Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 63 (9159 total)
4 online now:
Newest Member: K.Rose
Happy Birthday: CosmicChimp
Post Volume: Total: 914,660 Year: 1,917/9,624 Month: 1,350/567 Week: 296/601 Day: 39/32 Hour: 1/1


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Why are there no human apes alive today?
Dr Adequate
Member (Idle past 250 days)
Posts: 16113
Joined: 07-20-2006


Message 23 of 1075 (512622)
06-19-2009 2:27 PM
Reply to: Message 11 by Doubletime
06-19-2009 5:43 AM


Or like this, if we have not found any living missing links between humans and apes, If we have not found any missing link in the fosil record. Why should i believe that we evolved from apes ?
We have found lots.
Someone has been lying to you.
To be precise, a creationist has been lying to you.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 11 by Doubletime, posted 06-19-2009 5:43 AM Doubletime has not replied

Dr Adequate
Member (Idle past 250 days)
Posts: 16113
Joined: 07-20-2006


Message 36 of 1075 (512688)
06-20-2009 2:41 AM
Reply to: Message 28 by Doubletime
06-19-2009 3:58 PM


Re: Yes, you are "agaisnt science"
Do i really need any links ? I am trying to use only common knolledge because i hate using links.
Stuff that creationists have made up may be common but it is not knowledge.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 28 by Doubletime, posted 06-19-2009 3:58 PM Doubletime has not replied

Dr Adequate
Member (Idle past 250 days)
Posts: 16113
Joined: 07-20-2006


Message 63 of 1075 (515655)
07-20-2009 8:12 AM
Reply to: Message 58 by traste
07-19-2009 11:36 PM


{Irrelevant sniping hidden}
{Irrelevant sniping hidden - Adminnemooseus}
Edited by Dr Adequate, : No reason given.
Edited by Adminnemooseus, : Hide message, added message.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 58 by traste, posted 07-19-2009 11:36 PM traste has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 71 by traste, posted 08-20-2009 2:35 AM Dr Adequate has not replied

Dr Adequate
Member (Idle past 250 days)
Posts: 16113
Joined: 07-20-2006


Message 72 of 1075 (520242)
08-20-2009 3:15 AM
Reply to: Message 67 by traste
08-20-2009 1:34 AM


Re: Really Bad Attempt to Fool Others
Was Gould a believer of Darwinian evolution? If your answer is yes,you simply denied the fact that he and Eldridge advanced punctuated equlibrium.
In fact, the operation of Darwinian processes should yield exactly what we see in the fossil record. --- Gould, Evolution's Erratic Pace, Natural History 86(5):12-16.
Yes, you are not alone in believing that he supported Darwinian evolution, which in fact he did'nt.
In fact, the operation of Darwinian processes should yield exactly what we see in the fossil record. --- Gould, Evolution's Erratic Pace, Natural History 86(5):12-16.
As I pointed he did'nt believe in Darwiniwan evolution,
In fact, the operation of Darwinian processes should yield exactly what we see in the fossil record. --- Gould, Evolution's Erratic Pace, Natural History 86(5):12-16.
in I think 1978,he and Eldridge proposed punctuated equlibrium to explained the lack of "transitional links."
Transitional forms are generally lacking at the species level, but they are abundant between larger groups. --- Gould, Evolution As Fact And Theory
Im not dishonest, but I guess you are and many others proponents of evolution.
Since we proposed punctuated equilibria to explain trends, it is infuriating to be quoted again and again by creationistswhether through design or stupidity, I do not knowas admitting that the fossil record includes no transitional forms. --- Gould, Evolution As Fact And Theory
So, you claim not to be dishonest. What, then, is your reason for telling such dreadful lies about Gould's opinions? Gould suggested stupidity as the alternative --- but perhaps there is a third possibility that he didn't think of.
Edited by Dr Adequate, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 67 by traste, posted 08-20-2009 1:34 AM traste has not replied

Dr Adequate
Member (Idle past 250 days)
Posts: 16113
Joined: 07-20-2006


Message 74 of 1075 (520244)
08-20-2009 3:52 AM
Reply to: Message 68 by traste
08-20-2009 1:58 AM


Re: Silly Questions, Silly Answers
This a responds for second paragraph. So what do you think was in the mind of Gould when he and Eldridge proposed punctuate equlibrium?
Was he thingking that gradual evolution was realistic?
Of course. He's not insane.
Small isolated populations are the source of new species, and the process of speciation takes thousands or tens of thousands of years. This amount of time, so long when measured against our lives, is a geological microsecond. --- Stephen Jay Gould, Evolution As Fact And Theory

This message is a reply to:
 Message 68 by traste, posted 08-20-2009 1:58 AM traste has not replied

Dr Adequate
Member (Idle past 250 days)
Posts: 16113
Joined: 07-20-2006


(1)
Message 95 of 1075 (525944)
09-25-2009 9:49 AM
Reply to: Message 93 by Peg
09-25-2009 8:06 AM


of course this is despite the fact that the fossil record strongly indicates that the major kinds of plants and animals appeared abruptly and did not evolve into other kinds, even over aeons of time
This is, of course, not true.
This is why paleontologists, who, unlike you, spend their lives studying the fossil record, do not agree with your fantasies about the fossil record.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 93 by Peg, posted 09-25-2009 8:06 AM Peg has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 96 by Peg, posted 09-25-2009 10:10 AM Dr Adequate has replied
 Message 109 by traste, posted 09-26-2009 12:09 AM Dr Adequate has replied

Dr Adequate
Member (Idle past 250 days)
Posts: 16113
Joined: 07-20-2006


(1)
Message 100 of 1075 (525959)
09-25-2009 10:38 AM
Reply to: Message 97 by Peg
09-25-2009 10:16 AM


biologist Jonathan Wells writes: At the level of kingdoms, phyla, and classes, descent with modification from common ancestors is obviously not an observed fact. To judge from the fossil and molecular evidence, it’s not even a well-supported theory.
many within the field are seeing it for themselves.
Jonathan Wells is not a professional biologist. He works for the Discovery Institute: he's a professional creationist propagandist. He has achieved various academic qualifications, of which he has written: "Father's [Sun Myung Moon's] words, my studies, and my prayers convinced me that I should devote my life to destroying Darwinism, just as many of my fellow Unificationists had already devoted their lives to destroying Marxism. When Father chose me (along with about a dozen other seminary graduates) to enter a Ph.D. program in 1978, I welcomed the opportunity to prepare myself for battle."
Yes, he's a "Moonie", and yes, his only reason for seeking out qualifications was because his cult leader thought that they would give him more credibility in disseminating creationist propaganda, not because he wanted to acquire knowledge.
You write "many within the field" --- but your one example is not actually within the field. He's a religious zealot who has contributed nothing to biology.
Even if we were to count him as "within the field", he is not "many". He's one crank adhering to a cult which even you must find ridiculous.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 97 by Peg, posted 09-25-2009 10:16 AM Peg has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 112 by traste, posted 09-26-2009 12:33 AM Dr Adequate has replied

Dr Adequate
Member (Idle past 250 days)
Posts: 16113
Joined: 07-20-2006


Message 101 of 1075 (525962)
09-25-2009 10:48 AM
Reply to: Message 96 by Peg
09-25-2009 10:10 AM


You would think that with all the millions of fossils collected, there would be at least some evidence to show that one kind of life turns into another kind.
And this evidence is, of course, abundant, which is why, despite all the misinterpreted quotations out of context you can muster, every paleontologist in the world thinks you're talking crap.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 96 by Peg, posted 09-25-2009 10:10 AM Peg has not replied

Dr Adequate
Member (Idle past 250 days)
Posts: 16113
Joined: 07-20-2006


(1)
Message 103 of 1075 (525965)
09-25-2009 10:51 AM
Reply to: Message 102 by Percy
09-25-2009 10:49 AM


If the World Book Encyclopedia actually says that, "Many biologists think new species may be produced by sudden, drastic changes in genes," then it is just plain wrong.
Polyploid speciation?
Surely all biologist know that species can arise suddenly, because this can be observed. Also, they all know that this has nothing to do with the halfwitted garbage that Peg has attached to this about how "life started elsewhere and landed here on a meteorite".
Is there any idea that can't pass through a creationist mind and come out the other end as crap?
Edited by Dr Adequate, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 102 by Percy, posted 09-25-2009 10:49 AM Percy has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 104 by Percy, posted 09-25-2009 11:20 AM Dr Adequate has not replied
 Message 105 by Theodoric, posted 09-25-2009 11:45 AM Dr Adequate has not replied

Dr Adequate
Member (Idle past 250 days)
Posts: 16113
Joined: 07-20-2006


(1)
Message 117 of 1075 (526168)
09-26-2009 1:35 AM
Reply to: Message 112 by traste
09-26-2009 12:33 AM


Actually he is, he has Ph. D of cell and molecular biology and former member of the National Academy Of Science.
To be a professional biologist, you have to work as a biologist.
A senior fellow. Wow, you know his status this will lead you to character assasination.
It's character assassination to say that someone works for a creationist organization? Yeah, it guess it is. Nonetheless, it's true.
He is just writing what the nature is saying.
He is writing what the Moonies are saying. There's a difference.
Edited by Dr Adequate, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 112 by traste, posted 09-26-2009 12:33 AM traste has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 119 by traste, posted 09-26-2009 1:46 AM Dr Adequate has not replied
 Message 121 by traste, posted 09-26-2009 1:55 AM Dr Adequate has replied

Dr Adequate
Member (Idle past 250 days)
Posts: 16113
Joined: 07-20-2006


(1)
Message 125 of 1075 (526178)
09-26-2009 2:10 AM
Reply to: Message 121 by traste
09-26-2009 1:55 AM


Are,the moonies all biologist?
No. Indeed, part of their faith involves rejecting the most fundamental truths of biology.
How in your opinion, can someone without solid credentials in biolgy can cause so much trouble?
You don't need solid credentials in a subject to be wrong about it. "Father" Sun Myung Moon may know bugger-all about biology, but he can still persuade his followers to talk nonsense about it --- after all, he's got them convinced that he's the Second Coming of Jesus, and, as the actual Jesus said, who swallows a camel and strains at a gnat?
---
My point, in case you missed it, was that one can hardly cite Wells as representative of a shift in biological thought. He first became a cult member, then, because the cult leader ordered him to, he got a PhD in biology the better to serve the propagandizing mission of the cult.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 121 by traste, posted 09-26-2009 1:55 AM traste has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 129 by traste, posted 09-26-2009 2:24 AM Dr Adequate has replied

Dr Adequate
Member (Idle past 250 days)
Posts: 16113
Joined: 07-20-2006


(1)
Message 128 of 1075 (526183)
09-26-2009 2:24 AM
Reply to: Message 109 by traste
09-26-2009 12:09 AM


That is 100%, that is the real reason why we cannot see intermidiate forms today.
Intermediate forms are abundant in the fossil record.
Even honest paleontologist noticed the sudden apperance of organism.
Honest paleontologists think that creationism is crap.
Just give me an example of a dog with out an eye and then gradually have it through blind naturalistic process.
I presume you intended that sentence to be written in the English language. But your meaning is somewhat obscure.
Edited by Dr Adequate, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 109 by traste, posted 09-26-2009 12:09 AM traste has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 136 by traste, posted 10-28-2009 1:00 AM Dr Adequate has not replied

Dr Adequate
Member (Idle past 250 days)
Posts: 16113
Joined: 07-20-2006


(1)
Message 130 of 1075 (526185)
09-26-2009 2:38 AM
Reply to: Message 129 by traste
09-26-2009 2:24 AM


Wells
Evaluating the status of someone is no help to refute his argument.
It is very relevant when the pertinence of your argument hinges on his status. You wrote:
biologist Jonathan Wells writes: At the level of kingdoms, phyla, and classes, descent with modification from common ancestors is obviously not an observed fact. To judge from the fossil and molecular evidence, it’s not even a well-supported theory.
many within the field are seeing it for themselves.
Obviously Wells' words would have been of no particular interest if he was, for example, a professional pastry chef. Your whole point was: "Look, look, here's someone with status who's saying what I want to hear". The entire relevance of the quotation rested on his status.
Therefore, it is worthwhile examining his status. The fact that he has a PhD in biology does, in fact, make his words more relevant than those of a pastry chef. But the fact that he only got his PhD because his cult leader ordered him to get it so that he could more effectively propagandize against evolution somewhat undercuts that: for his views on evolution do not result from any biological research, but from joining a cult in which the cult leader and self-proclaimed Messiah told him what his views ought to be.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 129 by traste, posted 09-26-2009 2:24 AM traste has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 141 by traste, posted 10-28-2009 1:36 AM Dr Adequate has not replied

Dr Adequate
Member (Idle past 250 days)
Posts: 16113
Joined: 07-20-2006


(1)
Message 131 of 1075 (526188)
09-26-2009 2:47 AM
Reply to: Message 129 by traste
09-26-2009 2:24 AM


Wells and the NAS
In this regards the National Academy Of Science , very wrong for appointing him as a fellow.
Oh look, you're talking about his status again.
Do you have any sources for this claim? Only it doesn't mention this in Wells's Wikipedia biography; the NAS does not have "fellows", it has "members"; and although membership, once elected, is for life, I can't find his name using the search engine provided by the NAS to search their list of members.
Also, they only elect scientists with considerable scientific achievements under their belts.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 129 by traste, posted 09-26-2009 2:24 AM traste has not replied

Dr Adequate
Member (Idle past 250 days)
Posts: 16113
Joined: 07-20-2006


Message 177 of 1075 (618947)
06-07-2011 8:18 AM
Reply to: Message 170 by Portillo
06-07-2011 3:14 AM


Because there was never any human apes. Apes are apes and humans are humans.
Splendid. Please tell us which is which.
Thank you.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 170 by Portillo, posted 06-07-2011 3:14 AM Portillo has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 179 by granpa, posted 06-07-2011 8:34 AM Dr Adequate 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