|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total) |
| |
popoi | |
Total: 915,817 Year: 3,074/9,624 Month: 919/1,588 Week: 102/223 Day: 13/17 Hour: 0/0 |
Thread ▼ Details |
|
|
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: |
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.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Percy Member Posts: 22392 From: New Hampshire Joined: Member Rating: 5.3 |
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
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Percy Member Posts: 22392 From: New Hampshire Joined: Member Rating: 5.3 |
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
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Cold Foreign Object  Suspended Member (Idle past 3048 days) Posts: 3417 Joined: |
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
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
NosyNed Member Posts: 8996 From: Canada Joined: |
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.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Mammuthus Member (Idle past 6475 days) Posts: 3085 From: Munich, Germany Joined: |
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.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Gary Inactive Member |
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
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Robert Byers Member (Idle past 4368 days) Posts: 640 From: Toronto,canada Joined: |
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
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Robert Byers Member (Idle past 4368 days) Posts: 640 From: Toronto,canada Joined: |
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
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Loudmouth Inactive Member |
quote: 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.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Cold Foreign Object  Suspended Member (Idle past 3048 days) Posts: 3417 Joined: |
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.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Loudmouth Inactive Member |
quote: 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.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Cold Foreign Object  Suspended Member (Idle past 3048 days) Posts: 3417 Joined: |
I stand completely vindicated or have you lost the ability to read.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Cold Foreign Object  Suspended Member (Idle past 3048 days) Posts: 3417 Joined: |
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.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Cold Foreign Object  Suspended Member (Idle past 3048 days) Posts: 3417 Joined: |
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.
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024