|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
EvC Forum active members: 64 (9164 total) |
| |
ChatGPT | |
Total: 916,902 Year: 4,159/9,624 Month: 1,030/974 Week: 357/286 Day: 13/65 Hour: 0/1 |
Thread ▼ Details |
|
Thread Info
|
|
|
Author | Topic: Living fossils expose evolution | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Coyote Member (Idle past 2135 days) Posts: 6117 Joined: |
Living fossils expose evolution, eh?
Don't you mean "Living fossils disprove evolution?" What about the dead fossils? What about genetics? What about the multiple lines of evidence from multiple fields of study? Don't those count for anything? Or are you just going to ignore those? And I'm sure others will explain your mistake on the "living fossils" argument. (By the way, the term "Living fossils" is more a newspaper/magazine term than a scientific one. Are you going to consider newspapers and magazines as evidence, rather than what is published in scientific journals, to disprove evolutionary theory? Where will this end? Jack Chick comics as evidence against the theory of evolution?) Religious belief does not constitute scientific evidence, nor does it convey scientific knowledge.
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Coyote Member (Idle past 2135 days) Posts: 6117 Joined: |
Evolution does not exist on this planet and never did. The preponderance of evidence against it, when honestly considered, reveals that fact clearly. Actually, that is incorrect. The scientific evidence supports the theory of evolution, and has been only getting stronger since the theory was proposed in 1859. What has remained the same are religious beliefs that deny that evidence. We have seen any number of religious beliefs presented as science, but they have to twist, misrepresent, ignore, or outright lie about the evidence to support their position. The "living fossils" are a good example. First, in a stable environment, a well-adapted organism doesn't need to evolve! It does just fine as it is. Second, those "living fossils" that you cite--are they the same species for millions of years? Or are they different species or even different genera--or worse? One might claim that cockroaches are "living fossils" for having changed little over millions of years, but the generic term "cockroach" covers some 4,000 different species. All of those species didn't evolve in 6,000 years unless there was some real super evolution going on! It sounds like you have accepted a religious belief and are willing to deny any empirical evidence that contradicts it. Religious belief does not constitute scientific evidence, nor does it convey scientific knowledge.
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Coyote Member (Idle past 2135 days) Posts: 6117 Joined:
|
The fossil record speaks loudly about the fact that there has been no change but they like to pretend it says something else. Sorry, not accurate. There is a pretty decent progression in the fossil record from chimpanzees to Australopithecines to early Homo species and on to modern man. The fact that your religious beliefs prohibit you from seeing these fossils for what they are, and the changes that occurred, in no way diminishes the scientific data. Nor do your arguments. But just for fun, if you really want to define "kind" as being at the family level (in our case, Hominoidea), how can you explain away all of our close and recent relatives (see below)? Are they all the same "kind" or is there some exception for the family-level definition in the case of Hominoidea?
Religious belief does not constitute scientific evidence, nor does it convey scientific knowledge.
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Coyote Member (Idle past 2135 days) Posts: 6117 Joined:
|
Not only so but the so called evolution of man from a common ancestor with the ape is not legitimate. My study of the issue is just one of the reasons I tossed out that ridiculous theory. You need to do the same. It sounds like you found religion and then "tossed out that ridiculous theory" rather than the other way around. See, the scientific data supports the theory, while religious belief prohibits believers from seeing that evidence.
...concerning Australopithecus, Dr. Charles Oxnard, professor of anatomy at the University of Chicago did what was perhaps the most thorough job of examining australopithecus and stated clearly that the specimen was not related to anything living today. Nature, Vol. 258, pp. 389-395. He was not the only well known scientist who ruled thumbs down on australopithecus. This is a standard creationist quote mine that suggests something other than what the author was saying. Here is a different take on your statement (from something called Misquoted Scientists Respond):
quote: By the way: which one is the REAL Zinjanthropus man? This one (a handsome creature he is, too): Religious belief does not constitute scientific evidence, nor does it convey scientific knowledge.
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Coyote Member (Idle past 2135 days) Posts: 6117 Joined:
|
But the last blow to evolution did not come from the Bible or arguments of my Christian friends. It came from Isaac Asimov who, in the 'Wellsprings of Life' promoted the concept of the spontaneous generation of life from non-life. And his evidence that this momentouos event occurred in nature? None. I knew after reading that book that evolutionists were living in a fairy land of make-believe. In case you are not aware of the fact, "spontaneous generation of life from non-life" has nothing to do with evolution. That is an entirely different field of study, which to date is in its infancy. The theory of evolution is a mature and well-tested scientific theory, and does not rely on any particular origin. So you have shown that your decision to reject the theory of evolution actually had nothing to do with evolution! Religious belief does not constitute scientific evidence, nor does it convey scientific knowledge.
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Coyote Member (Idle past 2135 days) Posts: 6117 Joined:
|
You say that biblical kinds equate to family. Do you mean they equate to (or nearly to) the taxonomic classification of family in that kinds will tend to fall between order and genus and that we should see no possible examples of transition between orders? Maybe he will answer my question from post #169 at the same time. I asked about the kinds=family definition, and what implications that had for family Hominoidea (ours). I even provided a graphic of some of our close relatives in that "kind" (chimps, etc.). So far no answer. Maybe kinds is not equal to family in the case of Hominoidea? (Or perhaps "kinds" is an unscientific and largely undefined term used to support a religious belief?) Religious belief does not constitute scientific evidence, nor does it convey scientific knowledge.
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Coyote Member (Idle past 2135 days) Posts: 6117 Joined:
|
Back to families and "kinds" -- the question you have ducked for 100 posts now.
Your claims rest a great deal on the differences between species, genus, and family. Since you are working with the biblical definition of "kinds" rather than scientific classification, what is a kind? You seem to be tending to kind=family. If that is the case, what do you say about the human family (Hominoidea), which includes apes?
Religious belief does not constitute scientific evidence, nor does it convey scientific knowledge.
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Coyote Member (Idle past 2135 days) Posts: 6117 Joined:
|
I have answered it REPEATEDLY.
And your answer undermines much of your argument. In many posts you argue that Family relationships are all within the loose definition you prefer for "kinds." Yet when it is pointed out that at the family level (Hominoidea) "kinds" include the extant apes as well as modern humans you have nothing to say. This undermines your entire argument in this thread. Religious belief does not constitute scientific evidence, nor does it convey scientific knowledge.
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Coyote Member (Idle past 2135 days) Posts: 6117 Joined: |
But you and I both know you cannot do this. You can't even touch it. And the problem is not just with bats, but flowers, ferns, conifers, bacteria, pigs, horses, and virtually every other organism under consideration. It takes a healthy imagination to fill in all those huge gaps. And it takes a particular religious a priori belief, which supplies blinders and encourages a closed mind, to look at all of the empirical evidence and then deny just it. Yet this is what you have done on this thread. You really should be posting in the Faith forums, as what you're doing here is not science. It is in fact anti-science. Mostly you keep repeating the same point, which has been well-refuted. Rather than deal with the refutations, you just repeat the same point again and again. You seem to be proselytizing, not debating. Also, hominid evolution is well established both by fossils and genetics, and is denied only by the more extreme varieties of creationists. Again, this is anti-science. Religious belief does not constitute scientific evidence, nor does it convey scientific knowledge.
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Coyote Member (Idle past 2135 days) Posts: 6117 Joined: |
Deleted
Edited by Coyote, : Possibly off topic Religious belief does not constitute scientific evidence, nor does it convey scientific knowledge.
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Coyote Member (Idle past 2135 days) Posts: 6117 Joined:
|
Do you really want me to proceed with the rest of my illustrations concerning living fossils? I've got lots more, friend and massive overkill is no problem for me. There is no evolution on this planet and never has been. Those who believe it are dreaming. You present us with a series of fossils that you claim "prove" evolution never happened because of similarities over large expanses of time. It has been pointed out repeatedly that your point is moot; there is no "rule of evolution" that requires all species to proceed at the same pace. And besides, focusing just on "living fossils" ignores a huge amount of related data from organisms that did actually change more than the "living fossils" did--again negating your argument. Here is just one example--D2700, Homo georgicus: A small section from an article at Talk Origins: How will creationists interpret this fossil? Despite its erectus-like features, if D2700 had been found in isolation creationists would almost certainly call it non-human, given its small brain size and its similarities to H. habilis. The problem with this is that D2700 is a member of a population, and the largest skull in that group would almost certainly be classified as human by most creationists. Here is an example where there is significant change over a period of 1.8 million years, negating the argument of the "living fossils." The Dmanisi fossils also are clear cut transitionals--as the Talk Origins article points out, Casey Luskin of the Discovery Institute calls them possibly apes, while Answers in Genesis calls them human. Having features in common with both earlier and later forms is the hallmark of a transitional, and creationists by calling these fossils both human and ape have clearly demonstrated this. So, with the evidence above and the evidence already presented in this thread I think your point concerning "living fossils" (which you never actually got around to making) is pretty much disposed of. Religious belief does not constitute scientific evidence, nor does it convey scientific knowledge.
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Coyote Member (Idle past 2135 days) Posts: 6117 Joined:
|
Calypsis' argument has failed because it is logically fallacious. It commits the strawman fallacy, specifically it assumes evolutionary theory states morphological change must happen, then attacks that false proposition. His argument fails also because it is wrong. It attempts to take a biblical concept with no scientific accuracy (created kinds) and force that concept onto scientific findings. Areas where it doesn't fit are ignored. The examples of living fossils given in the OP and afterward attempted to force the concept of "kinds" into several contrary directions. First, kinds were equated with the family level, then when it was shown that bats, for example, include many families, kinds was equated to the generic term "bats"--which for scientific purposes is useless. This was done for a number of different creatures. But when it comes to the human "kind" the family definition was way too broad, as Family Hominidae includes the apes as well as numerous extinct species of Homo. In this one case the definition of kinds must be extremely narrow, contradicting the other definitions for this term. But in the established tradition of creation "science," internal consistency is not required. The only thing that matters is coming to conclusions that agree with one's interpretation of scripture and revelation. In summary, trying to force the biblical concept of kinds onto scientific data fails because 1) kinds is never well defined; 2) the concept of kinds does not fit the data if either tightly or loosely defined, and 3) any definition of kinds which separates modern humans from all other hominids makes the problems of Noah and his ark even more insurmountable than they would be with a loose definition. In other words, with "kinds" you can't get there from here. Those of us who were debating this issue using empirical evidence and the scientific method were doomed to fail because "kinds" is a religious belief, and not something that was derived from scientific data. As such, no amount of evidence against that concept will make any difference to those who believe in it. In the minds of many creationists, religious belief trumps scientific data when the two come into conflict. Religious belief does not constitute scientific evidence, nor does it convey scientific knowledge.
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024