The simple fact that we don't know everything has really ruffled feathers. The truth is hard to face even when admitted by their own texts.
Even against dozens of fanatics, one man with only a basic knowledge of ToE is able to expose the fiction which is littered throughout this fairytale and expose what is most definately a pseudoscience. Willing to debate a persons belief but not the theory.
With no scientific arguments against the facts the fanatics are left with few options; Ridicule or Crawl back into their shells with their philisophical views.
In conclusion I find the arguments of both sides to be totally exagerrated. Neither side will accept the others arguments and both sides claim to be in the possession of total knowledge based on faith of scripts.
Anyways I'll leave the rest of the debate to the fanatics on both sides and go back to a real science which doesn't accept the theoretical without it being shown in practice. Where assumptions lead to fatal catastrophies. Where the laws of physics are truthful facts that remain constant and are never in doubt or questioned.
And so you reinforce what was already obvious. You really are worthless and unable to think. Very enlightening. You will of course never be an engineer, never be much of anything, and certainly never learn anything.
This is not ridicule but rather a simple statement of fact. Consider a career in cutting lawns or trash pickup. That would certainly show you have some value.
Edited by jar, : appalin spallin there is no 0 in consider.
Assuming from those skulls that man evolved from other primates what next? What did the primate evolve from and when?
You're at a university, aren't you? Well now, shouldn't that be the most perfect place for you to learn something?
There should be a building on your university. I believe that it should be called something like a library. There is so much information to be found within that building. You just could not believe it! You really need to use it! It is the most incredibly useful resource imaginable.
How old are you? 18, maybe 19. Creationist claims go back to 1980 and even earlier. Long before you were even born. Their secret is that they continue to feed you the same false claims without ever telling you that their false claims were ever addressed, let alone refuted. BTW, that means that they were lying to you.
Circa 1990, I was involved in a local popular "debate". One young man got up and announced a "recent" "scientific discovery" that would "blow you evolutionists away." He was himself blown away as the audience pointed out to him that "recent" "discovery" was at least a decade old and that it discovered nothing besides a misinterpretation of the actual data.
Most of the claims date back to around 1980 and were refuted back in the 1980's. Yet they are still being presented to creationists as the latest discoveries.
Learning the science that those claims are based on pays for itself. Even just going to the purported source of a creationist claim and reading what it actually says is often enough to refute that claim.
Here's a real-life example of what a trip to the university library can do for you. On CompuServe in the 1980's, I encountered several creationists whose dishonesty was unbelievable. Except for one creationist, Merle Hertzler, one of the first and extremely few honest creationists I have encountered in three decades. While every other creationist on CompuServe just regurgitated the creationist crap they had fed on and resorted to highly dishonest actions to avoid discussing their own claims (obviously because they did not understand their own claims), Merle was the shining exception. He engaged in discussion to the best of his ability. And, unlike the transparent lies and broken promises of his creationist brethren, when he said that he would research something, he did research it.
Honest creationists are rare and do not last long. In fact, you will find that many of this forum's opponents of creationism used to be creationists themselves. The problem for an honest creationist is that they will also research and verify creationist claims, which opens them up to discovering that those claims are false. Within a year on CompuServe, Merle had learned that YEC was false and found himself on the other side.
He tells that story at Did We Evolve? in which a visit to the university library and the research there opened his eyes:
quote:Years ago I was fighting the good fight of creation on the Internet. I argued that evolution was impossible, for it required that the genetic code had to be changed to make new kinds of animals. It did not seem feasible to me that evolution could do this. I argued in the CompuServe debate forum, basing my arguments on Michael Denton's Evolution: A Theory in Crises. My favorite illustration was the difference between mammals and reptiles. The differences between living mammals and reptiles are substantial. Mammals all have hair, mammary glands, a four-chambered heart, and the distinct mammalian ear, with three little bones inside. These features are found in no living reptiles. I argued that this is because there is no viable intermediate between the two, that an animal could have either the reptile genetic code or the mammal code but could not be in the middle.
An evolutionist disagreed with me. He told me that in the past there had been many intermediates. He said that there were animals that, for instance, had jaw and ear bones that were intermediate between reptiles and mammals. How did he know this? He gave a reference to an essay in Stephen Gould's Ten Little Piggies . I wrote back that since the local library had a large collection of children's book, I should be able to find that book. (I thought I was so funny). I borrowed the book, and found an interesting account of how bones in the reptile jaw evolved and changed through millions of years to become the mammals' ear. That sounded like such a clever tale. How could Gould believe it? Perhaps he made it up. But there was one little footnote, a footnote that would change my life. It said simply, "Allin, E. F. 1975. Evolution of the Mammalian Middle Ear. Journal of Morphology 147:403-38." That's it. That's all it said. But it was soon to have a huge impact on me. You see, I had developed this habit of looking things up, and had been making regular trips to the University of Pennsylvania library. I was getting involved in some serious discussions on the Internet, and was finding the scientific journals to be a reliable source of information. Well, I couldn't believe that a real scientific journal would take such a tale seriously, but, before I would declare victory, I needed to check it out.
On my next trip to the university, I found my way to the biomedical library and located the journal archives. I retrieved the specified journal, and started to read. I could not believe my eyes. There were detailed descriptions of many intermediate fossils. The article described in detail how the bones evolved from reptiles to mammals through a long series of mammal-like reptiles. I paged through the volume in my hand. There were hundreds of pages, all loaded with information. I looked at other journals. I found page after page describing transitional fossils. More significantly, there were all of those troublesome dates. If one arranged the fossils according to date, he could see how the bones changed with time. Each fossil species was dated at a specific time range. It all fit together. I didn't know what to think. Could all of these fossil drawings be fakes? Could all of these dates be pulled out of a hat? Did these articles consist of thousands of lies? All seemed to indicate that life evolved over many millions of years. Were all of these thousands of "facts" actually guesses? I looked around me. The room was filled with many bookshelves; each was filled with hundreds of bound journals. Were all of these journals drenched with lies? Several medical students were doing research there. Perhaps some day they would need to operate on my heart or fight some disease. Was I to believe that these medical students were in this room filled with misinformation, and that they were diligently sorting out the evolutionist lies while learning medical knowledge? How could so much error have entered this room? It made no sense.
. . .
The impact of that day in the library was truly stunning. I didn't know what to say. I could not argue against the overwhelming evidence for mammal evolution. But neither could I imagine believing it. Something had happened to me. My mind had begun to think. And it was not about to be stopped. Oh no. There is no stopping the mind set free. I went to the library and borrowed a few books on evolution and creation--diligently studying both sides of the argument. I started to read the evolutionist books with amazement. I had thought that evolutionists taught that floating cows had somehow turned into whales; that hopeful monsters had suddenly evolved without transitions; that one must have blind faith since transitional fossils did not exist; that one must simply guess at the dates for the fossils; and that one must ignore all of the evidence for young-earth creation. I was surprised to learn what these scientist actually knew about the Creationist teachings of flood geology, of the proposed young-earth proofs, and of the reported problems of evolution. And I was surprised at the answers that they had for these Creationist arguments. And I was surprised to see all the clear, logical arguments for evolution. I read with enthusiasm. I learned about isochrons, intermediate fossils, the geologic column, and much more.
I would never see the world in the same light. Several weeks later I found myself staring at the fossil of a large dinosaur in a museum. I stared with amazement. I looked at the details of every bone in the back. And I wondered if a design so marvelous could really have evolved. But I knew that someone could show me another animal that had lived earlier and was a likely predecessor of this dinosaur that I was observing. And I knew that one could trace bones back through the fossil record to illustrate the path through which this creature had evolved. I stared and I pondered. And then I pondered some more.
Within days, I had lost interest in fighting evolution. I began to read more and speak less. When I did debate, I confined my arguments to the origin of life issue. But I could no longer ignore what I had learned. Several months later I first sent out an email with probing questions to a Creationist who had arrived on the scene. He never responded. I have not stopped questioning.
That is but a small part of that page and an even smaller part of his site.
When I retire at the end of the year I'm enrolling in Osher Lifelong Learning Institute (OLLI) at the university I attended over 40 years ago. It's a program at hundreds of colleges and universities that brings seniors back on campus with their own classes as well as allowing its members to audit regular university classes. The main draw for me is having access to the library again. I have a lot of research to do.
You should consider spending some time in your university library doing actual research instead of the nonsense you're getting from your creationist sources. in fact, you should take a creationist claim, one that cites a scientific source, and look up that source to see what it actually says. It'll do you good.
The simple fact that we don't know everything has really ruffled feathers.
I remain unruffled. It is, after all, a central part of my philosophy and an integral part of science. There'd be no profession if we claimed we know everything!
Even against dozens of fanatics, one man with only a basic knowledge of ToE is able to expose the fiction which is littered throughout this fairytale and expose what is most definately a pseudoscience.
Do you have his email address - perhaps you can invite him here?
Anyways I'll leave the rest of the debate to the fanatics on both sides and go back to a real science which doesn't accept the theoretical without it being shown in practice.
I've presented some of what has been shown in practice, you are at liberty to engage with them. You seem more interested in dismissing the debate on the rather unscientific grounds of 'feather ruffling' and calling us fanatics.
Where assumptions lead to fatal catastrophies.
Assumptions are a vital part of scientific enquiry. One makes assumptions, then uses the assumptions to generate a theory that anticipates the data, collects the data, then examines the data and sees if the theory is consistent with what is seen. There are no fatal consequences in play for having a theory falsified - or even proposing falsifiable theories.
Where the laws of physics are truthful facts that remain constant and are never in doubt or questioned.
This is not a scientific position. See the title, and you very thesis in this thread. Enjoy your snow trip.
The simple fact that we don't know everything has really ruffled feathers.
Just what the fuck are you babbling on about?
Who has ever declared that we know everything?
So then just exactly whose feathers have been ruffled?
So then just exactly what the fuck are you babbling on about?
Nothing. Absolutely nothing.
So then just exactly why the fuck are you babbling on about something that nobody ever said?
Nuh? (sorry, possible cultural disconnect. "Nuh?" is Yiddish which corresponds with the German "Na?" The meaning is "so just exactly why the fuck are you babbling on about?")
OK, so you are just now starting your first year at university. Or maybe your second year. That is obvious because you have so far learned so little math as is evidenced by your false statements about math.
Here is a cultural reference for you: strawman. In a stage play, you are supposed to beat up and completely destroy another man. So your properties man constructs a figure stuffed with straw, a strawman, that you can beat up and flail about. In some of the old films, many silents, we will see some actual actor dive into a position, the camera stopped, and the actor was replaced by a dummy that could be beaten up. In medieval and Renaissance street theater, those strawmen were often filled with animal guts and blood for the sake of theater.
Strawmen have made their way into the list of informal fallacies. Basically, you propose a position that your opposition takes and then attack that position. Of course, one really big problem with that is that the position you say your opposition takes is not true.
Yo! Porky! You are making a strawman argument. Your entire argument is false. Are you also deliberately lying to us?
The simple fact that we don't know everything has really ruffled feathers. The truth is hard to face even when admitted by their own texts. Even against dozens of fanatics, one man with only a basic knowledge of ToE is able to expose the fiction which is littered throughout this fairytale and expose what is most definately a pseudoscience. Willing to debate a persons belief but not the theory.
I'll admit to being really disapointed. I thought there was a chance that you might be genuinely confused and looking for help understanding what evolution is and how it works. It turns out you're just another disingenuous, self-aggrandising idiot.
Good luck with your studies, you're going to need it.
Je suis Charlie. Je suis Ahmed. Je suis Juif. Je suis Parisien. I am Mancunian. I am Brum. I am London.I am Finland. Soy Barcelona
"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.
"Dendrogram The following dendrogram represents a somewhat misleadlingly linear "great chain of being" / "ascent of man" model of human evolution. Hopefully this will be corrected in future, as the various other branche son the primate evolutionary tree are fille dout."
Its says it's misleading. All the suggestions I've read on that site and elsewhere start with "probably" "perhaps" "maybe" or other words of this nature.
You are reading more into this than is there. They are saying that the appearance of the lineage of descent as a "great chain of being" / "ascent of man" is "somewhat misleading" because the various other branches are not filled out yet.
That doesn't mean that tracing man's lineage backwards (up the dendrogram) is misleading just that other information is missing from the picture, and that this can be misinterpreted as a "great chain of being" / "ascent of man" instead of a part of a bushy pattern. They are warning you not to be mislead into thinking that.
On message 38 I asked what did the primate evolve from.
Quick hint: if you use [msg=38] it becomes Message 38 and links to the message.
Now back to the webpage for primates it lists the parent population as Archonta
quote:Beginning to Grasp Things (Euprimateformes)
The name Euprimateformes was coined fairly recently by Bloch et al. (2007) for a clade uniting crown-group Primates and the extinct plesiadapoids (the exact definition was "the clade stemming from the most recent common ancestor of Carpolestes simpsoni and Homo sapiens), excluding even more basal stem Primates such as paromomyids. The plesiadapoids include the taxa Plesiadapidae, Carpolestidae, Saxonella and Chronolestes and were found in North America and Eurasia from the late Early Palaeocene to the end of the Early Eocene (a possible plesiadapoid has also been described from Africa).
Plesiadapoids would have been not dissimilar to squirrels or modern tree shrews in size and appearance. They possessed large, forward-pointing lower incisors and originally fairly long skulls.
And going back from Archonta takes you to Eutheria which then leads back to Mammalia. The other branch under Mammalia is Metatheria, the marsupials.
quote:The mammaliforms are, of course, the run-up to mammals. Not that they were "destined" to become us, or anything at all. The whole lineage could quite easily have disappeared during the Mesozoic without a trace. But, from our perspective, they're the group that produced us; so it is natural to wonder how that happened.
All of the early mammaliforms looked more or less like rodents and were about the same size as that most successful group of modern mammals. The mammaliform story is about internal, structural developments, many of which we have only begun to be able to study in the last decade. Understanding these changes unavoidably requires us to look at technical anatomical details. ...
Before Mammaliforms there were Cynodontia and before that there were Therapsida. In these groups we see the evolution of the mammalian ear from the reptilian ear attached to the jaw bone and the development of different forms of teeth.
You can lead a nitwit to knowledge, but you can't make him think
The simple fact that we don't know everything has really ruffled feathers.
No one thinks or claims we know everything, and this has been explained to you several times before. What's wrong with you?
Even against dozens of fanatics, one man with only a basic knowledge of ToE...
Don't flatter yourself. Your errors have been rampant. Plumbing the depths of your ignorance will take time.
With no scientific arguments against the facts...
You haven't introduced any facts into the discussion, which has mostly been us correcting your errors.
In conclusion I find the arguments of both sides to be totally exaggerated.
You haven't examined the creationist side in this thread, you've barely touched the evolutionist side, and almost everything you've said has been wrong.
Neither side will accept the others arguments and both sides claim to be in the possession of total knowledge based on faith of scripts.
Wrong again. Those on the side of science do not "claim to be in the possession of total knowledge." Besides just being a silly and absurdly untrue claim, as a practical matter total knowledge would leave scientists with no research to do.
Anyways I'll leave...
What, you're leaving again? That's the second time.
...and go back to a real science which doesn't accept the theoretical without it being shown in practice. Where assumptions lead to fatal catastrophies. Where the laws of physics are truthful facts that remain constant and are never in doubt or questioned.
Okay, Mr. Erector Set Man. Have fun in your fictional world of certainty.
On Message 38 I asked what did the primate evolve from. Message 39 suggested I search the web for answers. Not sure why I'm being rediculed.
I fixed this to show links to the messages. I also note that you have correctly spelled ridicule later in the thread. It is always a little humorous to see someone complain of being ridiculed and spell it wrong over and over.
Anyhow that question remains. What did the early primate evolve from?
See Message 85 and others that have provided detailed answers.
Message 59: ToE has collapsed under its own admissions of speculation being drawn from fossil evidence that is “very fragmented”.
You complain about being categorized as a creationist, and yet you continue to present lame creationist arguments like this. My conclusion is that you are either a creationist or you were educated by creationists and have not yet been willing to discard those teachings ... in spite of your claims to discard religion.
The Theory of Evolution does not depend on a single fossil. Not. One.
Let me review a little evolution science for you:
(1) The process of evolution involves changes in the composition of hereditary traits, and changes to the frequency of their distributions within breeding populations from generation to generation, in response to ecological challenges and opportunities for growth, development, survival and reproductive success in changing or different habitats.
This is sometimes called microevolution, however this is the process through which all species evolve and all evolution occurs at the breeding population level.
Mutations provide variation and are observed documented facts. Selection and drift are also observed documented facts. These known processes of evolution are observed, known objective facts, and not untested hypotheses.
If we look at the continued effects of evolution over many generations, the accumulation of changes from generation to generation may become sufficient for individuals to develop combinations of traits that are observably different from the ancestral parent population.
(2) The process of lineal change within species is sometimes called phyletic speciation, or anagenesis.
This is also sometimes called arbitrary speciation in that the place to draw the line between linearly evolved genealogical populations is subjective, and because the definition of species in general is tentative and sometimes arbitrary.
If anagenesis was all that occurred, then all life would be one species, readily sharing DNA via horizontal transfer (asexual) and interbreeding (sexual) and various combinations. This is not the case, however, because there is a second process that results in multiple species and increases the diversity of life.
(3) The process of divergent speciation, or cladogenesis, involves the division of a parent population into two or more reproductively isolated daughter populations, which then are free to (micro) evolve independently of each other.
The reduction or loss of interbreeding (gene flow, sharing of mutations) between the sub-populations results in different evolutionary responses within the separated sub-populations, each then responds independently to their different ecological challenges and opportunities, and this leads to divergence of hereditary traits between the subpopulations and the frequency of their distributions within the sub-populations.
With multiple speciation events, a pattern is formed that looks like a branching bush or tree: the tree of descent from common ancestor populations. Each branching point is a node for a clade of the parent species at the node point and all their descendants, and with multiple speciation events we see a pattern form of clades branching from parent ancestor species and nesting within larger clades branching from older parent ancestor species.
Where A, B, C and G represent speciation events and the common ancestor populations of a clade that includes the common ancestor species and all their descendants: C and below form a clade that is part of the B clade, B and below form a clade that is also part of the A clade; G and below also form a clade that is also part of the A clade, but the G clade is not part of the B clade.
The process of forming a nested hierarchy by descent of new species from common ancestor populations, via the combination of anagenesis and cladogenesis, and resulting in an increase in the diversity of life, is sometimes called macroevolution. This is often confusing, because there is no additional mechanism of evolution involved, rather this is just the result of looking at evolution over many generations and different ecologies.
The process of anagenesis, with the accumulation of changes over many generations, is an observed, known objective fact, and not an untested hypothesis.
The process of cladogenesis, with the subsequent formation of a branching nested genealogy of descent from common ancestor populations is an observed, known objective fact, and not an untested hypothesis.
This means that the basic processes of "macroevolution" are observed, known objective facts, and not untested hypotheses, even if major groups of species are not observed forming (which would take many many generations).
(4) The Theory of Evolution (ToE), stated in simple terms, is that the process of anagenesis, and the process of cladogenesis, are sufficient to explain the diversity of life as we know it, from the fossil record, from the genetic record, from the historic record, and from everyday record of the life we observe in the world all around us.
This theory is tested by experiments and field observations carried out as part of the science of evolution. It is tested by every fossil found. It is tested by every genome decoded and compared to other genomes. It is test by comparing the phylogenies from fossils with those from genomes.
It has passed all the tests to date. For over 150 years.
That is hardly the result of a theory that has "collapsed under its own admissions of speculation being drawn from fossil evidence" now is it? Rather it is the result of a robust and dependable theory, one we can use with high confidence in its predictions for future investigations.
In a revealing statement that completely exposed the theory it was admitted that “Mammals will remain rather shadowy creatures for us until more fossil data become available”
That is indeed a revealing statement: it shows you did not accurately read/comprehend what was actually said -- as you did before when you claimed the website said it was misleading (see Message 85 again).
When you skim websites looking for something to base an argument on and then make inaccurate quote mines of them, you again behave like a creationist, or a least like someone who is not looking to learn, but to twist the information to fit your beliefs.
Message 69: Ridicule... Number 1 defence for the defenceless.
Then you need to stop doing it.
I haven't personally attacked anyone ...
Your very first posts insulted and ridiculed people.
If you are going to complain about being ridiculed I suggest you look at your own arguments first: how you behave to people is in large part how they will respond to you. You cast the first stone ...
Given these statements can man accurately be traced back from 80 million years back to 6.5 billion years to ocean creatures? The way the animations depict it? With every step of evolution for every species?
If you don't want to be ridiculed then don't make ridiculous statements and don't repeat errors that have been pointed out previously.