Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 60 (9208 total)
1 online now:
Newest Member: Skylink
Post Volume: Total: 919,421 Year: 6,678/9,624 Month: 18/238 Week: 18/22 Day: 0/9 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   True knowledge exists in knowing that you know nothing
Tangle
Member
Posts: 9580
From: UK
Joined: 10-07-2011
Member Rating: 7.0


(3)
Message 13 of 154 (818411)
08-28-2017 8:48 AM
Reply to: Message 9 by Porkncheese
08-28-2017 12:29 AM


Re: Inconclusive not absolute
Porkandcheese writes:
agree the title may be a touch overboard but it get peoples attention first
You seem to have come here will quite an attitude. You're also asking dozens of questions that show you know very little about the subject that you're telling us is inconclusive and unsupported. The one thing guaranteed here is that if you come in swinging your fists around you will get into a fight - but it diesn't have to be that way. Have a bit of humility for a while and you'll get a lot of information and help.
1. No one knows eveything which some people seem to deny
No one here has said that anyone knows everything. Nor would they, it's a stupid thing to say
2. The evidence used is inconclusive and not absolute which most people have a really hard time accepting.
The evidence for the ToE is conclusive.
But the ToE is not an absolute, it's scientific theory which is the best explanation for the facts that we have. Should the facts change, the theory will change.
And something being taught as fact in public schools should be absolute and conclusive like F=ma.
No history? No literature? No Geology? This a silly thing to say - you'll understand why, when you learn what the ToE actually is, instead of what you imagine it is.
As for silly questions, are you saying I've asked silly questions. If so is there no tolerance for someone who admittedly is ignorant in biology and confused?
You'll find loads of tolerance so long as you don't go around like a bull in a china shop.
And if my questions are so outrageous than why has no one been able answer them.
They are questions not made up by myself. I am mearly parroting the ideas and points made by many others.
We know what they are, they're the pig-ignorant claims of creationists - you think we haven't heard them a million times before?
Like why don't we see thousands of intermadiate fossils of humans?
What kind of predictions have been made to support the theory?
What are the best forms of evidence supporting the theory?
Biology is a huge subject and these questions need a lot of our time and effort to explain. They've been coverered a million time before here - they're very easy to find and all the answers are out there on science sites - note SCIENCE site, not religious sites. But we're happy to go over them all again. Just pick one - don't go galloping all over the shop. Pick one question and we'll have a go at it for you.
Have I been rude at all? Haven't I stuck to the subject?
But my points are never addressed. And no one can produce anything for me to consider. Furthermore i keep being accused of being a heritic which makes my blood boil. Yet I haved kept my cool and stayed on track.
Calm down.....

Je suis Charlie. Je suis Ahmed. Je suis Juif. Je suis Parisien. I am Mancunian. I am Brum. I am London.I am Finland. Soy Barcelona
"Life, don't talk to me about life" - Marvin the Paranoid Android
"Science adjusts it's views based on what's observed.
Faith is the denial of observation so that Belief can be preserved."
- Tim Minchin, in his beat poem, Storm.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 9 by Porkncheese, posted 08-28-2017 12:29 AM Porkncheese has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 14 by jar, posted 08-28-2017 9:02 AM Tangle has not replied

  
Tangle
Member
Posts: 9580
From: UK
Joined: 10-07-2011
Member Rating: 7.0


(1)
Message 28 of 154 (818477)
08-29-2017 10:37 AM
Reply to: Message 23 by Porkncheese
08-29-2017 5:53 AM


PorknCheese writes:
At this stage of my life I feel let down by everyone and everything I thought I trusted. I feel I must question everything and trust no one.
It's obvious that you're very angry about something - you arrived here looking for a fight, you seem even more angry by not getting one.
When there are so many people opposing ToE with good arguments that aren't countered very well you have to ask yourself. When Richard Dawkins, forefather in ToE makes such statements and admissions I have to question it.
The ToE is a scientific concensus. The only people opposing it are those with fundamental religious beliefs. Dawkins does not question the validity of the ToE, if you stick around we'll explain why.
Anyway Im off on a snow trip now and will most likely not re visit this site so best of luck to all (even the haters) Be objective, trust the word of no one and question everything. Goodbye
If you don't come back you'll confirm our fears that you're just another whacky creationist trying it on. If you do come back, start by asking a single, specific, non-loaded question.
Have a good trip.

Je suis Charlie. Je suis Ahmed. Je suis Juif. Je suis Parisien. I am Mancunian. I am Brum. I am London.I am Finland. Soy Barcelona
"Life, don't talk to me about life" - Marvin the Paranoid Android
"Science adjusts it's views based on what's observed.
Faith is the denial of observation so that Belief can be preserved."
- Tim Minchin, in his beat poem, Storm.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 23 by Porkncheese, posted 08-29-2017 5:53 AM Porkncheese has not replied

  
Tangle
Member
Posts: 9580
From: UK
Joined: 10-07-2011
Member Rating: 7.0


Message 51 of 154 (818715)
09-01-2017 10:59 AM
Reply to: Message 48 by Porkncheese
09-01-2017 10:42 AM


Re: searchable database
PorknCheese writes:
What did the early primate evolve from?
Well I copied and pasted your words....
"What did the early primate evolve from?"
...into google and the first hit was this:
http://anthro.palomar.edu/earlyprimates/early_2.htm
quote:
The first primate-like mammals, or proto-primates, evolved in the early Paleocene Epoch (65.5-55.8 million years ago) at the beginning of the Cenozoic Era. They were roughly similar to squirrels and tree shrews in size and appearance. The existing, very fragmentary fossil evidence (from Asia, Europe, North Africa, and especially Western North America) suggests that they were adapted to an arboreal way of life in warm, moist climates. They probably were equipped with relatively good eyesight as well as hands and feet adapted for climbing in trees. These primate-like mammals will remain rather shadowy creatures for us until more fossil data become available.
It goes on to explain in a lot more detail. You're going to have to live with the odd 'probably' now and then - when real scientists don't know the answer to total certainty, they say so and say why.
Is there a reason you're asking this question?

Je suis Charlie. Je suis Ahmed. Je suis Juif. Je suis Parisien. I am Mancunian. I am Brum. I am London.I am Finland. Soy Barcelona
"Life, don't talk to me about life" - Marvin the Paranoid Android
"Science adjusts it's views based on what's observed.
Faith is the denial of observation so that Belief can be preserved."
- Tim Minchin, in his beat poem, Storm.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 48 by Porkncheese, posted 09-01-2017 10:42 AM Porkncheese has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 53 by Porkncheese, posted 09-01-2017 12:00 PM Tangle has replied

  
Tangle
Member
Posts: 9580
From: UK
Joined: 10-07-2011
Member Rating: 7.0


Message 56 of 154 (818721)
09-01-2017 12:13 PM
Reply to: Message 53 by Porkncheese
09-01-2017 12:00 PM


Re: searchable database
PorknCheese writes:
"The existing, very fragmentary fossil evidence suggests..."
"They probably were"
"These primate-like mammals will remain rather shadowy creatures for us until more fossil data become available"
Sure is alot of conjucture. And from this knowledge these trees are drawn up showing direct links between every species all the way back to the ocean.
It's not conjecture it's presenting the facts as we know them. But did you read the whole article? It gives you a readable and easily understood explanation of how primates evolved?
Umm okay
Is that 'ok I understand' or 'ok, just as I thought, bullshit'?
Here's the summary of what we know.
quote:
Primates are relative newcomers on our planet. The earliest ones are found in the fossil record dating to 50-55 million years ago. These first prosimians thrived during the Eocene Epoch. There were no monkeys or apes for them to compete with yet. By the time of the transition to the Oligocene Epoch, monkeys had begun to evolve from prosimians and became the dominant primates. Many of the prosimian species became extinct probably as a consequence. By the early Miocene Epoch, apes had evolved from monkeys and displaced them from many environments. In the late Miocene, the evolutionary line leading to hominins finally became distinct. This hominin line included our direct ancestors.

Je suis Charlie. Je suis Ahmed. Je suis Juif. Je suis Parisien. I am Mancunian. I am Brum. I am London.I am Finland. Soy Barcelona
"Life, don't talk to me about life" - Marvin the Paranoid Android
"Science adjusts it's views based on what's observed.
Faith is the denial of observation so that Belief can be preserved."
- Tim Minchin, in his beat poem, Storm.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 53 by Porkncheese, posted 09-01-2017 12:00 PM Porkncheese has not replied

  
Tangle
Member
Posts: 9580
From: UK
Joined: 10-07-2011
Member Rating: 7.0


Message 61 of 154 (818731)
09-01-2017 3:22 PM
Reply to: Message 59 by Porkncheese
09-01-2017 2:38 PM


Re: ToE admits defeat
PorknCheese writes:
ToE has collapsed under its own admissions of speculation being drawn from fossil evidence that is very fragmented.
In a revealing statement that completely exposed the theory it was admitted that Mammals will remain rather shadowy creatures for us until more fossil data become available
Obviously not enough data to draw factual conclusions from
Are you actually interested in understanding this subject or are you just looking for silly ways to dismiss it out of hand?
The ToE is not built on one piece of data, it's an enormous set of information and analysis compiled by thousands of scientists for over 150 years. No biologist denies the ToE. You come along with no idea at all what it involves and chuck it away in a sentence.
The mountain of evidence tells us that evoltion happened, it's not surprising that some parts of the enormous jigsaw of life that spans 3bn years is missing, the really surprising part is that we've found so much.

Je suis Charlie. Je suis Ahmed. Je suis Juif. Je suis Parisien. I am Mancunian. I am Brum. I am London.I am Finland. Soy Barcelona
"Life, don't talk to me about life" - Marvin the Paranoid Android
"Science adjusts it's views based on what's observed.
Faith is the denial of observation so that Belief can be preserved."
- Tim Minchin, in his beat poem, Storm.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 59 by Porkncheese, posted 09-01-2017 2:38 PM Porkncheese has not replied

  
Tangle
Member
Posts: 9580
From: UK
Joined: 10-07-2011
Member Rating: 7.0


Message 83 of 154 (818756)
09-02-2017 4:07 AM
Reply to: Message 76 by Porkncheese
09-01-2017 8:42 PM


Re: The truth is hard for some to swallow
PorknCheese writes:
The simple fact that we don't know everything has really ruffled feathers.
The truth is hard to face even when admitted by their own texts.
Even against dozens of fanatics, one man with only a basic knowledge of ToE is able to expose the fiction which is littered throughout this fairytale and expose what is most definately a pseudoscience. Willing to debate a persons belief but not the theory.
I'll admit to being really disapointed. I thought there was a chance that you might be genuinely confused and looking for help understanding what evolution is and how it works. It turns out you're just another disingenuous, self-aggrandising idiot.
Good luck with your studies, you're going to need it.

Je suis Charlie. Je suis Ahmed. Je suis Juif. Je suis Parisien. I am Mancunian. I am Brum. I am London.I am Finland. Soy Barcelona
"Life, don't talk to me about life" - Marvin the Paranoid Android
"Science adjusts it's views based on what's observed.
Faith is the denial of observation so that Belief can be preserved."
- Tim Minchin, in his beat poem, Storm.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 76 by Porkncheese, posted 09-01-2017 8:42 PM Porkncheese has not replied

  
Tangle
Member
Posts: 9580
From: UK
Joined: 10-07-2011
Member Rating: 7.0


(1)
Message 105 of 154 (818800)
09-02-2017 6:05 PM
Reply to: Message 99 by Porkncheese
09-02-2017 5:16 PM


Re: searchable database
PnC writes:
wow unreal
just as i predicted un able to reason, be objective to take another perspective.
So ur saying I should of accepted that evidence given to me as fact?
What nonsense it sounds like you havent even read the references.
If i say this is fact but may be misleading do u take it as fact do u? how religious of you
How about starting again from scratch?
The first thing you have to accept is that the ToE is a scientific theory as valid and supported as any other. As a 19 year old know-nothing, you need to start from there. There's a hundred and fifty years of peer reviewed research behind it and so much evidence you couldn't make a dent in it if you started reading now and carried on till you died.
There is no 'controversy', the ToE has an overwhelming concensus and there is no other competing scientific theory. Those opposed to the theory do it for religious reason and in one hundred and fifty years have been unable to refute it based on evidence. Even so most religions accept it - only the most fundamental still rail against it.
As a scientist - or at least a potential one - you are obliged to accept the body of work that underpins the discipline and if you want to challenge it you are required to understand it fully first. Only then can you start chipping away at it and it can only be done by providing real evidence. You've charged in here with zero knowledge and written off one of the most successful scientific explanations of our world that there's ever been - so far you've got off lightly.
Have a bit of humilty and you might learn something.

Je suis Charlie. Je suis Ahmed. Je suis Juif. Je suis Parisien. I am Mancunian. I am Brum. I am London.I am Finland. Soy Barcelona
"Life, don't talk to me about life" - Marvin the Paranoid Android
"Science adjusts it's views based on what's observed.
Faith is the denial of observation so that Belief can be preserved."
- Tim Minchin, in his beat poem, Storm.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 99 by Porkncheese, posted 09-02-2017 5:16 PM Porkncheese has not replied

  
Tangle
Member
Posts: 9580
From: UK
Joined: 10-07-2011
Member Rating: 7.0


Message 114 of 154 (818895)
09-04-2017 4:25 AM
Reply to: Message 113 by Porkncheese
09-04-2017 3:22 AM


Re: What point?
PnC writes:
Meanwhile on message 46 Percy also calls it misleading and says that it is wrong.
You're getting confused - I think - by different things. The first is the idea of the 'ascent of man' idea. The victorian idea that people are at the top of the pyramid of evolution; organisms are somehow better the nearer to man they are and that evolution has us as the ultimate end point. So you get this famous and wrong depiction of it.
The modern idea is that all species are equally evolved so instead of the tree of evolution having man at the top of it it's a bush or, better, the cladograms showing all modern species at the same height.
Your second confusion is in thinking that every detail of every branch of every organism's evolutionary record needs to be known in order to 'prove' the veracity of evolution as a whole. That is obviously false. The fossil record - plus confirming molecular biological evidence - is now enormous and overwhelming, it allows us to fill the gaps with predictions which are later confirmed or changed by new finds.
Occasionally some new informtion arises that shows that some parts of the jigsaw are in the wrong place and a section is rearranged. This accumulation over time just confirms things further.
At the moment you're quibbling about minor misunderstandings rather that trying to see the big picture. The detail only matters when you understand the theory as a whole and what underpins it. Zoom out a bit.

Je suis Charlie. Je suis Ahmed. Je suis Juif. Je suis Parisien. I am Mancunian. I am Brum. I am London.I am Finland. Soy Barcelona
"Life, don't talk to me about life" - Marvin the Paranoid Android
"Science adjusts it's views based on what's observed.
Faith is the denial of observation so that Belief can be preserved."
- Tim Minchin, in his beat poem, Storm.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 113 by Porkncheese, posted 09-04-2017 3:22 AM Porkncheese has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 115 by Porkncheese, posted 09-04-2017 5:36 AM Tangle has replied

  
Tangle
Member
Posts: 9580
From: UK
Joined: 10-07-2011
Member Rating: 7.0


(1)
Message 117 of 154 (818909)
09-04-2017 7:05 AM
Reply to: Message 115 by Porkncheese
09-04-2017 5:36 AM


Re: What point?
PnC writes:
You avoided the question and missed the point which is that I was totally confused at that stage given there was contradictions and differences in opinions.
You'll have to forgive me for that, I've now lost track of what your problem actually is. Is this the only problem you have? - all other bullshit aside....
Then when asked if it's fair to say that stage of evolution leading to primates is unclear
If so, I'll try to answer it this way.
As a scientist, you are obliged to accept the ToE because it's a scientific concensus and fully evidenced body of scientific knowledge. Any other position would be irrational, like a biologist refusing to accept the quantum theory just because it sounds mad and he doesn't understand it despite not having any knowledge of that field of study.
That acceptance comes not from your own understanding of the subject but from an understanding of the scientific method - it's the methology of acquiring knowledge that we all trust even if we don't know anything about the subject itself. No other method has been as successful as the scientific method in building trustworthy explanations of the natural world.
So we start from there, yes? Unless you have fundamental religious views that force you reject the ToE for irrational, non-scientific reasons of course. You've said you're not a creationist and I'm happy to accept that until proven wrong.
Secondly, on the origin of the primates there is vast quantities of information on it, you only have to google the phrase 'origin of primates' to turn up hundreds of thousands of decent articles on it and if you use google scholar combined with your university access to scholarly papers you can get the primary data if you wish. It's all there to be found. But I'd start here:
Evolution of primates - Wikipedia
Now about the 'probables' and uncertainties. At the micro level of individual lines of descent some lines will have stronger evidence than others - this should not surprise you when we're looking millions of years back in time. It's really remarkable that we have so much data to work with. What's certain is the overall statement that H. sapiens is a primate, descended from earlier primates and that primates descended from earlier organisms in the form of the charts you've been shown. Some details may change as more evidence is found, but the overall picture is highly unlikely to change materially.
Does that help at all?

Je suis Charlie. Je suis Ahmed. Je suis Juif. Je suis Parisien. I am Mancunian. I am Brum. I am London.I am Finland. Soy Barcelona
"Life, don't talk to me about life" - Marvin the Paranoid Android
"Science adjusts it's views based on what's observed.
Faith is the denial of observation so that Belief can be preserved."
- Tim Minchin, in his beat poem, Storm.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 115 by Porkncheese, posted 09-04-2017 5:36 AM Porkncheese has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 119 by Phat, posted 09-04-2017 7:13 AM Tangle has not replied
 Message 120 by Porkncheese, posted 09-04-2017 8:27 AM Tangle has not replied

  
Tangle
Member
Posts: 9580
From: UK
Joined: 10-07-2011
Member Rating: 7.0


Message 131 of 154 (818952)
09-04-2017 1:25 PM
Reply to: Message 126 by Porkncheese
09-04-2017 10:38 AM


Re: What point?
PnC writes:
That diagram posted on message 114 is just wrong like Tangle points out. Kind of lesson 1 cos you see that diagram around alot.
Another good point is that we derived from a chimp/human like creature that is extinct. The noob pictures humans coming directly from chimps.
I created a sort of word picture that explains how man evolved alongside other apes, it was designed to explain this idea that man IS an ape and to answer a very common and erroneous idea that a lot of people have in their minds about how evolution works.
It goes back to that picture of the 'ascent of man'. Many people think that people evolved from modern day chimps. They didn't, we both share a common ancestor. This misconception is critical to understanding something very simple and fundamental about evolution which is pointed to by the ignorant creationst question of "if man descended from apes, how come apes are still here?"
You only have to read the first post which is the edited result of the thread. I was quite pleased with it at the time (I was a noob like you.)
EvC Forum: "If I descended from an ape, how come apes are still here?"

Je suis Charlie. Je suis Ahmed. Je suis Juif. Je suis Parisien. I am Mancunian. I am Brum. I am London.I am Finland. Soy Barcelona
"Life, don't talk to me about life" - Marvin the Paranoid Android
"Science adjusts it's views based on what's observed.
Faith is the denial of observation so that Belief can be preserved."
- Tim Minchin, in his beat poem, Storm.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 126 by Porkncheese, posted 09-04-2017 10:38 AM Porkncheese has not replied

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024