Understanding through Discussion

Welcome! You are not logged in. [ Login ]
EvC Forum active members: 80 (9005 total)
77 online now:
AZPaul3, dwise1 (2 members, 75 visitors)
Newest Member: kanthesh
Post Volume: Total: 881,194 Year: 12,942/23,288 Month: 667/1,527 Week: 106/240 Day: 5/29 Hour: 0/0

Announcements: Topic abandonment warning (read and/or suffer the consequences)

Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Author Topic:   A good summary of so called human evolution.
New Cat's Eye
Inactive Member

Message 58 of 184 (798040)
01-30-2017 12:48 PM
Reply to: Message 57 by mike the wiz
01-30-2017 12:24 PM

Really this is a summary of the candidates for human evolution,

But it is so outdated it is either incorrect or even fraudulent.

I am merely assessing claims, an evaluation of human evolution. That is all I am doing.

I dunno, man, you went to a creationist source that has a ~20 year old copy right... it's hard to trust that approach as not having an ulterior motive.

If I find it is a strong case I will infer it from the data, if it isn't I will infer it. That's really all that's happening,

You could be doing a much better job.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 57 by mike the wiz, posted 01-30-2017 12:24 PM mike the wiz has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 59 by mike the wiz, posted 01-30-2017 1:27 PM New Cat's Eye has responded

New Cat's Eye
Inactive Member

Message 61 of 184 (798058)
01-30-2017 2:57 PM
Reply to: Message 59 by mike the wiz
01-30-2017 1:27 PM

Cat's eye writes:

But it is so outdated it is either incorrect or even fraudulent.

In what way, specifically? Because it mentions things that were once accepted? If it presents it as though it is now the accepted evidence this would be misleading perhaps.

The fact that Nebraska and Piltdown Man are even mentioned is highly suspect, those finds are from 100 years ago. Also, the title of the article is "Who’s who and what’s what in the world of “missing” links?", which in present-tense implies that it's current. It is not current. On top of that, its conjecture is comically off-base.

It just doesn't read as an honest article at all.

I didn't check the date. I read data and if it strikes me as logicallly sound or meritorious in some way I will accept it. It's age isn't relevant because of the fallacy of Argumentum Ad Novitatem and Argumentum Ad Antiquitatem, respectively.

Regardless of any fallacies, the date is relevant to whether or not it is, or supports, a good argument. It does neither.

Cat's eye writes:

You could be doing a much better job.

This is just a bare assertion though.

And worth every penny.

You started this thread, I was just letting you know that it's kinda crappy.

It seems to me I am correct, that a transitional between a foot from arboreal brachiators, and a bipedal human, should consist of transitional stages, rather than two distinct groups that either have ape anatomy or human anatomy, with blurred edges.

Why would you think that? Nothing in evolution is clear-cut, everything is blurry.

Any transitional will be able to be as a part of a group, and that group is going to overlap with other groups. Every transitional stage will lack a succinct distinction from other groups. That is the nature of the beast; evolution happens to populations not individuals.


either have ape anatomy or human anatomy

Humans. Are. Apes.

Every single aspect of human anatomy is also ape anatomy because humans are a subset of apes. It is impossible for something to be human and not ape.

So when you say, I, "could be doing better", what else can I really do?

Well, for starters, get it right. What you're talking about as evolution has differences from the current modern Theory of Evolution.

Also, get some up-to-date sources. Stuff from 20 years ago is ancient.

And there are more recent and more interesting finds that could better challenge your understanding of the case for evolution.

At what stage do you at least entertain the possibility that the evidence expected to be there, isn't there because it never existed?

It won't be from the holes in the data that we do have.

It will be from new data that puts holes in the theory.

Currently, there is not a single falsification of the Theory of Evolution and until there is it will continue to be the best explanation we have.

But first, the "expected evidence" that is supposed to be there will have to be vetted to verify that it is actually expected. Things like distinct transitionals that don't fit within any blurred lines are not reasonable expectations.

Question; at what stage does the negative evidence COUNT as falsification evidence?

As soon as, and at once, it falsifies the theory. Until then, it'll remain as inconclusive.

Think about it - if evolution had not happened then the evidence we could only expect is the lack of evidence.

Of course not; find one creature that emerged in way that couldn't have happened via evolution. The proverbial "Rabbit in the Precambrian" is the quintessential example.

But you think about it: Don't you know how babies are made? That is, how new creatures emerge from the existing ones? What, in any way, suggests to you that there were creatures that emerged in any other way? Given that's the only way creatures emerge, it's no wonder that since babies are not perfect copies of a parent then there are going to be changes that can accumulate greatly over long periods of time. Certainly to the point that there will be species today that did not exist in the past.

Give it up, cat's eye - and follow the Lord's wisdom. You no longer belong to the darkside. Time to stop kissing evolutionary butt.

If standing up for what's true is kissing butt, then you can call me a butt-kisser.

Evolution is not the darkside and it ain't Lord's wisdom if it is leading you away from reality.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 59 by mike the wiz, posted 01-30-2017 1:27 PM mike the wiz has not yet responded

New Cat's Eye
Inactive Member

Message 150 of 184 (810773)
06-01-2017 1:26 PM
Reply to: Message 149 by Diomedes
06-01-2017 1:06 PM

Re: Davidjay continues to lie and misrepresent.
He's a Christian Troll.

And a narcissist with a huge ego.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 149 by Diomedes, posted 06-01-2017 1:06 PM Diomedes 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