Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 48 (9179 total)
3 online now:
Newest Member: Jorge Parker
Post Volume: Total: 918,246 Year: 5,503/9,624 Month: 528/323 Week: 25/143 Day: 15/10 Hour: 0/1


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Potential falsifications of the theory of evolution
Granny Magda
Member (Idle past 154 days)
Posts: 2462
From: UK
Joined: 11-12-2007


Message 107 of 968 (589544)
11-03-2010 10:16 AM
Reply to: Message 106 by AlphaOmegakid
11-03-2010 9:59 AM


Re: Common Descent explained
Hi AOk, welcome back!
Creos and naturalists both believe in common descent.
Well, yes and no... You can't act as though all creationists agree on their mutual position here, that's just not the case. Some will accept that there is some common ancestry, others will not accept any form of common ancestry at all.
a creationist explanation would be common descent form many common ancestors created during the creation week.
But of course, there is no agreement amongst creationists upon what these "kinds" might have been. The only case where almost all creo's agree is the alleged lack of common ancestry between humans and other primates. In other groupings, there is little agreement, save for a sort of "I know it when I see it" approach.
Common descent is just one small part of NDTOE.
Yes, but one that is so well evidenced that it is rather essential to the whole.
Mutate and Survive

"A curious aspect of the theory of evolution is that everybody thinks he understands it." - Jacques Monod

This message is a reply to:
 Message 106 by AlphaOmegakid, posted 11-03-2010 9:59 AM AlphaOmegakid has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 144 by AlphaOmegakid, posted 11-04-2010 7:51 AM Granny Magda has replied

Granny Magda
Member (Idle past 154 days)
Posts: 2462
From: UK
Joined: 11-12-2007


Message 146 of 968 (589745)
11-04-2010 8:43 AM
Reply to: Message 144 by AlphaOmegakid
11-04-2010 7:51 AM


Re: Common Descent explained
Hi AOk,
I wasn't intending to generalize.
I understand that. However, I believe that you are still generalising even now.
YEC's believe in descent from the original created kinds of animal and plants.
I agree with that, but I still think that you are papering over the cracks somewhat. I suspect that the vast majority of those who might legitimately be described as creationists have never heard of "created kinds" or baraminology. Those creo's who, like yourself, have chosen to become involved in the debate, on the internet or elsewhere, will be aware of such arguments. Most creo's, the laity if you like, will not be aware and will have a naive belief that species were created in their currant form.
This is backed up by polling. A 2005 poll by Pew Research asked whether species had "...existed in their present form since the beginning of time,", a position clearly incompatible with baraminology. 42% were happy to agree with that. A Gallup poll that same year had 45% for the same question. Source
Now you can argue that the polls had limited options and that the answer given was the closest to a creationist position. I agree with that to a point, but it still seems to me that a lot of ordinary creationists, who are not engaged in creo apologetics are completely unaware of "created kinds" and imagine that species were created in Eden, just as they appear today.
Your position is held by many creo's, but it is not universal, not even amongst YECs. Need I drag out the rantings of YECs who deny microevolution? I can assure you, they do exist.
However, there is more evidence for biogenesis which TOE needs, yet scientists still hope and pray for abiogenesis.
What scientists hope for is to be able to answer interesting questions. Abiogenesis is one example of such a question.
You claim that there is "evidence for biogenesis", but I can only suppose that you are making the same absurd argument here that you have made on these forums before; that the "law" of biogenesis disproves abiogenesis. That was a false argument then and it is still wrong now.
Mutate and Survive

"A curious aspect of the theory of evolution is that everybody thinks he understands it." - Jacques Monod

This message is a reply to:
 Message 144 by AlphaOmegakid, posted 11-04-2010 7:51 AM AlphaOmegakid has not replied

Granny Magda
Member (Idle past 154 days)
Posts: 2462
From: UK
Joined: 11-12-2007


Message 154 of 968 (589987)
11-05-2010 11:34 AM
Reply to: Message 150 by AlphaOmegakid
11-05-2010 9:08 AM


Re: Common Descent rebutted
Hi AOK,
My job is in the "science" world.
Now there's a vague claim. It's a lot like these vague claims from your last stint here;
AlphaOmegakid writes:
I was trained in college for a scientific field. I was employed in a scientific field when I graduated. And since that time, I have been managing a company that produces products for a scientific field. I also have been published in a scientific publication. Does that make me a scientist?
Source
Here is a rather less exaggerated claim;
AlphaOmegakid writes:
I am a 46 year old President of a small company.
Source
None of this qualifies you to describe yourself as a "scientist", at least not to the extent that it gives your claims any more credibility. You manage a company. That gives your arguments no more weight than if you were a chef or a road sweeper, so quit making vague arguments from authority, okay.
Mutate and Survive

"A curious aspect of the theory of evolution is that everybody thinks he understands it." - Jacques Monod

This message is a reply to:
 Message 150 by AlphaOmegakid, posted 11-05-2010 9:08 AM AlphaOmegakid has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 156 by AlphaOmegakid, posted 11-05-2010 11:45 AM Granny Magda has replied

Granny Magda
Member (Idle past 154 days)
Posts: 2462
From: UK
Joined: 11-12-2007


Message 174 of 968 (590048)
11-05-2010 2:52 PM
Reply to: Message 156 by AlphaOmegakid
11-05-2010 11:45 AM


Re: Common Descent rebutted
I haven't ever made a claim that I am a scientist, but I am.
I do not believe you. I think you're lying.
Does that bother you?
It bothers me that you would lie about it yes.
I have never made my authority an issue.
Why then do you even bring it up, if not to add weight to your opinion?
You have made several vague claims around this topic, without ever telling us specifically what your alleged expertise consists of. Are you a professional biologist or not? Because if not, you should stop trying to imply that you are.
Mutate and Survive

"A curious aspect of the theory of evolution is that everybody thinks he understands it." - Jacques Monod

This message is a reply to:
 Message 156 by AlphaOmegakid, posted 11-05-2010 11:45 AM AlphaOmegakid has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 175 by Percy, posted 11-05-2010 3:15 PM Granny Magda has replied

Granny Magda
Member (Idle past 154 days)
Posts: 2462
From: UK
Joined: 11-12-2007


Message 176 of 968 (590064)
11-05-2010 3:43 PM
Reply to: Message 175 by Percy
11-05-2010 3:15 PM


Re: Common Descent rebutted
Hi Percy,
I wonder why he put science in quotes?
I think I have fair idea. Another candidate for the engineering/computer programming hall of shame perhaps?
Besides, I'd pit my two Nobels against his science degree any day!
Only two? Amateur.
And anyway, AlphaOmegakid is not the topic of this thread.
Duly noted. I'll back off.
Mutate and Survive
PS: Personally, I work in a shop.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 175 by Percy, posted 11-05-2010 3:15 PM Percy has seen this message but not replied

Granny Magda
Member (Idle past 154 days)
Posts: 2462
From: UK
Joined: 11-12-2007


Message 224 of 968 (590974)
11-11-2010 3:29 AM
Reply to: Message 218 by AlphaOmegakid
11-10-2010 6:32 PM


Extinction is Our Responsibility
AOk, I'm gobsmacked.
What do you think endangered species are?
In a modern context, they are almost exclusively those species that are threatened by human activity. The leading causes of extinction are loss of habitat (due to human activity), competition for resources (with humanity), non-native species (introduced by humans), climate change (caused by humans), overexploitation (by humans), pollution (humans again) and the spread of pathogens (by humans). Genetic entropy is not on the list.
It astonishes me that a Christian, who, one assumes, believes that God placed us in stewardship over the animals, would be so keen to spread misinformation about the loss of biodiversity.
According to the International Union for the Conservation of Nature, the current extinction rate is about a thousand times what we might reasonably expect compared to the fossil record. That isn't nature. It's us. Quit trivialising it please.
Mutate and Survive

"A curious aspect of the theory of evolution is that everybody thinks he understands it." - Jacques Monod

This message is a reply to:
 Message 218 by AlphaOmegakid, posted 11-10-2010 6:32 PM AlphaOmegakid has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 225 by AlphaOmegakid, posted 11-11-2010 10:08 AM Granny Magda has replied

Granny Magda
Member (Idle past 154 days)
Posts: 2462
From: UK
Joined: 11-12-2007


(1)
Message 240 of 968 (591197)
11-12-2010 12:07 PM
Reply to: Message 225 by AlphaOmegakid
11-11-2010 10:08 AM


Re: Extinction is Our Responsibility
Hi AOk,
Why are you gobsmacked?
Well, lots of reasons I guess but mainly it's your trivialisation of the environmental disaster going on about us and your attempt to hijack that for your religious apologetics. That and your apparent lack of any sympathy. Little things, y'know.
Aren't humans 100% natural?
Certainly. But to attempt to colour all human activity as natural somewhat defeats the point of having the word "artificial". But I suppose that you could call the current mass extinction event natural selection if you liked, but you could equally call it artificial. Calling it natural without any further refinement of meaning is simply disingenuous though.
Isn't this all just part of nature.
No. It's an artificial situation.
From here on, you repeat the same fallacy several times, and the same childish rhetoric too, so I'll only respond to it the once. Pay attention, because this is astonishingly simple and I'm rather surprised that you could miss it in the first place;
Just because I know that evolution is real, does not mean that I approve of it on a moral or aesthetic level.
Okay? Super.
Also, you know perfectly well that the current extinction event is far more serious and much, much faster than any normal natural process, such as locusts or (of all things ) plate tectonics. Your insistence on playing dumb here is only serving to make you look like a callous and infantile ass. Come on. You are not this stupid.
As for your linked articles, you have either failed to understand them or you are trying to pull a fast one. The last addresses animals in captivity and is thus completely irrelevant. The others deal with the effects of population depletion. This is also irrelevant.
The papers deal with populations that have been severely depleted by human activity. They are under genetic pressure because most of the individuals carrying the variant alleles have been wiped out. This is a far cry from the kind of "genetic entropy" that you have been pushing throughout this thread. Your version of genetic entropy would, according to your scenario, inevitably affect any population, regardless of size. These papers only deal with artificially depleted populations. they do nothing to back up your premise.
Species are going extinct , and we may not be able to do anything about it.
Strangely, the experts in the filed disagree with you, with the latest red list report highlighting the positive effects of conservation efforts. I have seen these effects first hand. Conservation works.
Or could it be the Christians that are telling you the truth about genetic entropy,
I know a number of Christians who volunteer their time for my local Wildlife Trust. None of them have seen fit to blather on about genetic entropy or how conservation is a waste of time. In fact, the only Christian who has ever mentioned genetic entropy to me is you.
I greatly respect those Christians who give up their time to help wildlife. It strikes me as being a good way of living up to the best of Christian principles. Sitting at a computer typing out silly falsehoods about biology over the internet strikes me as rather less emblematic of Christian altruism.
The evolutionist principle is in direct opposition to preservation. It is altrusitic! And it is contradictory for the origin of species.....
Are you really so dumb that you think the ToE is proscriptive? That it is a moral guide for life? Wow. No wonder you're struggling to understand it.
Mutate and Survive

"A curious aspect of the theory of evolution is that everybody thinks he understands it." - Jacques Monod

This message is a reply to:
 Message 225 by AlphaOmegakid, posted 11-11-2010 10:08 AM AlphaOmegakid has not replied

Granny Magda
Member (Idle past 154 days)
Posts: 2462
From: UK
Joined: 11-12-2007


Message 383 of 968 (600068)
01-12-2011 10:33 AM
Reply to: Message 381 by Dawn Bertot
01-12-2011 10:09 AM


Re: Bump for ICANT
Hi DB,
Not trying to be funny here,
Really? Are you sure you're not trying to be funny?
Shouldnt they have went forward to atleast look like, Dr Adequate, Arch or Cavediver, something nearly human.
Hmm. Okay, I believe you. That certainly wasn't amusing. On to more substantive points.
So from going from nearly human looking, Neandertal, some of them went back to looking like chimps and some humans
What? No! Neanderthals are not the ancestors of chimps. Neanderthals are a comparatively recent species, part of the Homo group. Chimps, Neanderthals and humans all share a common ancestor. The most recent common ancestor of Neanderthals and chimps would be the same as the most recent common ancestor of humans and chimps.
So where did the Gorillas, Apes and other type of primate come from and what should they have evolved into by now
Leaving aside the fact that gorillas, humans chimps and Neanderthals are all apes, they have evolved into what they are; apes. Humans are human, gorillas are gorilla. We need not speculate about what they should have become. We know what they have become. We can just look.
Why are they still just monkeys.
They are not monkeys. Monkeys have tails amongst other things.
But to answer what I take to be your underlying question, the chimps and gorillas are still forest dwelling simians (as opposed to having evolved into human-like forms) because that is the way their evolution happened to go. They never evolved in the direction that humanity did. Either the necessary mutations never arose or, if they did, they were not favoured by selection. Remember, evolution is not about "progress" or "improvement". It has no prearranged goal. It is only about meeting the needs of the environment. Chimps are more similar to their common ancestor simply because we changed more than they did.
Mutate and Survive

On two occasions I have been asked, — "Pray, Mr. Babbage, if you put into the machine wrong figures, will the right answers come out?" ... I am not able rightly to apprehend the kind of confusion of ideas that could provoke such a question. - Charles Babbage

This message is a reply to:
 Message 381 by Dawn Bertot, posted 01-12-2011 10:09 AM Dawn Bertot has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 385 by jar, posted 01-12-2011 10:43 AM Granny Magda has seen this message but not replied
 Message 388 by Dawn Bertot, posted 01-12-2011 11:14 AM Granny Magda has replied

Granny Magda
Member (Idle past 154 days)
Posts: 2462
From: UK
Joined: 11-12-2007


Message 387 of 968 (600076)
01-12-2011 10:53 AM
Reply to: Message 382 by Dawn Bertot
01-12-2011 10:23 AM


Re: Bump for ICANT
Then shouldnt the things that are not ancestors of chimps and man, Apes, gorrillas, whatever, have evolved into something nearly human?
Why? Seriously, why should they?
Are you saying the examples you are providing are examples of intermidiates from chimpanzees and man
No. The other Homo species, Australopithecines, etc., they are intermediate between (a) the most recent common ancestor of humans and chimps and (b) humans. Of course, not all the extinct hominids are the direct ancestors of humanity, only some.
If so, what are the examples of the ancestory of Apes and Gorrillas, that are not quite monkey and not quite man. I hope that makes sense
I'm not sure it does. Can you rephrase that?
My earlier query was that it seemed strange that things that should have now been extinct, are not.
What makes you think they should be extinct? Be specific.
Things that are closer to man, (these intermidiates as you call them) from your perspective some how went by the wayside
Yes. What strikes you as odd about this?
You seem to be assuming that human-like species somehow ought to survive. There is no special reason why this ought to be the case.
Mutate and Survive

On two occasions I have been asked, — "Pray, Mr. Babbage, if you put into the machine wrong figures, will the right answers come out?" ... I am not able rightly to apprehend the kind of confusion of ideas that could provoke such a question. - Charles Babbage

This message is a reply to:
 Message 382 by Dawn Bertot, posted 01-12-2011 10:23 AM Dawn Bertot has not replied

Granny Magda
Member (Idle past 154 days)
Posts: 2462
From: UK
Joined: 11-12-2007


Message 393 of 968 (600093)
01-12-2011 12:15 PM
Reply to: Message 388 by Dawn Bertot
01-12-2011 11:14 AM


If they are a recent species it just seems odd that none survived.
That does not follow. The extinction was comparatively recent. That doe snot mean that there should have been survivors, it only means that the last survivor died quite recently.
But if you can provide no explanation as to why they did not survive, then i will accept that as your answer
No, I can provide many explanations for their passing. Competition from other hominins, competition with non-primate species, famine or drought, failure to adapt to a changing ecosystem, or any one of a number of other explanations.
The only snag is that I do not know which one was the actual cause. It was likely a combination of factors. Short of a time machine, we can only draw tentative conclusions about why the other hominins went extinct, based upon what evidence we have. I would not wish to insert an explanation which I could not back up and pretend that it was a certainty. No-one can give you a blow-by-blow account of human evolution, nor ought we expect anyone to do that.
For the creationist its not so much that we reject your "evidence", it simply makes no sense that they would not have survided in some fashion
Why doesn't it make sense? Be specific.
Since there were literally thousands and possible millions of these things according to your understanding,
Just a small point; I do not think that any of the early hominids were hugely successful. None of them would have had populations that rivalled modern human populations.
it seems we are required to depend for our decision on the scantaly piecies of information and remains that you put forward, when there should be overwhelming evidence in the fossil record
That is the nature of the fossil record. it is imperfect. Scanty records are what we normally get. Anything better is the exception, not the norm.
where are the mass graves or such creatures?
that is an odd thing to ask. There weren't any. They didn't get wiped out in concentration camps you know. We would not expect to see any mass graves.
why do we have to depend on fragments and things pieced together, where literally thousands of examples should be present
this should be no problem if indeed they are a recent species and only recently went extinct.
Coyote has answered this. We would not expect to see millions of fossils. The example of the passenger pigeon, even more recently extinct, proves this.
You have to understand, fossilisation is a rare process. Further, the kinds of sediment deposition that favour fossil creation are most often associated with water. Terrestrial fossils are very rare compared with aquatic ones. Humans and our ancestors are not good candidates for fossilisation.
I mean dinos were what, 60 to 100 million years ago and we have no problem finding the OVERWHELMING evidence we need to confirm thier actual existence
Firstly, the dinosaurs lived from about 230 million years ago to about 65 million years ago.
Secondly, what do you mean by "OVERWHELMING evidence" (in ALLCAPS no less)? I wonder if you realise how many (non-avian) dinosaur species are known from only a few fossil specimens? That most dinosaur finds are far from being complete skeletons? That the taxonomy of many familiar dinosaurs is actually very controversial within the field?
Dinosaurs were around for a good 165 million years and comprised almost countless species and were ubiquitous around the world. Human-like primates by contrast, existed for only five or six million years and only had a few varieties, restricted to parts Africa and Eurasia. That only gives us a tiny snapshot of their lives. There is really no comparison between them and the vast group of dinosaurs.
Mutate and Survive

On two occasions I have been asked, — "Pray, Mr. Babbage, if you put into the machine wrong figures, will the right answers come out?" ... I am not able rightly to apprehend the kind of confusion of ideas that could provoke such a question. - Charles Babbage

This message is a reply to:
 Message 388 by Dawn Bertot, posted 01-12-2011 11:14 AM Dawn Bertot has not replied

Granny Magda
Member (Idle past 154 days)
Posts: 2462
From: UK
Joined: 11-12-2007


(1)
Message 426 of 968 (600206)
01-13-2011 11:43 AM
Reply to: Message 423 by barbara
01-13-2011 11:25 AM


Re: Bump for ICANT
Hi barbara,
The Theory of Evolution would not be a hot debate if they had just left it as "change' over time. The problem comes in when they state they have the evidence that backs up the details of their theory.
You would prefer that "they" made claims without evidence? That seems a little odd.
The reality of course, is that there is ample evidence to back up the ToE. It's just that you are unaware of it or have failed to understand it. The Toe is only a "hot topic" because it falsifies certain fundamentalist religious dogmas.
Genetics at this point can only say that we share many protein sequences with many different species in the genes that are involved in development of body plans and its system of regulation mechanisms. A blind study of different samples from different species will not determine who those samples belong to that identify the subject.
This is complete bullshit. I suggest that you restrict yourself to making statements about topics you actually know something about.
DNA can be used to identify a specific individual, never mind a species. You plainly have no idea what you are talking about.
They can sequence your genes but it cannot tell them what you are going to look like so by stating this is evidence that connects each species in a tree model is not conclusive.
Nonsense again. You can't tell exactly what someone will look like from their DNA, as much of what influences our development is not due to DNA. That does not mean though, that DNA cannot be used to demonstrate relatedness. Or are you arguing that DNA paternity tests are invalid?
There are many contributing factors that are believed to be involved with morphology changes in life forms over time. There is no such thing as A+B=C to define life's processes. This makes it impossible for science to solve the mysteries of life.
This does not follow. Science attempts to model the real world as accurately as possible. Just because some processes are complex does not mean that we should throw up our hands and surrender to ignorance.
Human beings are not qualified and are limited by their sensory abilities that prevent them from being capable to study life in its intricate details because we can''t see it up close.
WTF? Have you heard of a thing called a "microscope"? I believe they're very popular with scientists.
We can only observe the results not the actual process of how it got there.
So if we find fingerprints at a crime scene, we can't use them in court?
This is why we have many theories that attempt to explain these actual processes. The theories are validated as long as the results remain predictable. The conflict arises and the debate continues in defining the process based on opinions.
Why don't you try that again, only in English? Actually, on second thoughts, don't bother. You have done nothing but spout confused nonsense, I doubt that's going to change as long as you remain convinced that you are qualified to comment on matters that you patently do not understand.
Mutate and Survive
Edited by Granny Magda, : No reason given.
Edited by Granny Magda, : No reason given.

On two occasions I have been asked, — "Pray, Mr. Babbage, if you put into the machine wrong figures, will the right answers come out?" ... I am not able rightly to apprehend the kind of confusion of ideas that could provoke such a question. - Charles Babbage

This message is a reply to:
 Message 423 by barbara, posted 01-13-2011 11:25 AM barbara has not replied

Granny Magda
Member (Idle past 154 days)
Posts: 2462
From: UK
Joined: 11-12-2007


Message 451 of 968 (600385)
01-14-2011 10:28 AM
Reply to: Message 447 by Dawn Bertot
01-14-2011 2:46 AM


Dawn's Incredulity vs Reality
Hi DB,
But I did answer your question with a question.
Call me eccentric, but I'd love to see you answer it with an answer. Hows about you give that a go.
Im not saying directly your hommonids didnt exist,
Well good, because that would be a stupid thing to say. We have the fossils. That means we know that the pre-human hominids existed. What matters for this discussion is exactly how each was related to the group as a whole.
I am simply saying the evidence should be a bit more obvious if we are talking about centuries of living and dying by these creatures
How exactly? And why?
We would not expect to see a pre-human hominid frozen in ice. They lived in Africa. A few extended as far as Southern and central Eurasia, but, as far as we know, they were not present in the far North.
There is not much ice in Africa and what there is sits at the tops of mountains. There is no reason why we would expect a hominid to blunder into a frozen death like a mammoth.
I wonder why creationists so frequently demand to see precisely the evidence we wouldn't expect to see.
But okay; you think there should be more evidence. What do you think we should see? Exactly why should we see that? Be specific.
If you can provide exacting, evidence based reasoning explaining why we ought to see more evidence of hominids, then you might start being taken seriously. If not, all you have is "Seems wrong to me.". If that is all you have, you are in the wrong thread and you should take your incredulity to the Counter-Intuitive Science thread.
Do you have any other pictures of this same individual that would help to confirm his Hommonid status, if that is the correct terminology
"Otzi the Iceman" is an anatomically modern human (albeit one with rather unusual mtDNA). It is about 5300 years old, much younger than the hominid fossil of Africa.
Mutate and Survive

On two occasions I have been asked, — "Pray, Mr. Babbage, if you put into the machine wrong figures, will the right answers come out?" ... I am not able rightly to apprehend the kind of confusion of ideas that could provoke such a question. - Charles Babbage

This message is a reply to:
 Message 447 by Dawn Bertot, posted 01-14-2011 2:46 AM Dawn Bertot has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 490 by Dawn Bertot, posted 01-15-2011 3:07 AM Granny Magda has replied

Granny Magda
Member (Idle past 154 days)
Posts: 2462
From: UK
Joined: 11-12-2007


Message 496 of 968 (600603)
01-15-2011 2:08 PM
Reply to: Message 490 by Dawn Bertot
01-15-2011 3:07 AM


Re: Dawn's Incredulity vs Reality
No one one is question the extinction of animals or supposed homminids.
Oh. Great. So you're not disputing that pre-human hominids existed. Good.
there simply should be more evidence if what you say existed, actually exsisted
But now you are questioning whether they existed!
I am questioning why there isnt more evidence, that doesnt have to rely on skant parts pieced together from here or there
And you have been told why there isn't more evidence; fossilisation is a very patchy process and we are talking about species that did not inhabit many environments suitable for fossilisation, that did not last long, that never had huge populations, and which were relatively geographically isolated. You are yet to explain what you think is wrong with this explanation beyond repeating "It just seems wrong, there should be more".
Well why should there be more? Tell us exactly why we should expect to see more? Demonstrate to us how you know that there is a real shortfall in hominid fossils. How many should we expect to see (if common descent between chimps and humans were true), and why?
If you can't do that, all you have is "I dunno, seems wrong.".
the lack of evidence that is characteristic in humanoid existence is what I am questioning. Your "evidence" may be sufficient for you but it is not for me
Yes. I know. It "seems wrong" to you. You said.
The thing is, that on the one hand, we have the musing of Dawn Bertot/EMA, who thinks that it "seems wrong" and on the other, we have the hundreds of fossils from ancient hominids that actually exist. Surely you can appreciate why I find your opinion to be less impressive than actual physical evidence to the contrary?
The frozen example was simply an example to a point. it was an illustration that could apply to any scenerio where such could have been preserved
It was irrelevant, both because we would not expect to see hominids preserved that way and because we do have preserved hominids; we have their fossilised remains. We may not have enough to have reached your personal threshold of proof, but since you have neglected to tell us where that threshold might lie, I am not overly concerned.
Mutate and Survive

On two occasions I have been asked, — "Pray, Mr. Babbage, if you put into the machine wrong figures, will the right answers come out?" ... I am not able rightly to apprehend the kind of confusion of ideas that could provoke such a question. - Charles Babbage

This message is a reply to:
 Message 490 by Dawn Bertot, posted 01-15-2011 3:07 AM Dawn Bertot has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 497 by Dawn Bertot, posted 01-15-2011 4:35 PM Granny Magda has replied

Granny Magda
Member (Idle past 154 days)
Posts: 2462
From: UK
Joined: 11-12-2007


Message 503 of 968 (600631)
01-15-2011 6:55 PM
Reply to: Message 497 by Dawn Bertot
01-15-2011 4:35 PM


Re: Dawn's Incredulity vs Reality
Well I cant really ackowledge or disavow the existence of something where there seems to where there seems to be not enough evidence, now can i
What you can't do is pretend that the hominid fossils we do know about don't exist. We have have the fossils, thus they existed.
How do you propose that the fossils got there if the creatures didn't exist? Once again, you are being absurd.
Secondly, my query has to do with the way the "evidence" is gathered, a piece of something here or there, with the composition of a whole creature simply from a small bone, or the such like
Can you cite a particular specimen that you find unconvincing?
Didnt they construct a whole goomery creature out of a tooth only later to find out it was a pigs tooth, or am I mistaken about that?
Are any of those made from a pig's tooth Dawn? No?
Then they existed. Please do not play silly games.
If there were millions then certainly we should be able to find numerous examples in tact to help support the cause, corrrect. i mean millions upon million over 100s of thousands of years and all we can come up with is, here a piece there a piece
As I have repeatedly asked you, how many ought there be according to your interpretation of the ToE version?
Why should there be fewer than we see?
The example of the passenger pigeon proves that even incredibly numerous species, with populations in the billions can disappear, leaving few fossils. Why should humans be any different?
And Dawn; "million upon million"? Just how large do you think the hominid populations were? How do you know? If you can't tell us how many fossils there ought to be, you can't tell us that we see too few.
Dinos were what, 60 to 200 million years ago and we can find them all over the place in tact
Since I already addressed this and you failed to rebut, I'll just copy and paste;
GM writes:
Firstly, the dinosaurs lived from about 230 million years ago to about 65 million years ago.
Secondly, what do you mean by "OVERWHELMING evidence" (in ALLCAPS no less)? I wonder if you realise how many (non-avian) dinosaur species are known from only a few fossil specimens? That most dinosaur finds are far from being complete skeletons? That the taxonomy of many familiar dinosaurs is actually very controversial within the field?
Dinosaurs were around for a good 165 million years and comprised almost countless species and were ubiquitous around the world. Human-like primates by contrast, existed for only five or six million years and only had a few varieties, restricted to parts Africa and Eurasia. That only gives us a tiny snapshot of their lives. There is really no comparison between them and the vast group of dinosaurs.
Note Dawn, that's 230 million years ago to 65 million years ago. If you bothered to check your facts, you might find that you get less wrong.
Werent your mokey boys found in different locations as in China and other areas that would have provided fossilization and examples that I am looking for
I was not aware that they were all relegated to Africa, werent they discovered in many places all over the world?
Yes there are hominid fossils in China. No, I did not say that they were restricted to Africa.
You mentioned dinosaurs. Dinosaur fossils are found in multiple regions of Africa, Eurasia, the Americas, Australia and even Antacrtica. Hominids, by comparison, are restricted to Africa and Southern Eurasia. There is no comparison here.
Perhaps you could provide a (SIMPLE) list, somewhat comprehensive that shows what they were and thier locations they were found. Maybe that would help
There a too many to put on a single image!
The majority of the kind of species we're taling about are only found in Africa. So far, no Australopithecine (for example) has been found outside Africa. As far as I know, the only examples found outside Africa are from the Homo genus; i.e. they are human species.
Try taking a look at the wiki page for the genus Homo,, which includes this graphic representing the spread of early humans into Eurasia;
Mutate and Survive

On two occasions I have been asked, — "Pray, Mr. Babbage, if you put into the machine wrong figures, will the right answers come out?" ... I am not able rightly to apprehend the kind of confusion of ideas that could provoke such a question. - Charles Babbage

This message is a reply to:
 Message 497 by Dawn Bertot, posted 01-15-2011 4:35 PM Dawn Bertot has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 504 by Dawn Bertot, posted 01-15-2011 10:37 PM Granny Magda has replied

Granny Magda
Member (Idle past 154 days)
Posts: 2462
From: UK
Joined: 11-12-2007


Message 512 of 968 (600678)
01-16-2011 9:33 AM
Reply to: Message 504 by Dawn Bertot
01-15-2011 10:37 PM


Re: Dawn's Incredulity vs Reality
Dawn, you are quite the most trite and empty poster we have had here in years. All you seem capable of doing is mindlessly repeating yourself.
I have always wondered what these things might look like intact, bodies and all.
Well go and study anthropology then.
At any rate the lack of intact creatures in the fossil record, the scarcity in the fossil record and the inablity to view them as they actually were, always leaves doubt as to what they might actually have been, muchless whether is some chain leading to chimpanzees and modern humans
I don't really care about your doubts, given that you don't know a single damn thing about what you're talking about.
If you want to have your opinions taken seriously, you need to learn more. You need to bring real objections, based upon real evidence. Your undereducated opinions count for jack shit.
great numbers of fossils that claim to be a certain type of species or type of humanoid or hominid would bolster the supposed chain in the examples you provide
You ask for "great numbers" and "tons" of fossils, but in actual fact, you haven't the slightest idea how many non-human Hominina fossils exist have you? Pathetic. You opine from a position of pig ignorance. How despicable.
I'm done with you. All you do is repeat yourself and fail miserably in your childish attempts at wit. You have no point, you have no argument, so I'm done wasting my time on you for now.
Mutate and Survive

On two occasions I have been asked, — "Pray, Mr. Babbage, if you put into the machine wrong figures, will the right answers come out?" ... I am not able rightly to apprehend the kind of confusion of ideas that could provoke such a question. - Charles Babbage

This message is a reply to:
 Message 504 by Dawn Bertot, posted 01-15-2011 10:37 PM Dawn Bertot 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