|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
EvC Forum active members: 65 (9164 total) |
| |
ChatGPT | |
Total: 916,914 Year: 4,171/9,624 Month: 1,042/974 Week: 1/368 Day: 1/11 Hour: 0/0 |
Thread ▼ Details |
|
|
Author | Topic: Potential falsifications of the theory of evolution | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Granny Magda Member Posts: 2462 From: UK Joined: Member Rating: 4.1 |
No one one is question the extinction of animals or supposed homminids. Oh. Great. So you're not disputing that pre-human hominids existed. Good.
there simply should be more evidence if what you say existed, actually exsisted But now you are questioning whether they existed!
I am questioning why there isnt more evidence, that doesnt have to rely on skant parts pieced together from here or there And you have been told why there isn't more evidence; fossilisation is a very patchy process and we are talking about species that did not inhabit many environments suitable for fossilisation, that did not last long, that never had huge populations, and which were relatively geographically isolated. You are yet to explain what you think is wrong with this explanation beyond repeating "It just seems wrong, there should be more". Well why should there be more? Tell us exactly why we should expect to see more? Demonstrate to us how you know that there is a real shortfall in hominid fossils. How many should we expect to see (if common descent between chimps and humans were true), and why? If you can't do that, all you have is "I dunno, seems wrong.".
the lack of evidence that is characteristic in humanoid existence is what I am questioning. Your "evidence" may be sufficient for you but it is not for me Yes. I know. It "seems wrong" to you. You said. The thing is, that on the one hand, we have the musing of Dawn Bertot/EMA, who thinks that it "seems wrong" and on the other, we have the hundreds of fossils from ancient hominids that actually exist. Surely you can appreciate why I find your opinion to be less impressive than actual physical evidence to the contrary?
The frozen example was simply an example to a point. it was an illustration that could apply to any scenerio where such could have been preserved It was irrelevant, both because we would not expect to see hominids preserved that way and because we do have preserved hominids; we have their fossilised remains. We may not have enough to have reached your personal threshold of proof, but since you have neglected to tell us where that threshold might lie, I am not overly concerned. Mutate and Survive On two occasions I have been asked, — "Pray, Mr. Babbage, if you put into the machine wrong figures, will the right answers come out?" ... I am not able rightly to apprehend the kind of confusion of ideas that could provoke such a question. - Charles Babbage
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Dawn Bertot Member (Idle past 113 days) Posts: 3571 Joined: |
Oh. Great. So you're not disputing that pre-human hominids existed. Good. Well I cant really ackowledge or disavow the existence of something where there seems to where there seems to be not enough evidence, now can i Secondly, my query has to do with the way the "evidence" is gathered, a piece of something here or there, with the composition of a whole creature simply from a small bone, or the such like Didnt they construct a whole goomery creature out of a tooth only later to find out it was a pigs tooth, or am I mistaken about that? If there were millions then certainly we should be able to find numerous examples in tact to help support the cause, corrrect. i mean millions upon million over 100s of thousands of years and all we can come up with is, here a piece there a piece Dinos were what, 60 to 200 million years ago and we can find them all over the place in tact BTW, I have no problem or hestitations believing in Dinos, because the evidence is overwhelming. Not so with your monkey boys
And you have been told why there isn't more evidence; fossilisation is a very patchy process and we are talking about species that did not inhabit many environments suitable for fossilisation, that did not last long, that never had huge populations, and which were relatively geographically isolated. Werent your mokey boys found in different locations as in China and other areas that would have provided fossilization and examples that I am looking for I was not aware that they were all relegated to Africa, werent they discovered in many places all over the world? Perhaps you could provide a (SIMPLE) list, somewhat comprehensive that shows what they were and thier locations they were found. Maybe that would help Dawn Bertot Edited by Dawn Bertot, : No reason given. Edited by Dawn Bertot, : No reason given.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Coragyps Member (Idle past 765 days) Posts: 5553 From: Snyder, Texas, USA Joined: |
Didnt they construct a whole goomery creature out of a tooth only later to find out it was a pigs tooth, or am I mistaken about that? Yes, you are mistaken. A tabloid newspaper published a drawing of a hominid-looking critter after H. F. Osborn published the tentative identification of a tooth from Nebraska as belonging to a primate. Osborn called the illustration "a figment of the imagination of no scientific value, and undoubtedly inaccurate". And that all before my mother was born.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Percy Member Posts: 22505 From: New Hampshire Joined: Member Rating: 5.4 |
The thread is about potential falsifications of the theory of evolution. Even if the hominid evidence were woefully inadequate, that wouldn't be a falsification.
--Percy
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Dawn Bertot Member (Idle past 113 days) Posts: 3571 Joined: |
You make your god deeply ashamed. Ahhhhh the ever present and constant contradictions of a tyro. Tell me Panda, why are you so worried about the concerns and feelings of a creature that in your view does not exist? Edited by Adminnemooseus, : Kill "Re: Bump for ICANT" subtitle.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Dawn Bertot Member (Idle past 113 days) Posts: 3571 Joined: |
Yes, you are mistaken. A tabloid newspaper published a drawing of a hominid-looking critter after H. F. Osborn published the tentative identification of a tooth from Nebraska as belonging to a primate. Osborn called the illustration "a figment of the imagination of no scientific value, and undoubtedly inaccurate". And that all before my mother was born. Ok. In the meantime, arent these supposed hominids found in many other locations besides Africa? Edited by Dawn Bertot, : No reason given.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Panda Member (Idle past 3743 days) Posts: 2688 From: UK Joined: |
Dawn Bertot writes:
Why should I answer your questions when you repeatedly refuse to answer mine (or anyone else's). Tell me Panda, why are you so worried about the concerns and feelings of a creature that in your view does not exist? Why is your English at a level that would embarrass most 7 year old children? Edited by Adminnemooseus, : Kill "Re: Bump for ICANT" subtitle.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Granny Magda Member Posts: 2462 From: UK Joined: Member Rating: 4.1 |
Well I cant really ackowledge or disavow the existence of something where there seems to where there seems to be not enough evidence, now can i What you can't do is pretend that the hominid fossils we do know about don't exist. We have have the fossils, thus they existed. How do you propose that the fossils got there if the creatures didn't exist? Once again, you are being absurd.
Secondly, my query has to do with the way the "evidence" is gathered, a piece of something here or there, with the composition of a whole creature simply from a small bone, or the such like Can you cite a particular specimen that you find unconvincing?
Didnt they construct a whole goomery creature out of a tooth only later to find out it was a pigs tooth, or am I mistaken about that? Are any of those made from a pig's tooth Dawn? No? Then they existed. Please do not play silly games.
If there were millions then certainly we should be able to find numerous examples in tact to help support the cause, corrrect. i mean millions upon million over 100s of thousands of years and all we can come up with is, here a piece there a piece As I have repeatedly asked you, how many ought there be according to your interpretation of the ToE version? Why should there be fewer than we see? The example of the passenger pigeon proves that even incredibly numerous species, with populations in the billions can disappear, leaving few fossils. Why should humans be any different? And Dawn; "million upon million"? Just how large do you think the hominid populations were? How do you know? If you can't tell us how many fossils there ought to be, you can't tell us that we see too few.
Dinos were what, 60 to 200 million years ago and we can find them all over the place in tact Since I already addressed this and you failed to rebut, I'll just copy and paste;
GM writes: Firstly, the dinosaurs lived from about 230 million years ago to about 65 million years ago. Secondly, what do you mean by "OVERWHELMING evidence" (in ALLCAPS no less)? I wonder if you realise how many (non-avian) dinosaur species are known from only a few fossil specimens? That most dinosaur finds are far from being complete skeletons? That the taxonomy of many familiar dinosaurs is actually very controversial within the field? Dinosaurs were around for a good 165 million years and comprised almost countless species and were ubiquitous around the world. Human-like primates by contrast, existed for only five or six million years and only had a few varieties, restricted to parts Africa and Eurasia. That only gives us a tiny snapshot of their lives. There is really no comparison between them and the vast group of dinosaurs. Note Dawn, that's 230 million years ago to 65 million years ago. If you bothered to check your facts, you might find that you get less wrong.
Werent your mokey boys found in different locations as in China and other areas that would have provided fossilization and examples that I am looking for I was not aware that they were all relegated to Africa, werent they discovered in many places all over the world? Yes there are hominid fossils in China. No, I did not say that they were restricted to Africa. You mentioned dinosaurs. Dinosaur fossils are found in multiple regions of Africa, Eurasia, the Americas, Australia and even Antacrtica. Hominids, by comparison, are restricted to Africa and Southern Eurasia. There is no comparison here.
Perhaps you could provide a (SIMPLE) list, somewhat comprehensive that shows what they were and thier locations they were found. Maybe that would help There a too many to put on a single image! The majority of the kind of species we're taling about are only found in Africa. So far, no Australopithecine (for example) has been found outside Africa. As far as I know, the only examples found outside Africa are from the Homo genus; i.e. they are human species. Try taking a look at the wiki page for the genus Homo,, which includes this graphic representing the spread of early humans into Eurasia;
Mutate and Survive On two occasions I have been asked, — "Pray, Mr. Babbage, if you put into the machine wrong figures, will the right answers come out?" ... I am not able rightly to apprehend the kind of confusion of ideas that could provoke such a question. - Charles Babbage
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Dawn Bertot Member (Idle past 113 days) Posts: 3571 Joined: |
Are any of those made from a pig's tooth Dawn? No? Then they existed. Please do not play silly games. No game is involved here i assure you. I have always wondered what these things might look like intact, bodies and all. Perhaps they would not appear as we have them pictured from reconstructions At any rate the lack of intact creatures in the fossil record, the scarcity in the fossil record and the inablity to view them as they actually were, always leaves doubt as to what they might actually have been, muchless whether is some chain leading to chimpanzees and modern humans great numbers of fossils that claim to be a certain type of species or type of humanoid or hominid would bolster the supposed chain in the examples you provide A few examples of this or that do not a satisfactory chain of evidence make Perhaps what we are viewing is simply another type and form of primate, with nothing to do with human existence itself At any rate tons of specimens and examples in the fossil record would of course bolster your claim . To bad such prime examples are absent or perhaps they havent been discovered Dawn Bertot Edited by Dawn Bertot, : No reason given.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
edge Member (Idle past 1736 days) Posts: 4696 From: Colorado, USA Joined: |
Surely you understand you dont need to be a biologist to know that from an evidential standpoint one does not have to agree or see the concept of Macro-evolution in the fossil record.
Hey, you can 'see' whatever you want in the fossil record. I'm just curious as to what your explanation is.
Since the fossil record does not prove absolutely evolution,...
Of course not. Few things are proven absolutely, especially in science. If that is your standard, I suggest you apply it to your own scenario.
... it would follow that an observation in the opposite direction is more than plausible.
And just how does it 'follow'? You appear to open up the argument that data is open to any interpretation. That would be silly.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Dawn Bertot Member (Idle past 113 days) Posts: 3571 Joined: |
Hey, you can 'see' whatever you want in the fossil record. I'm just curious as to what your explanation is. Here is what I mean. We have all types shapes and sizes of primates right, what would happen if we laid these examples (skulls)beside the head of any shape and size of existing primates we have today Strip away the flesh and skin of each and wouldnt there be some primates that have exacally or nearly the same shape and size. there are tons and types of primates, small medium and large, correct? How about we try that. Im just trying to figure out what they might have been and when they would have been Dawn Bertot
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
DrJones* Member Posts: 2290 From: Edmonton, Alberta, Canada Joined: Member Rating: 7.6 |
Strip away the flesh and skin of each and wouldnt there be some primates that have exacally or nearly the same shape and size
Are you suggesting that anthropologists are incapable of disinguishing from a modern chimp and a H. habilis (for example)? It's not enough to bash in heads, you've got to bash in minds soon I discovered that this rock thing was true Jerry Lee Lewis was the devil Jesus was an architect previous to his career as a prophet All of a sudden i found myself in love with the world And so there was only one thing I could do Was ding a ding dang my dang along ling long - Jesus Built my Hotrod Ministry Live every week like it's Shark Week! - Tracey Jordan Just a monkey in a long line of kings. - Matthew Good If "elitist" just means "not the dumbest motherfucker in the room", I'll be an elitist! - Get Your War On *not an actual doctor
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Coyote Member (Idle past 2136 days) Posts: 6117 Joined:
|
Dawn Bertot writes:
Most osteology labs have skulls of the various primates, as well as the prehistoric specimens. We have all types shapes and sizes of primates right, what would happen if we laid these examples (skulls)beside the head of any shape and size of existing primates we have today Strip away the flesh and skin of each and wouldnt there be some primates that have exacally or nearly the same shape and size. there are tons and types of primates, small medium and large, correct? How about we try that. Im just trying to figure out what they might have been and when they would have been When I was learning osteology we routinely examined existing and extinct primates, including a lot of specimens of fossil man. Why do you assume that scientists have never thought of this type of comparison? It is the kind of study that is started in beginning osteology courses (in Anthropology, not necessarily the medical fields). Folks who specialize in fossil man become real experts in these various primates and their ancestors. Religious belief does not constitute scientific evidence, nor does it convey scientific knowledge.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Dawn Bertot Member (Idle past 113 days) Posts: 3571 Joined: |
Why do you assume that scientists have never thought of this type of comparison? that was not my assumption about them, I know they do that.
It is the kind of study that is started in beginning osteology courses (in Anthropology, not necessarily the medical fields). Folks who specialize in fossil man become real experts in these various primates and their ancestors. Is there a place where I could see side beside, these comparisons I mean we have everything from spider monkeys to gorilla pusses and everything in between perhaps we are just looking at a type of primate, not necessarily in some chain headed twords man Of course enough evidence would support that, but i believe evidence of that nature is lacking and keeps people doubtful of its conclusions Anyway it would be interesting to see these comparisons. so hook me up nature boy Dawn Bertot
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
DrJones* Member Posts: 2290 From: Edmonton, Alberta, Canada Joined: Member Rating: 7.6 |
perhaps we are just looking at a type of primate, not necessarily in some chain headed twords man
So again you're implying that anthropologists can't distinguish between different types of primates.
Is there a place where I could see side beside, these comparisons
Try the google machine, wikipedia, or perhaps a physical anthropology course at your nearest university. Edited by DrJones*, : No reason given. Edited by DrJones*, : No reason given. It's not enough to bash in heads, you've got to bash in minds soon I discovered that this rock thing was true Jerry Lee Lewis was the devil Jesus was an architect previous to his career as a prophet All of a sudden i found myself in love with the world And so there was only one thing I could do Was ding a ding dang my dang along ling long - Jesus Built my Hotrod Ministry Live every week like it's Shark Week! - Tracey Jordan Just a monkey in a long line of kings. - Matthew Good If "elitist" just means "not the dumbest motherfucker in the room", I'll be an elitist! - Get Your War On *not an actual doctor
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024