Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 48 (9179 total)
2 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
Dawn Bertot
Member (Idle past 199 days)
Posts: 3571
Joined: 11-23-2007


(1)
Message 373 of 968 (600028)
01-11-2011 11:49 PM
Reply to: Message 355 by Meddle
01-04-2011 9:21 PM


Re: Bump for ICANT
It is this that Taq, Coyote, Tanypteryx and others having been trying to get you to understand, that these gradual microevolutionary changes we see in species in the fossil record build up to what would be described as the macroevolutionary difference between humans and chimpanzees.
just quick question here, dont mean to interupt. if these are the changes from the Chimpanzees to humans and chimpanzees are still here, where did all these intermediate types go? Is it possible that all of them went extinct? Shouldnt there be atleast one example of them still in existence if we still have all types and examples of primates
i mean it just seems impossible that every example of these intermidiate types should go extinct, in such a short period of time
Now ive seen a few people that could pass for one of those primortial goomers, but then i said, ahh no
Just a thought. any suggestions?
Dawn Bertot
Edited by Dawn Bertot, : No reason given.
Edited by Dawn Bertot, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 355 by Meddle, posted 01-04-2011 9:21 PM Meddle has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 374 by Coyote, posted 01-12-2011 12:02 AM Dawn Bertot has not replied
 Message 375 by arachnophilia, posted 01-12-2011 2:03 AM Dawn Bertot has not replied
 Message 376 by bluescat48, posted 01-12-2011 2:38 AM Dawn Bertot has replied
 Message 378 by Coragyps, posted 01-12-2011 9:23 AM Dawn Bertot has replied

Dawn Bertot
Member (Idle past 199 days)
Posts: 3571
Joined: 11-23-2007


(2)
Message 381 of 968 (600066)
01-12-2011 10:09 AM
Reply to: Message 376 by bluescat48
01-12-2011 2:38 AM


Re: Bump for ICANT
The point is that chimpanzees & humans had a common ancestor some 6 million years ago, through evolutionary processes, there were changes which eventually resulted in chimps & humans, those intermediate species either evolved into the chimps & humans or became a dead end. This is the same scenario that has gone on through all types of living things, some species survive, some don't.
Not trying to be funny here, just trying to get this straight. So from going from nearly human looking, Neandertal, some of them went back to looking like chimps and some humans
Shouldnt they have went forward to atleast look like, Dr Adequate, Arch or Cavediver, something nearly human. Lets be real here, there are some but ugly people out there, not these guys of course
So where did the Gorillas, Apes and other type of primate come from and what should they have evolved into by now
Why are they still just monkeys. I mean youve seen what these guys do in the zoo, while your staring at them through the glass

This message is a reply to:
 Message 376 by bluescat48, posted 01-12-2011 2:38 AM bluescat48 has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 383 by Granny Magda, posted 01-12-2011 10:33 AM Dawn Bertot has replied
 Message 386 by bluescat48, posted 01-12-2011 10:47 AM Dawn Bertot has not replied
 Message 403 by arachnophilia, posted 01-12-2011 4:47 PM Dawn Bertot has not replied

Dawn Bertot
Member (Idle past 199 days)
Posts: 3571
Joined: 11-23-2007


(1)
Message 382 of 968 (600067)
01-12-2011 10:23 AM
Reply to: Message 378 by Coragyps
01-12-2011 9:23 AM


Re: Bump for ICANT
But we most certainly don't "still have" living examples of all the primates - only a fraction of all great apes that are known from fossils are still around. You've been shown pictures of skulls of a selection of the extinct ones about fifty times on this forum, dawn.
Then shouldnt the things that are not ancestors of chimps and man, Apes, gorrillas, whatever, have evolved into something nearly human?
Are you saying the examples you are providing are examples of intermidiates from chimpanzees and man
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
My earlier query was that it seemed strange that things that should have now been extinct, are not. Things that are closer to man, (these intermidiates as you call them) from your perspective some how went by the wayside
Mine is not an argument one way or the other, simply an observation, that it seems that atleast a few examples of those supposed intermidiates would have survived, since we have so many examples of monkey looking primates, if indeed that is what we are actually looking at in your examples, some form of something not quite monkey and not quite man.
I know thats not the right terminology, but you get the idea
Dawn Bertot
Edited by Dawn Bertot, : No reason given.
Edited by Dawn Bertot, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 378 by Coragyps, posted 01-12-2011 9:23 AM Coragyps has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 387 by Granny Magda, posted 01-12-2011 10:53 AM Dawn Bertot has not replied
 Message 397 by RAZD, posted 01-12-2011 12:29 PM Dawn Bertot has not replied

Dawn Bertot
Member (Idle past 199 days)
Posts: 3571
Joined: 11-23-2007


Message 384 of 968 (600071)
01-12-2011 10:40 AM
Reply to: Message 376 by bluescat48
01-12-2011 2:38 AM


Re: Bump for ICANT
The point is that chimpanzees & humans had a common ancestor some 6 million years ago, through evolutionary processes, there were changes which eventually resulted in chimps & humans, those intermediate species either evolved into the chimps & humans or became a dead end.
So where are Gorrillas, Apes and Orangatanges in this process (no funny shots here either)and why did thier kind survive and no examples of these other nutty looking guys
Shouldnt those other things that you provided as examples have survived in some small way, if indeed they actually existed? Shouldnt they just keep going along side the whole Evo process even if changes were taking place?
Dawn Bertot

This message is a reply to:
 Message 376 by bluescat48, posted 01-12-2011 2:38 AM bluescat48 has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 392 by Taq, posted 01-12-2011 11:59 AM Dawn Bertot has replied

Dawn Bertot
Member (Idle past 199 days)
Posts: 3571
Joined: 11-23-2007


Message 388 of 968 (600082)
01-12-2011 11:14 AM
Reply to: Message 383 by Granny Magda
01-12-2011 10:33 AM


Re: Bump for ICANT
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.
Yes and this is why this was my original inquiry. If they are a recent species it just seems odd that none survived.
But if you can provide no explanation as to why they did not survive, then i will accept that as your answer
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
Since there were literally thousands and possible millions of these things according to your understanding, 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
where are the mass graves or such creatures? 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.
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
Not so with these fellows and they are only six million years removed
Edited by Dawn Bertot, : No reason given.
Edited by Dawn Bertot, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 383 by Granny Magda, posted 01-12-2011 10:33 AM Granny Magda has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 389 by Coyote, posted 01-12-2011 11:27 AM Dawn Bertot has replied
 Message 390 by Taq, posted 01-12-2011 11:45 AM Dawn Bertot has not replied
 Message 391 by dwise1, posted 01-12-2011 11:46 AM Dawn Bertot has replied
 Message 393 by Granny Magda, posted 01-12-2011 12:15 PM Dawn Bertot has not replied
 Message 395 by Coragyps, posted 01-12-2011 12:18 PM Dawn Bertot has not replied
 Message 411 by bluescat48, posted 01-13-2011 12:01 AM Dawn Bertot has not replied

Dawn Bertot
Member (Idle past 199 days)
Posts: 3571
Joined: 11-23-2007


(1)
Message 413 of 968 (600181)
01-13-2011 9:39 AM
Reply to: Message 389 by Coyote
01-12-2011 11:27 AM


Re: Bump for ICANT
Examples of extinctions when there are "millions of these things" are abundant. Check out the details on the extinction of the Passenger Pigeon. From Wiki:
How do you conclude these facts if there is little or no fossil remains. If there are enough fossil remains wouldnt that confirm it, atleast for the pigeons? if there is not how did you or he decide all these facts
Where are the mass graves of Passenger Pigeons? They existed in the billions.
Firstly I would say that birds can fly, therefore they can avoid the natural disasters that would befall one of those fellows that ran around with a rock tied on the end of a stick that looked much like yourself, no doubt. Ha Ha just kidding about that last part there
Fly my young bird fly to safety
I would admit in this instance that these would have been immediately eaten due to size and the nature of thier existence as prey or decaded rapidly. Probably not so with primative man
But this follows whether there was enough fossil evidence to begin with.
Like I said before mine is a simple observation, Im not pretending to have knowledge of such things. the information provided by RAZD and others assist in providing possible explanations to that observation
Dawn Bertot
Edited by Dawn Bertot, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 389 by Coyote, posted 01-12-2011 11:27 AM Coyote has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 422 by Taq, posted 01-13-2011 11:25 AM Dawn Bertot has not replied

Dawn Bertot
Member (Idle past 199 days)
Posts: 3571
Joined: 11-23-2007


(1)
Message 414 of 968 (600182)
01-13-2011 10:07 AM
Reply to: Message 391 by dwise1
01-12-2011 11:46 AM


Re: Bump for ICANT
It is false for you to claim that we can provide no explanation. We have; you just cannot understand it. Nor are you alone. Most creationists also cannot understand the answers that science provides, because they are scientifically illiterate.
Once gain you fail to understand, which is not surprising since most of your posts are an attack of a personal nature on creationist and that is mostly what they consist of
many qualified people that DO understand all the "science" disagree with the tenets and conclusions reached by evolutionists
I know that you are vehemently opposed to learning anything, but I'll cast this pearl before you anyway: learn something about biology, evolution, population dynamics, and human evolution so that the answers can start to make sense to you.
As usual you do not understand even the obvious points. Evolution has nothing to do with creation or creationism. Creation is not dependent upon whether evo is true or not. they are two different things and established in a different manner
If evo was true it would not affect creationism. Your personal attacks on creationist are worthless because you do not understand simple points of reasoning
The title of the website notwithstanding, creation and evolution are not at odds with one another
Evolution is an explanation of the nature of things, creation is an explanation of the existence of things
If evolution were true it would not affect the validity of the scriptures or that which is contained there.
But more specifically it would not affect the tenets of creation/ism because these are not established by the scriptures by but simple logic applied to the existing world
Dawn Bertot
Edited by Dawn Bertot, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 391 by dwise1, posted 01-12-2011 11:46 AM dwise1 has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 415 by Coyote, posted 01-13-2011 10:19 AM Dawn Bertot has not replied
 Message 421 by Taq, posted 01-13-2011 11:21 AM Dawn Bertot has replied
 Message 423 by barbara, posted 01-13-2011 11:25 AM Dawn Bertot has not replied
 Message 488 by dwise1, posted 01-15-2011 2:12 AM Dawn Bertot has not replied

Dawn Bertot
Member (Idle past 199 days)
Posts: 3571
Joined: 11-23-2007


(1)
Message 416 of 968 (600186)
01-13-2011 10:23 AM
Reply to: Message 392 by Taq
01-12-2011 11:59 AM


Re: Bump for ICANT
Why don't we see both Elephants and Wooly Mammoths?
Havent we actually found one of these intact frozen in the ice? I suppose when you can produce an intact hommonid frozen in the ice, you will immediately get my attention
Dawn Bertot

This message is a reply to:
 Message 392 by Taq, posted 01-12-2011 11:59 AM Taq has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 417 by Panda, posted 01-13-2011 10:56 AM Dawn Bertot has not replied
 Message 420 by Taq, posted 01-13-2011 11:15 AM Dawn Bertot has replied

Dawn Bertot
Member (Idle past 199 days)
Posts: 3571
Joined: 11-23-2007


Message 447 of 968 (600349)
01-14-2011 2:46 AM
Reply to: Message 420 by Taq
01-13-2011 11:15 AM


Re: Bump for ICANT
You didn't answer my question. Why don't we see both wooly mammoths and elephants living today?
As for a frozen humanoid:
But I did answer your question with a question. Did we or did we not find an intact Mammoth frozen in the ice?
as i indicated before, atleast indirectly this type of evidence certainly lends support for any creatures previous existence
Im not saying directly your hommonids didnt exist, 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
secondly, are you saying this is an example of a frozen Hommonid or a frozen humanoid, in the picture?
Do you have any other pictures of this same individual that would help to confirm his Hommonid status, if that is the correct terminology
On a side note, he would not have been in that mess had he simply carried his cell phone with him.
Dawn Bertot
Edited by Dawn Bertot, : No reason given.
Edited by Dawn Bertot, : No reason given.
Edited by Dawn Bertot, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 420 by Taq, posted 01-13-2011 11:15 AM Taq has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 449 by Panda, posted 01-14-2011 6:11 AM Dawn Bertot has replied
 Message 451 by Granny Magda, posted 01-14-2011 10:28 AM Dawn Bertot has replied
 Message 454 by Taq, posted 01-14-2011 11:26 AM Dawn Bertot has not replied

Dawn Bertot
Member (Idle past 199 days)
Posts: 3571
Joined: 11-23-2007


Message 448 of 968 (600352)
01-14-2011 3:05 AM
Reply to: Message 421 by Taq
01-13-2011 11:21 AM


Re: Bump for ICANT
I would not call less than 0.1% of scientists "many". On top of that, those who do reject it do so on religious grounds, not scientific.
Again it is a common mistake to assume that everyone that rejects evolution does it on religious grounds. its a common mistake to assume that Evo has anything to do with the question of creation, it does not
Bertot writes
If evo was true it would not affect creationism.
taq writes
Then what would?
A well set out, sound argument, the likes of which would say that creation/ism is a self-contradiction. this argument would of course need to pit itself against physical realites
dawn bertot

This message is a reply to:
 Message 421 by Taq, posted 01-13-2011 11:21 AM Taq has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 455 by Taq, posted 01-14-2011 11:28 AM Dawn Bertot has replied

Dawn Bertot
Member (Idle past 199 days)
Posts: 3571
Joined: 11-23-2007


(1)
Message 489 of 968 (600536)
01-15-2011 2:59 AM
Reply to: Message 449 by Panda
01-14-2011 6:11 AM


Re: Bump for ICANT
Answering a question with an irrelevant question is dishonest.
If god is honest, then he must view your behaviour with the utmost disgust.
I am sure that you feel justified in being so deceitful, but I expect that god would consider it a sin.
But sinning in the name of god is ok, yes?
Know alot about God do you Panda, where did you get these details about God? Oh yes from the same book you revile constantly
As I said before your nothing but a sick disturbed little man with an agenda against God
Dawn Bertot

This message is a reply to:
 Message 449 by Panda, posted 01-14-2011 6:11 AM Panda has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 494 by Panda, posted 01-15-2011 6:09 AM Dawn Bertot has replied

Dawn Bertot
Member (Idle past 199 days)
Posts: 3571
Joined: 11-23-2007


Message 490 of 968 (600538)
01-15-2011 3:07 AM
Reply to: Message 451 by Granny Magda
01-14-2011 10:28 AM


Re: Dawn's Incredulity vs Reality
Call me eccentric, but I'd love to see you answer it with an answer. Hows about you give that a go.
No one one is question the extinction of animals or supposed homminids. I am questioning why there isnt more evidence, that doesnt have to rely on skant parts pieced together from here or there
there simply should be more evidence if what you say existed, actually exsisted
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.
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
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.
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

This message is a reply to:
 Message 451 by Granny Magda, posted 01-14-2011 10:28 AM Granny Magda has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 496 by Granny Magda, posted 01-15-2011 2:08 PM Dawn Bertot has replied

Dawn Bertot
Member (Idle past 199 days)
Posts: 3571
Joined: 11-23-2007


Message 491 of 968 (600539)
01-15-2011 3:19 AM
Reply to: Message 455 by Taq
01-14-2011 11:28 AM


Re: Bump for ICANT
Bertot writes
Again it is a common mistake to assume that everyone that rejects evolution does it on religious grounds.
Taq writes
Surely such a statement should be followed by examples of biologists who reject evolution based on non-religious reasons. So who are they?
Surely you understand you dont need to be a biologist to know that from an evidential standpoint one does not have to agree or see the concept of Macro-evolution in the fossil record.
Since the fossil record does not prove absolutely evolution, it would follow that an observation in the opposite direction is more than plausible
the sharp distinctions and trail of the fossil record do not show a clear cut evolution of every species on earth.
i dont need religious reasons to know that is a fact
that is how i was making the statement
Dawn Bertot
Dawn Bertot

This message is a reply to:
 Message 455 by Taq, posted 01-14-2011 11:28 AM Taq has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 495 by bluescat48, posted 01-15-2011 11:19 AM Dawn Bertot has not replied
 Message 505 by edge, posted 01-15-2011 11:04 PM Dawn Bertot has replied

Dawn Bertot
Member (Idle past 199 days)
Posts: 3571
Joined: 11-23-2007


Message 492 of 968 (600540)
01-15-2011 3:23 AM
Reply to: Message 455 by Taq
01-14-2011 11:28 AM


Re: Bump for ICANT
You did not answer my question, again. What evidence, if found, would affect creationism?
IMV, absolutely nothing could be found that would affect the tenets of creationism, unless you are thinking of something that could affect its principles. In which case i would say present it
Dawn Bertot

This message is a reply to:
 Message 455 by Taq, posted 01-14-2011 11:28 AM Taq has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 493 by Panda, posted 01-15-2011 6:05 AM Dawn Bertot has not replied

Dawn Bertot
Member (Idle past 199 days)
Posts: 3571
Joined: 11-23-2007


Message 497 of 968 (600618)
01-15-2011 4:35 PM
Reply to: Message 496 by Granny Magda
01-15-2011 2:08 PM


Re: Dawn's Incredulity vs Reality
Oh. Great. So you're not disputing that pre-human hominids existed. Good.
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
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
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?
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
Dinos were what, 60 to 200 million years ago and we can find them all over the place in tact
BTW, I have no problem or hestitations believing in Dinos, because the evidence is overwhelming. Not so with your monkey boys
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.
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?
Perhaps you could provide a (SIMPLE) list, somewhat comprehensive that shows what they were and thier locations they were found. Maybe that would help
Dawn Bertot
Edited by Dawn Bertot, : No reason given.
Edited by Dawn Bertot, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 496 by Granny Magda, posted 01-15-2011 2:08 PM Granny Magda has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 498 by Coragyps, posted 01-15-2011 4:54 PM Dawn Bertot has replied
 Message 499 by Percy, posted 01-15-2011 5:04 PM Dawn Bertot has not replied
 Message 503 by Granny Magda, posted 01-15-2011 6:55 PM Dawn Bertot 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