Understanding through Discussion


Welcome! You are not logged in. [ Login ]
EvC Forum active members: 110 (8803 total)
Current session began: 
Page Loaded: 11-19-2017 7:07 PM
358 online now:
Coyote, dwise1 (2 members, 356 visitors)
Chatting now:  Chat room empty
Newest Member: jaufre
Upcoming Birthdays: DC85
Post Volume:
Total: 822,680 Year: 27,286/21,208 Month: 1,199/1,714 Week: 42/365 Day: 42/40 Hour: 0/0

Announcements: Reporting debate problems OR discussing moderation actions/inactions


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Prev123
4
56
...
13Next
Author Topic:   A good summary of so called human evolution.
mike the wiz
Member (Idle past 42 days)
Posts: 4600
From: u.k
Joined: 05-24-2003


Message 46 of 184 (797980)
01-30-2017 7:20 AM
Reply to: Message 5 by Coragyps
01-15-2017 5:12 PM


Coragyps writes:

Dammit, Mike! You have been here a very, very long time to still be barfing up nonsense like this! Nebraska man? Really?

Well, I know that people hate it when piltdown man is mentioned as it's such old news but be careful to avoid Argumentum Ad Novitatem.

We can still learn things from old news. The law of non-contradiction was an axiom formulated thousands of years ago, but I am to assume that it is still impossible for you to be fully human and fully not human.

Really all of the examples given for human evolution, whether they are poor examples, or whatever, all that's showing is that at one time some people thought X was a relative, and it turned out not to be, and was argued for a time to be. It's no big deal, and I myself feel no need to place any great focus on nebraska man, I am aware for example of floresiensis and naledi, but for me they all come under, "homo", and the pithecines under, "extinct apes".

I myself am not bringing up Nebraska man or Piltdown man, they are simply part of the summary they written.

"Nonsense" is also a question-begging-epithet, because if you only state one word, "nonsense" but your post did not consist of any rebuttal, then we have to accept your epithet. It would be like me saying this to your next post where you discuss ethnicity;

"Damn it Cora, you've been here far too long to bring up this racist trash."

Obviously evolutionists naturally will want to propagate words like, "nonsense" in regards to anything a creationist submits, but right now Cora, "I'm LAUGHING at the superior evo-intellect." - Captain Kirk, The Wrath Of Khan.

P.S. It's not easy to avoid the trap of this type of thinking in your mind; "oh man, this guy has been here years and HE STILL hasn't made any progress because he is still creationist."

But again, that assumes that evolution is the goal, and that knowledge only belongs to it, a false dichotomy the mind tells itself. In fact I have learnt many things in that time, some of which are favourable to creation some of which aren't. Life is far more complex than black and white. I'm not accusing you, but I am estimating from some of the words you have used, that you are tempted to jump to conclusions of that sort and type.

It seems to me human evolution, generally is more of the study of a variety of humans within the homo genus, that all have human features within human range. Some features are argued to be relevant, being more archaic than gracile, but it has been shown that even homo sapiens can have more archaic features, such as a strong brow ridge. I remember seeing a movie recently and saying; "Oh my goodness, look at the brow on this guy". These types of changes to the bone, slightly curved features, differences in size, etc..strike me as rather superficial. If more "archaic" humans can have gracile features and more, "modern" humans can have more archaic features then really it all seems rather explainable without the ape story.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 5 by Coragyps, posted 01-15-2017 5:12 PM Coragyps has not yet responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 48 by Tangle, posted 01-30-2017 7:43 AM mike the wiz has responded

  
Admin
Director
Posts: 12534
From: EvC Forum
Joined: 06-14-2002
Member Rating: 1.8


Message 47 of 184 (797981)
01-30-2017 7:26 AM
Reply to: Message 39 by mike the wiz
01-28-2017 3:51 PM


Re: feed the trolls
mike the wiz writes:

So here is a tautology for you; a topic posted in the links and information forum is meant as a link to information,...

Please do not post misinformation to the Links and Information forum again.


--Percy
EvC Forum Director

This message is a reply to:
 Message 39 by mike the wiz, posted 01-28-2017 3:51 PM mike the wiz has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 51 by mike the wiz, posted 01-30-2017 7:51 AM Admin has responded

    
Tangle
Member
Posts: 5154
From: UK
Joined: 10-07-2011
Member Rating: 2.4


Message 48 of 184 (797985)
01-30-2017 7:43 AM
Reply to: Message 46 by mike the wiz
01-30-2017 7:20 AM


Mike writes:

It's no big deal, and I myself feel no need to place any great focus on nebraska man

Well given that a single tooth was misidentified in 1922 and retracted by further scientific work in 1927, you're right to call it no big deal. In fact, it's no deal at all is it? It has no baring on anything whatsoever.

Except, of course, if you have a need to troll.


Je suis Charlie. Je suis Ahmed. Je suis Juif. Je suis Parisien.

"Life, don't talk to me about life" - Marvin the Paranoid Android

"Science adjusts it's views based on what's observed.
Faith is the denial of observation so that Belief can be preserved."
- Tim Minchin, in his beat poem, Storm.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 46 by mike the wiz, posted 01-30-2017 7:20 AM mike the wiz has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 50 by mike the wiz, posted 01-30-2017 7:50 AM Tangle has responded

  
mike the wiz
Member (Idle past 42 days)
Posts: 4600
From: u.k
Joined: 05-24-2003


Message 49 of 184 (797986)
01-30-2017 7:44 AM


In message #3, #4 and #5 in this following linked thread, I have explained more about chimeras which have mosaic features. Diagrams are easier to show people than explaining it with words only;

http://evolutionfairytale.com/forum/index.php?/topic/6687...

(Again, I don't want to put twenty disclaimers in each post but this isn't an all-out attack on evolution like you think. I know it can be easy to jump to that conclusion because the posts contain a lot of omitted information. Even the information about the platypus and the other examples, aren't a complete evaluation of their anatomies, they are only there to highlight a point I am making.)

One disclaimer is this; I am not saying that all of the evidence, in no way shows anything that might be considered part of an evolution. I actually think a bird with dinosaur features is the type of evidence you might expect had they evolved from them. Not that I would affirm the consequent, I just think the evidence is better explained as the relatively few transitions actually being chimeras, which seems far more parsimonious than assuming the other 99.999999999999% conspicuously absent transitionals, had to exist at some time. But there are interesting features in nature which at least, "count" as a compelling case that would fit with evolution such as the organelle, mitochondria, in eukaryotic cells, originally being a prokaryotic, bacteria. Certainly the striking similarities such as the binary fission, dna without a nucleus, etc...is a compelling case. Certainly I wouldn't say, "this is not to be expected from an evolution as evidence", as that would be like saying that a scar on the chest would not be expected evidence of heart surgery. No but rather, there possibly is other causes for scars on the chest.)

As you can see, I omit a lot of the reasonings and thoughts I have had on these matters, so you mustn't jump to conclusions based on info I omit. The most important point I am making here, is that it seems that generally instead of finding transitions, you actually find fully anatomically complete designs, already, "evolved", such as Tiktaalik, it already has a completely detached head, from the girdle, rather than something between fish and tetrapod. Birds such as Archaeo and others, don't have something between scale and feather, but they have feathers, Platypus has a full bill, etc...for me it represents a smorgasboard of designer features used endlessly because there are so many shared uses.

An example is radio controlled toys, (an example of design), which emulates what we find in nature. For example, a collective pitch helicopter has blades which are flat, collective pitch blades with no angle of attack or pitch. Fixed pitch helicopters have a blade with a fixed pitched angle, with angle of attack. BUT, you can get fixed pitch helicopters which basically are homoplasies of CP helicopters, which have a rotor head which has a pitch but the blade itself is identical or close to identical to a collective pitch.

In the same way, traditionally, CPs will mostly have a tail blade apparatus rather than a tail motor, but you also get some with a tail motor which basically copies from a fixed pitch.

There are plesiomorphs too, for example you have a main gear on the main shaft, in all models. You have a main shaft in all models, be it collective, fixed or coaxial.

So what do we have here? An obvious inference that moasic morphological features can and are used as part of intelligent design. It seems perfectly reasonable that a platypus has a bill and webbed feet for the same reason a duck has them, and that it is a novel design. What better example is there of a chimera? It breaks evolution so clearly, as it proves that shared features where there is a designer-necessity, is expected in design. Oil birds, bats and whales all have echolocation, it's obvious as to why they share it in those examples, so they have been endowed with it, meaning that LOGICALLY, we don't have to jump to the conclusion that such features MUST be evolution, and that is all I am arguing, that there is a reason why the consequent is never affirmed.

Edited by mike the wiz, : No reason given.


Replies to this message:
 Message 68 by Astrophile, posted 03-10-2017 5:12 PM mike the wiz has not yet responded

  
mike the wiz
Member (Idle past 42 days)
Posts: 4600
From: u.k
Joined: 05-24-2003


Message 50 of 184 (797988)
01-30-2017 7:50 AM
Reply to: Message 48 by Tangle
01-30-2017 7:43 AM


But if you're honest, a big deal is nevertheless made of fragmentary bones, especially when we consider that a lot of the transitionals such as Lucy, technically were found without feet. Rhodocetus was found without a tail fluke which Gingerich now says wasn't a fluke, etc..yet it seems to me many evolutionists still stick to the stories such as whale-evolution. How can I avoid making mention of examples evolutionists have given of evolution they recanted? It is simply part of the history.
This message is a reply to:
 Message 48 by Tangle, posted 01-30-2017 7:43 AM Tangle has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 55 by Tangle, posted 01-30-2017 8:51 AM mike the wiz has responded

  
mike the wiz
Member (Idle past 42 days)
Posts: 4600
From: u.k
Joined: 05-24-2003


Message 51 of 184 (797989)
01-30-2017 7:51 AM
Reply to: Message 47 by Admin
01-30-2017 7:26 AM


Re: feed the trolls
It's a matter of judgement though isn't it Percy? If I determine a topic belongs in X section and I am perhaps not the best judge of it, then what are you asking? You are asking me to have the perfect ability to read your mind.

"Minsinformation", maybe, maybe not, I can't see any, it seems like a matter of opinion whether it is misinformation.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 47 by Admin, posted 01-30-2017 7:26 AM Admin has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 52 by Admin, posted 01-30-2017 8:10 AM mike the wiz has responded

  
Admin
Director
Posts: 12534
From: EvC Forum
Joined: 06-14-2002
Member Rating: 1.8


Message 52 of 184 (797993)
01-30-2017 8:10 AM
Reply to: Message 51 by mike the wiz
01-30-2017 7:51 AM


Re: feed the trolls
This is a science discussion board, and the Links and Information forum is for links and information that have scientific support. If you provide good supporting scientific evidence for your views in this thread then you can post your conclusions in the Links and Information forum.

--Percy
EvC Forum Director

This message is a reply to:
 Message 51 by mike the wiz, posted 01-30-2017 7:51 AM mike the wiz has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 53 by mike the wiz, posted 01-30-2017 8:29 AM Admin has responded
 Message 54 by mike the wiz, posted 01-30-2017 8:50 AM Admin has acknowledged this reply

    
mike the wiz
Member (Idle past 42 days)
Posts: 4600
From: u.k
Joined: 05-24-2003


Message 53 of 184 (797995)
01-30-2017 8:29 AM
Reply to: Message 52 by Admin
01-30-2017 8:10 AM


Re: feed the trolls
Admin writes:

This is a science discussion board, and the Links and Information forum is for links and information that have scientific support. If you provide good supporting scientific evidence for your views in this thread then you can post your conclusions in the Links and Information forum.

"It's your world, boss." - Bull homo, - The Shawshank Redemption.

AND you said it under, "Admin", my goodness, now I'm scared.

If there is some unsupported misinformation somewhere in there I wasn't aware of it, I only regard it as a fairly well stated summary of human evolution, though looking back it's perhaps not the most fair representation in that it may omit some information.

If this is so, I wasn't aware of it. I'm rusty as to the rules of the forum, which are rather extensive at EvC compared to the forum I usually frequent.

But it would be interesting to see if I could ever score through the impossibly high, goal, "scientific support", when according to evolutionists, that goal is only reached when something is NOT defined in anyway to support creation, whatsoever, rather than evolution.

In other words, I think you're asking me to flip a coin and get a heads, but only if I use your coin, which has tails on both sides. Don't you know nothing creationist is accepted by, "science"?

"Percy, your cake only counts as professional if baked under an examiner."
Percy; "But examiners don't accept any cakes I bake, they have said they will never examine the cakes made by evolutionists."

Don't worry, I'm not here to spam so I don't have a problem with refraining from posting links.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 52 by Admin, posted 01-30-2017 8:10 AM Admin has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 56 by Admin, posted 01-30-2017 9:27 AM mike the wiz has not yet responded

  
mike the wiz
Member (Idle past 42 days)
Posts: 4600
From: u.k
Joined: 05-24-2003


Message 54 of 184 (797999)
01-30-2017 8:50 AM
Reply to: Message 52 by Admin
01-30-2017 8:10 AM


Re: feed the trolls
I'll go one better, I shall only submit topics if I do so, from now on, through the proposed section out of good faith, to show I am willing to accept the authority of the respective admins.

I have known Percy and Moose for a long time and generally speaking they have been pretty good, objective admins, so in reality if they only requested I not do something simply because they didn't want me to, I would obey them anyway simply because we have participated in these debates for a very long time now, and call me nostalgic-mike, but I shall respect them in this matter because I am not your enemy, as an individual, and you have allowed me to post many things for many years and express my controversial views without ever banning me on biased whim.

So as a token of good will I shall not post links, unless they help me better explain something, anymore, and I will humbly obey you in this matter, old fellow.

With baba luv 4 U!

Best regards........
The gargantuan megasaur, irrefutable one, extraordinaire...

(I had to get some mischief in there at the last, to keep up my mikey-mischief, content)


This message is a reply to:
 Message 52 by Admin, posted 01-30-2017 8:10 AM Admin has acknowledged this reply

  
Tangle
Member
Posts: 5154
From: UK
Joined: 10-07-2011
Member Rating: 2.4


Message 55 of 184 (798000)
01-30-2017 8:51 AM
Reply to: Message 50 by mike the wiz
01-30-2017 7:50 AM


Mike writes:

But if you're honest, a big deal is nevertheless made of fragmentary bones,

If you wish to be honest, you need to accept that no big deal is made of anything in this tiny part biology by the scientists. These are archane areas of research that only come into the public sphere because some primitive religious believers fear that it contradicts their belief systems. What is happening is the normal scientific discourse where finds are discussed amongst specialists until a concensus emerges. Some of these things are rowed about for years. It has no baring on the overall concensus. It only interests creationists who need to make something out of nothing because they can't find anything of consequence to say.

How can I avoid making mention of examples evolutionists have given of evolution they recanted? It is simply part of the history.

Well obviously you can't. But equally obviously only corrected science is relevant. Do you dismiss Newtonian gravitional theory because a small part of it was wrong? How about flat earth? Science makes progress through discovery, correction and improvement. Only a fool with a personal agenda would look at a couple of corrected errors made over a 100 years ago and conclude from that that the settled science of evolution as it is today is in any doubt. Utter twaddle.


Je suis Charlie. Je suis Ahmed. Je suis Juif. Je suis Parisien.

"Life, don't talk to me about life" - Marvin the Paranoid Android

"Science adjusts it's views based on what's observed.
Faith is the denial of observation so that Belief can be preserved."
- Tim Minchin, in his beat poem, Storm.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 50 by mike the wiz, posted 01-30-2017 7:50 AM mike the wiz has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 57 by mike the wiz, posted 01-30-2017 12:24 PM Tangle has responded

  
Admin
Director
Posts: 12534
From: EvC Forum
Joined: 06-14-2002
Member Rating: 1.8


Message 56 of 184 (798005)
01-30-2017 9:27 AM
Reply to: Message 53 by mike the wiz
01-30-2017 8:29 AM


Re: feed the trolls
The rules can be found here: Forum Guidelines

There's nothing in the Forum Guidelines about the Links and Information forum, but please reserve it for information that has evidential support or is accurate. Your editorializing at the end of your OP made it a debate thread rather than just Links and Information.

Edited by Admin, : Grammar.


--Percy
EvC Forum Director

This message is a reply to:
 Message 53 by mike the wiz, posted 01-30-2017 8:29 AM mike the wiz has not yet responded

    
mike the wiz
Member (Idle past 42 days)
Posts: 4600
From: u.k
Joined: 05-24-2003


Message 57 of 184 (798031)
01-30-2017 12:24 PM
Reply to: Message 55 by Tangle
01-30-2017 8:51 AM


Tangle writes:

Only a fool with a personal agenda would look at a couple of corrected errors made over a 100 years ago and conclude from that that the settled science of evolution as it is today is in any doubt. Utter twaddle.

Well, that's not what I was doing anyway, the summary included for example, Lucy, I assume that's part of the claims of human evolution?

Really this is a summary of the candidates for human evolution, we have several species in homo and the pithecines, which seems to make a tenuous case for evolution, it has nothing to do with consensus from my point of view, it has everything to do with evaluating the case to see if it is strong. It seems to me the case for human evolution is not strong, and it is highly explainable and parsimonious to accept we are seeing a variety of extinct apes and a variety of human beings. All those other motives that you mention, exist in your head.

Tangle writes:

Only a fool

Tangle writes:

But you and your kind are doing a lot of harm to your belief system by your egotism, disingenuity, and, let's be frank, plain lies.

Tangle writes:

Don't you feel a fraud churning out the crap that even you know is crap? It's just narcissism isn't it?

Yes, when we're talking about trolls, I've noticed that primarily your posts seems to consist of tomato throwing.

An obvious contrast to my posts to you, which contain no personal comments about you. Perhaps the, "admin" should concentrate on the true trolling activity.

I am merely assessing claims, an evaluation of human evolution. That is all I am doing. If I find it is a strong case I will infer it from the data, if it isn't I will infer it. That's really all that's happening, and it seems to me that insulting me won't mean that there is a strong case for human evolution. Call me weird that way, I guess. Lol


This message is a reply to:
 Message 55 by Tangle, posted 01-30-2017 8:51 AM Tangle has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 58 by New Cat's Eye, posted 01-30-2017 12:48 PM mike the wiz has responded
 Message 63 by Tangle, posted 01-30-2017 4:14 PM mike the wiz has not yet responded

  
New Cat's Eye
Member
Posts: 11812
From: near St. Louis
Joined: 01-27-2005
Member Rating: 1.6


Message 58 of 184 (798040)
01-30-2017 12:48 PM
Reply to: Message 57 by mike the wiz
01-30-2017 12:24 PM


Really this is a summary of the candidates for human evolution,

But it is so outdated it is either incorrect or even fraudulent.

I am merely assessing claims, an evaluation of human evolution. That is all I am doing.

I dunno, man, you went to a creationist source that has a ~20 year old copy right... it's hard to trust that approach as not having an ulterior motive.

If I find it is a strong case I will infer it from the data, if it isn't I will infer it. That's really all that's happening,

You could be doing a much better job.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 57 by mike the wiz, posted 01-30-2017 12:24 PM mike the wiz has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 59 by mike the wiz, posted 01-30-2017 1:27 PM New Cat's Eye has responded

  
mike the wiz
Member (Idle past 42 days)
Posts: 4600
From: u.k
Joined: 05-24-2003


Message 59 of 184 (798048)
01-30-2017 1:27 PM
Reply to: Message 58 by New Cat's Eye
01-30-2017 12:48 PM


Cat's eye writes:

But it is so outdated it is either incorrect or even fraudulent.

In what way, specifically? Because it mentions things that were once accepted? If it presents it as though it is now the accepted evidence this would be misleading perhaps.

Cat's eye writes:

I dunno, man, you went to a creationist source that has a ~20 year old copy right... it's hard to trust that approach as not having an ulterior motive.

I didn't check the date. I read data and if it strikes me as logicallly sound or meritorious in some way I will accept it. It's age isn't relevant because of the fallacy of Argumentum Ad Novitatem and Argumentum Ad Antiquitatem, respectively.

"ahh, the old is always better." WRONG.
"ahh, science is the age of reason and enlightenment, religion is old, the dark ages." WRONG.

Cat's eye writes:

You could be doing a much better job.

This is just a bare assertion though. You comments are more cordial, I appreciate the lack of eggs and tomatoes perhaps.

It seems to me I am correct, that a transitional between a foot from arboreal brachiators, and a bipedal human, should consist of transitional stages, rather than two distinct groups that either have ape anatomy or human anatomy, with blurred edges.

I believe those more archaic features in humans are largely superficial, and ironically many evolutionary scientists would agree, (unlike the amateur evolutionists here).. for everything within, "homo" is within, well...."human", and really there doesn't seem to necessarily be any human evolution. And it seems to me Lucy is definitely still bandied as an ape with human feet.

So when you say, I, "could be doing better", what else can I really do? The riddle is easy - that's all things are in life, riddles, and I am good at solving riddles. The answer to this one seems obvious to me, the circumstantial evidence for human evolution is by no means a strong case. Circumstantial evidence that can only give you a more confusing and tenuous, " evolutionary bush", but where do the excuses end? At what stage do you at least entertain the possibility that the evidence expected to be there, isn't there because it never existed? That may look like Argumentum Ad Ignorantiam but it isn't because absence of evidence is not evidence of absence BUT IT IS if the evidence is conspicuously absent.

EXAMPLE; the claim is an orange snooker ball. I check out Bob's table, I don't see any orange ball. I check the pockets, it's not there. Okay, fair enough, it could be kept in the original snooker set box which has the right number of compartments for each ball. Fair enough, it's a possibility, but now I check the box and guess what, there is no orange ball AND all of the spaces are taken up when we take all of his balls off the snooker table and put them in the box.

Question; at what stage does the negative evidence COUNT as falsification evidence?

For example, if someone claims 1 billion whales have just washed ashore, are you saying the absence of those whales, would not negate the claim?

Think about it - if evolution had not happened then the evidence we could only expect is the lack of evidence.

...Just think it over.....You request I could do better but really how smart do you want me to be, I'm not omniscient, am I? All I can do is my best, the same as anyone else, and many people are more indolent than I am. You can either figure it out or you can't. It seems to me I have, but short of explaining it with hand-puppets for the likes of Tangle and Pressie/DR A, what else can an innocent mikey-saur do?

"I can feel the conflict within....let go of your hate!" - Luke Skywalker.
"There is no conflict!!" - Darth Vader.

Give it up, cat's eye - and follow the Lord's wisdom. You no longer belong to the darkside. Time to stop kissing evolutionary butt.

Edited by mike the wiz, : No reason given.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 58 by New Cat's Eye, posted 01-30-2017 12:48 PM New Cat's Eye has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 61 by New Cat's Eye, posted 01-30-2017 2:57 PM mike the wiz has not yet responded

  
mike the wiz
Member (Idle past 42 days)
Posts: 4600
From: u.k
Joined: 05-24-2003


Message 60 of 184 (798052)
01-30-2017 1:59 PM
Reply to: Message 7 by Modulous
01-15-2017 6:29 PM


Modulous writes:

Except the ones that have been documented.

Which you say are ancestors.

Modulous writes:

That is tautological. The links that are not missing are just links.

A moot point. Darwin said they would be found. The missing links should not still be missing, which is the point being made, which strikes me as a rather had point to miss.

Modulous writes:

150 years ago we didn't know about helium, the germ theory of disease, weather forecasting, Maxwell relations, Rayleigh Scattering, oceanography, Boltzmann equations, the photoconductivity of selenium, thermionic emisisons, Mycobacterium leprae, heroin, DDT, Antarctica, Bacillus anthracis, silent dog whistles, telephone communication, Phobos and Deimos, Iguanadon, scandium, Venn diagrams, piezoelectric effects, the transmission of yellow fever, that squaring the circle is impossible, cathode rays, protons or the function of the pancreas.

That is true, but 150 years ago evolution-theory existed.

Modulous writes:

Since humans are apes, our ancestors must be very ape-like, or even apes themselves.

Your claim is that humans are apes, but anatomically we aren't. I don't accept tenuous DNA comparison as that only applies when we KNOW something is related, but in fact anatomically apes are closer to monkeys. It is the begging-the-question fallacy you commit here. To look at the main defining characteristics of monkeys, apes, and humans please read this opening message here, as you can see, apes are closer to monkeys, human beings can be described as primates, but as evolutionists you have to prove your claim we are apes;

http://evolutionfairytale.com/forum/index.php?/topic/6663...

So your bare-assertion we are apes, is of little logical worth.

Evolution is still accepted as the explanation for the diversity of apes and hominids. It has not been vanquished.

Another bare assertion. This type of sophistry only means something to evolutionists, who commonly argue argumentum ad verecundiam and argumentum ad populum as though this proves something. A neurotic agreement BY evolutionists, that evolution is true, is not impressive. It isn't the best explanation because it is less parsimonious to invoke millions of missing transitions, for example where are the transitionals for the quadruped progenitors for apes?

Modulous writes:

f you want a story, go pick up a story book. In the meantime scientists will continue to attempt to reconstruct natural history.

The Great Apes (Hominidae) appear about 15mya
Pierolapithecus and other Homininae appear about 13mya
Sahelanthropus and Orrorin and other Hominini at about 6-7mya
Australopithecus about 3-4mya, a cousin group of the family Hominidae and potentially part of the group that is ancestral to Homo
Kenyanthropus about 3mya, closely related to Australopithecus

An argument from silence. That things, "appear" at certain of your dates, doesn't mean it follows they did not exist previously. You are quite happy to argue missing transitionals existed even though they would be ABUNDANTLY silent, for the missing transitionals are thousands of forms, not the odd hominid. (double standard, you would argue the VAST transitions did exist, despite their silence yet argue one or two homo sapiens should be found)

For example I could argue thus;

"Pines for a long time did not appear earlier than X date therefore it didn't exist previously"

But then they found a wollemi pine near on 300 fictional millions of years old. They have also now found grass with dinos, and mammals in their bellies.

EXAMPLE;

"If we find Lystrosaurus with species P then they lived at the same time"
"we don't find them together therefore they didn't"

Denial of the antecedent!

Modulous writes:

We know, given fossil scarcity of hominids, we aren't likely to find direct ancestors which we can be 100% confident are direct ancestors. But we've do have a fair amount of information on how the hominid branch of apes changed over time leading us to the modern extant groups of gorillas, chimpanzees, bonobos and humans and the explanation for these changes has remained consistent for over 150 years: they evolved.

An that is a logically worthless statement. First of all the posteriori EXCUSE that "fossil scarcity" would mean you wouldn't find the transitionals, is mostly circular reasoning. In this thread opening message here, I used deductive reason to totally refute this type of ad-hoc sophistry; nor can you affirm the consequent by saying that this picture you believe evidences evolution, therefore means "they evolved,", for that conclusion is affirmation-of-the-consequent. Real scientists don't argue proof, and certain conclusions of evolution, but amateur evolutionists really motivated by atheism, like you, on boards like this, do.

"If we evolved we might expect certain circumstantial evidences P, X and Y"
We do find them, therefore they evolved."

100% FALSE, Modulous.

I have dealt with ALL of the excuses for evolution in this thread;

http://evolutionfairytale.com/forum/index.php?/topic/6685...

The fact is, there is no reasonable argument that can enable you to say that "the expected direct evidence is not there, therefore this other indirect evidence means we evolved anyway".

That's INSUFFICIENT. Do you know LITTLE about the burden of proof? Circumstantial evidence, indirect evidence that superman exists, can in no way replace direct evidence, or are you saying you would believe superman existed based on circumstantial evidence, like with this comment that you believe the evidence shows we evolved from apes?

Absurd. There are no genuine logically meritorious excuses for the various ad-hoc sophistry of appealing to none-existent gaps in the record, the transitionals if evolution occurred, would so swamp all other forms that to see none of the intermediates is the weakest argument possible.

Edited by mike the wiz, : No reason given.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 7 by Modulous, posted 01-15-2017 6:29 PM Modulous has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 62 by Modulous, posted 01-30-2017 3:08 PM mike the wiz has not yet responded

  
Prev123
4
56
...
13Next
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2015 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.0 Beta
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2017