Understanding through Discussion


Welcome! You are not logged in. [ Login ]
EvC Forum active members: 113 (8790 total)
Current session began: 
Page Loaded: 09-24-2017 11:56 AM
350 online now:
Coragyps, Coyote, DrJones*, dwise1, jar, PaulK, Tangle, Tanypteryx (8 members, 342 visitors)
Chatting now:  Chat room empty
Newest Member: Porkncheese
Upcoming Birthdays: Tempe 12ft Chicken
Post Volume:
Total: 819,348 Year: 23,954/21,208 Month: 1,919/2,468 Week: 12/416 Day: 12/24 Hour: 2/2

Announcements: Reporting debate problems OR discussing moderation actions/inactions


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
RewPrev1
...
1213
14
1516
...
88NextFF
Author Topic:   Nothing in biology makes sense except in the light of evolution.
Tangle
Member
Posts: 5065
From: UK
Joined: 10-07-2011
Member Rating: 3.1


Message 196 of 1311 (808892)
05-14-2017 3:10 PM
Reply to: Message 193 by Dredge
05-14-2017 5:05 AM


Dredge writes:

If children are taught that Darwinism is nonsense, they aren't missing out on anything, because biology doesn't need Darwinism; it's just an irrelevant atheist creation-story. Darwinism doesn't advance any science in any way; and since it is only theorising, it doesn't qualify as true knowledge.

That's too big for a bumper sticker. Needs work.


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 193 by Dredge, posted 05-14-2017 5:05 AM Dredge has not yet responded

  
Coyote
Member
Posts: 5989
Joined: 01-12-2008
Member Rating: 3.5


Message 197 of 1311 (808895)
05-14-2017 4:06 PM
Reply to: Message 193 by Dredge
05-14-2017 5:05 AM


Darwinism doesn't advance any science in any way; and since it is only theorising, it doesn't qualify as true knowledge.

You need to look up definitions of terms used in science. Your ignorance of those terms is blatant. And it does not advance your argument when we can see such obvious mistakes.


Religious belief does not constitute scientific evidence, nor does it convey scientific knowledge.

Belief gets in the way of learning--Robert A. Heinlein

In the name of diversity, college student demands to be kept in ignorance of the culture that made diversity a value--StultisTheFool

It's not what we don't know that hurts, it's what we know that ain't so--Will Rogers

If I am entitled to something, someone else is obliged to pay--Jerry Pournelle

If a religion's teachings are true, then it should have nothing to fear from science...--dwise1

"Multiculturalism" demands that the US be tolerant of everything except its own past, culture, traditions, and identity.

Liberals claim to want to give a hearing to other views, but then are shocked and offended to discover that there are other points of view--William F. Buckley Jr.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 193 by Dredge, posted 05-14-2017 5:05 AM Dredge has not yet responded

  
Taq
Member
Posts: 7141
Joined: 03-06-2009
Member Rating: 3.9


Message 198 of 1311 (809017)
05-15-2017 1:45 PM
Reply to: Message 193 by Dredge
05-14-2017 5:05 AM


Dredge writes:

If children are taught that Darwinism is nonsense, they aren't missing out on anything, because biology doesn't need Darwinism;

Your claim is disproved in posts 4, 9, 12, 13, and 17 in this thread alone.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 193 by Dredge, posted 05-14-2017 5:05 AM Dredge has not yet responded

  
Taq
Member
Posts: 7141
Joined: 03-06-2009
Member Rating: 3.9


Message 199 of 1311 (809018)
05-15-2017 1:46 PM
Reply to: Message 194 by Dredge
05-14-2017 5:13 AM


Dredge writes:

If children are taught that Darwinism is nonsense, they aren't missing out on anything, because biology doesn't need Darwinism;

This is rich. Creationists refuse to even look at a single fossil. The last thing they want to do is produce an honest definition for "transitional fossil" because they know the moment they do they will be presented with fossil after fossil that fits that definition.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 194 by Dredge, posted 05-14-2017 5:13 AM Dredge has not yet responded

  
New Cat's Eye
Member
Posts: 11707
From: near St. Louis
Joined: 01-27-2005
Member Rating: 2.3


Message 200 of 1311 (809025)
05-15-2017 2:23 PM
Reply to: Message 193 by Dredge
05-14-2017 5:05 AM



If children are taught that Darwinism is nonsense, they aren't missing out on anything, because biology doesn't need Darwinism; it's just an irrelevant atheist creation-story. Darwinism doesn't advance any science in any way; and since it is only theorising, it doesn't qualify as true knowledge.

Cool story, bro. Now, while you are wallowing in your ignorance, scientists will continue to employ the Theory of Evolution as a working theory that explains biological phenomenon.

It simply works - despite your vitriol.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 193 by Dredge, posted 05-14-2017 5:05 AM Dredge has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 203 by Dredge, posted 05-16-2017 5:59 PM New Cat's Eye has responded

  
CRR
Member
Posts: 578
From: Australia
Joined: 10-19-2016
Member Rating: 1.2


Message 201 of 1311 (809064)
05-16-2017 5:58 AM
Reply to: Message 194 by Dredge
05-14-2017 5:13 AM


a few bones
I like the way some paleontologists take a few bones and construct a entire creature out it - maybe even a "transitional".

Perhaps you're thinking of Pakicetus?

Top left: Gingerich’s first reconstruction.
Bottom left: what he had actually found
Top right: more complete skeleton
Bottom right: more reasonable reconstruction


This message is a reply to:
 Message 194 by Dredge, posted 05-14-2017 5:13 AM Dredge has not yet responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 202 by Taq, posted 05-16-2017 11:11 AM CRR has not yet responded

  
Taq
Member
Posts: 7141
Joined: 03-06-2009
Member Rating: 3.9


(1)
Message 202 of 1311 (809122)
05-16-2017 11:11 AM
Reply to: Message 201 by CRR
05-16-2017 5:58 AM


Re: a few bones
CRR writes:

Perhaps you're thinking of Pakicetus?

Top left: Gingerich’s first reconstruction.
Bottom left: what he had actually found
Top right: more complete skeleton
Bottom right: more reasonable reconstruction

Perhaps you are ignoring the mixture of terrestrial mammal and cetacean features found in the fossil itself, outside of any artistic reconstruction of the species. This is the part creationists always seem to ignore.

You don't need a whole, perfectly preserved fossil in order to determine that a fossil species had a mixture of features from two divergent taxa. Take Lucy for example. Looking at just the bones in the actual fossil you can find an apelike jaw, upper torso, brow ridge, and other apelike features. You can also find humanlike features such as a broad and squat pelvis and inward angled femurs (adaptations for bipedalism).

Like almost everything in science, creationists have to run away from the observations.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 201 by CRR, posted 05-16-2017 5:58 AM CRR has not yet responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 204 by Dredge, posted 05-16-2017 6:12 PM Taq has responded

  
Dredge
Member
Posts: 575
From: Australia
Joined: 09-06-2016
Member Rating: 1.3


(1)
Message 203 of 1311 (809187)
05-16-2017 5:59 PM
Reply to: Message 200 by New Cat's Eye
05-15-2017 2:23 PM


New Cat's Eye writes:

scientists will continue to employ the theory of evolution as a working theory that explains biological phenomena.

Useless talk amounting to useless science, in other words.   Not impressed, but slightly amused.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 200 by New Cat's Eye, posted 05-15-2017 2:23 PM New Cat's Eye has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 220 by New Cat's Eye, posted 05-17-2017 11:10 AM Dredge has responded

    
Dredge
Member
Posts: 575
From: Australia
Joined: 09-06-2016
Member Rating: 1.3


(1)
Message 204 of 1311 (809188)
05-16-2017 6:12 PM
Reply to: Message 202 by Taq
05-16-2017 11:11 AM


Re: a few bones
Taq writes:

Take Lucy for example

Yes, let's take Lucy ... her feet bones were missing, so she was depicted with human feet ... based solely on the fact that human foot-prints were found nearby! Real scientific, that.

Edited by Dredge, : No reason given.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 202 by Taq, posted 05-16-2017 11:11 AM Taq has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 206 by jar, posted 05-16-2017 6:30 PM Dredge has responded
 Message 216 by Taq, posted 05-17-2017 10:38 AM Dredge has responded

    
Dredge
Member
Posts: 575
From: Australia
Joined: 09-06-2016
Member Rating: 1.3


(1)
Message 205 of 1311 (809191)
05-16-2017 6:28 PM
Reply to: Message 195 by Coyote
05-14-2017 10:16 AM


Re: Bones
Coyote writes:

When you spend your whole career studying bones you can do things like that

Yep, and when you get really, really good at it, you can come up with Nebraska Man from a pig's tooth!   ... or combine the bones of an orangutan and a human to produce Piltdown Man!   That degree of scientific rigour, knowledge and expertise is possessed only by highly qualified Darwinist charlatans.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 195 by Coyote, posted 05-14-2017 10:16 AM Coyote has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 207 by Coyote, posted 05-16-2017 6:48 PM Dredge has not yet responded
 Message 208 by Dr Adequate, posted 05-16-2017 8:53 PM Dredge has not yet responded
 Message 217 by Taq, posted 05-17-2017 10:40 AM Dredge has responded

    
jar
Member
Posts: 29364
From: Texas!!
Joined: 04-20-2004
Member Rating: 3.3


(1)
Message 206 of 1311 (809192)
05-16-2017 6:30 PM
Reply to: Message 204 by Dredge
05-16-2017 6:12 PM


Re: a few bones
Dredge writes:

Yes, let's take Lucy ... her feet bones were missing, so she was depicted with human feet ... based solely on the fact that human foot-prints were found nearby! Real scientific, that.

That's a great example of why Science is so superior to fantasy and mythology and of Creationist dishonesty. The footprints were always treated as separate evidence from the Australopithecus remains. While artists may well have drawn examples of what Lucy might have looked like the fact that the skeleton was incomplete was also not just acknowledged but documented.

As additional information becomes available the conclusions get revised. In the case of Australopithecus initial ideas claimed only bipedalism fairly like modern ones but as more samples have been discovered we know know that there were several species of Australopithecus and there may well have still been arboreal traits.

It is also fact as opposed to fantasy that the foot prints do exist, that the remains do exist, that both were found in proximity, that the foot prints do not correspond to modern foot prints and the the foot prints and the remains are approximately the same age.

Science is self correcting where dogma simply perpetuates fantasy.


My Sister's Website: Rose Hill Studios     My Website: My Website

This message is a reply to:
 Message 204 by Dredge, posted 05-16-2017 6:12 PM Dredge has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 209 by CRR, posted 05-17-2017 5:54 AM jar has responded
 Message 225 by Dredge, posted 05-17-2017 5:07 PM jar has not yet responded

  
Coyote
Member
Posts: 5989
Joined: 01-12-2008
Member Rating: 3.5


(1)
Message 207 of 1311 (809193)
05-16-2017 6:48 PM
Reply to: Message 205 by Dredge
05-16-2017 6:28 PM


Re: Bones
Yep, and when you get really, really good at it, you can come up with Nebraska Man from a pig's tooth! ... or combine the bones of an orangutan and a human to produce Piltdown Man! That degree of scientific rigour, knowledge and expertise is possessed only by highly qualified Darwinist charlatans.

Two hundred-year-old cases is the best you can do?

http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/homs/a_nebraska.html
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/homs/a_piltdown.html


Religious belief does not constitute scientific evidence, nor does it convey scientific knowledge.

Belief gets in the way of learning--Robert A. Heinlein

In the name of diversity, college student demands to be kept in ignorance of the culture that made diversity a value--StultisTheFool

It's not what we don't know that hurts, it's what we know that ain't so--Will Rogers

If I am entitled to something, someone else is obliged to pay--Jerry Pournelle

If a religion's teachings are true, then it should have nothing to fear from science...--dwise1

"Multiculturalism" demands that the US be tolerant of everything except its own past, culture, traditions, and identity.

Liberals claim to want to give a hearing to other views, but then are shocked and offended to discover that there are other points of view--William F. Buckley Jr.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 205 by Dredge, posted 05-16-2017 6:28 PM Dredge has not yet responded

  
Dr Adequate
Member
Posts: 15950
Joined: 07-20-2006
Member Rating: 4.2


(2)
Message 208 of 1311 (809196)
05-16-2017 8:53 PM
Reply to: Message 205 by Dredge
05-16-2017 6:28 PM


Re: Bones
Yep, and when you get really, really good at it, you can come up with Nebraska Man from a pig's tooth! ... or combine the bones of an orangutan and a human to produce Piltdown Man! That degree of scientific rigour, knowledge and expertise is possessed only by highly qualified Darwinist charlatans.

Scientists made a couple of mistakes a hundred years or so ago, which they corrected. But creationists make many more mistakes all the time, which they don't correct. So you don't get to chide scientists.

And why beholdest thou the mote that is in thy brother's eye, but considerest not the beam that is in thine own eye? Or how wilt thou say to thy brother, Let me pull out the mote out of thine eye; and, behold, a beam is in thine own eye? Thou hypocrite, first cast out the beam out of thine own eye; and then shalt thou see clearly to cast out the mote out of thy brother's eye.

Edited by Dr Adequate, : No reason given.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 205 by Dredge, posted 05-16-2017 6:28 PM Dredge has not yet responded

  
CRR
Member
Posts: 578
From: Australia
Joined: 10-19-2016
Member Rating: 1.2


Message 209 of 1311 (809209)
05-17-2017 5:54 AM
Reply to: Message 206 by jar
05-16-2017 6:30 PM


Laetoli Footprints
the [Laetoli] foot prints do not correspond to modern foot prints

Yes they do. According to Laetoli Footprints they are in fact "hardly distinguishable from those of modern humans."
Others have said they are indistinguishable from footprints of modern humans from that area who habitually go barefoot.

I can remember when Lucy and the Laetoli prints were promoted hand in hand as proof that these were human ancestors. We now know that Australopithecus had apelike feet and almost certainly was not an obligate biped; i.e. Lucy was an ape.

A track of human footprints strongly suggests the trail was made by humans. Well that's the most logical conclusion.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 206 by jar, posted 05-16-2017 6:30 PM jar has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 210 by jar, posted 05-17-2017 6:44 AM CRR has responded
 Message 215 by Dr Adequate, posted 05-17-2017 10:12 AM CRR has not yet responded
 Message 218 by Taq, posted 05-17-2017 10:45 AM CRR has not yet responded
 Message 219 by RAZD, posted 05-17-2017 11:06 AM CRR has not yet responded

  
jar
Member
Posts: 29364
From: Texas!!
Joined: 04-20-2004
Member Rating: 3.3


Message 210 of 1311 (809210)
05-17-2017 6:44 AM
Reply to: Message 209 by CRR
05-17-2017 5:54 AM


Re: Laetoli Footprints
CRR writes:

Yes they do. According to Laetoli Footprints they are in fact "hardly distinguishable from those of modern humans."
Others have said they are indistinguishable from footprints of modern humans from that area who habitually go barefoot.

I can remember when Lucy and the Laetoli prints were promoted hand in hand as proof that these were human ancestors. We now know that Australopithecus had apelike feet and almost certainly was not an obligate biped; i.e. Lucy was an ape.

A track of human footprints strongly suggests the trail was made by humans. Well that's the most logical conclusion.

Except for the fact that they can be distinguished from modern footprints.

But your point as usual is still irrelevant and dishonest.

The footprints exist.

The fossils exist.

They were found in the same general area.

And as I pointed out, as additional evidence is found Science, unlike dogma, corrects its mistakes.


My Sister's Website: Rose Hill Studios     My Website: My Website

This message is a reply to:
 Message 209 by CRR, posted 05-17-2017 5:54 AM CRR has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 211 by CRR, posted 05-17-2017 7:10 AM jar has responded

  
RewPrev1
...
1213
14
1516
...
88NextFF
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2015 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.0 Beta
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2017