|
Author
|
Topic: Does evidence of transitional forms exist ? (Hominid and other)
|
Percy
Member Posts: 22499 From: New Hampshire Joined: 12-23-2000 Member Rating: 4.9
|
|
Message 35 of 301 (5298)
02-22-2002 3:39 PM
|
Reply to: Message 34 by Quetzal
02-22-2002 3:25 PM
|
|
Please refrain from characterizing your co-debaters responses as lies. Pointing out the problems in their arguments should be sufficient. --Percy
| This message is a reply to: | | | Message 34 by Quetzal, posted 02-22-2002 3:25 PM | | Quetzal has replied |
|
Percy
Member Posts: 22499 From: New Hampshire Joined: 12-23-2000 Member Rating: 4.9
|
|
|
Message 37 of 301 (5300)
02-22-2002 4:16 PM
|
Reply to: Message 36 by Quetzal
02-22-2002 3:45 PM
|
|
I think some people have better nonsense detectors, some have better science educations, some have better religious educations, some have better common sense, but I think few people knowingly lie and misrepresent here. But even if someone is lying, accusing them of it is not often going to be productive. I encourage people here to focus on the weaknesses in their opponents positions rather than the motivations and intentions behind them. --Percy
| This message is a reply to: | | | Message 36 by Quetzal, posted 02-22-2002 3:45 PM | | Quetzal has not replied |
|
Percy
Member Posts: 22499 From: New Hampshire Joined: 12-23-2000 Member Rating: 4.9
|
Hi, Redstang! I think we're all still wondering why you persist in providing out-of-context quotes of evolutionists expressing beliefs they clearly do not hold. If they really believed what your quotes make them appear to be saying then Creationism must have replaced evolution long ago. But they don't and it hasn't. You also have to answer a larger question. If evolutionists are really perpetuating the theory through a 150 year old conspiracy of lies and distortions, how do they agree on which made-up "story" is the one they'll all support? A much deeper question is why? Evolutionists are Christians, Moslems and Hindus, theists and atheists, believers and agnostics, yet they all believe the earth is 4.56 billion years old and that all life on earth is descended from one or a few original organisms. Why would all these different groups conspire secretly and successfully for over a century? What is it they gain from this? And how could it be done anyway? One of the most important requirements in solving a mystery is establishing a motive, and so far you don't have one. No evolutionist thinks that accepting evolution will bring spiritual rewards in the afterlife, so that's not it. The reason there's such unanimity about evolution is because it has a factual foundation. Simply mining Creationist websites for quotes isn't going to change that. --Percy
|
Percy
Member Posts: 22499 From: New Hampshire Joined: 12-23-2000 Member Rating: 4.9
|
|
|
Message 42 of 301 (5363)
02-23-2002 1:50 PM
|
Reply to: Message 41 by Quetzal
02-23-2002 2:49 AM
|
|
Hi Quetzal!
Quetzal writes:
The only ways in which such quotations could be taken at face value are: - the reader is ignorant;
- the reader accepts the quotation, and because it matches his/her worldview, is willing to perpetuate it without question;
- the reader is deliberately attempting to deceive.
Well, we're all ignorant, it just varies depending on the topic. I think what you're really getting at is that people shouldn't make claims that reach beyond the extent of their knowledge. In Redstang's case, he makes claims based not upon his own authority and knowledge, but upon what he trusts to be authority and knowledge standing behind the information at the Creationist websites he favors.
I will attempt to use your example methodology in future rebuttals of this type of post. Still, it is very frustrating...
Well, I don't want to tell people what methodology to use, so maybe I went to far. Please use your own methods, just please also follow the guidelines. The debate can become very repetitive. I think people would be well advised to be prepared to patiently re-explain their evidence and arguments, even with the same person. Heck, especially with the same person. Everything doesn't sink in all at once. Oftentimes it helps to come back to a previous point. Effecting a change of mind is an exceeding slow process, and on a polarizing topic like Creation/Evolution it happens but rarely. Those on both sides of this debate have to take a realistic view of the possible outcomes of their efforts here. Before you can plant a seed you have to prepare the soil. After you've spent a month discussing a topic with someone, if you've gotten through the "prepare the soil" stage then you've gone a long ways and should feel well-satisfied. And if you plant a seed, wow! And if something sprouts, well then, "Hallelujah!" --Percy [This message has been edited by Percipient, 02-23-2002]
| This message is a reply to: | | | Message 41 by Quetzal, posted 02-23-2002 2:49 AM | | Quetzal has not replied |
|
Percy
Member Posts: 22499 From: New Hampshire Joined: 12-23-2000 Member Rating: 4.9
|
|
|
Message 86 of 301 (11344)
06-11-2002 5:43 PM
|
Reply to: Message 85 by Jet
06-11-2002 4:48 PM
|
|
Jet writes:
Really schraf, that was silly. What I don't accept is that lungfish are in some state of evolution. I would not accept that anymore than I would accept that a whale, dolphin, or any other sea mammal is in an evolutionary journey from the sea to the land, or visa versa. That an abundance of wonderfully marvelous creatures exist on this planet is simply more proof of the existance of our most wonderful Creator, whom you have chosen to abandon...
We all grieve daily that Schraf has abandoned the love and grace of our Lord Jesus Christ, but you've abandoned the original point, which though it had nothing to do with salvation at least had the saving grace of being on topic. In Message 53 Punisher says:
I do have a question. If a fish dwelling creature somehow developed a set of lungs over a long period of time; wouldn't he drown at some stage between a lack of gills and the prescence of lungs?
You quoted this in your reply in Message 63, and Schraf then responded to you in Message 67:
No, because the fish would have both gills and lungs at the same time. One or the other would be selected for by the environment if the environment dictated that one or the other was a reproductive advantage. If having both is advantageous, and a niche was filled, the pressure of the environment isn't there to "pick" one over the other. Ever heard of lungfish?
This response from Schraf is not an opportunity to sermonize, but to point out in what ways lungfish are not an example of a transitional form. You can state your belief that God simply created things this way, but statements of belief are not rebuttal, and the fact that the evidence is completely consistent with evolutionary theory yet remains for you to explain. --Percy
| This message is a reply to: | | | Message 85 by Jet, posted 06-11-2002 4:48 PM | | Jet has replied |
| Replies to this message: | | | Message 88 by Jet, posted 06-11-2002 5:58 PM | | Percy has replied |
|
Percy
Member Posts: 22499 From: New Hampshire Joined: 12-23-2000 Member Rating: 4.9
|
|
|
Message 91 of 301 (11355)
06-11-2002 6:58 PM
|
Reply to: Message 88 by Jet
06-11-2002 5:58 PM
|
|
Hi Jet, Jet writes:
The fact is that the evidence is not "completely consistent with evolutionary theory" but is rather 100% consistant with creation by an Intelligent Creator. If what you claim was true, this club would not exist. The fact that it does exist is proof that the TOE is not a satisfactory explanation for life on this planet.
Rule 1 of the forum guidelines says, "Please stay on topic for a thread. Open a new thread for new topics." Rule 2 states, "Debate in good faith by addressing rebuttals through the introduction of new information or by providing additional argument. Do not merely keep repeating the same points without elaboration." If you'd like to sermonize, open a thread under Faith and Belief or in the Coffee House or in Free For All. If you'd like to discuss transitional forms, please post to this thread. If you don't want to do either one then please don't post. --Percy EvC Forum Administrator [This message has been edited by Percipient, 06-11-2002]
| This message is a reply to: | | | Message 88 by Jet, posted 06-11-2002 5:58 PM | | Jet has replied |
| Replies to this message: | | | Message 93 by Jet, posted 06-12-2002 1:44 PM | | Percy has replied |
|
Percy
Member Posts: 22499 From: New Hampshire Joined: 12-23-2000 Member Rating: 4.9
|
|
|
Message 95 of 301 (11405)
06-12-2002 2:34 PM
|
Reply to: Message 93 by Jet
06-12-2002 1:44 PM
|
|
Jet writes:
Fine, Percy, Let me be very specific. The topic is "Does evidence of transitional forms exist?" You say yes, and many scientists will back up that claim. I say no, and many scientists will back up that claim. Is science now to be determined as being accurate based upon majority opinion? If so, then where do we go from here?
Science *is* a consensus activity, but that's not the most relevant point here. Scientists who accept evolution far outnumber those who do not, but that also is not the most relevant point here. In debate, one of the seven major fallacies is appeal to authority. Simply quoting scientists is not debate. It's not what scientists say that is important, but what evidence and argument they bring to the party. Hence, I could say that great scientists like Stephen Jay Gould and Ernst Mayr accept evolution, but it would mean nothing unless I could describe the evidence behind their beliefs. That's why out-of-context quotes by Davies and Jastrow accomplish nothing. Not only are they too short to give an accurate impression of their opinions, but it is meaningless without the evidence and rationale by which they reached their conclusions. Would the evidence that led Paul Davies to his conclusion be persuasive to you? Unless you read The Cosmic Blueprint, which is where your new quote comes from, how will you know? Yet if you search the web for that quote you'll see that it's been replicated at one Creationist site after another with no accompanying explanation of why Davies said this. Anyway, we are not here to argue about which scientists believe what, though we can't help touching on this quite a bit. We're here to hash through the evidence ourselves. --Percy
| This message is a reply to: | | | Message 93 by Jet, posted 06-12-2002 1:44 PM | | Jet has replied |
| Replies to this message: | | | Message 100 by Jet, posted 06-16-2002 7:33 PM | | Percy has not replied |
|
Percy
Member Posts: 22499 From: New Hampshire Joined: 12-23-2000 Member Rating: 4.9
|
|
|
Message 110 of 301 (11703)
06-17-2002 2:46 PM
|
Reply to: Message 107 by Jet
06-17-2002 9:58 AM
|
|
Schraf writes:
All of the evidence is also consistent with the idea that the Universe was created 15 seconds ago, with all of our memories of past events intact.
Jet replies:
Another brilliant observation from our resident Steve Allen groupie...
This fails to address the implications of Schraf's point. All evidence is axiomatically consistent with the premise that the universe is the product of "creation by an Intelligent Creator" (your words from Message 88), since a creator can presumably create in any way he chooses. By what evidence and line of argument do you distinguish between a universe created as described in the Bible, and a universe created 15 seconds ago. Once you leave the realm of physical laws, all becomes possible. --Percy
| This message is a reply to: | | | Message 107 by Jet, posted 06-17-2002 9:58 AM | | Jet has replied |
| Replies to this message: | | | Message 157 by Jet, posted 12-06-2002 9:55 AM | | Percy has not replied |
|
Percy
Member Posts: 22499 From: New Hampshire Joined: 12-23-2000 Member Rating: 4.9
|
|
|
Message 111 of 301 (11704)
06-17-2002 2:52 PM
|
Reply to: Message 108 by Jet
06-17-2002 10:30 AM
|
|
Jet writes:
Really Schraf, sometimes you ask the most inane questions.
I think Schraf was seeking clarification on the meaning of this from you in Message 103:
IMHO, when science is buttressed by theology, assuming that the theology is based solely upon the Holy Word of God, it is better suited to answer many of the difficult questions that we face when attempting to find the answers to the mysteries of the universe.
Using current NASA projects as examples, how would a theological approach inform scientific exploration of questions concerning the origin of galaxies or the birth of stars? --Percy
| This message is a reply to: | | | Message 108 by Jet, posted 06-17-2002 10:30 AM | | Jet has replied |
| Replies to this message: | | | Message 113 by nator, posted 06-22-2002 7:22 PM | | Percy has not replied | | | Message 158 by Jet, posted 12-06-2002 10:00 AM | | Percy has not replied |
|
Percy
Member Posts: 22499 From: New Hampshire Joined: 12-23-2000 Member Rating: 4.9
|
Re: paleoraces
Greetings, Krakowite!
Piotr writes: The development of technology which is evident in the successive generations of Homo erectus demonstrates that this creature was intelectually undistinguishable from the anatomical Homo sapiens. The Homo erectus species persisted for over a million years, and it's Acheulian technology changed little over this period. The Homo sapien species has existed for perhaps only 150,000 years but brought incredible and rapid technological innovation. Combined with the fact that the Homo erectus body size was roughly the same as Homo sapien but with a brain little more than half as large, how do you support your conclusion that Homo erectus was "intellectually indistinguishable" from Homo sapiens? --Percy
|
Percy
Member Posts: 22499 From: New Hampshire Joined: 12-23-2000 Member Rating: 4.9
|
Re: paleoraces
Piotr writes: [a] Holocene people's brain volume (from about 650 - over 2000 ccm) doesn't prove any evident correlation between intellectual capacities and the brain size. [b] There is a crucial difference between a given "technology" and the "development of technology". Spiders, beavers, bees demonstrate a "technical" behavior. But man seems to be the only animal capable to improve, change, to invent technologies.
[c] H. erectus most certainly invented processing of food, learned to control fire, learned to build shelters, so his rather mysterious acheulian handaxes are not the only sign of his intellectual power. These statements offer no support for your conclusion that Homo erectus was "intellectually indistinguishable" from Homo sapiens. The question of how you support this conclusion remains. So far all you have is an assertion with no supporting evidence. And you have to deal with evidence contradicting your assertion, such as that mentioned by NosyNed that brain size *does* correlate with intellectual capacity. As Nosy also mentioned, your brain volume range for Holocene humans is questionable. The range for erectus is estimated at 775-1225 cc with an average around 900 cc, and that for sapiens at roughly 1000-2000 cc with an average around 1400 cc. That's a dramatic difference in brain size. Our evidence regarding erectus and fire and "food processing" goes back to the earliest appearance of erectus 1.5 million years ago, and indicates that while he used fire he couldn't actually originate it himself. During his subsequent 1.3 million year existence he only added a single additional new technology, the Acheulian. In contrast, in less than 10% of that amount of time sapiens have introduced a veritable explosion of new technologies. There's no comparison. --Percy
|
Percy
Member Posts: 22499 From: New Hampshire Joined: 12-23-2000 Member Rating: 4.9
|
Re: paleoraces
Hi Piotr, I've visited your webpage at http://www.jezuici.krakow.pl/sj/lenart, and I see that you have a medical degree and that you've held academic positions at Catholic and Jesuit universities in Europe for the past 30 or 40 years. You seem to specialize in hominids, but all your listed papers appear in philosophy journals, none in paleontological journals. You seem to argue from assertion rather than from evidence, and you ask NosyNed a question about brain size that someone specializing in hominids would already know the answer to, along with being familiar with tons of background evidence. In other words, something about you doesn't quite jibe here. Perhaps you're salty II. Anyway, what evidence do you have that Homo erectus was our intellectual equal, and what does this have to do with the topic of this thread? By the way, here's a handy table of brain-mass/body-mass data for hominids: Franklin & Marshall
--Percy
|
Percy
Member Posts: 22499 From: New Hampshire Joined: 12-23-2000 Member Rating: 4.9
|
Re: paleoraces
Piotr writes: For these reasons I doubt the claim that "the ratio of brain size to body size does correlate with intellectual capacity" is sound enough to be of any help in the reconstruction of the intellectual status of our ancestors. If it's no help, then what is the evidence behind your conclusion that Homo erectus was our intellectual equal? And what does this have to do with this thread? --Percy
|
Percy
Member Posts: 22499 From: New Hampshire Joined: 12-23-2000 Member Rating: 4.9
|
Re: paleoraces
Piotr writes: In my opinion there is plenty of evidence that H. erectus was anatomically very similar to holocene people. Certainly more similar to sapiens than chimps, but there are a number of significant differences. This webpage has a convenient list, and it indicates some pretty substantial differences:
You're assertion seems a simple handwave. You make a few other unsupported or incorrect claims.
However he was smaller,... Except that he wasn't smaller. See the table I just cited in my previous message ( Franklin & Marshall
) which indicates a body weight for erectus of 58 kg and for sapiens of 55.5 kg.
...had more developed masticatory system,... You mean bigger jaw muscles? This is a characteristic shared, to a reduced extent, with evolutionary predecessors or cousins like Australopithecus robustus and Australopithecus boisei. The chewing apparatus continued to diminish in sapiens. You ignored the other question. What is the evidence behind your assertion that Homo erectus was our intellectual equal? --Percy
|
Percy
Member Posts: 22499 From: New Hampshire Joined: 12-23-2000 Member Rating: 4.9
|
Re: paleoraces
Piotr writes: Only now I noticed your rather impertinent remarks on my person (message 172). As you see I am writing in the philosophical journals, but you didn't notice that in my philosophical paper on hominids I am dependent upon the evidence published in the paleontological or biological journals. Oh, good God, it's Salty II! As I said, something about you didn't add up, but now it's starting to make sense. You have the sound and manner of a crank. I'm guessing you're publishing in philosophical journals where they cannot assess your positions because paleontological journals would never publish your papers because of the obvious nonsense, like this introduction to Fossil hominids - an empirical premise of the descriptive definition of Homo sapiens that's simply an argument from personal incredulity and ignorance:
Since the discovery of the Neandertal bones 1856 (cfr Toussaint, 1996), the extremely old, fragmentary fossil remains of hundreds of man-like bodies have been discovered in Europe, Asia, and Africa (cfr Bonjean, 1996). Even the oldest ones - usually the most incomplete - look man-like and "un-apish", even to a layman, if compared with a modern apish and human correlate. Sometimes, in the vicinity of these remains, primitive stone tools or the evidence of their production have been found. At present, it seems absolutely certain - within the limits of our present physical and biological knowledge - that at least four million years ago, in Africa, some creatures resembling modern man were living, and that at least two and half million years ago, in Africa, stone tools were produced. In contrast with the firm, scientifically-arguable belief that all modern human tribes - however different they are - belong to a single species (cfr Littlefield et al., 1982; Marks, 1995), in paleoanthropology an equally firm scientific belief is maintained that the extinct man-like forms belong to several different, "presapient", "prehuman", more ape-like species (cfr Wood, 1996). No philosopher ignores the theoretical consequences of this situation. There is, however, a big epistemological paradox hidden at the bottom of it. There is no agreement among philosophers how to describe the clear gaps between the actually living primate forms and in particular how to understand the mental superiority of the modern living man (Hominidae family) over the modern living apes (Pongidae family). On the biological side of the problem, there is no consensus how to classify the distinctive hominid or human biological traits, such a bipedalism, the erect posture of the body and the functional complex of human masticatory system. One can, therefore, wonder how these extremely difficult and debatable topics might be solved on the basis of the fragmentary, mineralized remains. We are going to argue that the data concerning the evident gap between Pliocene and early Pleistocene hominids and Pliocene and Pleistocene pongids pose the same kind of questions as the present, obvious gap between the modern forms of man and modern forms of apes (cfr Lenartowicz 1972, 1990). Is this even good philosophy? Face facts - you've got a premise that's so far out in left field no paleontology journals or conferences will accept your work, and your messages here so far are primarily assertions with little or no supporting evidence, just like Salty. Why should anyone take you seriously?
I am not asking you what is your scientific background. And I'm not telling you. You made your background fair game when you used your real name.
I was expecting a fair discussion and exchange of arguments. Given the evidence you've provided so far, your ideas deserve to be taken with the same seriousness as those from inventors of perpetual motion machines. Present some serious evidence supporting your assertions, like the one about Homo erectus being our intellectual equal, or the one about prior hominid species simply being different human races.
Besides, you have recommended me a table of the brain/body ratio which is evidently wrong in such a well documented area as the brain volume of the Neandertal hominids. I would be a waste of time to check the rest of it. Here's the link again:
You're right, the Neanderthal number is light by about 150g. And the erectus number is a little light, too, by maybe 70g, and doesn't take into account that recent erectus had larger brains around 1100g instead of 900g. But you're using these minor errors as an excuse to avoid addressing your own massive blunder in claiming erectus had a smaller body size, which is the information you were supposed to examine in the table. Here's an article from Scientific American summarizing an article that appeared in Nature about the incredible shrinking human (in other words, we're smaller than erectus):
{Shortened display form of above URL, to restore page width to normal - Adminnemooseus} --Percy [This message has been edited by Adminnemooseus, 05-27-2003]
|
™ Version 4.2