Understanding through Discussion


Welcome! You are not logged in. [ Login ]
EvC Forum active members: 120 (8763 total)
Current session began: 
Page Loaded: 06-24-2017 8:02 AM
141 online now:
jar, JonF, kbertsche, PaulK, Phat (AdminPhat), RAZD, Tangle (7 members, 134 visitors)
Chatting now:  Chat room empty
Newest Member: aristotle
Post Volume:
Total: 811,977 Year: 16,583/21,208 Month: 2,472/3,593 Week: 585/882 Day: 17/86 Hour: 0/3

Announcements: Reporting debate problems OR discussing moderation actions/inactions


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Prev1
...
56
7
8910Next
Author Topic:   Science is Revealed Truth
Davidjay 
Suspended Member
Posts: 1026
From: B.C Canada
Joined: 11-05-2004
Member Rating: 1.0


Message 91 of 150 (808962)
05-15-2017 9:08 AM
Reply to: Message 89 by xongsmith
05-14-2017 3:14 PM


Re: Evolution theory concerns branching !!!
X, you might consider not using the word, branching, because on the Evolution is a racist doctrine thread... evolutionists repeat over and over again that evolution is not branching.

The graphs show branching, the theory talks about branching, but in that thread they adamantly deny any 'branching' as they dont want to show that evolution branches.

Please go there and instruct them to just admit that evolution theorises a branching of species into new kinds of species.


.
The Lord is the GREAT SCIENTIST as He created SCIENCE and ALL LAWS and ALL MATTER and of course ALL LIFE. God is the Great Architect, Designer and Mathematician. Evolutioon is not mathematical and says there is no DESIGN but that all things came about by sheer LUCK.

.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 89 by xongsmith, posted 05-14-2017 3:14 PM xongsmith has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 96 by xongsmith, posted 05-15-2017 2:04 PM Davidjay has not yet responded

    
Tangle
Member
Posts: 4766
From: UK
Joined: 10-07-2011
Member Rating: 4.1


(4)
Message 92 of 150 (808968)
05-15-2017 9:39 AM
Reply to: Message 90 by Davidjay
05-15-2017 9:05 AM


Re: Revealed truth.... we came from extinct clade Euarchonta
Davidjay writes:

I say our ancestors were human, and so who do you say our ancestors were ?

This is as simple as I can make it. Do try to understand it so that you don't keep making silly mistakes.

quote:
Chimpanzees are apes and one of our closest animal relatives - their scientific name is Pan troglodytes.

Now, imagine that you are standing face to face with a female chimpanzee - let’s call her Pan. With your left hand you are holding the hand of your mother and your mother is holding the right hand of her mother and so on for thousands of generations back into the past. By doing this, you know as an absolute certainty that you are descended directly on your mother’s side to everyone in the chain.

Imagine that Pan is doing the same but with her right hand.

You now have two imaginary lines of women and female chimps holding hands going backwards in time - like a railway track with women and chimps lining each side.

You can now walk down the centre of the rails and look carefully at your mother's family line and the chimp's family line going back millions of years.

So what would do you see?

Walking back about 200,000 years on the human side you see a mother who’s husband was a chap science named Heidelberg Man (Homo heidelbergensis ) she’s distinctly human, using tools and standing upright, probably hairless and very tall – the males are up to 7 feet tall. This is the first different species that we’ve come across in our chain. But you wouldn’t be able to tell exactly when Homo sapiens (people) merged into Heidelberg because each mother would look almost identical to the next – you can’t see the join. The changes from mother to mother are so gradual that you only see a change by comparing mothers thousands or millions of years apart. We only now know that Heidelberg is different from us because we’ve found his fossilised remains and we can compare it to ourselves today.

This is why there’s no such thing as a transitional fossil or a missing link; every fossil is a transitional fossil and every living species is in transition to the next – if we had a fossil for every mother in the lines, even the experts wouldn’t be able to say where a separate species had been formed. We can only guess with hindsight.

If you find this hard to grasp or you think it’s impossible for one species to change slowly into another we can see it happening today. For example, we call species that change slowly over geographic areas rather than over time, ring species.

Here in the UK the Herring Gull and the Lesser Black-backed Gull are distinct and non-interbreeding species. But if you physically follow the Herring Gull west towards North America it gradually blurs into something more like a Lesser Black-backed Gull. It carries on changing towards Siberia and when it finally returns to Western Europe the Herring Gull has become a Lesser Black-backed Gull and the two species don’t interbreed. At no point in the ring can you say exactly where it changed species – it’s a gradual merging of characteristics over distance.

As you walk back further, at about 500,000 years ago, you’d see a branch form and go off sideways from our human line, these are the Neanderthals (Homo neanderthalensis). They lived along side us but developed separately. There may even be Neanderthal mothers in our line, because we think that for some time there was interbreeding.

And so on down the line of mothers through increasingly apelike creatures until at about 2.5 million years ago we reach an animal called the Southern African ape (Australopithecus africanis). This creature is small – around 4 feet, with a brain a third the size of ours and although she stands upright like us, she’s covered in hair and is distinctly apelike. We used to think that this is roughly where chimps split from the human line but modern molecular genetics tells us that it was earlier.

We have to walk much farther down the lines to get to where most evolution scientists think chimps branch off - somewhere about 7m years ago. This mother would have looked something like a chap called ‘Taumai’ (Sahelanthropus tchadensis). He has the same brain size as a modern chimp but his face is a little more like a human than a chimp.

No one knows for sure whether Taumai is the point where chimps start off on their own line but we do know one thing for certain:

Wherever the split actually happened, at this point in the two lines of human and chimp descendants you would see that the right hand of a mother from the chimp line is now holding the left hand of a mother from the human line.
The lines have met – the ancient chimp and the ancient human have the same mother.

This mother starts the lines to both Pan and you, so Pan is your distant cousin. And both you, the human, and Pan, the ape are still here.

So the apes developed along one line and we humans along another. We were in competition with each other whilst in the forest but the reason that there wasn’t only one final surviving winner is because our ancestors moved from the trees onto the open savannah grasslands whilst the apes stayed in the forest.

Once in the open we HAD to adapt to survive in the new environment; walking upright in order to run quickly and for long durations, losing hair to keep cool, developing tool use in order to hunt. The apes in the forest were already adapted to their environment so they developed along their own arboreal paths.



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 90 by Davidjay, posted 05-15-2017 9:05 AM Davidjay has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 93 by Davidjay, posted 05-15-2017 9:44 AM Tangle has responded

  
Davidjay 
Suspended Member
Posts: 1026
From: B.C Canada
Joined: 11-05-2004
Member Rating: 1.0


Message 93 of 150 (808970)
05-15-2017 9:44 AM
Reply to: Message 92 by Tangle
05-15-2017 9:39 AM


Re: Revealed truth.... we came from extinct clade Euarchonta
Sorry Tangle, you seem to be tangled up again...

Treeshrews were suppose to be our primate ancestor, not a cousin or a brother, but a forefather.... all four of you said it, and finally answered what evolution believes in, as our common ancestor.

Do not switch back to a primate and confuse your branching....

So your silly chimps do not apply, they are primates, and that is a secondary mistake of yours or a theoretical branching of yours.

So come on evolutionists quite switching horses in mid stream or mid branch.


.
The Lord is the GREAT SCIENTIST as He created SCIENCE and ALL LAWS and ALL MATTER and of course ALL LIFE. God is the Great Architect, Designer and Mathematician. Evolutioon is not mathematical and says there is no DESIGN but that all things came about by sheer LUCK.

.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 92 by Tangle, posted 05-15-2017 9:39 AM Tangle has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 94 by Tangle, posted 05-15-2017 10:37 AM Davidjay has not yet responded
 Message 98 by RAZD, posted 05-15-2017 3:07 PM Davidjay has not yet responded
 Message 103 by Taq, posted 05-16-2017 10:42 AM Davidjay has not yet responded

    
Tangle
Member
Posts: 4766
From: UK
Joined: 10-07-2011
Member Rating: 4.1


(1)
Message 94 of 150 (808980)
05-15-2017 10:37 AM
Reply to: Message 93 by Davidjay
05-15-2017 9:44 AM


Re: Revealed truth.... we came from extinct clade Euarchonta
Davidjay writes:

Treeshrews were suppose to be our primate ancestor, not a cousin or a brother, but a forefather.... all four of you said it, and finally answered what evolution believes in, as our common ancestor.

The description of the chimp and man was to show you those two branches from the same limb. So that you can picture how branching occurs and see how we are related through time. Did you understand it?

The shrewlike creature you're referring to is the common ancestor of both chimps and humans. You simply have to follow the limb even further back in time. What is your problem understanding this? You seem to be trying to make the same mistake you made with bats.

You must realise that you can't argue with us unless you understand the basics


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 93 by Davidjay, posted 05-15-2017 9:44 AM Davidjay has not yet responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 95 by Coyote, posted 05-15-2017 10:45 AM Tangle has not yet responded

  
Coyote
Member
Posts: 5863
Joined: 01-12-2008
Member Rating: 4.0


(6)
Message 95 of 150 (808984)
05-15-2017 10:45 AM
Reply to: Message 94 by Tangle
05-15-2017 10:37 AM


Re: Revealed truth...he's a troll
You must realise that you can't argue with us unless you understand the basics

I don't think he's interested in arguing with us. He certainly doesn't consider our replies.

Rather he takes little bits from our replies and misrepresents them to suit his a priori agenda, which he preaches at every opportunity.

It looks like he's just here to try and stir up the evilutionists. In other words, he's just a troll.


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 94 by Tangle, posted 05-15-2017 10:37 AM Tangle has not yet responded

  
xongsmith
Member
Posts: 1779
From: massachusetts US
Joined: 01-01-2009
Member Rating: 3.9


Message 96 of 150 (809021)
05-15-2017 2:04 PM
Reply to: Message 91 by Davidjay
05-15-2017 9:08 AM


Re: Evolution theory concerns branching !!!
You apparently are either unable to understand how an evolutionary tree with descent works or else you are just a troll, as Coyote put it.


- xongsmith, 5.7d

This message is a reply to:
 Message 91 by Davidjay, posted 05-15-2017 9:08 AM Davidjay has not yet responded

    
xongsmith
Member
Posts: 1779
From: massachusetts US
Joined: 01-01-2009
Member Rating: 3.9


Message 97 of 150 (809023)
05-15-2017 2:13 PM
Reply to: Message 90 by Davidjay
05-15-2017 9:05 AM


Re: Revealed truth.... we came from extinct clade Euarchonta
DJ asks
...who do you say our ancestors were ?
Please no semantics or lengthy double speak, just a straight forward answer would suffice

See Tangle's post, Message 92.

I would add that if you continue down his railroad much further, you will get to the ancestor of the treeshrews.


- xongsmith, 5.7d

This message is a reply to:
 Message 90 by Davidjay, posted 05-15-2017 9:05 AM Davidjay has not yet responded

    
RAZD
Member
Posts: 18654
From: the other end of the sidewalk
Joined: 03-14-2004
Member Rating: 3.8


(2)
Message 98 of 150 (809035)
05-15-2017 3:07 PM
Reply to: Message 93 by Davidjay
05-15-2017 9:44 AM


Re: Revealed truth.... we came from extinct clade Euarchonta
So I reread the Scientific American Article, Introducing the Treeshrews: They Don't All Live in Trees and They Aren't Close to Shrews, and nowhere in the article did it say that tree shrews were ancestral to primates (and hence to people), so Davidjay's continued assertion to this effect is making the same mistake he made with bats. It's the same pattern of claim and insinuation without any apparent acceptance of corrections.

Treeshrews were suppose to be our primate ancestor, not a cousin or a brother, but a forefather.... all four of you said it, and finally answered what evolution believes in, as our common ancestor.

This statement is clearly false, and was never said by the article he refers to (but doesn't quote) nor any post in any of these threads. Repeating falsehoods aggressively and rejecting correct information is not debate.

What the article says about the descent of tree shrews:

quote:
Treeshrews: where in the placental family tree? Traditionally, treeshrews were regarded as members of Insectivora, this being due both to their highly superficial similarity to shrews, and to the idea that Insectivora should serve as a catch-all group for a poorly defined, amorphous group of placentals that lack the specialisations of other lineages. During the 1920s, Wilfred Le Gros Clark and Albertina Carlsson made it obvious that treeshrews share anatomical characters with Primates (Huxley had also noted this connection in 1872), and this eventually led to the proposal that they should be removed from Insectivora and placed within that group (Simpson 1945, Sargis 2004).

However, treeshrews are so different from classic primates – and so obviously outside the clade that includes all ‘true’ primates fossil and living – that the idea of distinct, ordinal status became increasingly popular from the 1960s onwards (Van Valen 1965, McKenna 1966, Szalay 1968). Today they are universally identified as the isolated group Scandentia*. Bony features used to unite Scandentia mostly concern details of braincase vasculature but fusion of the scaphoid and lunate in the wrist also appears distinctive (Silcox et al. 2005).

Current molecular consensus for euarchontans and kin.
Other phylogenetic hypotheses are available.

Treeshrews might not be part of Primates, but they do share anatomical characters (in the skeleton and in numerous organ systems) with primates as well as with the so-called flying lemurs (Dermoptera). The idea that they’re part of the placental group Euarchonta is therefore universally accepted… more or less (read on). Some molecular studies suggest an especially close relationship between treeshrews and flying lemurs (Murphy et al. 2001, Olson et al. 2005, Springer et al. 2007, Prasad et al. 2008, Asher et al. 2009). This hypothesis has become quite popular and the clade that contains the two has been termed Sundatheria (Olson et al. 2005) or Paraprimates (Springer et al. 2007). ‘Sundatheria’ refers to the idea that these mammals are strongly associated with Sundaland, the biogeographical region that incorporates Borneo, Sumatra, peninsula Malaysia and the adjacent continental shelf region that would have been exposed during times of low sea level. ...


It is hard to see how anyone doing even a cursory reading of the article could come to the conclusion that it says treeshrews are ancestral to humans, particularly when that picture show a clear and unambiguous cladogram with primates and Scandentia evolving separately from their Euarconta common ancestor.

Euarconta is neither Primate nor Scandentia, but ancestral to both.

Only a loser would try to beat people over the head with demonstrably false information.

Enjoy


we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand
RebelAmerican☆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 93 by Davidjay, posted 05-15-2017 9:44 AM Davidjay has not yet responded

  
Dr Adequate
Member
Posts: 15936
Joined: 07-20-2006
Member Rating: 3.4


(1)
Message 99 of 150 (809049)
05-15-2017 4:35 PM
Reply to: Message 84 by Davidjay
05-13-2017 8:52 AM


Re: Revealed truth.... we came from extinct clade Euarchonta
So this mysterious non existant clade of Euarchonta... is suppose to be our ancestor.......

No. Euarchonta contains over 400 living species. It is not extinct. Nor is it "supposed to be our ancestor".

Why do you talk shit all the time?


This message is a reply to:
 Message 84 by Davidjay, posted 05-13-2017 8:52 AM Davidjay has not yet responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 100 by RAZD, posted 05-16-2017 5:37 AM Dr Adequate has responded

  
RAZD
Member
Posts: 18654
From: the other end of the sidewalk
Joined: 03-14-2004
Member Rating: 3.8


Message 100 of 150 (809063)
05-16-2017 5:37 AM
Reply to: Message 99 by Dr Adequate
05-15-2017 4:35 PM


Re: Revealed truth.... we came from extinct clade Euarchonta
So this mysterious non existant clade of Euarchonta... is suppose to be our ancestor.......

No. Euarchonta contains over 400 living species. It is not extinct. Nor is it "supposed to be our ancestor".

He's talking about the first, parent population common ancestor to all currently living descendants, and apparently still doesn't understand how clades work.

Enjoy


we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand
RebelAmerican☆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 99 by Dr Adequate, posted 05-15-2017 4:35 PM Dr Adequate has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 101 by Dr Adequate, posted 05-16-2017 10:12 AM RAZD has acknowledged this reply

  
Dr Adequate
Member
Posts: 15936
Joined: 07-20-2006
Member Rating: 3.4


Message 101 of 150 (809090)
05-16-2017 10:12 AM
Reply to: Message 100 by RAZD
05-16-2017 5:37 AM


Re: Revealed truth.... we came from extinct clade Euarchonta
He's talking about the first, parent population common ancestor ...

No. Perhaps that's what he wants to be talking about, but he isn't.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 100 by RAZD, posted 05-16-2017 5:37 AM RAZD has acknowledged this reply

  
Davidjay 
Suspended Member
Posts: 1026
From: B.C Canada
Joined: 11-05-2004
Member Rating: 1.0


Message 102 of 150 (809105)
05-16-2017 10:39 AM


Evolutionists are linguists and not scientists.

They say we came from treeshrews and now try to say we didn;t come from treee shrews, but refuse to answer where we came from..

Poor deluded treeshrew people.

Creationists say, Humans came from humans. Our ancestors were humans, we are the same yesterday and toady and forever.

Evolutionists dont know where we came from, and just make it up as they go, and they dont know where we are, and dont know where they are going.

Jesus does

IHS

David


Evolutyionists are used to forcing their theory on students and scientists. They are not used to answering any questions on this theory, because it is their religion. And as a religion it must be accepted by faith.... It is not science and it is not logical or rational and has no facts behind it. Evolution is a con and a LIE. A big one, but because it is forced on the gullible and on students, they must accept it. This their modus operandi...and so when faced with sane biological opposition, they can only be subjective rather than objective.

Replies to this message:
 Message 104 by Taq, posted 05-16-2017 10:43 AM Davidjay has not yet responded
 Message 105 by Dr Adequate, posted 05-16-2017 11:09 AM Davidjay has not yet responded

    
Taq
Member
Posts: 6632
Joined: 03-06-2009
Member Rating: 4.1


Message 103 of 150 (809107)
05-16-2017 10:42 AM
Reply to: Message 93 by Davidjay
05-15-2017 9:44 AM


Re: Revealed truth.... we came from extinct clade Euarchonta
Davidjay writes:

Treeshrews were suppose to be our primate ancestor, not a cousin or a brother, but a forefather.... all four of you said it, and finally answered what evolution believes in, as our common ancestor.

Quote?


This message is a reply to:
 Message 93 by Davidjay, posted 05-15-2017 9:44 AM Davidjay has not yet responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 106 by RAZD, posted 05-16-2017 1:40 PM Taq has not yet responded

  
Taq
Member
Posts: 6632
Joined: 03-06-2009
Member Rating: 4.1


Message 104 of 150 (809108)
05-16-2017 10:43 AM
Reply to: Message 102 by Davidjay
05-16-2017 10:39 AM


Davidjay writes:

They say we came from treeshrews and now try to say we didn;t come from treee shrews,

Please quote any of us where we said that we are descended from modern tree shrews.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 102 by Davidjay, posted 05-16-2017 10:39 AM Davidjay has not yet responded

  
Dr Adequate
Member
Posts: 15936
Joined: 07-20-2006
Member Rating: 3.4


Message 105 of 150 (809120)
05-16-2017 11:09 AM
Reply to: Message 102 by Davidjay
05-16-2017 10:39 AM


They say we came from treeshrews ...

David, you are telling stupid lies again.

Whom do you hope to deceive?


This message is a reply to:
 Message 102 by Davidjay, posted 05-16-2017 10:39 AM Davidjay has not yet responded

  
Prev1
...
56
7
8910Next
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2015 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.0 Beta
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2017