Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
4 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,817 Year: 3,074/9,624 Month: 919/1,588 Week: 102/223 Day: 13/17 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Are there any "problems" with the ToE that are generally not addressed?
Cold Foreign Object 
Suspended Member (Idle past 3048 days)
Posts: 3417
Joined: 11-21-2003


Message 196 of 268 (147664)
10-05-2004 9:22 PM
Reply to: Message 195 by Coragyps
10-05-2004 9:12 PM


Re: again?
You forgot the attribute "wacko."
IOW, you must argue the man because the evidence is true.
IOW, anyone who offers evidence against evolutionary snow jobs and sacred cows is crazy. This is a philosophic argument - the evidence remains.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 195 by Coragyps, posted 10-05-2004 9:12 PM Coragyps has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 198 by Percy, posted 10-05-2004 9:26 PM Cold Foreign Object has replied

  
Percy
Member
Posts: 22392
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 5.3


Message 197 of 268 (147665)
10-05-2004 9:23 PM
Reply to: Message 194 by Cold Foreign Object
10-05-2004 9:10 PM


Re: Human Evolution: Classic Myth
WillowTree writes:
Multiplied billions and billions of human beings yet the yield of evidence for human evolution could fit into a small box =equals= the basis from which a vocal minority floods the world with this myth of human evolution.
Hmmm. Rebutted before, plus it's self-evidently ridiculous. Now you have R-E.
--Percy

This message is a reply to:
 Message 194 by Cold Foreign Object, posted 10-05-2004 9:10 PM Cold Foreign Object has not replied

  
Percy
Member
Posts: 22392
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 5.3


Message 198 of 268 (147666)
10-05-2004 9:26 PM
Reply to: Message 196 by Cold Foreign Object
10-05-2004 9:22 PM


Re: again?
WillowTree writes:
You forgot the attribute "wacko."
IOW, you must argue the man because the evidence is true.
IOW, anyone who offers evidence against evolutionary snow jobs and sacred cows is crazy. This is a philosophic argument - the evidence remains.
You weren't entitled to an argument based on evidence because you didn't enter any evidence into the argument, just a name. Now you have R-E-M.
--Percy

This message is a reply to:
 Message 196 by Cold Foreign Object, posted 10-05-2004 9:22 PM Cold Foreign Object has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 199 by Cold Foreign Object, posted 10-05-2004 9:45 PM Percy has not replied

  
Cold Foreign Object 
Suspended Member (Idle past 3048 days)
Posts: 3417
Joined: 11-21-2003


Message 199 of 268 (147667)
10-05-2004 9:45 PM
Reply to: Message 198 by Percy
10-05-2004 9:26 PM


Re: again?
Percy:
I responded to Ned's request for the source of my homo habilis post.
Cory chose to describe an atheist the way he did and as for your reply - I don't really understand.
WT

This message is a reply to:
 Message 198 by Percy, posted 10-05-2004 9:26 PM Percy has not replied

  
NosyNed
Member
Posts: 8996
From: Canada
Joined: 04-04-2003


Message 200 of 268 (147704)
10-06-2004 1:55 AM
Reply to: Message 191 by Cold Foreign Object
10-05-2004 8:14 PM


Milton, refresh my memory
Wasn't he the one demonstarted to be very wrong about the Thylacine?
And his name isn't very helpful. You need to give his paper that discusses the actual evidence and why he makes this conjecture.
You seem to have trouble with the sources you pick. They are long on assertion and short on back up.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 191 by Cold Foreign Object, posted 10-05-2004 8:14 PM Cold Foreign Object has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 206 by Cold Foreign Object, posted 10-08-2004 5:12 PM NosyNed has replied

  
Mammuthus
Member (Idle past 6475 days)
Posts: 3085
From: Munich, Germany
Joined: 08-09-2002


Message 201 of 268 (147715)
10-06-2004 4:27 AM
Reply to: Message 188 by Robert Byers
09-30-2004 5:10 PM


Re: Ignoring the facts don't make them go away
the point is that you claim "the fish" has remained unchanged for millions of years and this is patently false. The "old news" as you so quaintly put it seems to have escaped your attention yet refutes a point you have repeated ad nauseum.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 188 by Robert Byers, posted 09-30-2004 5:10 PM Robert Byers has not replied

  
Gary
Inactive Member


Message 202 of 268 (147842)
10-06-2004 3:28 PM
Reply to: Message 194 by Cold Foreign Object
10-05-2004 9:10 PM


Re: Human Evolution: Classic Myth
Willowtree: Focusing on the quote about human fossils being rare, keep in mind the point many other people in this thread have made: That rare fossils must have come from an organism that was alive at some time or another, while evidence for other ideas about the origin of humans remain nonexistent.
Humans, in the great scheme of things, have not been around for very long. We can figure out how old the fossils are through radiocarbon dating, or if they are too old for that, potassium-argon testing can be used, as well as other methods. We also know they have not been around since the beginning of the Earth because they do not share the same layers as very old creatures, for example, trilobites, or dinosaurs. Because they have not been around for more than a few million years, we can assume that there will be fewer primate fossils than, say, trilobite fossils, because trilobites lived for a greater span of time than primates have thus far, and they existed in greater numbers than primates ever have.
There are other factors. For example, trilobites might be common because they lived in places where fossilization readily occurs, while the ancestors of humans lived in places where they were likely to decompose completely, or have their remains eaten by wild animals.
Also, Willowtree, when reading, always keep in mind that just because someone authored a book, they are not necessarily an expert on the subject of their book. They might just be looking to make money on a debatable subject which many people are interested. There is nothing wrong with that, unless they start using misleading information, or unless they start writing about things they know little about. I do not know much about Jonathan Wells, but if he writes something down it doesn't instantly become canon.
This message has been edited by Gary, 10-06-2004 02:29 PM

This message is a reply to:
 Message 194 by Cold Foreign Object, posted 10-05-2004 9:10 PM Cold Foreign Object has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 204 by Robert Byers, posted 10-08-2004 4:51 PM Gary has replied

  
Robert Byers
Member (Idle past 4368 days)
Posts: 640
From: Toronto,canada
Joined: 02-06-2004


Message 203 of 268 (148461)
10-08-2004 4:41 PM
Reply to: Message 192 by Percy
10-05-2004 9:02 PM


Re: Repetition and Rebuttal
We have been over this. And that on paper there is possibility for long term envirorment is nullified by the reality of the time.
The unreasonableness of what you posit in this static fish over such eons is the point.
Also of coarse there is no evidence to back up such wild claims that are made on these matters.
I mean the on paper idea you guys put worth here is impossible in any real world senario. The time truly is the point.
Rob

This message is a reply to:
 Message 192 by Percy, posted 10-05-2004 9:02 PM Percy has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 212 by Percy, posted 10-09-2004 12:55 PM Robert Byers has replied

  
Robert Byers
Member (Idle past 4368 days)
Posts: 640
From: Toronto,canada
Joined: 02-06-2004


Message 204 of 268 (148464)
10-08-2004 4:51 PM
Reply to: Message 202 by Gary
10-06-2004 3:28 PM


Re: Human Evolution: Classic Myth
Gary. The point that the rare fossil still was a creature shouldn't pull away that rareity of human descent from apes is what makes these claims without substance. Thhe weight of evidence on any unobserved matter is most imporatant. And lack of evidence is a good point for anyone opposing a conclusion drawn from such evidence.
Also these rare fossils can not with confidence be reconstructed. They can not be verified unlike fossils of mammoths etc.
Rob

This message is a reply to:
 Message 202 by Gary, posted 10-06-2004 3:28 PM Gary has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 205 by Loudmouth, posted 10-08-2004 4:57 PM Robert Byers has not replied
 Message 213 by Gary, posted 10-11-2004 12:13 AM Robert Byers has replied
 Message 216 by AdminNosy, posted 10-12-2004 5:20 PM Robert Byers has not replied

  
Loudmouth
Inactive Member


Message 205 of 268 (148468)
10-08-2004 4:57 PM
Reply to: Message 204 by Robert Byers
10-08-2004 4:51 PM


Re: Human Evolution: Classic Myth
quote:
Gary. The point that the rare fossil still was a creature shouldn't pull away that rareity of human descent from apes is what makes these claims without substance.
So we have fossils that represent possible intermediates, yet the theory of man's evolution is "without substance"? It HAS substance because the fossils exist. The argument that man does not share ancestory with apes is based on zero evidence.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 204 by Robert Byers, posted 10-08-2004 4:51 PM Robert Byers has not replied

  
Cold Foreign Object 
Suspended Member (Idle past 3048 days)
Posts: 3417
Joined: 11-21-2003


Message 206 of 268 (148476)
10-08-2004 5:12 PM
Reply to: Message 200 by NosyNed
10-06-2004 1:55 AM


Re: Milton, refresh my memory
You seem to have trouble with the sources you pick. They are long on assertion and short on back up.
I feel the same way about your sources.
They have a preexisting narrative structure created (ape to human evolution) then they take a scant few disputed fossils and insert them into this narrative spanning millions of years and say this is scientific evidence for hominid evolution.
That is not evidence - it is storytelling done with the expertise of a used car salesman.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 200 by NosyNed, posted 10-06-2004 1:55 AM NosyNed has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 207 by Loudmouth, posted 10-08-2004 6:11 PM Cold Foreign Object has replied
 Message 211 by NosyNed, posted 10-09-2004 6:56 AM Cold Foreign Object has not replied

  
Loudmouth
Inactive Member


Message 207 of 268 (148506)
10-08-2004 6:11 PM
Reply to: Message 206 by Cold Foreign Object
10-08-2004 5:12 PM


Re: Milton, refresh my memory
quote:
I feel the same way about your sources.
Well, let's see what Henry Gee thinks about your quote mine of his work: http://www.ncseweb.org/...52001__gee_responds_10_15_2001.asp
The Discovery Institute’s Viewers Guide to the PBS Evolution series claims in several places (for example, on page 11) that the series leave(s) viewers with the misleading impression that the evidence for human evolution is much stronger than it really is. The Guide attempts to discredit the scientific implications of the human fossil record by quoting (on pages 11, 40, 47, 88, and 111) passages from the 1999 book In Search of Deep Time by Dr. Henry Gee, who is also Senior Editor, Biological Sciences, for the journal Nature. Dr. Gee has sent us the following comments:
1. The Discovery Institute has used unauthorized, selective quotations from my book IN SEARCH OF DEEP TIME to support their outdated, mistaken views.
2. Darwinian evolution by natural selection is taken as a given in IN SEARCH OF DEEP TIME, and this is made clear several times e.g. on p5 (paperback edition) I write that "if it is fair to assume that all life on Earth shares a common evolutionary origin..." and then go on to make clear that this is the assumption I am making throughout the book. For the Discovery Institute to quote from my book without reference to this is mischievous.
3. That it is impossible to trace direct lineages of ancestry and descent from the fossil record should be self-evident. Ancestors must exist, of course -- but we can never attribute ancestry to any particular fossil we might find. Just try this thought experiment -- let's say you find a fossil of a hominid, an ancient member of the human family. You can recognize various attributes that suggest kinship to humanity, but you would never know whether this particular fossil represented your lineal ancestor - even if that were actually the case. The reason is that fossils are never buried with their birth certificates. Again, this is a logical constraint that must apply even if evolution were true -- which is not in doubt, because if we didn't have ancestors, then we wouldn't be here. Neither does this mean that fossils exhibiting transitional structures do not exist, nor that it is impossible to reconstruct what happened in evolution. Unfortunately, many paleontologists believe that ancestor/descendent lineages can be traced from the fossil record, and my book is intended to debunk this view. However, this disagreement is hardly evidence of some great scientific coverup -- religious fundamentalists such as the DI -- who live by dictatorial fiat -- fail to understand that scientific disagreement is a mark of health rather than decay. However, the point of IN SEARCH OF DEEP TIME, ironically, is that old-style, traditional evolutionary biology -- the type that feels it must tell a story, and is therefore more appealing to news reporters and makers of documentaries -- is unscientific.
4. I am a religious person and I believe in God. I find the militant atheism of some evolutionary biologists ill-reasoned and childish, and most importantly unscientific -- crucially, faith should not be subject to scientific justification. But the converse also holds true -- science should not need to be validated by the narrow dogma of faith. As such, I regard the opinions of the Discovery Institute as regressive, repressive, divisive, sectarian and probably unrepresentative of views held by people of faith generally. In addition, the use by creationists of selective, unauthorized quotations, possibly with intent to mislead the public undermines their position as self-appointed guardians of public values and morals.
5. The above views are my own and do not necessarily represent those of my colleagues at NATURE or any opinion or policy of the NATURE PUBLISHING GROUP.
Henry Gee
I think that pretty much explains your misuse of sources.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 206 by Cold Foreign Object, posted 10-08-2004 5:12 PM Cold Foreign Object has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 208 by Cold Foreign Object, posted 10-08-2004 6:28 PM Loudmouth has not replied
 Message 209 by Cold Foreign Object, posted 10-08-2004 6:30 PM Loudmouth has not replied
 Message 210 by Cold Foreign Object, posted 10-08-2004 6:42 PM Loudmouth has not replied

  
Cold Foreign Object 
Suspended Member (Idle past 3048 days)
Posts: 3417
Joined: 11-21-2003


Message 208 of 268 (148515)
10-08-2004 6:28 PM
Reply to: Message 207 by Loudmouth
10-08-2004 6:11 PM


Re: Milton, refresh my memory
I stand completely vindicated or have you lost the ability to read.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 207 by Loudmouth, posted 10-08-2004 6:11 PM Loudmouth has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 215 by Jazzns, posted 10-11-2004 11:10 AM Cold Foreign Object has not replied

  
Cold Foreign Object 
Suspended Member (Idle past 3048 days)
Posts: 3417
Joined: 11-21-2003


Message 209 of 268 (148516)
10-08-2004 6:30 PM
Reply to: Message 207 by Loudmouth
10-08-2004 6:11 PM


Re: Milton, refresh my memory
Gee writes:
Unfortunately, many paleontologists believe that ancestor/descendent lineages can be traced from the fossil record, and my book is intended to debunk this view.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 207 by Loudmouth, posted 10-08-2004 6:11 PM Loudmouth has not replied

  
Cold Foreign Object 
Suspended Member (Idle past 3048 days)
Posts: 3417
Joined: 11-21-2003


Message 210 of 268 (148519)
10-08-2004 6:42 PM
Reply to: Message 207 by Loudmouth
10-08-2004 6:11 PM


Re: Milton, refresh my memory
Gee writes:
That it is impossible to trace direct lineages of ancestry and descent from the fossil record should be self-evident.
Message 206 They have a preexisting narrative structure created (ape to human evolution) then they take a scant few disputed fossils and insert them into this narrative spanning millions of years and say this is scientific evidence for hominid evolution.
That is not evidence - it is storytelling done with the expertise of a used car salesman.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 207 by Loudmouth, posted 10-08-2004 6:11 PM Loudmouth has not replied

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024