It doesn't require any belief.

By "true science" you mean what? Astro-physics may have settled for the idea of entropy at the scale of the universe, but I'm not sure that chemistry has any such notion, for instance, nor particle physics. You are applying your analysis to two incredibly different scales. Life on earth is a chemical scum on the surface of one insignificant rock, amongst squillions. We're talking one grain of sand on a beach.............yet you suggest that a grand prediction about the eventual destiny of that entire beach over billions of years has a bearing on what happens on the surface of one grain of sand in the blink of an eye.

No, evolution fits perfectly well with physics, chemsitry, and any ology (other than theology and astrology) that you can think of.

As for your "I see a design, I look for a designer"........well, firstly, I don't see a design, and secondly, there is a great book on just this called "The Blind Watchmaker" by Richard Dawkins which I heartily recommend.

Mike

Edited December 31, 2011 by MikeG

[Guest Jodie]

I've not read the book by Dawkins, I'll have to check it out. To be honest Mike, it is not a done deal when it comes to theories of the Origin of Life. This gets us back to the extraterrestrial aspect of the topic, but NASA defines life as any chemical reaction capable of Darwinian evolution.

They have just found organisms here on earth that use arsenic in their DNA, which undergo replication, this is important for recognizing extraterrestrial life in other forms besides ours if we ever develop space travel. No one knows what came first with any certainty, prebiotics haven't been shown to evolve so don't meet NASA's qualifiers for life.

However, it has been suggested that the prebiotics could possibly provide the right environment for RNA and DNA to develop, it is not certain that this is the case. There is still controversy regarding how we got our extra 223 genes, most affecting neurological processes, many of which are located on X chromosome you get from your mother. Was it caused by bacterial/viral insertions? That's one of the most popular current theories for how it happened. I'm not aware of any research that has definitiely ID'ed bacterial/viral infections affecting heredity in modern times and that's something that should be demonstrable in a few generations. Obviously we still have a lot to learn.

[Guest MikeG]

I've not read the book by Dawkins, I'll have to check it out.

If you enjoy that, then try Climbing Mount Improbable by the same author.

To be honest Mike, it is not a done deal when it comes to theories of the Origin of Life.

I completely agree. What an exciting field of research though!

........ NASA defines life as any chemical reaction capable of Darwinian evolution.

Dawkins rather chooses "anything that is capable of self replication", and I rather like that.

......Obviously we still have a lot to learn.

Thanks goodness for that! How dull would life be without a few mysteries?

Mike

[See-Te-Cah NC]

Evolution claims order from chaos, while true science claims disorder from order.

Incorrigible 1 has dealt with most of your points rather well, so I won't repeat. I would, however, comment on this quote of yours.

Firstly, evolution is true science. Your statement implies that it isn't. There are testable hypotheses, and predictions which have, with time, been confirmed. It doesn't require any belief.

I understand what you're saying, Mike. Evolution is indeed a scientific theory, which is, in most cases, considered as a basis for scientific law. What I mean is that true science considers all possibilities. A better way to state this would be to say that Evolution is the consensus scientific belief of the day even though not all hypotheses are confirmed. There are parts of it that we just can't know for certain.

You say that there are testable hypotheses that have been confirmed with time. Pardon me, but are you saying that science has confirmed Evolution (in its entirety) as fact? I just fail to believe that science has confirmed that any animal had evolved over millions of years because we - as humans and scientists - haven't existed long enough to confirm such a thing. Can we form a hypothesis that states this? Certainly. Can one use this hypothesis as a basis to form a workable theory? Yes. However, there are just some things we cannot know for certain until we are able to observe this type of change. We can't replicate these theories and their incredibly huge amounts of time, thus we must speculate to a degree. If you believe something that can't be observed you must have a degree of faith that what you believe is true. It is my opinion that this requires a belief.

By "true science" you mean what? Astrophysics may have settled for the idea of entropy at the scale of the universe, but I'm not sure that chemistry has any such notion, for instance, nor particle physics. You are applying your analysis to two incredibly different scales. Life on earth is a chemical scum on the surface of one insignificant rock, amongst squillions. We're talking one grain of sand on a beach.............yet you suggest that a grand prediction about the eventual destiny of that entire beach over billions of years has a bearing on what happens on the surface of one grain of sand in the blink of an eye.

I beg to differ. Without physical law in play in our universe, no theory for the origin of life stands a chance. You can't separate physics from chemistry insofar as their interrelation. Physical laws (gravity, for example) are part of the origin of life. To use your example, how could chemical scum on one insignificant rock produce life if it - and all of the other components required, i.e. - oxygen and the protective ozone layer - can't remain firmly planted on that rock?

We're not talking about sand, Mike. We're talking about a planet and its inhabitants that exist within an environment (the universe). Surely you aren't saying that the physical laws of the universe have little or no consequence to the origin of life on a planet contained within it, are you? The Big Bang Theory itself is required for the very creation of the universe, the chemical scum, the insignificant rock and the required elements for life. I see that as physics and Evolution (all origins of life) requiring a dependence on one another.

No, evolution fits perfectly well with physics, chemsitry, and any ology (other than theology and astrology) that you can think of.

Yet you claim in the previous quoted (and bolded) text above that you yourself are not sure about how entropy and chemistry are dependent on one another.

It is my assertion that all origin of life theories must fit perfectly well with Astrophysics and the known physical law of the universe, including theology and astrology.

As for your "I see a design, I look for a designer"........well, firstly, I don't see a design, and secondly, there is a great book on just this called "The Blind Watchmaker" by Richard Dawkins which I heartily recommend.

Mike

Just because you don't see a design doesn't mean that I don't, Mike. That is your prerogative, and I respect that.

If you choose to tell time by using a watch made by a blind man that's your business. I, however, choose not to for my own personal reasons, which no amount of discussion or debate will change.

Although neither of us will convince the other I appreciate your opinion and the opportunity to discuss.

Edited December 31, 2011 by See-Te-Cah NC

[Guest MikeG]

You say that there are testable hypotheses that have been confirmed with time. Pardon me, but are you saying that science has confirmed Evolution (in its entirety) as fact?

No, no, I'm not saying that at all. What I am saying is that within the body of work which adds up to Evolution there are hundreds, or indeed thousands, of individual pieces of evidence which have been tested to the normal standards science expects. Some haven't yet met those standards, some never will, and new stuff is coming along all the time. You can't test the entirety, but the sum of the tested parts is the current state of Evolution.

I beg to differ. Without physical law in play in our universe, no theory for the origin of life stands a chance. You can't separate physics from chemistry insofar as their interrelation. Physical laws (gravity, for example) are part of the origin of life. To use your example, how could chemical scum on one insignificant rock produce life if it - and all of the other components required, i.e. - oxygen and the protective ozone layer - can't remain firmly planted on that rock?

I can't argue with a word of this. But you miss my point.........All I was saying was that you were seperating Evolution from "True Science", and I was simply questioning what you specifically meant by that phrase.

We're not talking about sand, Mike. We're talking about a planet and its inhabitants that exist within an environment (the universe). Surely you aren't saying that the physical laws of the universe have little or no consequence to the origin of life on a planet contained within it, are you? The Big Bang Theory itself is required for the very creation of the universe, the chemical scum, the insignificant rock and the required elements for life. I see that as physics and Evolution (all origins of life) requiring a dependence on one another.

Again, I agree with all this, but I obviously didn't make my original point clearly enough. I am saying that entropy acts on an altogether different scale (both in time and size) than pertains to life on earth. Just because there may be a trend, over many billions of years, for the universe as a whole to become disorganised (as I think you said), doesn't mean that the blink-of-an-eye existence of multi-cellular life on our planet should conform to that trend, or be particularly affected by it.

Just because you don't see a design doesn't mean that I don't, Mike. That is your prerogative, and I respect that.

......and yours, which I also respect.

If you choose to tell time by using a watch made by a blind man that's your business.

The title of Dawkins book is taken from a quote from years before Darwin in which a pastor, I believe, said something like "if I find a watch I surmise the existence of a watchmaker", which, although applicable to watches, Dawkins shows is not necessarily applicable to life.

Mike

[Will]

See Ta Cah- With all due respect, I sensed that Will knew what direction he wanted to go with the topic and deliberately steered it that way for the express purpose of confronting the forum members. By all means, everyone and anyone is entitled to their personal beliefs, but I will say this yet again, make sure the beliefs are yours and not a regurgitated version of someone else's.

You left one version of creation off and it is similar to the Australian Aboriginies version of dream time, that being that we are the creators of the design and that there is no seperate entity running the show. We exist on different levels, here as seperate beings, elsewhere as one entity, we decide what happens, what doesn't, and how it gets done with the eventual goal of reunification.

Jodie, it was just a simple question. I wasn't trying to confront anyone. It is the biggest question in the room for evolution (if evolution is true where is the proof)Sorry you felt that was confrontation.

When you "believe" in evolution, aren't you regurgitating some other scientist views? Or do you have proof of evolution yourself.

No confrontation Jodie, just questions.

Edited December 31, 2011 by will