Understanding through Discussion


Welcome! You are not logged in. [ Login ]
EvC Forum active members: 79 (8961 total)
32 online now:
Coragyps, PaulK, Percy (Admin), ringo, Tangle, vimesey (6 members, 26 visitors)
Newest Member: Mikee
Post Volume: Total: 869,366 Year: 1,114/23,288 Month: 1,114/1,851 Week: 238/320 Day: 10/87 Hour: 1/1


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Why are there no human apes alive today?
Wounded King
Member (Idle past 2478 days)
Posts: 4149
From: Edinburgh, Scotland
Joined: 04-09-2003


Message 16 of 1075 (512597)
06-19-2009 10:19 AM
Reply to: Message 15 by Doubletime
06-19-2009 9:56 AM


Well humans are to be considerd as our own species quit frankly. Do you know why ? Because our brain capacity is far superior to any other creature.

This seems to be a rather unique species concept all of your own. Should giraffes be considered their own species because of their superior neck length? Suppose we just found 1 really tall guy, should he be a species all of his own because of his far superior height? Many creatures have some feature at which they excel, this is not really a reasonable criteria for identifying species though.

You yourself defined species as 'Something that can reproduce with something else.' that seems almost completely divorced from why you now say humans should be considered their own species.

Are you saying im agaisnt science just because im against evolution ?

I think he is saying that the objections you are making against evolution suggest you know little if anything about either evolutionary biology or the operation of science.

TTFN,

WK


This message is a reply to:
 Message 15 by Doubletime, posted 06-19-2009 9:56 AM Doubletime has not yet responded

Huntard
Member (Idle past 679 days)
Posts: 2870
From: Limburg, The Netherlands
Joined: 09-02-2008


Message 17 of 1075 (512599)
06-19-2009 10:32 AM
Reply to: Message 15 by Doubletime
06-19-2009 9:56 AM


Doubletime writes:

LoL this is what i loooove with theese forums about faith or reigion. It is so easy to start flamers unintentionally ^^


RAZD is hardly a flamer, he's one of the best posters we have here, and you can learn alot from him.

Who said im a creationist?

No one. However, those that reject evolution often are.

Well humans are to be considerd as our own species quit frankly.

Strange that science doesn't agree with you, no?

Do you know why ? Because our brain capacity is far superior to any other creature.

That's not how species are indexed in biology.

was actually saying If evolution is true so there was no reseon to flame at all lol.

Don't use "lol" please, it gives off the impression that you're not taking this seriously and just want to act like some clown. Further, he wasn't flaming.

Are you saying im agaisnt science just because im against evolution?

Well, evolution is a part of science, and those that are against evolution often are, even though they reap the benefits of it in their everyday life.


I hunt for the truth

This message is a reply to:
 Message 15 by Doubletime, posted 06-19-2009 9:56 AM Doubletime has not yet responded

Coyote
Member (Idle past 490 days)
Posts: 6117
Joined: 01-12-2008


Message 18 of 1075 (512607)
06-19-2009 11:34 AM
Reply to: Message 11 by Doubletime
06-19-2009 5:43 AM


Missing links?
Or like this, if we have not found any living missing links between humans and apes, If we have not found any missing link in the fosil record. Why should i believe that we evolved from apes ?

There are a lot of intermediates (a more accurate term than "missing link") between modern humans and apes.

This is one example of Homo ergaster. It is a fine intermediate between ape-like critters and modern humans.

Now, what you believe is your choice, but you can't deny that there are intermediates. In fact, there are a lot of them, but lets concentrate on just this one first. I have presented you with evidence, now you need to show me why this specimen is not an intermediate or concede your point.

I think your problem is that you have an a priori belief and can't accept any evidence that is in any contrary to that belief.

And as Heinlein wrote, "Belief gets in the way of learning."


Religious belief does not constitute scientific evidence, nor does it convey scientific knowledge.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 11 by Doubletime, posted 06-19-2009 5:43 AM Doubletime has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 25 by Doubletime, posted 06-19-2009 2:36 PM Coyote has not yet responded

Coyote
Member (Idle past 490 days)
Posts: 6117
Joined: 01-12-2008


Message 19 of 1075 (512612)
06-19-2009 11:43 AM
Reply to: Message 15 by Doubletime
06-19-2009 9:56 AM


Yes, you are "agaisnt science"
Are you saying im agaisnt science just because im against evolution ?

Yes.

If you reject the scientific method in one subfield of science, you reject it everywhere.

You can't just pick and choose the results you want to see.

In fact, creationists are anti-science in spite of their protests to the contrary. They can accept the scientific method when it provides them with CDs and automobiles, but reject it when it documents human descent.

They are putting superstition and myth (or divine revelation if you prefer that term) over the scientific method as a way of gaining knowledge. That's certainly not pro-science, now is it?


Religious belief does not constitute scientific evidence, nor does it convey scientific knowledge.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 15 by Doubletime, posted 06-19-2009 9:56 AM Doubletime has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 24 by Doubletime, posted 06-19-2009 2:34 PM Coyote has responded

Rahvin
Member (Idle past 38 days)
Posts: 3964
Joined: 07-01-2005


(1)
Message 20 of 1075 (512616)
06-19-2009 12:22 PM
Reply to: Message 11 by Doubletime
06-19-2009 5:43 AM


Ok no satisfying answers yet, Maybe the question wasn't asked correctly ?

What about the responses you've received thus far is unsatisfactory? Be specific. Saying "that doesn;t sound right to me" is not an argument, refutation, or even a solid request for clarification, and hints of an Appeal to Personal Incredulity besides.

Definition species. Something that can reproduce with something else. This is a good description of species.

No, it's rather incomplete. There really is no perfect definition for species - the process of evolution means that black/white, SPecies A/Species B definitions are occasionally rather difficult. There are many shades of gray.

Take for example ring species.

Ring species are a set of neighboring populations that have evolved together because of geographic proximity, and have resulted in the curious ability to interbreed with nearby, closely related species but not species farther away (geographic spearation prevents the sharing of genetic information and thus can eventually result in interbreeding becoming impossible).

For example, given species A, B, C, and D:

A can interbreed with B and D, but not C. B can interbreed with A and C, but not D. C can interbreed with B and D, but not A.

There is not always a literal ring, and it's not always a linear set like in this simplified example. But it shows the weakness of our typical definition of "species."

From the Wiki entry on species:

quote:
There are many definitions of what kind of unit a species is (or should be). A common definition is that of a group of organisms capable of interbreeding and producing fertile offspring, and separated from other such groups with which interbreeding does not (normally) happen. Other definitions may focus on similarity of DNA or morphology. Some species are further subdivided into subspecies, and here also there is no close agreement on the criteria to be used.

Definition races. A sub form of species. Like black N white people ( Im not a racist no hate males please)S

Races are frankly irrelevant as far as this discussion is concerned. Hoho Habilis, Homo Sapiens Sapiens, and Homo Erectus are not different races, but are compeltely distinct species.

I read in Illustrerad vetenskap ( swedish science magazine ) That they have found evidence of a Neander thal mated with a common human. Or well they found a fosil with a neanderthal skull and common human body. Wich means that the neander thals were simply another race of humans, or well i think it is much more likely than counting neander thals as an own species.

"I read this someplace" is not evidence. As Percy said, you've either minusderstood, or your article was factually incorrect. Neanderthals were a separate species from modern humans, not simply a different race. They were morphologically and genetically distinct from humanity. Calling them a "different race" would require redefining a large portion of taxonomy - many populations that we identify today as distinct species would have to be reclassified.

I prefer to leave that to the biologists, not to laypersons who "read something someplace."

Answering with that they didn't survive is only answering how not why.

Answering that they didn't survive is the accurate answer. That you personally find it unconvincing is irrelevant - personal credulity is not an accurate guide for reflecting reality.

The real question is, Why should i believe that humans evolved from more primitive ape like versions, When there are no such creatures today. There are only apes and humans. No knowmn human apes. And the fosil evidence isn't especially satisfying at all, There are no links i have actually found.

Define "link?" We have an extensive chain demonstrating human evolution. There are no real remaining "missing links" of the type typically discussed. The exception is when a Creationist insists that there must be a missing link between links 8 and 9, for example. This presupposes that we should expect to find fossilized remains of every single generation between each ancestor species - an absurdity spawned of ignorance of the process of fossilization, and not required for biology to positively identify the path of human evolution.

Again, the Wiki article on human evolution is extremely helpful.


This
is a diagram showing the distribution and ancestry of various hominid species. I like this one particularly because it displays the lack of solid boundaries - at the point of branching, each species is closely related. It also visually displays exactly why each species no longer exists - some of the populations evolved into new species (eliminating the ancestor species through interbreeding), and others simply represented a branch that died out for various reasons. This is supported by genetic evidence (we can determine ancestry in much the same way we do paternity tests - the differences are obviously greater, but there are definitive markers that let us trace which species descended from which ancestor), morphological evidence, geological and radiometric dating, etc.

The branch showing the split between hominid apes and non-hominid apes happens earlier than the chart displays...but basically this is typical of all species' family trees, and works as a microchosm of the entirety of evolution.

And what was once considerd as the missing link now turned out to be bluff. Like the piltdown human or nebraska man. Or like this, if we have not found any living missing links between humans and apes, If we have not found any missing link in the fosil record. Why should i believe that we evolved from apes ?

We have found these links in the fossil record. We have had some cases of outright fraud, or simple inaccurate conclusions. We also have had instances of media hype where scientists never made claims that were reported by overzealous reporters. But all of that says absolutely nothing about the fossil evidence we do have. Clearly you accept the fossil evidence of Neanderthals. The wiki articles I've linked to describe many more non-hoax, verified fossils that represent the "missing links" you're looking for.

I hope i get some more satisfying answers now

Perhaps it would help if you would reply in a point-by-point fashion? RAZD has shown how to apply quote tags to your replies - it helps to keep track of conversations and promotes specifically addressing the points you're replying to.

I'm still somewhat unsure of specifically what you find dissatisfying about current models of human evolution. If you elaborate, it will be far easier to clear things up.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 11 by Doubletime, posted 06-19-2009 5:43 AM Doubletime has not yet responded

Larni
Member
Posts: 3990
From: Liverpool
Joined: 09-16-2005


Message 21 of 1075 (512619)
06-19-2009 1:04 PM
Reply to: Message 7 by caffeine
06-18-2009 11:32 AM


Careful, dude! There's a round house coming your way soon!!!

This message is a reply to:
 Message 7 by caffeine, posted 06-18-2009 11:32 AM caffeine has not yet responded

Larni
Member
Posts: 3990
From: Liverpool
Joined: 09-16-2005


Message 22 of 1075 (512620)
06-19-2009 1:10 PM
Reply to: Message 15 by Doubletime
06-19-2009 9:56 AM


Because our brain capacity is far superior to any other creature.

Our reasoning capacity is greater.

I think you will find that many species have areas of their brain devoted to sensory information far more well developed than ours and consequently superior.

Did you know the olfactory sensitivity of canines (and the associated olfactory cortex) is such that they can detect smells through an area of hard vacuum? Some dogs can actually smell cheese on the moon.

Edited by Larni, : Could not resist it.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 15 by Doubletime, posted 06-19-2009 9:56 AM Doubletime has not yet responded

Dr Adequate
Member
Posts: 16107
Joined: 07-20-2006


Message 23 of 1075 (512622)
06-19-2009 2:27 PM
Reply to: Message 11 by Doubletime
06-19-2009 5:43 AM


Or like this, if we have not found any living missing links between humans and apes, If we have not found any missing link in the fosil record. Why should i believe that we evolved from apes ?

We have found lots.

Someone has been lying to you.

To be precise, a creationist has been lying to you.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 11 by Doubletime, posted 06-19-2009 5:43 AM Doubletime has not yet responded

Doubletime
Junior Member (Idle past 3776 days)
Posts: 27
Joined: 05-08-2009


Message 24 of 1075 (512623)
06-19-2009 2:34 PM
Reply to: Message 19 by Coyote
06-19-2009 11:43 AM


Re: Yes, you are "agaisnt science"
What is science? Is it scientific to beleive in abiogenisis or big bang ? Infact that is less scientific then any religion that ever existed. Atleast from a mathematic perspective.

The hypothesis about humans evolving from apes is not welldocumented nor is it science.

For exampel, have you ever read a science magazine lately ? When i read about evolution i often get the impression that every time some new fosil is found significant changes are being made in the " tree of life"

Im guessing you are aware of this. So is it really well established or well documented ?

Instead of blindly believing in evolutionist. How about studying the evidence your'e self. The recreations of human apes in science magazines are intentionally made to look more like apes the older it is.

For exampel, When the nebraska man was found. The scientific magazines flowed with images of a human ape, Based upon nothing more than a tooth, that later turned out to belong to an extinct pig species....

Neanderthals are another exampel of how you can not trust in the evolutionist recreation of human apes. The first Neander thal fosils were made very ape like. But it turned out the fosil this was based on belonged to a deformed old man.

Another exampel of the evolutionists wishing thoughts were Archapitetus, Said to be the first walking ape, But this was only based upona few fragments from the jaw. Do you think this was enough o recreate a walking human ape ?

Of course not. Obviusly in theese cases plus the piltdown and the new guinnea man, Alot of wishing was involved. The evolutionist tried to form the evidence to make it look like they wanted. This was not scientific.

Do you really think the evolutionist has changed at all ? Should we really believe in what the evolutionist says without studying the evidence for our selves ?

No the evolutionist are constantly bending the evidence to make it look the way they want it. And im afriad saying that the human evolution is well documented is simply falsce. First of all there are very few fosils considering all the species who lived, so its not a very good base at all.

So im afraid it is not unscientific to believe that humans did not evolve. Im not saying the creationist are much better ( Allthough infinetly better from a mathematic view point) But making suchs claim as that im unscientific by not believing in evolution is no better then a priest saying that atheist are evil.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 19 by Coyote, posted 06-19-2009 11:43 AM Coyote has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 27 by Rahvin, posted 06-19-2009 3:36 PM Doubletime has responded
 Message 31 by Coyote, posted 06-19-2009 5:00 PM Doubletime has not yet responded
 Message 33 by Granny Magda, posted 06-19-2009 6:14 PM Doubletime has not yet responded
 Message 50 by Nuggin, posted 06-20-2009 11:35 PM Doubletime has not yet responded

Doubletime
Junior Member (Idle past 3776 days)
Posts: 27
Joined: 05-08-2009


Message 25 of 1075 (512624)
06-19-2009 2:36 PM
Reply to: Message 18 by Coyote
06-19-2009 11:34 AM


Re: Missing links?
Indeed i agree.

But when a human thinks he has found the truth. He is not open to anything else.

Ok Homo ergaster is new to me. Why do they have so complicated names anyway ?


This message is a reply to:
 Message 18 by Coyote, posted 06-19-2009 11:34 AM Coyote has not yet responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 29 by dwise1, posted 06-19-2009 4:29 PM Doubletime has not yet responded

Percy
Member
Posts: 19244
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 3.2


Message 26 of 1075 (512628)
06-19-2009 3:01 PM
Reply to: Message 15 by Doubletime
06-19-2009 9:56 AM


Doubletime writes:

Who said im a creationist?

No one called you a creationist, but your views are mainstream creationism. Are you saying that you reject evolution but don't interpret Genesis literally to conclude a recent creation of the universe, the earth and life, as well as a global flood being responsible for existing geological formations?

Anyway, it was your views that were called creationist, which they are. It's impossible to talk about creationist views without using the term "creationist". It would be like talking about how to weave yarn using pointed rods without using the term "knitting." Not possible.

Are you saying im agaisnt science just because im against evolution?

You give the impression of having poor skills in science, grammar, spelling, punctuation, capitalization and reading comprehension. I'm only saying this so you can have an example of a true flame for future reference.

--Percy


This message is a reply to:
 Message 15 by Doubletime, posted 06-19-2009 9:56 AM Doubletime has not yet responded

Rahvin
Member (Idle past 38 days)
Posts: 3964
Joined: 07-01-2005


Message 27 of 1075 (512631)
06-19-2009 3:36 PM
Reply to: Message 24 by Doubletime
06-19-2009 2:34 PM


Re: Yes, you are "agaisnt science"
What is science?

Science is, in a nutshell, the scientific method - a system of methodologically modelling the natural world through a process of observation, prediction, and testing.

Is it scientific to beleive in abiogenisis or big bang ?

"Belief" is irrelevant. Science concerns itself with models that are supported by observable evidence, not "belief." It is a fact that the Theory of Evolution and Big Bang cosmology have proven to be highly accurate models of their respective fields, making many predictions that have later been confirmed through observational evidence and which have never been contradicted by any other evidence. As with all sceince, they represent our "best fit" model for how the world around us works.

Abiogenesis is a little different, being far less established than evolution or the Big Bang. It's looked upon as the most parsimonious (and therefore most likely) source of life on Earth (and indeed in the Universe as a whole - at some point life did not exist, and now it does, so clearly life had to come from somewhere and abiogenesis is the only explanation that doesn't require completely rewriting everything we think we know about the Universe), but the evidence supporting it is of necessity significantly less strong than evolution or the Big Bang. Nevertheless, it still represents our "best fit" - there is at least some evidence suggestive of abiogenesis, where there is no evidence whatsoever for any "alternative explanations."

Infact that is less scientific then any religion that ever existed. Atleast from a mathematic perspective.

Support this statement immediately or retract. Religion is not based on evidence; science is. There are no mathematics regarding religion at all.

The hypothesis about humans evolving from apes is not welldocumented nor is it science.

Quite to the contrary, human evolution is one of the best documented fields in all of science. You'd know that had you read my links to Wikipedia.

Further, your sayso is insufficient to challenge established scientific theories. In what way do models of human evolution fail to meet your standards of science? Be specific. Right now, you're just saying "nuh uh!" That's how children argue - we have higher standards here.

For exampel, have you ever read a science magazine lately ? When i read about evolution i often get the impression that every time some new fosil is found significant changes are being made in the " tree of life"

Im guessing you are aware of this. So is it really well established or well documented ?

"Scientific magazine?" You mean like "Popular Science?"

Please. Those are not written by scientists, and they do not represent actual scientific literature. Much like television, their goal is not the propagation of fact or accurate adherence to scientific models, but rather to sell more magazines. They oversensationalize. A lot.

That's not to say that we don't still make major discoveries.

An excellent recent example is the Ida fossil - a major find, and one that does indeed carry great significance in the chain of ape evolution (includinh human evolution). However, it's not the "missing link" that the media portrayed it as. Those links were discovered decades before Ida. Documentaries spoke of "verifying Darwinism," when evolution has been verified by literally every bit of biologicalevidence we've discovered in the past 200 years - it all fits the evolutionary model. Evolution has been directly observed in the lab - college students carry out experiments every year that demonstrate the evolution of new traits and species.

But Ida was significant. She's not the "missing link," but she is a link that represents a common ancestor between lemurs and other apes. It's significant, and the fossil is fascinating...and it matches exactly the predictions of evolution.

Instead of blindly believing in evolutionist. How about studying the evidence your'e self. The recreations of human apes in science magazines are intentionally made to look more like apes the older it is.

Are you really suggesting that artist's interpretations of fossil evidence is itself evidence, and part of a brainwashing conspiracy to convince us that we're all monkeys?

Are you daft?

I suggest that you study the actual evidence. I suggest looking to actual scientific journals, where the full findings of the actual scientists are recorded in their own words, rather than junk-science magazines that just wnat to sell more subscriptions and sensationalize every minor discovery into Earth-shattering significance.

Perhaps the media is not the place to gain an education in science. Perhaps instead universities and actual sicentific literature are the place to learn about science.

Perhaps your comprehension and knowledge, as a layperson, is vastly inferiorto the actual sicentists who develop and test these theories, and there just might be a reason that essencially all biologists accept the currently established model of human evolution.

Perhaps you should try presenting evidence that falsifies the current model, or a model of your own that fits the evidence better. That you, a layperson who apparently gains most of his scientific understanding from magazines should be unconvinced of something you clearly don't even understand is hardly surprising or of great consequence.

For exampel, When the nebraska man was found. The scientific magazines flowed with images of a human ape, Based upon nothing more than a tooth, that later turned out to belong to an extinct pig species....

Which turned out to be an example of media hype more than scientific inaccuracy, as I recall. Yet another reason to distrust your magazines.

Neanderthals are another exampel of how you can not trust in the evolutionist recreation of human apes. The first Neander thal fosils were made very ape like. But it turned out the fosil this was based on belonged to a deformed old man.

Another exampel of the evolutionists wishing thoughts were Archapitetus, Said to be the first walking ape, But this was only based upona few fragments from the jaw. Do you think this was enough o recreate a walking human ape ?

Present your source for these claims or retract. Your sayso is insufficient - give us a link, or at least the name and date of whatever magazine you're pulling this from.

Of course not. Obviusly in theese cases plus the piltdown and the new guinnea man, Alot of wishing was involved. The evolutionist tried to form the evidence to make it look like they wanted. This was not scientific.

Fortunately, we've continued to find more fossils. We have more than one Neanderthal fossil, you know.

Do you really think the evolutionist has changed at all ? Should we really believe in what the evolutionist says without studying the evidence for our selves ?

That's the thing about science - actual scientists want you to look at the evidence for yourself. But you need to have at least enough of an education to comprehend what you're looking at. So far, you have failed to actually present any evidence of this massive fraud you're proposing - you haven't presented one iota of evidence falisfying the current model of human evolution, nor have you presented a competing model that you believe is more accurate.

Should we really believe what you say without looking at any evidence?

No the evolutionist are constantly bending the evidence to make it look the way they want it.

Curiously, it has been evolutionists themselves who have falsified every hoax, corrected every overzealous conclusion, and discarded inaccuracies in light of new evidence. If evolutionists are so bent on world domination through ape ancestry, why would they expose their own frauds?

And im afriad saying that the human evolution is well documented is simply falsce. First of all there are very few fosils considering all the species who lived, so its not a very good base at all.

Such a statement clearly displays that you have no idea what you're talking about. Fossilization is rare. We don't expect to find many - but we have found more than enough of tehm to paint a fairly clear picture of teh progression of ape evolution, culminating in the apes existing today (including humans).

You're lying. I've already posted links to significant documentation regarding human evolution, which themselves contain links to additional documentation - and those were simply Wikipedia articles, not full scientific journals or textbooks. When you're been presented with evidence, and then you deny the evidence exists, you are lying. I'd suggest you stop that.

So im afraid it is not unscientific to believe that humans did not evolve. Im not saying the creationist are much better ( Allthough infinetly better from a mathematic view point) But making suchs claim as that im unscientific by not believing in evolution is no better then a priest saying that atheist are evil.

I am afraid that you have some serious misconceptions regarding evolution, mathematics, and science in general.

More importantly, I;m afraid that since you've presented absolutely no evidence in support of your position, and because you have failed to refute even a single part of the current model of human evolution, there's no reason to believe anything that you say. Perhaps if you began supporting your statements with evidence, you would do better.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 24 by Doubletime, posted 06-19-2009 2:34 PM Doubletime has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 28 by Doubletime, posted 06-19-2009 3:58 PM Rahvin has responded

Doubletime
Junior Member (Idle past 3776 days)
Posts: 27
Joined: 05-08-2009


Message 28 of 1075 (512638)
06-19-2009 3:58 PM
Reply to: Message 27 by Rahvin
06-19-2009 3:36 PM


Re: Yes, you are "agaisnt science"
Do i really need any links ? I am trying to use only common knolledge because i hate using links.

Abiogenisis is impossibel and is very likely to be the worst myth ever made by humans. And the form of Darwinism that is allto common today. Evolutionist should simply solve this by saying something created it but they choose to stick to it.

I believe you need to go and study books if you are questioning why i am not linking facts for common knolledge. I recomend this video were richard dawkins speaks himself =)
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oHg5SJYRHA0
For learning about what i said


This message is a reply to:
 Message 27 by Rahvin, posted 06-19-2009 3:36 PM Rahvin has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 30 by Percy, posted 06-19-2009 4:39 PM Doubletime has not yet responded
 Message 32 by Rahvin, posted 06-19-2009 5:23 PM Doubletime has not yet responded
 Message 36 by Dr Adequate, posted 06-20-2009 2:41 AM Doubletime has not yet responded

dwise1
Member
Posts: 3947
Joined: 05-02-2006
Member Rating: 3.0


Message 29 of 1075 (512644)
06-19-2009 4:29 PM
Reply to: Message 25 by Doubletime
06-19-2009 2:36 PM


Re: Missing links?
Ok Homo ergaster is new to me. Why do they have so complicated names anyway ?

Those names are not the least bit complicated ... if you know any Latin. Now if you want complicated, then you have English. In Moscow on the Hudson, Russian defector Robin Williams made a comment to another immigrant about his mouth hurting after speaking English all day, exactly the same thing that a friend from Yugoslavia had told me a decade earlier.

That name is part of Linnaean taxonomy, the system that scientists have used for over two centuries. Every single person alive who has ever actually studied biology or paleontology knows of the existence and use of the Linnaean system and is to some degree familiar with it. It's boggling my mind that you don't.

PS
Now that you have finally been informed of the existence of Linnaean taxonomy, you really need to learn more about it. The Wikipedia page, at , would be one place to start. From that page (my emphasis):

quote:
A strength of Linnaean taxonomy is that it can be used to organize the different kinds of living organisms, simply and practically. Every species can be given a unique (and hopefully stable) name, as compared with common names that are often neither unique nor consistent from place to place and language to language. This uniqueness and stability are, of course, a result of the acceptance by working systematists (biologists specializing in taxonomy); not merely of the binomial names themselves, but of the rules governing the use of these names; rules that are laid down in formal Nomenclature Codes.

Sometime around 1990, I heard the Governor of Mississippi on national radio justifying his emphasis on education reform. From memory:

quote:
We've already tried ignorance, so we know that doesn't work.

The sooner you learn that ignorance doesn't work, the sooner you can start to learn.

Edited by dwise1, : PS

Edited by dwise1, : had forgotten to name the Governor's state.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 25 by Doubletime, posted 06-19-2009 2:36 PM Doubletime has not yet responded

Percy
Member
Posts: 19244
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 3.2


Message 30 of 1075 (512647)
06-19-2009 4:39 PM
Reply to: Message 28 by Doubletime
06-19-2009 3:58 PM


Re: Yes, you are "agaisnt science"
Doubletime writes:

Abiogenisis is impossibel and is very likely to be the worst myth ever made by humans.

Creatio ex nihilo is impossible and is very likely to be the worst myth ever made by humans.

See how easy this is?

We already have a pretty good idea of your views. Despite your denials that you're a creationist, so far your arguments are straight down the middle of road creationism. Simply declaring your creationist views isn't discussion or argument, isn't any form of give and take. It's just repeated soliloquy.

I believe you need to go and study books if you are questioning why i am not linking facts for common knolledge. I recomend this video were richard dawkins speaks himself =)
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oHg5SJYRHA0
For learning about what i said

Okay, two things, Sherlock.

First, Dawkins doesn't agree with you about anything you've said here so far. What makes you think he does? There's that comprehension problem again.

Second, your YouTube link is to an incredibly corny music video called RickRoll'D.

Sheesh!

--Percy


This message is a reply to:
 Message 28 by Doubletime, posted 06-19-2009 3:58 PM Doubletime has not yet responded

Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2018 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.0 Beta
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2020