|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
EvC Forum active members: 64 (9163 total) |
| |
ChatGPT | |
Total: 916,419 Year: 3,676/9,624 Month: 547/974 Week: 160/276 Day: 34/23 Hour: 1/3 |
Summations Only | Thread ▼ Details |
|
Thread Info
|
|
|
Author | Topic: Nothing in biology makes sense except in the light of evolution. | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Tangle Member Posts: 9504 From: UK Joined: Member Rating: 4.7 |
Dredge writes: If children are taught that Darwinism is nonsense, they aren't missing out on anything, because biology doesn't need Darwinism; it's just an irrelevant atheist creation-story. Darwinism doesn't advance any science in any way; and since it is only theorising, it doesn't qualify as true knowledge. That's too big for a bumper sticker. Needs work.Je suis Charlie. Je suis Ahmed. Je suis Juif. Je suis Parisien. "Life, don't talk to me about life" - Marvin the Paranoid Android "Science adjusts it's views based on what's observed.Faith is the denial of observation so that Belief can be preserved." - Tim Minchin, in his beat poem, Storm.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Coyote Member (Idle past 2127 days) Posts: 6117 Joined: |
Darwinism doesn't advance any science in any way; and since it is only theorising, it doesn't qualify as true knowledge. You need to look up definitions of terms used in science. Your ignorance of those terms is blatant. And it does not advance your argument when we can see such obvious mistakes.Religious belief does not constitute scientific evidence, nor does it convey scientific knowledge. Belief gets in the way of learning--Robert A. Heinlein In the name of diversity, college student demands to be kept in ignorance of the culture that made diversity a value--StultisTheFool It's not what we don't know that hurts, it's what we know that ain't so--Will Rogers If I am entitled to something, someone else is obliged to pay--Jerry Pournelle If a religion's teachings are true, then it should have nothing to fear from science...--dwise1 "Multiculturalism" demands that the US be tolerant of everything except its own past, culture, traditions, and identity. Liberals claim to want to give a hearing to other views, but then are shocked and offended to discover that there are other points of view--William F. Buckley Jr.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Taq Member Posts: 10038 Joined: Member Rating: 5.3 |
Dredge writes: If children are taught that Darwinism is nonsense, they aren't missing out on anything, because biology doesn't need Darwinism; Your claim is disproved in posts 4, 9, 12, 13, and 17 in this thread alone.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Taq Member Posts: 10038 Joined: Member Rating: 5.3 |
Dredge writes: If children are taught that Darwinism is nonsense, they aren't missing out on anything, because biology doesn't need Darwinism; This is rich. Creationists refuse to even look at a single fossil. The last thing they want to do is produce an honest definition for "transitional fossil" because they know the moment they do they will be presented with fossil after fossil that fits that definition.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
New Cat's Eye Inactive Member |
If children are taught that Darwinism is nonsense, they aren't missing out on anything, because biology doesn't need Darwinism; it's just an irrelevant atheist creation-story. Darwinism doesn't advance any science in any way; and since it is only theorising, it doesn't qualify as true knowledge. Cool story, bro. Now, while you are wallowing in your ignorance, scientists will continue to employ the Theory of Evolution as a working theory that explains biological phenomenon. It simply works - despite your vitriol.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
CRR Member (Idle past 2263 days) Posts: 579 From: Australia Joined: |
I like the way some paleontologists take a few bones and construct a entire creature out it - maybe even a "transitional". Perhaps you're thinking of Pakicetus? Top left: Gingerich’s first reconstruction.Bottom left: what he had actually found Top right: more complete skeleton Bottom right: more reasonable reconstruction
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Taq Member Posts: 10038 Joined: Member Rating: 5.3
|
CRR writes: Perhaps you're thinking of Pakicetus? Top left: Gingerich’s first reconstruction.Bottom left: what he had actually found Top right: more complete skeleton Bottom right: more reasonable reconstruction Perhaps you are ignoring the mixture of terrestrial mammal and cetacean features found in the fossil itself, outside of any artistic reconstruction of the species. This is the part creationists always seem to ignore. You don't need a whole, perfectly preserved fossil in order to determine that a fossil species had a mixture of features from two divergent taxa. Take Lucy for example. Looking at just the bones in the actual fossil you can find an apelike jaw, upper torso, brow ridge, and other apelike features. You can also find humanlike features such as a broad and squat pelvis and inward angled femurs (adaptations for bipedalism). Like almost everything in science, creationists have to run away from the observations.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Dredge Member (Idle past 94 days) Posts: 2850 From: Australia Joined:
|
New Cat's Eye writes: scientists will continue to employ the theory of evolution as a working theory that explains biological phenomena. Useless talk amounting to useless science, in other words. Not impressed, but slightly amused.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Dredge Member (Idle past 94 days) Posts: 2850 From: Australia Joined:
|
Taq writes: Take Lucy for example Yes, let's take Lucy ... her feet bones were missing, so she was depicted with human feet ... based solely on the fact that human foot-prints were found nearby! Real scientific, that. Edited by Dredge, : No reason given.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Dredge Member (Idle past 94 days) Posts: 2850 From: Australia Joined:
|
Coyote writes: When you spend your whole career studying bones you can do things like that Yep, and when you get really, really good at it, you can come up with Nebraska Man from a pig's tooth! ... or combine the bones of an orangutan and a human to produce Piltdown Man! That degree of scientific rigour, knowledge and expertise is possessed only by highly qualified Darwinist charlatans.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
jar Member (Idle past 415 days) Posts: 34026 From: Texas!! Joined:
|
Dredge writes: Yes, let's take Lucy ... her feet bones were missing, so she was depicted with human feet ... based solely on the fact that human foot-prints were found nearby! Real scientific, that. That's a great example of why Science is so superior to fantasy and mythology and of Creationist dishonesty. The footprints were always treated as separate evidence from the Australopithecus remains. While artists may well have drawn examples of what Lucy might have looked like the fact that the skeleton was incomplete was also not just acknowledged but documented. As additional information becomes available the conclusions get revised. In the case of Australopithecus initial ideas claimed only bipedalism fairly like modern ones but as more samples have been discovered we know know that there were several species of Australopithecus and there may well have still been arboreal traits. It is also fact as opposed to fantasy that the foot prints do exist, that the remains do exist, that both were found in proximity, that the foot prints do not correspond to modern foot prints and the the foot prints and the remains are approximately the same age. Science is self correcting where dogma simply perpetuates fantasy.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Coyote Member (Idle past 2127 days) Posts: 6117 Joined:
|
Yep, and when you get really, really good at it, you can come up with Nebraska Man from a pig's tooth! ... or combine the bones of an orangutan and a human to produce Piltdown Man! That degree of scientific rigour, knowledge and expertise is possessed only by highly qualified Darwinist charlatans. Two hundred-year-old cases is the best you can do? Creationist Arguments: Nebraska ManCreationist Arguments: Piltdown Man Religious belief does not constitute scientific evidence, nor does it convey scientific knowledge. Belief gets in the way of learning--Robert A. Heinlein In the name of diversity, college student demands to be kept in ignorance of the culture that made diversity a value--StultisTheFool It's not what we don't know that hurts, it's what we know that ain't so--Will Rogers If I am entitled to something, someone else is obliged to pay--Jerry Pournelle If a religion's teachings are true, then it should have nothing to fear from science...--dwise1 "Multiculturalism" demands that the US be tolerant of everything except its own past, culture, traditions, and identity. Liberals claim to want to give a hearing to other views, but then are shocked and offended to discover that there are other points of view--William F. Buckley Jr.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Dr Adequate Member (Idle past 305 days) Posts: 16113 Joined:
|
Yep, and when you get really, really good at it, you can come up with Nebraska Man from a pig's tooth! ... or combine the bones of an orangutan and a human to produce Piltdown Man! That degree of scientific rigour, knowledge and expertise is possessed only by highly qualified Darwinist charlatans. Scientists made a couple of mistakes a hundred years or so ago, which they corrected. But creationists make many more mistakes all the time, which they don't correct. So you don't get to chide scientists.
And why beholdest thou the mote that is in thy brother's eye, but considerest not the beam that is in thine own eye? Or how wilt thou say to thy brother, Let me pull out the mote out of thine eye; and, behold, a beam is in thine own eye? Thou hypocrite, first cast out the beam out of thine own eye; and then shalt thou see clearly to cast out the mote out of thy brother's eye. Edited by Dr Adequate, : No reason given.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
CRR Member (Idle past 2263 days) Posts: 579 From: Australia Joined: |
the [Laetoli] foot prints do not correspond to modern foot prints Yes they do. According to Laetoli Footprints they are in fact "hardly distinguishable from those of modern humans."Others have said they are indistinguishable from footprints of modern humans from that area who habitually go barefoot. I can remember when Lucy and the Laetoli prints were promoted hand in hand as proof that these were human ancestors. We now know that Australopithecus had apelike feet and almost certainly was not an obligate biped; i.e. Lucy was an ape. A track of human footprints strongly suggests the trail was made by humans. Well that's the most logical conclusion.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
jar Member (Idle past 415 days) Posts: 34026 From: Texas!! Joined: |
CRR writes: Yes they do. According to Laetoli Footprints they are in fact "hardly distinguishable from those of modern humans."Others have said they are indistinguishable from footprints of modern humans from that area who habitually go barefoot. I can remember when Lucy and the Laetoli prints were promoted hand in hand as proof that these were human ancestors. We now know that Australopithecus had apelike feet and almost certainly was not an obligate biped; i.e. Lucy was an ape. A track of human footprints strongly suggests the trail was made by humans. Well that's the most logical conclusion. Except for the fact that they can be distinguished from modern footprints. But your point as usual is still irrelevant and dishonest. The footprints exist. The fossils exist. They were found in the same general area. And as I pointed out, as additional evidence is found Science, unlike dogma, corrects its mistakes.
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024