|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
Thread ▼ Details |
|
|
Author | Topic: Chimpanzee-human genetic gap | |||||||||||||||||||
Belfry Member (Idle past 5115 days) Posts: 177 From: Ocala, FL Joined: |
Herepton (emphasis mine) writes:
Speaking of logic, this is a terrible straw man that does not describe evolutionary theory, and is an ad hominem argument to boot.
Here we have a Darwinist, that is a person who actually believes apes morphed into men pretending he is capable of evaluating what makes sense and what is logical pertaining to his rival worldview. Herepton writes:
Assertion requiring support.
His prediction failed. There is no such thing as a transitional hominid fossil in existence. Either the fossil is wholly human or wholly ape. The only disagreement comes from a small corps of fanatics that each item retains - like the finder and his or her mother. Herepton writes: \ Very predictable and ordinary atheist philosophy.This is a non-response. Herepton writes: I suggest you learn more about what evidence is then apply the objective across the board. You spam endless amounts of biased philosophy into your replies. It is apparent you forget that this is a scientific topic. I must interpret this tactic of yours to be innocent caused by the inability to refute. Yes, this is a scientific topic, and therefore it is not sufficient to dismiss arguments simply because in your subjective view they indicate an "atheist philosophy." You need to provide evidence to support your points and/or to refute your opponents' points if you wish to be persuasive.
|
|||||||||||||||||||
Belfry Member (Idle past 5115 days) Posts: 177 From: Ocala, FL Joined: |
Herepton writes:
Like most scientists, my worldview has nothing to do with any such need. Why would anyone assume macroevolution true ? Answer: Because there is no evidence except by assumption. The assumption is based upon a worldview need for Genesis to be wrong. Ok, before you launch into this tack, you need to define macroevolution. I'm sure that with nearly 2500 posts, you've been around long enough for examples of observed speciation to be presented to you, although your subsequent use of the phrase "species transitioning" would suggest that speciation is the benchmark you're using. So, set your goalpost and stick with it.
Herepton writes:
Again, there are several threads currently in play which explain why we do not have the expectation of a perfect fossil record.
If all species share a common ancestor then there should be observational evidence ad nauseum in the fossil record which is an objective tamper proof time lapse natural photographic event. Herepton writes:
We are more interested in the evidence that we do have than the evidence that we don't (yet). However, again, I would ask you to define what goalpost you're setting: we have evidence of speciation ("species transitions") within modern organisms; the fossil record isn't necessary for that. We have evidence for broader changes in the fossil record, as well as in morphological cladistics and molecular analysis.
The crust of the Earth shows ZERO signs of species transitioning, plus the massive gaps has no effect on evolutionary dogma. IOW, lack of evidence does not get in the way. Herepton writes:
Huh? Can you clarify?
Transitional evidence is the reason for being of Darwinian evolution. Herepton writes:
False. Again, I'm sure you've been provided with examples, so why don't you define what you mean by "transitional evidence."
There is none. Herepton writes:
Clarification again needed.
Evolution proceeds unimpeded = Bible tells us why. Herepton writes:
We have considerably more than a few scraps by a single researcher's crew.
Did you know Eugene Dubois and the entire Darwinian scientific establishment accepted a few scraps of whatever dug out of the ground by prison inmates as the decisive evidence FOR human evolution ? Herepton writes:
See above post, and scientists are not necessarily atheists. I certainly am not. I work with a guy who is as devout as anyone I've known (and my mother's an Episcopal priest and Franciscan sister, mind you). When we go out to do field research, he often openly and loudly praises God for the blessings he perceives, and always studies the bible on his lunch break. Like most Christians outside of the US, he's a theistic evolutionist (although he prefers to say, "evolutionary creationist"). You're making a false dichotomy. I apologize to the moderators and fellow members for allowing you to draw me into this off-topic point.
The most extraordinary claim of all time (actually 1 of 2) decided by a few obscure scraps. This shows what hard up frauds these lunk heads were desparately trying to validate atheist worldview.
|
|||||||||||||||||||
Belfry Member (Idle past 5115 days) Posts: 177 From: Ocala, FL Joined: |
Herepton writes: Like most philosophers and historians, we know this is an attempt to assert yourself objective. Everyone has a worldview, starting assumptions, and an axe to grind - not a matter of opinion. You would do well to let this tactic go. Your stereotypical and unsupportable misrepresentation of scientists is known as a straw man. It is a logical fallacy that works against you.
Herepton writes:
Okay, that's interesting. Do you think that God continues to poof new organisms currently, or do you mean that macroevolution postulates that a Creator was NEVER involved in creation of a living organism? Keeping in mind that in science (unlike Genesis) abiogenesis and evolution are two different topics.
macroevolution: the belief that all living things evolved from previous living things and never originate from the Creator of Genesis. Herepton writes:
That last bit is interesting, but we're already too far off-topic to follow it. You need to understand that biologists make no distinction between macroevolution and microevolution. It's all "evolution." By your definition of macroevolution, EVERY observable instance of evolution is microevolution by definition, unless it would be possible to observe and document the evolutionary history of all life (past and present) on earth {ETA: and disprove the involvement of a Creator}. This is not possible, nor would a reasonable person expect it to be so.
Darwinists have never been able to do so. They think they have but each and every example has turned out to be microevolution, like the intelligently designed beak of the finch which oscillates with the environment and weather. Herepton writes:
I've noticed you say that a lot. I don't think it means what you think it means.
This is called special pleading. Herepton writes:
We have no reason to expect the fossil record to be more complete than it is. If you think there is a reason, you should explain that and support your assertion.
Anyone can produce an explanation. The only valid ones have evidence to back them up. But we don't need explanations to make an excuse for what we see not really meaning what we see. Herepton writes:
Yes, apparently this works especially well when you systematically discard evidence that contradicts your text, eh?
We can take what we see (fossil record) and match it with textual evidence. This means we have correspondence: literary corresponding with reality = FACT. Herepton writes:
Your terms are a little iffy, but the evidence for evolution in the history of life on earth is massive. Are you aware of all the evidence? I'm not, I'm not sure that any single person could actually know all of it. I know a fair bit about the evidence for a very small group of organisms that I work with (I'm an ecologist, not an evolutionary biolgist or paleontologist). If you'd like to learn more, the literature is out there for you. Macroevolution means all species have descent from previous, synonymously referred to as "transitional" or "intermediacy". Darwinian ToE and the synthesis says macro is a fact. Where is the massive evidence that should be prevalent if true ? The evidence against a Creator (the other part of your "macroevolution" definition) is not there, nor is it sought. It would be impossible to disprove a Creator, and such is neither the goal of evolutionary biology nor important for its validity. In any case, my aim was not to derail this thread, but rather to get you to define your terms. Now that you have done so, I see that there is little need to worry myself with your arguments, which are against a series of straw men. This message has been edited by Belfry, 01-08-2006 08:34 PM {second edit: edited a typo im my previous edit} This message has been edited by Belfry, 01-09-2006 02:06 PM
|
|||||||||||||||||||
Belfry Member (Idle past 5115 days) Posts: 177 From: Ocala, FL Joined: |
quote:You seem fond of the "special pleading" fallacy, though you misuse it. Perhaps you should look up the "straw man" fallacy. I have no wish to refute your arguments, because they're made against an opposing argument that you have fabricated, and that does not represent the actual views of biologists.
|
|||||||||||||||||||
Belfry Member (Idle past 5115 days) Posts: 177 From: Ocala, FL Joined: |
Your constant repeat of the 5 MYA figure and your claims that it is contradictory to human-chimp similarity is highly deceptive. It falls quite in line with the expected time scales predicted by evolutionary biology. How is it inconsistent, exactly? I'm looking for something more than your personal incredulity here.
quote:This, again, is an argumentum ad ignorantiam fallacy. I personally haven't studied sperm/ova interactions from an evolutionary perspective (as I doubt that you have), but if it's true that we don't yet have an explanation for how it evolved, that does not mean that a valid explanation is impossible. quote:This is another falsehood that gets propagated through the creationist websites. Wallace firmly believed in and defended the concept of human evolutionary descent from other species until his death. Where he diverged from Darwin was that he didn't think that natural selection alone could explain humankind's development of morality and intellect. Not that this development was inconsistent with the ToE; but rather that it was not addressed by it, in Wallace's opinion. Here's an interesting essay on the topic: Alfred Russel Wallace on Spiritualism, Man, and Evolution: An Analytical Essay Of course, that's a response to your argument from authority, which is fallacious; in modern times we don't accept evolution because Darwin or Wallace accepted it, but rather because of the evidence supporting evolution (and the lack of evidence contradicting it). This message has been edited by Belfry, 02-02-2006 09:44 AM
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024