Understanding through Discussion


Welcome! You are not logged in. [ Login ]
EvC Forum active members: 115 (8734 total)
Current session began: 
Page Loaded: 03-27-2017 10:27 PM
449 online now:
Dr Adequate, DrJones*, Modulous (AdminModulous) (3 members, 446 visitors)
Chatting now:  Chat room empty
Newest Member: timtak
Post Volume:
Total: 802,052 Year: 6,658/21,208 Month: 2,419/2,634 Week: 82/525 Day: 57/25 Hour: 1/3


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
1
23456
...
72NextFF
Author Topic:   Why are there no human apes alive today?
Doubletime
Junior Member (Idle past 2744 days)
Posts: 27
Joined: 05-08-2009


(1)
Message 1 of 1075 (512443)
06-18-2009 6:06 AM


If humans really did evolve from human apes then why are there no human apes alive today ( or well atleast no known) ?

How come the chimpanzees and the orangutangs and the gorillas survived untill this day practically staying the same shape ( I havent got any information about the monkeys evolution in the past) While more advanced forms of semi humans died out ore evolved ?

I mean. There is only 1 species of humans today. I can get kids with anyone of the races i would like but there is really only one known. I think it doesen't make sence at all.

How would the primitive apes have survied along side with the most advanced form of humans. While all the semi humans died out ?

Edited by Admin, : Remove space in title before the question mark.

Edited by Adminnemooseus, : Add the "(1 FINAL MESSAGE PER MEMBER TIME)" to topic title.

Edited by Admin, : No reason given.


Replies to this message:
 Message 4 by Huntard, posted 06-18-2009 8:51 AM Doubletime has not yet responded
 Message 5 by PaulK, posted 06-18-2009 9:27 AM Doubletime has not yet responded
 Message 6 by Coragyps, posted 06-18-2009 10:52 AM Doubletime has not yet responded
 Message 7 by caffeine, posted 06-18-2009 11:32 AM Doubletime has not yet responded
 Message 9 by Taz, posted 06-18-2009 11:39 AM Doubletime has not yet responded
 Message 10 by Rahvin, posted 06-18-2009 12:51 PM Doubletime has responded
 Message 58 by traste, posted 07-19-2009 11:36 PM Doubletime has not yet responded
 Message 64 by tuffers, posted 07-24-2009 10:56 AM Doubletime has not yet responded
 Message 79 by Databed, posted 09-15-2009 11:24 AM Doubletime has not yet responded
 Message 159 by Iblis, posted 11-09-2009 10:15 PM Doubletime has not yet responded
 Message 166 by websnarf, posted 11-30-2009 9:53 AM Doubletime has not yet responded
 Message 168 by Green44, posted 04-06-2010 2:39 PM Doubletime has not yet responded
 Message 169 by gragbarder, posted 05-07-2010 5:47 PM Doubletime has not yet responded
 Message 614 by DrJeffrey, posted 07-03-2011 3:30 AM Doubletime has not yet responded

  
Admin
Director
Posts: 12391
From: EvC Forum
Joined: 06-14-2002
Member Rating: 2.1


Message 2 of 1075 (512457)
06-18-2009 8:47 AM


Hi Doubletime,

I'm going to just promote this thread of your three recent proposals. I'll decide about the other two after we see how this one fares.


--Percy
EvC Forum Director

  
Admin
Director
Posts: 12391
From: EvC Forum
Joined: 06-14-2002
Member Rating: 2.1


Message 3 of 1075 (512460)
06-18-2009 8:48 AM


Thread moved here from the Proposed New Topics forum.
  
Huntard
Member
Posts: 2854
From: Limburg, The Netherlands
Joined: 09-02-2008


Message 4 of 1075 (512462)
06-18-2009 8:51 AM
Reply to: Message 1 by Doubletime
06-18-2009 6:06 AM


Simplicity
It's very simple really. It's because they weren't adapted to their changing environment, while the other apes and we were.


I hunt for the truth
This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by Doubletime, posted 06-18-2009 6:06 AM Doubletime has not yet responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 8 by Hyroglyphx, posted 06-18-2009 11:37 AM Huntard has not yet responded

  
PaulK
Member
Posts: 12442
Joined: 01-10-2003
Member Rating: 2.5


Message 5 of 1075 (512464)
06-18-2009 9:27 AM
Reply to: Message 1 by Doubletime
06-18-2009 6:06 AM


Asking why humans are the only surviving hominins is certainly legitimate. What I don't understand is how it relates to the idea of human evolution. So...

quote:

If humans really did evolve from human apes then why are there no human apes alive today ( or well atleast no known) ?

What's the reasoning behind this question ?


This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by Doubletime, posted 06-18-2009 6:06 AM Doubletime has not yet responded

  
Coragyps
Member
Posts: 5266
From: Snyder, Texas, USA
Joined: 11-12-2002
Member Rating: 6.1


Message 6 of 1075 (512467)
06-18-2009 10:52 AM
Reply to: Message 1 by Doubletime
06-18-2009 6:06 AM


How come the chimpanzees and the orangutangs and the gorillas survived untill this day practically staying the same shape?

They didn't, as far as the limited fossil record shows. And gorillas don't look too much like their cousins the chimps, anyway.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by Doubletime, posted 06-18-2009 6:06 AM Doubletime has not yet responded

  
caffeine
Member
Posts: 1214
From: Prague, Czech Republic
Joined: 10-22-2008
Member Rating: 3.5


(1)
Message 7 of 1075 (512470)
06-18-2009 11:32 AM
Reply to: Message 1 by Doubletime
06-18-2009 6:06 AM


There are human apes around today. Me, you, him:


Click to enlarge

But sorry, I know what you meant.

The important question, though, is why should there be? I think a lot of the problem comes from thinking of things as superior and inferior. Certainly, modern humans are vastly better than other species at things like abstract reasoning, but evolution doesn't progress from inferior to superior species. The species that survive are simply that - those that survive.

Bacteria are very simple creatures compared to a human, and much more similar to our ancestors from thousands of millions of years ago. Yet these primitive lifeforms are still omnipresent because they're good at what they need to be - surviving and lproducing offspring.

Similarly, surviving apes are well adapted to their environments, and so are good at surviving and producing offspring (at least, they were. Human destruction of their environment is driving them all to extinction).

The specific reasons for the loss of our hominid cousins will vary. Some of them likely became too dependent on the environment they lived in, and couldn't survive when it changed. One of the big advantages modern humans have is that (like rats) they're highly adatable, and can get by in all manner of new, strange environments. Animals that are heavily specialised (like gorillas) are pretty much screwed if the environment they rely on goes away, whether that's because of humans chopping down forests or hotter climates making your swamps dry up.

Other hominids, like Homo Erectus, were more adaptable, and managed to colonise the entire Old World. Here, though, I suppose your superior / inferior ideas can come into play. Modern humans, with their greater intelligence, were probably much better at the generalist, hunter-gatherer lifestyle, and could have outcompeted other, less intelligent hominids in the endless struggle for resources.

It's also important to remember that other apes have not stayed almost exactly the same shape. Check these fellas:


Click to enlarge

Click to enlarge

Click to enlarge

They’re all quite different from one another, so there have been some substantial changes going on since their common ancestors. They have not just remained the same.

Even if they had, though, this wouldn’t be a problem for evolution, nor is it if they resemble our common ancestors in lifestyle and morphology more than we do. Species that change little change little because they’re very well adapted to their environment. Other species may branch off from these, that change to exploit new environments and new niches. There’s no reason the original should die out if its environment remains basically the same and its strategies for reproduction and survival continue to be successful.

Edited by caffeine, : sloppy typing


This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by Doubletime, posted 06-18-2009 6:06 AM Doubletime has not yet responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 21 by Larni, posted 06-19-2009 1:04 PM caffeine has not yet responded
 Message 344 by Mazzy, posted 06-25-2011 9:40 PM caffeine has not yet responded

Hyroglyphx
Member
Posts: 5512
From: Austin, TX
Joined: 05-03-2006


Message 8 of 1075 (512472)
06-18-2009 11:37 AM
Reply to: Message 4 by Huntard
06-18-2009 8:51 AM


Re: Simplicity
It's very simple really. It's because they weren't adapted to their changing environment, while the other apes and we were.

That's not an answer to his question. The lad wants to know the means and mechanisms, not non-specific statements no better than "because God said so." He wants to know why a chimp or orangutan was better suited to its environment than Neanderthals.

One fraction of the answer may be that lesser primates never competed with humans like Neanderthals may have and were on the loosing end of that struggle.

Edited by Hyroglyphx, : Typo

Edited by Hyroglyphx, : No reason given.


"The problem with Socialism is you eventually run out of other people's money." --Margaret Thatcher--
This message is a reply to:
 Message 4 by Huntard, posted 06-18-2009 8:51 AM Huntard has not yet responded

  
Taz
Member (Idle past 643 days)
Posts: 5069
From: Zerus
Joined: 07-18-2006


Message 9 of 1075 (512473)
06-18-2009 11:39 AM
Reply to: Message 1 by Doubletime
06-18-2009 6:06 AM


Doubletime writes:

If humans really did evolve from human apes then why are there no human apes alive today ( or well atleast no known) ?


I'm sorry, but this question makes no sense. Pre-human ancestors either were adapted to their environment and survived or they didn't.

How come the chimpanzees and the orangutangs and the gorillas survived untill this day practically staying the same shape ( I havent got any information about the monkeys evolution in the past) While more advanced forms of semi humans died out ore evolved ?

Because chimps and other apes were adapted to their environments. Again, from my point of view this question makes no sense.

There is only 1 species of humans today. I can get kids with anyone of the races i would like but there is really only one known. I think it doesen't make sence at all.

You're right, your question doesn't make any sense. If, say, neanderthals survived to this day they still wouldn't be considered human. Anything different than human ain't human.

This is like asking why my neighbor John isn't my family? Well, becuz he ain't my family. If he's my family than he's my family, but he ain't.

How would the primitive apes have survied along side with the most advanced form of humans. While all the semi humans died out ?

Because they occupied different niches than us.
This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by Doubletime, posted 06-18-2009 6:06 AM Doubletime has not yet responded

Rahvin
Member (Idle past 539 days)
Posts: 3964
Joined: 07-01-2005


Message 10 of 1075 (512482)
06-18-2009 12:51 PM
Reply to: Message 1 by Doubletime
06-18-2009 6:06 AM


If humans really did evolve from human apes then why are there no human apes alive today ( or well atleast no known) ?

This is a very, very common question.

Think of all life on Earth as part of one super-gigantic family tree. If you go back far enough, we all share a common ancestor - even the bacteria, the plants, us, your dog, etc.

Have you heard of taxonomy? Terms like "genus," "phyla," "family," species?" We group organisms according to their common features, and it helps us see where new branches of the family tree formed.

But just like your family tree, some branches die out. In evolutionary terms, this can happen for any number of reasons - but typically it means that either the population of Species A slowly changed over multiple generations into Species B, or after Species B branched off, an environmental change occurred that allowed Species B to out-compete Species A until A died off.

Let's try an example.

Imagine that we have two populations of horses. They're geographically separated enough that the two populations cannot interbreed, meaning any new mutations will remain only within their respective populations. If Group A has a minor mutation that makes brown spots appear on their coat, for example, that mutation may spread over several generations and become very common among Group A through interbreeding - but it will never come to Group B, because the two groups do not interbreed.

Now let's suppose that the brown spots make those horses who have them more difficult to spot, acting as a sort of camouflage and defending against predators. This would mean that the spot mutation woudl spread rather quickly among Group A - those horses with the spots are far more likely to avoid predators and survive long enough to breed, thus spawning a new generation of spotted horses, while those horses in Group A who do not have the spots will be more likely to be killed by those predators. Group B will remain the same - without interbreeding, the spot mutation will not cross over, and while it's possible an identical mutation could arise in the other population on its own, its very unlikely.

So we started with two populations (Group A and Group B), and now we have three (Group A/Spotted, Group A/Unspotted, and Group B), with one of the populations (Group A/Unspotted) rapidly "dying out" as they're either killed by predators or continue to interbreed with their spotted cousins and having spotted offspring.

The horses we just talked about aren't necessarily different species - the term species usually refers to two different populations that are genetically distinct enough that they cannot produce fertile offspring. But the example does illustrate how an ancestor population does not necessarily survive, while distant cousin-species and descendant-species do survive.

We could use bacteria as another example. I'm sure you've head of the so-called "superbugs" in the news - the bacterial strains that have developed resistance to specific antibiotics. We experiment with this regularly. Remember, bacteria reproduce by copying themselves - theoretically, if you start with a single bacterium, just one cell, all of its offspring should be identical clones of the original (this is one of the observable demonstrations of mutation, as well). If we begin with an ordinary bacterium that's perfectly susceptible to antibiotics, and let it reproduce for a while into a large population, mutations will begin to accumulate in the offspring. Most of these will have no effect. But typically, at least a few of them will have a small mutation that makes them at least a little more resistant to antibiotics than their brothers and cousins. If we apply an antibiotic to the population, the vast majority will die...except for the resistant individuals, which now have absolutely no competition and will thrive where before they were a tiny minority. In this way the ancestor completely dies off, while the descendant thrives. It's a rather extreme example, but it does correlate to significant environmental changes in nature (temperature changes, geographic migration, new predators, etc) where previously neutral mutations can suddenly have a significant survival advantage.

It's rather difficult (and would be far too time-consuming) to go into why each "ape-man" species died out while we and some of our very distant cousins survived. Sometimes interbreeding causes the entire population to change. Sometimes the ancestor species is totally out-competed until they die off. Other things happen (like natural disasters for species that are not widely distributed geographically) as well.

How come the chimpanzees and the orangutangs and the gorillas survived untill this day practically staying the same shape ( I havent got any information about the monkeys evolution in the past) While more advanced forms of semi humans died out ore evolved ?

That's a significant misconception: they didn't.

Chimps, orangutans, and gorillas all came from the same common ancestor we did, and they've been changing as well. Other branches have developed and died out. The apes we see today (including us - remember, we are primates as well) are simply those species that have continued to survive in our respective environments. You'll find that there are many extant species of apes, all related to varying degrees.

I mean. There is only 1 species of humans today. I can get kids with anyone of the races i would like but there is really only one known. I think it doesen't make sence at all.

How would the primitive apes have survied along side with the most advanced form of humans. While all the semi humans died out ?

"Most advanced" is not a very accurate term. We like to think of ourselves as "more advanced," but really we're just smarter. That's only one way of measuring against our cousins. But they tend to be a LOT stronger. Even the relatively small chimpanzee is significantly stronger than humans. By what do you measure "advancement?" If it's population size or existence in varied environments, then spiders, ants, bacteria and others are significantly more advanced than we are. If you mean "top of the food chain," well, that depends - we aren't always on top. We depend pretty heavily on our technology, or simply avoiding environments where there are plenty of predators that can easily kill us. If you measure how long a species has been around and remained relatively unchanged, we're towards the bottom of that list.

Evolution isn't a ladder, or a chain. It's like a bush. A really, really bushy bush, with new branches forming everywhere that all form their own branches, which form more branches, etc. Not all of the branches keep growing, but all of the branches that keep growing continue to change and adapt to their environments over generations. Small, often imperceptible changes add up over generations to become noticeable differences in different populations that can eventually confer a survival advantage.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by Doubletime, posted 06-18-2009 6:06 AM Doubletime has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 11 by Doubletime, posted 06-19-2009 5:43 AM Rahvin has responded
 Message 93 by Peg, posted 09-25-2009 8:06 AM Rahvin has not yet responded

Doubletime
Junior Member (Idle past 2744 days)
Posts: 27
Joined: 05-08-2009


Message 11 of 1075 (512574)
06-19-2009 5:43 AM
Reply to: Message 10 by Rahvin
06-18-2009 12:51 PM


Ok no satisfying answers yet, Maybe the question wasn't asked correctly ?

Definition species. Something that can reproduce with something else. This is a good description of species.

Definition races. A sub form of species. Like black N white people ( Im not a racist no hate males please)

I read in Illustrerad vetenskap ( swedish science magazine ) That they have found evidence of a Neander thal mated with a common human. Or well they found a fosil with a neanderthal skull and common human body. Wich means that the neander thals were simply another race of humans, or well i think it is much more likely than counting neander thals as an own species.

Answering with that they didn't survive is only answering how not why.

The real question is, Why should i believe that humans evolved from more primitive ape like versions, When there are no such creatures today. There are only apes and humans. No knowmn human apes. And the fosil evidence isn't especially satisfying at all, There are no links i have actually found.

And what was once considerd as the missing link now turned out to be bluff. Like the piltdown human or nebraska man. 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 ?

I hope i get some more satisfying answers now


This message is a reply to:
 Message 10 by Rahvin, posted 06-18-2009 12:51 PM Rahvin has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 12 by Doubletime, posted 06-19-2009 5:47 AM Doubletime has not yet responded
 Message 13 by Percy, posted 06-19-2009 6:30 AM Doubletime has not yet responded
 Message 14 by RAZD, posted 06-19-2009 8:48 AM Doubletime has responded
 Message 18 by Coyote, posted 06-19-2009 11:34 AM Doubletime has responded
 Message 20 by Rahvin, posted 06-19-2009 12:22 PM Doubletime has not yet responded
 Message 23 by Dr Adequate, posted 06-19-2009 2:27 PM Doubletime has not yet responded

  
Doubletime
Junior Member (Idle past 2744 days)
Posts: 27
Joined: 05-08-2009


Message 12 of 1075 (512575)
06-19-2009 5:47 AM
Reply to: Message 11 by Doubletime
06-19-2009 5:43 AM


Chimps, orangutans, and gorillas all came from the same common ancestor we did, and they've been changing as well. Other branches have developed and died out. The apes we see today (including us - remember, we are primates as well)

If Darwinism is true, * were. Quit frankly humans are a class of our own.


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

  
Percy
Member
Posts: 15494
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 4.3


Message 13 of 1075 (512576)
06-19-2009 6:30 AM
Reply to: Message 11 by Doubletime
06-19-2009 5:43 AM


Doubletime writes:

I read in Illustrerad vetenskap ( swedish science magazine ) That they have found evidence of a Neanderthal mated with a common human. Or well they found a fosil with a neanderthal skull and common human body. Wich means that the neander thals were simply another race of humans, or well i think it is much more likely than counting neanderthals as an own species.

You used several different forms of Neanderthal, so to resolve any uncertainty, the accepted spellings of Neanderthal in English are "Neanderthal" and the less common "Neandertal". It's capitalized.

You either misunderstood the article in your magazine, or your magazine has published nonsense. There has never been any discovery of a hybrid Neanderthal/human fossil, and especially not with a Neanderthal skull and a human body. Perhaps you're thinking of a November 17, 2005, article about the discovery of human, Neanderthal and hyena remains in a French cave.

What we've been able to discern so far from studies of fragmentary Neanderthal DNA seems to indicate that the Neanderthals were a separate and distinct species from Homo sapiens, and now that I think about it, perhaps your magazine article was actually discussing the possibility of human/Neanderthal interbreeding.

The real question is, Why should i believe that humans evolved from more primitive ape like versions, When there are no such creatures today.

Actually, the real question is why you believe that surviving descendants have anything to do with any species' evolutionary history of descent. To use an analogy, whether or not your grandfather is still alive cannot affect your own personal family tree since they're events that have already happened and cannot be changed, so why do you think that whether or not one of our evolutionary ancestors still survives could affect our own evolutionary family tree?

--Percy

Edited by Percy, : Grammar.


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

  
RAZD
Member
Posts: 18241
From: the other end of the sidewalk
Joined: 03-14-2004
Member Rating: 3.0


(1)
Message 14 of 1075 (512581)
06-19-2009 8:48 AM
Reply to: Message 11 by Doubletime
06-19-2009 5:43 AM


Hi Doubletime

Ok no satisfying answers yet, Maybe the question wasn't asked correctly ?

The answers have been satisfactory, your understanding is flawed. Your initial post is a PRATT.

quote:
Claim CC150:
If we are descended from apes, why are there still apes around?
Source:
Robinson, B. A, 2003. 17 indicators that evolution didn't happen (with rebuttals). http://www.religioustolerance.org/ev_noway.htm#11
Response:
1. Humans and other apes are descended from a common ancestor whose population split to become two (and more) lineages. The question is rather like asking, "If many Americans and Australians are descended from Europeans, why are there still Europeans around?" Creationists themselves recognize the invalidity of this claim (AIG n.d.).

Please note that last point. Answers in Genesis: has a list of bad arguments that have been refuted so many times and by such overwhelming evidence that they advise people not to use them. In a special category on that list are:

quote:
Arguments that should never be used
If we evolved from apes, apes shouldn’t exist today. (In an evolutionary worldview, mankind did not evolve from apes but from an apelike ancestor, from which both humans and apes of today supposedly evolved.)

In other words AiG recognizes that this argument is lost, and trying to pursue it is foolish.

Chimps, orangutans, and gorillas all came from the same common ancestor we did, and they've been changing as well. Other branches have developed and died out. The apes we see today (including us - remember, we are primates as well)

If Darwinism is true, * were. Quit frankly humans are a class of our own.

Haven't you figured out how to do quotes yet?

Rahvin, msg 10 writes:

Chimps, orangutans, and gorillas all came from the same common ancestor we did, and they've been changing as well. Other branches have developed and died out. The apes we see today (including us - remember, we are primates as well) are simply those species that have continued to survive in our respective environments. You'll find that there are many extant species of apes, all related to varying degrees.

type [qs]quotes are easy[/qs] and it becomes:

quotes are easy

or type [quote]quotes are easy[/quote] and it becomes:

quote:
quotes are easy

This helps people understand what you are replying to and distinguish it from your comments.

If Darwinism is true, * were. Quit frankly humans are a class of our own.

Curiously, your personal opinion on the matter is absolutely unable to alter the evidence in any way, nor affect reality in any way, nor change things in any way to suit your liking. For instance:

Definition species. Something that can reproduce with something else. This is a good description of species.

This is a lousy definition, and bears no resemblance to what is used in biology, and quite frankly it is wrong.

Definition of Species

quote:
I think everyone is fairly familiar with the biological species definition, and some may be familiar with the morphological definition. Here is a site for reference on these definitions:

U of Michigan Lectures - The Process of Speciation

quote:
  • Biological species concept: This concept states that "a species is a group of actually or potentially interbreeding individuals who are reproductively isolated from other such groups."...
  • There is also another definition in the forum glossary:

    http:///WebPages/Glossary.html#S


    So it is easy to find real definitions of species used in biology instead of making up something else. The reason for using definitions is so you talk about the same thing.

    Definition races. A sub form of species. Like black N white people ( Im not a racist no hate males please)

    Presumably no hate females either? In almost every species known there are "sub forms" known as varieties, and "race" is no different.

    Varieties are also difficult to distinguish\define in a way that makes identification easy, as features in varieties are shared in the gene pool with the rest of the species population/s and they are mixed by hybrids.

    Answering with that they didn't survive is only answering how not why.

    So? Is it not a fact that none of the other many branches of hominid survived? Similarly all ancestral species of all modern species have not survived.

    And what was once considerd as the missing link now turned out to be bluff. Like the piltdown human or nebraska man.

    From one creationist PRATT to the next. Perhaps you should try modern biology for information instead of creationist sources living in the last century.

    Claim CC001: Piltdown Man

    quote:
    1. Piltdown man was exposed by scientists. The fact that it took forty years is certainly no shining example of science in action, but it does show that science corrects errors.

    Preconceptions are an unavoidable problem in just about any investigation, but they are less so in science because first, different scientists often have different preconceptions, and second, the physical evidence must always be accounted for. Many scientists from America and Europe did not accept Piltdown Man uncritically, and the hoax unraveled when the fossils could not be reconciled with other hominid fossil finds.

    2. One hoax cannot indicate the inferiority of conventional archeology, because creationists have several of their own, including Paluxy footprints, the Calaveras skull, Moab and Malachite Man, and others. More telling is how people deal with these hoaxes. When Piltdown was exposed, it stopped being used as evidence. The creationist hoaxes, however, can still be found cited as if they were real. Piltdown has been over and done with for decades, but the dishonesty of creationist hoaxes continues.


    If you want to talk about hoaxes there is Scientific vs Creationist Frauds and Hoaxes , where so far the creationist hoaxes outnumber the scientific ones.

    Claim CC002: Nebraska Man

    quote:
    The tooth was never held in high regard by scientists. Osborn, who described it, was unsure whether it came from a hominid or from another kind of ape, and others were skeptical that it even belonged to a primate. The illustration was done for a popular publication and was clearly labeled as highly imaginative.

    Nebraska Man is an example of science working well. An intriguing discovery was made that could have important implications. The discoverer announced the discovery and sent casts of it to several other experts. Scientists were initially skeptical. More evidence was gathered, ultimately showing that the initial interpretation was wrong. Finally, a retraction was prominently published.


    Meanwhile creationists keep bringing up these as evidence of science not working, when in fact both of them demonstrate how science eliminates invalid concepts in the search for understanding.

    I hope i get some more satisfying answers now

    This depends on whether or not you are willing to learn when you are wrong.

    Enjoy.

    Edited by RAZD, : /


    we are limited in our ability to understand
    by our ability to understand
    Rebel American Zen Deist
    ... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ...
    to share.


    • • • Join the effort to solve medical problems, AIDS/HIV, Cancer and more with Team EvC! (click) • • •

    This message is a reply to:
     Message 11 by Doubletime, posted 06-19-2009 5:43 AM Doubletime has responded

    Replies to this message:
     Message 15 by Doubletime, posted 06-19-2009 9:56 AM RAZD has responded

    Doubletime
    Junior Member (Idle past 2744 days)
    Posts: 27
    Joined: 05-08-2009


    Message 15 of 1075 (512592)
    06-19-2009 9:56 AM
    Reply to: Message 14 by RAZD
    06-19-2009 8:48 AM


    LoL this is what i loooove with theese forums about faith or reigion. It is so easy to start flamers unintentionally ^^

    Who said im a creationist ?

    Curiously, your personal opinion on the matter is absolutely unable to alter the evidence in any way, nor affect reality in any way, nor change things in any way to suit your liking. For instance:

    Well humans are to be considerd as our own species quit frankly. Do you know why ? Because our brain capacity is far superior to any other creature. I was actually saying If evolution is true so there was no reseon to flame at all lol. But what ever.

    Meanwhile creationists keep bringing up these as evidence of science not working, when in fact both of them demonstrate how science eliminates invalid concepts in the search for understanding.

    Are you saying im agaisnt science just because im against evolution ?


    This message is a reply to:
     Message 14 by RAZD, posted 06-19-2009 8:48 AM RAZD has responded

    Replies to this message:
     Message 16 by Wounded King, posted 06-19-2009 10:19 AM Doubletime has not yet responded
     Message 17 by Huntard, posted 06-19-2009 10:32 AM Doubletime has not yet responded
     Message 19 by Coyote, posted 06-19-2009 11:43 AM Doubletime has responded
     Message 22 by Larni, posted 06-19-2009 1:10 PM Doubletime has not yet responded
     Message 26 by Percy, posted 06-19-2009 3:01 PM Doubletime has not yet responded
     Message 34 by RAZD, posted 06-19-2009 9:41 PM Doubletime has responded

      
    1
    23456
    ...
    72NextFF
    Newer Topic | Older Topic
    Jump to:


    Copyright 2001-2015 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

    ™ Version 4.0 Beta
    Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2017