Understanding through Discussion


Welcome! You are not logged in. [ Login ]
EvC Forum active members: 108 (8806 total)
Current session began: 
Page Loaded: 12-15-2017 8:45 AM
311 online now:
JonF, RAZD, Tangle (3 members, 308 visitors)
Chatting now:  Chat room empty
Newest Member: jaufre
Post Volume:
Total: 824,205 Year: 28,811/21,208 Month: 877/1,847 Week: 252/475 Day: 17/82 Hour: 2/2

Announcements: Reporting debate problems OR discussing moderation actions/inactions


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Prev1
2
3456Next
Author Topic:   Lucy (Australopithecus)
Porkncheese
Member
Posts: 72
Joined: 08-25-2017


Message 16 of 88 (819938)
09-15-2017 10:48 AM
Reply to: Message 7 by RAZD
09-15-2017 8:43 AM


Re: yes.
quote:
Conclusion? It's a hypothetical reconstruction. For display in a museum, not for scientific study.
Is the skin color and the amount of hair, eyes, etc accurate? No, nor is it claimed to be.

Ok I guess thats what I was scratching my head over.

I see these sculptures that are shown in museums.


Drawings like this

And I see a striking similarity with renaissance art the way its presented. But as you said it's a hypothetical reconstruction where the finer details like hair amount, etc are an artists impression.

Correct me if I'm wrong here. As the population grew in Africa about 100,000ya groups migrated, evolving (on a small scale of physical features) into different races around the world. (Depending on your definition of race and how broadly you define them) Caucasians in Europe, the Indian sub continent, into east Asia where they crossed the Bering strait into the Americas. Two other races emerged from Asia. The Polynesians and Aboriginals.

So if these races remained isolated from each other could they have eventually evolved into different species of human right?


This message is a reply to:
 Message 7 by RAZD, posted 09-15-2017 8:43 AM RAZD has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 18 by Coyote, posted 09-15-2017 11:05 AM Porkncheese has not yet responded
 Message 21 by Taq, posted 09-15-2017 11:29 AM Porkncheese has not yet responded
 Message 24 by RAZD, posted 09-15-2017 12:09 PM Porkncheese has not yet responded

    
Porkncheese
Member
Posts: 72
Joined: 08-25-2017


Message 17 of 88 (819939)
09-15-2017 10:56 AM
Reply to: Message 11 by Pressie
09-15-2017 9:29 AM


LoL dude it's not my fault your blind but I'll help you out by repeating the answer to your question... NO
This message is a reply to:
 Message 11 by Pressie, posted 09-15-2017 9:29 AM Pressie has not yet responded

    
Coyote
Member
Posts: 6037
Joined: 01-12-2008
Member Rating: 1.8


(1)
Message 18 of 88 (819940)
09-15-2017 11:05 AM
Reply to: Message 16 by Porkncheese
09-15-2017 10:48 AM


Re: yes.
So if these races remained isolated from each other could they have eventually evolved into different species of human right?

If totally isolated, with no modern technology, and in different harsh environments, you would see different traits being selected for. Add a lot of time and you could get different species, but don't wait up...


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 16 by Porkncheese, posted 09-15-2017 10:48 AM Porkncheese has not yet responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 19 by jar, posted 09-15-2017 11:09 AM Coyote has acknowledged this reply

  
jar
Member
Posts: 29775
From: Texas!!
Joined: 04-20-2004
Member Rating: 1.6


Message 19 of 88 (819941)
09-15-2017 11:09 AM
Reply to: Message 18 by Coyote
09-15-2017 11:05 AM


Re: yes.
Which is pretty much what has been found. The number of species included in the genus Homo has kept on growing as more and more data is discovered.

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

This message is a reply to:
 Message 18 by Coyote, posted 09-15-2017 11:05 AM Coyote has acknowledged this reply

  
Porkncheese
Member
Posts: 72
Joined: 08-25-2017


Message 20 of 88 (819942)
09-15-2017 11:24 AM
Reply to: Message 12 by dwise1
09-15-2017 10:28 AM


Firstly I did post a quote from that link.
Secondly I have received many bare links without fear or predjudice.
I actually encourage supporting references of any kind.

And I don't understand what you mean by this

quote:
we have seen too many creationists link to a source that is either a creationist source (as you have already done)

If your saying I have used a religious based argument show me where...

Otherwise it sounds as though you dismiss a source if written by a creationist regardless of weather the argument is secular. Thats not science, its just childish.
Another example of debating a persons view and not the subject.

Apparently 15% of the leading ToE scientists are in fact creationists anyway. So according to your method we should dissmiss everything as another incorrect scientific theory then. Thats just silly.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 12 by dwise1, posted 09-15-2017 10:28 AM dwise1 has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 22 by Taq, posted 09-15-2017 11:31 AM Porkncheese has not yet responded
 Message 23 by jar, posted 09-15-2017 11:43 AM Porkncheese has responded
 Message 31 by dwise1, posted 09-15-2017 3:26 PM Porkncheese has not yet responded
 Message 35 by Phat, posted 09-15-2017 6:07 PM Porkncheese has not yet responded

    
Taq
Member
Posts: 7279
Joined: 03-06-2009
Member Rating: 4.0


Message 21 of 88 (819943)
09-15-2017 11:29 AM
Reply to: Message 16 by Porkncheese
09-15-2017 10:48 AM


Re: yes.
Porkncheese writes:

And I see a striking similarity with renaissance art the way its presented. But as you said it's a hypothetical reconstruction where the finer details like hair amount, etc are an artists impression.

They also use modern analogues to do these reconstructions. For example, the correlation between human skin color and latitude is well known. Populations at higher latitudes tend to have fairer skin than populations at lower latitudes because of the selection pressures for skin cancer and vitamin D production. The size of a muscle correlates with the size of the bone it is attached to, so smaller fragile bones will have smaller muscles attached to them. All of this allows artists to add an approximate details to the skull.

At the end of the day, scientists use the bones themselves to determine if they are transitional, not these reconstructions.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 16 by Porkncheese, posted 09-15-2017 10:48 AM Porkncheese has not yet responded

  
Taq
Member
Posts: 7279
Joined: 03-06-2009
Member Rating: 4.0


(1)
Message 22 of 88 (819944)
09-15-2017 11:31 AM
Reply to: Message 20 by Porkncheese
09-15-2017 11:24 AM


Porkncheese writes:

Otherwise it sounds as though you dismiss a source if written by a creationist regardless of weather the argument is secular. Thats not science, its just childish.
Another example of debating a persons view and not the subject.

It is always better to go to the original source, the scientists who actually did the science. Creationists on creationist websites aren't doing the science.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 20 by Porkncheese, posted 09-15-2017 11:24 AM Porkncheese has not yet responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 34 by Phat, posted 09-15-2017 6:01 PM Taq has responded

  
jar
Member
Posts: 29775
From: Texas!!
Joined: 04-20-2004
Member Rating: 1.6


(2)
Message 23 of 88 (819945)
09-15-2017 11:43 AM
Reply to: Message 20 by Porkncheese
09-15-2017 11:24 AM


there is no culture of truth or honesty in Creationism.
PnC writes:

Otherwise it sounds as though you dismiss a source if written by a creationist regardless of weather the argument is secular.

Correct. Dismiss with prejudice. Creationist simply do not tell the truth, constantly misrepresent sources and take lines out of context.

No one should ever trust anything that comes from Creationist.


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

This message is a reply to:
 Message 20 by Porkncheese, posted 09-15-2017 11:24 AM Porkncheese has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 25 by Porkncheese, posted 09-15-2017 12:14 PM jar has responded

  
RAZD
Member
Posts: 19301
From: the other end of the sidewalk
Joined: 03-14-2004
Member Rating: 2.3


(2)
Message 24 of 88 (819953)
09-15-2017 12:09 PM
Reply to: Message 16 by Porkncheese
09-15-2017 10:48 AM


Re: yes.
And I see a striking similarity with renaissance art the way its presented. But as you said it's a hypothetical reconstruction where the finer details like hair amount, etc are an artists impression.

Make that an educated, evidence informed rendition and I'll agree. It's a bit more than someone making a pretty picture.

Correct me if I'm wrong here. As the population grew in Africa about 100,000ya groups migrated, evolving (on a small scale of physical features) into different races around the world. (Depending on your definition of race and how broadly you define them) Caucasians in Europe, the Indian sub continent, into east Asia where they crossed the Bering strait into the Americas. Two other races emerged from Asia. The Polynesians and Aboriginals.

Make that 200,000 years ago, and then add in some localized interbreeding with Neanderthals and Homo erectus as the various tribes dispersed across open (for hominids) ecological challenges and I would agree. Human ancestry is somewhat 'braided' rather than strict lineal descent, and there was some interbreeding before species became settled.

See Interweaving Evolution & Hybrid Vigor

So if these races remained isolated from each other could they have eventually evolved into different species of human right?

Technically correct, but it would take many generations. Consider Native American and European explorer interbreeding.

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 16 by Porkncheese, posted 09-15-2017 10:48 AM Porkncheese has not yet responded

  
Porkncheese
Member
Posts: 72
Joined: 08-25-2017


Message 25 of 88 (819956)
09-15-2017 12:14 PM
Reply to: Message 23 by jar
09-15-2017 11:43 AM


Re: there is no culture of truth or honesty in Creationism.
quote:
Correct. Dismiss with prejudice. Creationist simply do not tell the truth, constantly misrepresent sources and take lines out of context.
No one should ever trust anything that comes from Creationist.

Seriously? Every single one of them?
I heard Neil deGrasse Tyson say that 15% of top ToE scienctists in the highest academy or something are creos. (not sure how cos the adam and eve yarn goes up in flames). Even them?

How about if a piece of data is found that may support one of their things. I dunno some dates might not match up or something? Are scientists also dissmissing without prejeduce?


This message is a reply to:
 Message 23 by jar, posted 09-15-2017 11:43 AM jar has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 26 by jar, posted 09-15-2017 12:21 PM Porkncheese has not yet responded
 Message 27 by JonF, posted 09-15-2017 1:22 PM Porkncheese has responded
 Message 29 by Diomedes, posted 09-15-2017 2:43 PM Porkncheese has responded
 Message 33 by dwise1, posted 09-15-2017 4:05 PM Porkncheese has responded

    
jar
Member
Posts: 29775
From: Texas!!
Joined: 04-20-2004
Member Rating: 1.6


Message 26 of 88 (819959)
09-15-2017 12:21 PM
Reply to: Message 25 by Porkncheese
09-15-2017 12:14 PM


Re: there is no culture of truth or honesty in Creationism.
PnC writes:

Seriously? Every single one of them?
I heard Neil deGrasse Tyson say that 15% of top ToE scienctists in the highest academy or something are creos. (not sure how cos the adam and eve yarn goes up in flames). Even them?

I would imagine you misheard. Perhaps he said 15% of top scientists are Christians. But it is absolutely impossible for someone to be a Creationist and honest when it comes to science.

PnC writes:

How about if a piece of data is found that may support one of their things. I dunno some dates might not match up or something? Are scientists also dissmissing without prejeduce?

No Creationists have ever come up with any new data or done any honest "Creation" research. It is simply impossible.

There is no culture of truth or honesty in Creationism and quite frankly, there cannot be such a culture.


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

This message is a reply to:
 Message 25 by Porkncheese, posted 09-15-2017 12:14 PM Porkncheese has not yet responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 32 by dwise1, posted 09-15-2017 3:56 PM jar has not yet responded

  
JonF
Member
Posts: 4000
Joined: 06-23-2003
Member Rating: 3.0


(1)
Message 27 of 88 (819982)
09-15-2017 1:22 PM
Reply to: Message 25 by Porkncheese
09-15-2017 12:14 PM


Re: there is no culture of truth or honesty in Creationism.
I heard Neil deGrasse Tyson say that 15% of top ToE scienctists in the highest academy or something are creos. (not sure how cos the adam and eve yarn goes up in flames). Even them?

I can't find any trace of this. But maybe some are. Based on my experience yes, even them.

I've been involved in this debate for 20-ish years and haven't come across any valid science that supports their claims. I've seen some doozies of frauds.

How about if a piece of data is found that may support one of their things.

When and if that happens we'll deal with the evidence as it stands. So far there haven't been any opportunities to test the question.

Are scientists also dismissing without prejudice?

Mostly they are ignoring. For good reason.

Edited by JonF, : No reason given.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 25 by Porkncheese, posted 09-15-2017 12:14 PM Porkncheese has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 28 by Porkncheese, posted 09-15-2017 2:41 PM JonF has responded

  
Porkncheese
Member
Posts: 72
Joined: 08-25-2017


Message 28 of 88 (819993)
09-15-2017 2:41 PM
Reply to: Message 27 by JonF
09-15-2017 1:22 PM


Re: there is no culture of truth or honesty in Creationism.
quote:
I can't find any trace of this. But maybe some are. Based on my experience yes, even them.

On this clip go to 12:00. Neil says it there.
(If Im allowed to use references. Apparently Its illegal for me to)
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DN33tstYB50

I guess what Im saying is that type of hate and stereotype is no good for science. Sure there will always be fanatics and their the people you guys are speaking of probs.
So I can't trust them because of their looking to oppose ToE.
So one might say ToE atheiest can't be trusted cos their only out to form a theory against creation.

I watched this doco on Australopithecus. (Non-creo)
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PR_9_5gxvxg
I notice this kind of urgency to present this so called "human missing link" which lead to hysteria, propaganda and painting a picture we are not 100% sure about. As admittedly we could do with more fossils which are obviously difficult to encounter.

Yes its fair to say that humans most likley evolved from early primate species. Australopithecus may be directly related to us. But there is also a very good chance that particular species is not related directly related to humans as suggested in the doco.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 27 by JonF, posted 09-15-2017 1:22 PM JonF has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 30 by Taq, posted 09-15-2017 3:07 PM Porkncheese has responded
 Message 36 by Astrophile, posted 09-15-2017 6:23 PM Porkncheese has not yet responded
 Message 39 by JonF, posted 09-15-2017 7:47 PM Porkncheese has not yet responded

    
Diomedes
Member
Posts: 669
From: Central Florida, USA
Joined: 09-13-2013
Member Rating: 6.1


(4)
Message 29 of 88 (819994)
09-15-2017 2:43 PM
Reply to: Message 25 by Porkncheese
09-15-2017 12:14 PM


Re: there is no culture of truth or honesty in Creationism.
Seriously? Every single one of them?
I heard Neil deGrasse Tyson say that 15% of top ToE scienctists in the highest academy or something are creos.

Nope. Once again, creationists bending the truth or creating outright falsehoods to push forth their agenda.

This was Tyson's actual quote:

quote:
“I want to put on the table, not why 85% of the members of the National Academy of Sciences reject God, I want to know why 15% of the National Academy don’t.”

https://www.goodreads.com/...-to-put-on-the-table-not-why-85

He was referring to the fact that 15% of the members of the National Academy of Sciences believe in god. He did NOT say they are creationists. Belief in god is not a belief in creationism. There are several members of this board (RAZD, Percy, Cat Scientist) who believe in god but do not believe in creationism.

By the way, that internet search for Tyson's quote took me all of ten seconds. Please try to do better before you spew nonsense.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 25 by Porkncheese, posted 09-15-2017 12:14 PM Porkncheese has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 50 by Porkncheese, posted 09-16-2017 5:33 AM Diomedes has not yet responded

  
Taq
Member
Posts: 7279
Joined: 03-06-2009
Member Rating: 4.0


(2)
Message 30 of 88 (819995)
09-15-2017 3:07 PM
Reply to: Message 28 by Porkncheese
09-15-2017 2:41 PM


Re: there is no culture of truth or honesty in Creationism.
Prokncheese writes:

I guess what Im saying is that type of hate and stereotype is no good for science. Sure there will always be fanatics and their the people you guys are speaking of probs.

You are projecting. It is the creationists who constantly attack the character of scientists because they have no scientific evidence to stand on. Just look at your most recent posts. None of them contain anything close to scientific. Instead, they are allegations about scientists making speculations and other misdeeds.

So I can't trust them because of their looking to oppose ToE.

They are wrong because the evidence doesn't support their claims.

I notice this kind of urgency to present this so called "human missing link" which lead to hysteria, propaganda and painting a picture we are not 100% sure about. As admittedly we could do with more fossils which are obviously difficult to encounter.

Once again with the attacks on peoples' character. Why?

Why can't you discuss the features the fossil has and how it relates to the fossil being transitional? Why the constant attacks on character?


This message is a reply to:
 Message 28 by Porkncheese, posted 09-15-2017 2:41 PM Porkncheese has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 41 by Porkncheese, posted 09-15-2017 10:08 PM Taq has responded

  
Prev1
2
3456Next
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2015 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.0 Beta
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2017