Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
9 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,815 Year: 3,072/9,624 Month: 917/1,588 Week: 100/223 Day: 11/17 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Are there any "problems" with the ToE that are generally not addressed?
NosyNed
Member
Posts: 8996
From: Canada
Joined: 04-04-2003


Message 211 of 268 (148627)
10-09-2004 6:56 AM
Reply to: Message 206 by Cold Foreign Object
10-08-2004 5:12 PM


Re: Milton, refresh my memory
But the evidence is there. The fossils are there. After that we can talk about interpretation. Once there is some actual evidence that both sides can look at then both sides must give their reasons (in great detail) for why they think there interpretation is right.
Your posts seem to have a problem supplying any real evidence beyond assertions. Note that some of us are still waiting for the measurments done by your source on the LLM for example. In the GP as a hole we didn't get why the particular measurements were done in the way they apparantly were. That is the kind of source you seem all to willing to use.
It is beginning to appear that your souce actually did NOT measure the so-called LLM at all! It was simply an unsupported assertion by that source. On the other hand we gave you precise details of how our measurements were done that would allow you to duplicate them to check them out.
This is, in a simple way, why some sources are considered "good" and some "not-so-good".
This message has been edited by NosyNed, 10-09-2004 05:57 AM

This message is a reply to:
 Message 206 by Cold Foreign Object, posted 10-08-2004 5:12 PM Cold Foreign Object has not replied

  
Percy
Member
Posts: 22391
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 5.2


Message 212 of 268 (148672)
10-09-2004 12:55 PM
Reply to: Message 203 by Robert Byers
10-08-2004 4:41 PM


Re: Repetition and Rebuttal
Robert Byers writes:
And that on paper there is possibility for long term envirorment is nullified by the reality of the time. The unreasonableness of what you posit in this static fish over such eons is the point.
Let's look again at what you just agreed to:
[text=black]Point 6: Therefore deep, cold ocean off continental shelves must have been available between fossil creation and today.[/text]
You can't both agree and disagree with this statement. You have to either pick one, or you have to introduce other factors. By doing neither you are putting forward a logically inconsistent position. In case this isn't clear, let my clarify by stating that a logically inconsistent position is wrong. Incorrect. Mistaken. Erroneous.
Also of coarse there is no evidence to back up such wild claims that are made on these matters.
There is plenty of geological and physical evidence. We're more than happy to discuss this evidence if that's what you'd like.
I mean the on paper idea you guys put worth here is impossible in any real world senario. The time truly is the point.
Remember that you agreed with all my points one through six, and that you therefore agreed that the Coelacanth order existed continuously from fossil creation until today. If you don't accept the timescale, then you must address the evidence supporting the timescale. Your position of personal skepticism is worthless. You have to address the evidence.
You might want to review the Forum Guidelines. Evidence is an important part of all discussion here. A debate is not where you give your opinion, then I give my opinion, then you give your opinion again, then I give my opinion again, and so on and on and on. That's not what we do here. The new [forum=-28] forum is to help members learn to follow the forum guidelines and to support their opinions with evidence.
--Percy

This message is a reply to:
 Message 203 by Robert Byers, posted 10-08-2004 4:41 PM Robert Byers has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 217 by Robert Byers, posted 10-13-2004 4:36 PM Percy has replied

  
Gary
Inactive Member


Message 213 of 268 (148981)
10-11-2004 12:13 AM
Reply to: Message 204 by Robert Byers
10-08-2004 4:51 PM


Re: Human Evolution: Classic Myth
So would you decide not to convict a murderer who left fingerprints at a crime scene and on weapons, just because fingerprints can be hard to find and because you can't reconstruct a person from their fingerprints?
These fossils may be rare but they are not all reconstructed from tiny pieces. True, some are, but there are many nearly complete skulls and all sorts of bones, tools, and other items that have been uncovered. They bear similarities to humans and have traits that are not analogous to chimpanzees or other primates. The fact that we have discovered so much, even if you don't find fossil humans every time you sink a shovel into your backyard, would indicate that there were animals in the past that were very similar to modern humans, and that we may have descended from these animals.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 204 by Robert Byers, posted 10-08-2004 4:51 PM Robert Byers has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 214 by crashfrog, posted 10-11-2004 12:20 AM Gary has not replied
 Message 219 by Robert Byers, posted 10-13-2004 4:45 PM Gary has replied

  
crashfrog
Member (Idle past 1467 days)
Posts: 19762
From: Silver Spring, MD
Joined: 03-20-2003


Message 214 of 268 (148982)
10-11-2004 12:20 AM
Reply to: Message 213 by Gary
10-11-2004 12:13 AM


So would you decide not to convict a murderer who left fingerprints at a crime scene and on weapons, just because fingerprints can be hard to find and because you can't reconstruct a person from their fingerprints?
Not to mention that, according to RB, fingerprint technology is "in it's infancy." After all, maybe living in the same environment as someone else might make you have the same fingerprints, too!

This message is a reply to:
 Message 213 by Gary, posted 10-11-2004 12:13 AM Gary has not replied

  
Jazzns
Member (Idle past 3911 days)
Posts: 2657
From: A Better America
Joined: 07-23-2004


Message 215 of 268 (149103)
10-11-2004 11:10 AM
Reply to: Message 208 by Cold Foreign Object
10-08-2004 6:28 PM


Re: Milton, refresh my memory
WT writes:
I stand completely vindicated or have you lost the ability to read.
You just can't stop taking quotes from this person out of context can you WT. What he means is that you cannot tell just from the fossils if the once living thing was your specific grandpa or not. This DOES NOT prevent fossils from being evidence of related phylogeny! This is exactly what he is saying and what you like to do is pick out one sentence and when twisted makes it kinda seem like he agrees with you! You are not vindicated. Just because you WANT this source to agree with you dosen't mean he does no matter how much you distort and quote mine. To all of us who read this and can comprehend on the most basic level you look extremely naieve to read that post of loudmouth's and draw the conclusion and claim of victory that you did. Read the rest of the paragraph!
Let me repeat some key points for you that directly un-vindicate you:
Ancestors must exist, of course -- but we can never attribute ancestry to any particular fossil we might find.
You can recognize various attributes that suggest kinship to humanity, but you would never know whether this particular fossil represented your lineal ancestor - even if that were actually the case.
LINEAL ANCESTOR WT! He is saying that you cannot be sure that your specific genes came from the person represented by this fossil.
In addition, the use by creationists of selective, unauthorized quotations, possibly with intent to mislead the public undermines their position as self-appointed guardians of public values and morals.
And if this last quote isn't poetic justice I do not know what is.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 208 by Cold Foreign Object, posted 10-08-2004 6:28 PM Cold Foreign Object has not replied

  
AdminNosy
Administrator
Posts: 4754
From: Vancouver, BC, Canada
Joined: 11-11-2003


Message 216 of 268 (149484)
10-12-2004 5:20 PM
Reply to: Message 204 by Robert Byers
10-08-2004 4:51 PM


Posting quality
Robert, it seems you're quality of posting is not improving after rather a large number of weeks.
This is to put you on notice that unless you start taking some of the rather patient advice you have been getting you will have to be restricted to the new Bootcamp where you can get more attention in pointing out the flaws in the way you approach the discussion.
Specifically, you will have to support assertions that you make. This needs to be with some actual data and a demonstartion of the logical steps required to reach the conclusions you assert.
Of course, it is understood that the data will be mostly from links to web references. The logic needs to be your own or explainable by you when asked. As the discussion proceeds you will have to support yourself with, perhaps, very detailed logical steps indeed.
Good luck.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 204 by Robert Byers, posted 10-08-2004 4:51 PM Robert Byers has not replied

  
Robert Byers
Member (Idle past 4368 days)
Posts: 640
From: Toronto,canada
Joined: 02-06-2004


Message 217 of 268 (149717)
10-13-2004 4:36 PM
Reply to: Message 212 by Percy
10-09-2004 12:55 PM


Re: Repetition and Rebuttal
Percy we have been in the water long enough here.
It has always been the timeframe that was the problem
It is not me that must address the evidence for the time. Its for you to show any evidence for it. Which was not and can not be done.
And it would take a great piece of evidence to show the truth of the timescale you suggest.
Rob

This message is a reply to:
 Message 212 by Percy, posted 10-09-2004 12:55 PM Percy has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 218 by AdminNosy, posted 10-13-2004 4:40 PM Robert Byers has replied
 Message 230 by Percy, posted 10-16-2004 11:20 AM Robert Byers has not replied

  
AdminNosy
Administrator
Posts: 4754
From: Vancouver, BC, Canada
Joined: 11-11-2003


Message 218 of 268 (149718)
10-13-2004 4:40 PM
Reply to: Message 217 by Robert Byers
10-13-2004 4:36 PM


Timescale
I'm not clear in this post Robert exactly what timescale you have a problem with or what the problem is.
In any discussion about timescale you must first learn a little about how they have been shown to be correct.
Please read over at least the beginning of
Age Correlations and an Old Earth.
Then you may post your answer there to the issues raised. If you avoid dealing with that and argue against the currently accepted dating methodologies again without evidence then you will be given an opportunity to learn better debating skills in the boot camp.
Think very carefully about your next few posts. Further unsupported assertions will restrict your privileges.
This message has been edited by AdminNosy, 10-13-2004 03:43 PM

This message is a reply to:
 Message 217 by Robert Byers, posted 10-13-2004 4:36 PM Robert Byers has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 220 by Robert Byers, posted 10-13-2004 5:03 PM AdminNosy has replied

  
Robert Byers
Member (Idle past 4368 days)
Posts: 640
From: Toronto,canada
Joined: 02-06-2004


Message 219 of 268 (149721)
10-13-2004 4:45 PM
Reply to: Message 213 by Gary
10-11-2004 12:13 AM


Re: Human Evolution: Classic Myth
Thats just the point. The attempt here is not to reconstruct animals drom the bits of fossils BUT rather from the bits of fossils reconstruct a great biological (yet unobserved) theory.
The fossils barely tell the story of thier own looks and life history MUCH less the great story of thier ancesters and connections to all around them as described by Toe.
They are scraps only of a past story that is great in its claims and so great claims need great evidence. Indeded great scraps would only be a first step and Toe doesn't even have that.
Rob

This message is a reply to:
 Message 213 by Gary, posted 10-11-2004 12:13 AM Gary has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 222 by Gary, posted 10-14-2004 2:31 AM Robert Byers has replied

  
Robert Byers
Member (Idle past 4368 days)
Posts: 640
From: Toronto,canada
Joined: 02-06-2004


Message 220 of 268 (149724)
10-13-2004 5:03 PM
Reply to: Message 218 by AdminNosy
10-13-2004 4:40 PM


Re: Timescale
I read carefully what you said but don't know the problem.
Percy introduced suddenly about timescales, which indeed is dating/geology subject, not me.
Its not for me to prove wrong dating methods! And of coarse not for me to accept them as a premise! Its for the other guy who is making the claim to back up another claim.
This subject has drifted from the fish to geology.
I can't believe your telling a creationist he must accept TOe dating ideas. Thats the whole point of this debate! Everthing is interconnected here.
Dating ideas isn't in my orbit anyway.
I see nothing wrong in my debate with Percy. It simply has come down logically once more to evidence about past events and the questioning thereof.
Rob

This message is a reply to:
 Message 218 by AdminNosy, posted 10-13-2004 4:40 PM AdminNosy has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 221 by AdminNosy, posted 10-13-2004 5:08 PM Robert Byers has not replied

  
AdminNosy
Administrator
Posts: 4754
From: Vancouver, BC, Canada
Joined: 11-11-2003


Message 221 of 268 (149727)
10-13-2004 5:08 PM
Reply to: Message 220 by Robert Byers
10-13-2004 5:03 PM


Re: Timescale
Its for the other guy who is making the claim to back up another claim.
I'll wait for Percy to clarify about time scales here. I'm not actually sure about the direct relavance that dating methods have so you are off the hook in this thread for now.
However, the claim HAS been backed up. There are a number of threads in Dates and Dating. If you bring up that as an issue anywhere else you have to deal with the back up that has been supplied. There are several threads because there is a LOT of backup.
Now you have to back up your assertions. In fact, you have to back up ANY assertion you make. If you continue to make assertions without back up in the form of evidence or logical reasoning you will be restricted to bootcamp to allow you to get the help you need with your debating skills.
This message has been edited by AdminNosy, 10-13-2004 04:09 PM

This message is a reply to:
 Message 220 by Robert Byers, posted 10-13-2004 5:03 PM Robert Byers has not replied

  
Gary
Inactive Member


Message 222 of 268 (149813)
10-14-2004 2:31 AM
Reply to: Message 219 by Robert Byers
10-13-2004 4:45 PM


Re: Human Evolution: Classic Myth
The ToE does have great evidence. Focusing solely on humans, we have many bones and artifacts along with DNA evidence from more recent examples. These items may be uncommon but that does not mean that they should be ignored. Rather, their presense should make us ask questions and try to figure out why there exist so many different types of human and human-like bones which bear traits no longer present in modern humans. The ToE explains this in a way that fits the evidence. If you have evidence that could allow us to produce a better theory, please bring it out and show us so we can correct ourselves.
What evidence would be sufficient, in your mind, to allow us to come to a conclusion similar to the theory of evolution? Do you feel it would it be possible to possess evidence in support of the theory of evolution, whether you believe such evidence exists or not?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 219 by Robert Byers, posted 10-13-2004 4:45 PM Robert Byers has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 223 by Robert Byers, posted 10-14-2004 5:33 PM Gary has not replied

  
Robert Byers
Member (Idle past 4368 days)
Posts: 640
From: Toronto,canada
Joined: 02-06-2004


Message 223 of 268 (149975)
10-14-2004 5:33 PM
Reply to: Message 222 by Gary
10-14-2004 2:31 AM


Re: Human Evolution: Classic Myth
You say Toe has great evidence. We say they do not. Next step I insist is yours. Not to show evidence but to show that there a accumulation of evidence that if true would justify a great idea like Toe.
Now you ask what evidence would do. again we say its up to you. You are making the Toe claim. You are claiming Toe IS SCIENCE. This forums title.
Yes. I do insist if Toe is true then evidence to that should be doable. (a real word in Canada).
Perhaps even if true its very difficult because one is dealing with past and gone events.
Anyways though it isn't being done today or in the past and I'm confident creationism will show this to the world soon. And leave Toe where it only can claim itself as a learned subject of speculation of origins of things. Is that not good enough if you have confidence in Toe.?
Rob

This message is a reply to:
 Message 222 by Gary, posted 10-14-2004 2:31 AM Gary has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 224 by MrHambre, posted 10-14-2004 5:45 PM Robert Byers has not replied

  
MrHambre
Member (Idle past 1393 days)
Posts: 1495
From: Framingham, MA, USA
Joined: 06-23-2003


Message 224 of 268 (149976)
10-14-2004 5:45 PM
Reply to: Message 223 by Robert Byers
10-14-2004 5:33 PM


Re: Human Evolution: Classic Myth
Robert,
quote:
You say Toe has great evidence. We say they do not. Next step I insist is yours. Not to show evidence but to show that there a accumulation of evidence that if true would justify a great idea like Toe.
I start by asking whether heliocentrism is a valid scientific theory. After all, for millennia people assumed the Sun orbited the Earth. Common sense and observable reality supported geocentrism, which could accurately predict solar and lunar motion. The problem was planetary motion: the apparently retrograde paths that planets took in their orbits around Earth could never be explained through the geocentric model. The heliocentric theory put planetary motion into an explanatory framework that yielded testable predictions.
Empirical evidential inquiry doesn't depend on just observations: the vast majority of the time, all the planets are not observable from Earth. Does this constitute a leap of faith on the part of scientists? Are astronomers allowed to infer based on limited observations? The answer is yes.
The evolution of species is seen at a high level in the fossil record, which records the progression of life-forms from ancient to modern. Even without assumptions of ancestry, the changes in the biosphere are real and verifiable. The evolution of viruses like HIV provide a real-time verification of the mutation-selection engine proposed by Darwin as the foundation for all biological diversity. But do these views really see the same thing?
The genes are the link between the two views. If all life shares ancestry, there should be genetic links among diverse organisms that can help retrace their paths of evolution. Scientists have looked at several molecules (such as hemoglobin) to gauge the degree of divergence among various organisms. These molecular phylogenies have a degree of correlation with the family trees constructed using only morphology that is far too high to be considered coincidental (thanks, mark24). They have also found non-coding areas in the genomes of separate organisms where identical mutations appear in a sequence that is otherwise identical to a functioning gene in a third organism. This type of phenomenon so strongly supports common ancestry that it can't be attributed to mere wishful thinking. It may as well be claimed that using DNA in establishing paternity presupposes a commitment to naturalism or some other such imagined bias.
So is everything in the biological history of Earth understood in detail? Not by a long shot. However, the evolutionary framework has been indispensible in clarifying so many former mysteries (and in the process illuminating just how much we have left to learn) that science's reliance on the theory is understandable. When a better theory comes along, which explains everything Darwin's theory did and more, we will have the same shift in perspective as when geocentrism was abandoned. However, in the absence of any better scientific lens through which to view biology, it's unfair to accuse evolutionists of being jaundiced or biased for sticking with what works.
regards,
Esteban Hambre

This message is a reply to:
 Message 223 by Robert Byers, posted 10-14-2004 5:33 PM Robert Byers has not replied

  
dubois
Inactive Member


Message 225 of 268 (150083)
10-15-2004 9:35 AM
Reply to: Message 191 by Cold Foreign Object
10-05-2004 8:14 PM


habilis/Mbuti link
Re his claim that the Mbuti pygmies are similar to habilis, Willowtree says: "My source for the evidence which you like to ignore is atheist and Mensa member Richard Milton."
Milton makes this claim in later editions of his book "Shattering the Myths of Evolution". However there's no evidence to ignore: Milton gives none, and supplies no references. However, Willowtree may have picked up the claim from my online debate with Milton. Milton also refused to supply a reference there, though he was asked for one many times. The claim is false; pygmies and Homo habilis differ in many respects including brain size. Milton either made the claim up (quite likely) or copied it from another source I'm unfamiliar with.
Jim

This message is a reply to:
 Message 191 by Cold Foreign Object, posted 10-05-2004 8:14 PM Cold Foreign Object has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 226 by AdminAsgara, posted 10-15-2004 10:39 AM dubois has not replied
 Message 227 by Cold Foreign Object, posted 10-15-2004 5:10 PM dubois has replied

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024