Understanding through Discussion


Welcome! You are not logged in. [ Login ]
EvC Forum active members: 85 (8937 total)
40 online now:
Diomedes, DrJones*, dwise1, PaulK, Tanypteryx, Theodoric, vimesey (7 members, 33 visitors)
Chatting now:  Chat room empty
Newest Member: ssope
Happy Birthday: AdminPhat
Post Volume: Total: 861,775 Year: 16,811/19,786 Month: 936/2,598 Week: 182/251 Day: 11/59 Hour: 1/1


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   A good summary of so called human evolution.
mike the wiz
Member
Posts: 4659
From: u.k
Joined: 05-24-2003


Message 1 of 184 (797262)
01-15-2017 3:59 PM


I thought this was a pretty good summary of the actual reality of the facts and what they really mean. (very little)

Many people honestly believe that the ancestry of mankind has been mapped faithfully and nearly completely. They have heard about “missing links,” and regard them as scientific proof for man's evolution from primates. However, in truth, no ancestor for man has ever been documented. The “missing links” are still missing. Here is a summary of facts relating to some of the most well known fossil discoveries.

Homo sapiens neanderthalensis (Neandertal man) - 150 years ago Neandertal reconstructions were stooped and very much like an 'ape-man'. It is now admitted that the supposedly stooped posture was due to disease and that Neandertal is just a variation of the human kind.

Ramapithecus - once widely regarded as the ancestor of humans, it has now been realized that it is merely an extinct type of orangutan (an ape).

Eoanthropus (Piltdown man) - a hoax based on a human skull cap and an orangutan's jaw. It was widely publicized as the missing link for 40 years.

Hesperopithecus (Nebraska man) - based on a single tooth of a type of pig now only living in Paraguay.

Pithecanthropus (Java man) - now renamed to Homo erectus. See below.

Australopithecus africanus - this was at one time promoted as the missing link. It is no longer considered to be on the line from apes to humans. It is very ape-like.

Sinanthropus (Peking man) was once presented as an ape-man but has now been reclassified as Homo erectus (see below).

Currently fashionable ape-men; These are the ones that adorn the evolutionary trees of today that supposedly led to Homo sapiens from a chimpanzee-like creature.

Australopithecus - there are various species of these that have been at times proclaimed as human ancestors. One remains: Australopithecus afarensis, popularly known as the fossil 'Lucy'. However, detailed studies of the inner ear, skulls and bones have suggested that ‘Lucy’ and her like are not on the way to becoming human. For example, they may have walked more upright than most apes, but not in the human manner. Australopithecus afarensis is very similar to the pygmy chimpanzee.

Homo habilis - there is a growing consensus amongst most paleoanthropologists that this category actually includes bits and pieces of various other types - such as Australopithecus and Homo erectus. It is therefore an 'invalid taxon'. That is, it never existed as such.

Homo erectus - many remains of this type have been found around the world. They are smaller than the average human today, with an appropriately smaller head (and brain size). However, the brain size is within the range of people today and studies of the middle ear have shown that Homo erectus was just like us. Remains have been found in the same strata and in close proximity to ordinary Homo sapiens, suggesting that they lived together.


http://www.christiananswers.net/q-eden/edn-c008.html

Sure, we can quibble over the particulars but for me the point is a pretty obvious trend; that evolution is promoted but then vanquished by later discoveries.

For all those who will quibble, "link got this fact wrong, link said X is so when it isn't". Yeah...you can do that if you want but still, it's just not a very convincing STORY.


Replies to this message:
 Message 2 by Coyote, posted 01-15-2017 4:42 PM mike the wiz has not yet responded
 Message 3 by Porosity, posted 01-15-2017 5:02 PM mike the wiz has not yet responded
 Message 4 by Porosity, posted 01-15-2017 5:03 PM mike the wiz has not yet responded
 Message 5 by Coragyps, posted 01-15-2017 5:12 PM mike the wiz has responded
 Message 7 by Modulous, posted 01-15-2017 6:29 PM mike the wiz has responded
 Message 8 by dwise1, posted 01-16-2017 12:46 AM mike the wiz has not yet responded
 Message 9 by Dr Adequate, posted 01-16-2017 2:11 AM mike the wiz has not yet responded
 Message 36 by caffeine, posted 01-20-2017 8:29 AM mike the wiz has responded
 Message 82 by evolutionfacts, posted 05-08-2017 1:44 AM mike the wiz has not yet responded

  
mike the wiz
Member
Posts: 4659
From: u.k
Joined: 05-24-2003


Message 39 of 184 (797868)
01-28-2017 3:51 PM
Reply to: Message 22 by Modulous
01-17-2017 7:06 PM


Re: feed the trolls
Modulous writes:

Being right doesn't make one look silly. Mike may be making himself look silly. I come here to primarily to practice explaining flaws in notions, this I have done. I am gratified. I have had lurkers thank me, even for rebuttals of PRATTs. This is gratifying. If Mike is gratified by my having composed and posted said rebuttals, it concerns me not. If your goal is to thwart Mike's gratification, I dare say you are in danger of failing.

To be honest I was just giving a link to what I thought was a pretty good summary that, well, sums up human evolution if we cut away all of the conjecture. There was no guarantee I would even find this version of the topic. If I only post a link which is for people to read or not read, there is an explosion of attacks against mike, but there have been many links given in favour of evolution, and when I read them I don't unleash a thousand furious rebukes against those who give those links.

Lol.

In case people are wondering, a "PRATT", is a "point refuted a thousand times" (Argumentum Ad Nauseam).

To be honest I don't really see any connection between a summary of human evolution when we look at the bare bones, pardon the pun, and making people look silly, me being a stupid spammer, etc....all I see it as is posting a link.

Seems to me, "NoNukes" simply imposed some motives upon me, then those motives were granted.

If people WANT to play the victim and throw melodramatic tantrums because I posted a link that didn't favour evolution, then I am afraid people are fighting phantom-mike.

That is to say, people are getting all bent out of shape fighting a mike that is not there and a mike that is not after them. If they re-read the messages, they will see that they are the only ones who insulted mike and came after him because they seem to have become very emotional because someone does not accept the case for human evolution.

As for mike's gratification, there was none. Here is what happened; Mike found a link that he thought pretty much summed up human evolution if folk are honest, then he posted it on EvC, knowing it wasn't meant for a debate since it was posted in links and information, then many members melodramatically and furiously signed mike's death warrant.

So here is a tautology for you; a topic posted in the links and information forum is meant as a link to information, so naturally every person that posts a link in such a forum can be made to look like a spammer-troll, when he doesn't come back to debate it, but it should be rather obvious that if he posted it there, he never intended it as a debate, so of course he wouldn't come back.

Edited by mike the wiz, : No reason given.

Edited by mike the wiz, : No reason given.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 22 by Modulous, posted 01-17-2017 7:06 PM Modulous has acknowledged this reply

Replies to this message:
 Message 47 by Admin, posted 01-30-2017 7:26 AM mike the wiz has responded

  
mike the wiz
Member
Posts: 4659
From: u.k
Joined: 05-24-2003


Message 40 of 184 (797869)
01-28-2017 3:57 PM
Reply to: Message 36 by caffeine
01-20-2017 8:29 AM


Re: The habiline problem
What you say might work. It sound fairly reasonable but what I would say is that the same evidence would fit if we were to say that in fact the homo habilis is a collection from individuals, "either" homo, "or", not.

This is an implied logical disjunction, if we are to observe the law of the excluded middle.

If you are not with me, I refer to a true dichotomy, as expressed by the, "either/or" category of mosaic features.

In this regard, habilis could just be a phantom, there seems to be if my information is correct, few examples for that taxon. I could be wrong but that's the last I heard.

But what I am saying really is that for a transition between a pithecine and a habiline, I would not expect mosaic features of, "either" pithecine, "or" homo, but rather I would expect transitional intermediate features BETWEEN pithecine and homo. To describe it as a "bush of mosaic features" can be another way of saying "these species are a bunch of chimeras, that don't actually show a direct evolutionary transition, even though that is what evolution claims".

You can call them all, "bushes" but then at some stage, if evolution happened, you expect to see the actual transition between something evolution says became X, from P.

To further understand through illustration, you may want to read message #3 and #4 of this thread;

http://evolutionfairytale.com/forum/index.php?/topic/6687...

So as an example, I might expect rather than finding, "either" a human foot, "or" an ape/pithecine foot, something that was evolving into a human foot.

Can you show any transitional bones that show this for example?

Edited by mike the wiz, : No reason given.

Edited by mike the wiz, : No reason given.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 36 by caffeine, posted 01-20-2017 8:29 AM caffeine has not yet responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 41 by Riggamortis, posted 01-28-2017 4:26 PM mike the wiz has responded
 Message 44 by Dr Adequate, posted 01-29-2017 9:34 AM mike the wiz has not yet responded

  
mike the wiz
Member
Posts: 4659
From: u.k
Joined: 05-24-2003


Message 42 of 184 (797872)
01-28-2017 4:36 PM
Reply to: Message 41 by Riggamortis
01-28-2017 4:26 PM


Re: The habiline problem
Riggamortis writes:

Melodramatic alright

All meant in good humour. Mike might use some colour in his posts, like a lone-soldier, because you are alone it can help to make an ostentatious display, by perhaps blowing a loud trumpet. That way the balrog may pause for a moment, just enough time for you to make your escape.

At this time I feel the desire to proclaim a pigeon-chess victory.

(before Dr A's eyes bulge out of his head with rage.....I'm only jesting folks) though strictly speaking I don't depart from debate to annoy people or to be a troll, I simply favour giving my arguments/opinions then leaving it to others to dispute. Why? Simply because I've learnt how futile it can be to argue with certain types of people, when a lot of the time they just want to fight and make the whole thing personal).

I don't actually believe evolution is false to annoy you, I just can't make myself believe something I don't believe. Do you know anyone who can?

Edited by mike the wiz, : No reason given.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 41 by Riggamortis, posted 01-28-2017 4:26 PM Riggamortis has not yet responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 43 by Dr Adequate, posted 01-29-2017 9:28 AM mike the wiz has not yet responded
 Message 45 by ringo, posted 01-29-2017 2:09 PM mike the wiz has not yet responded

  
mike the wiz
Member
Posts: 4659
From: u.k
Joined: 05-24-2003


Message 46 of 184 (797980)
01-30-2017 7:20 AM
Reply to: Message 5 by Coragyps
01-15-2017 5:12 PM


Coragyps writes:

Dammit, Mike! You have been here a very, very long time to still be barfing up nonsense like this! Nebraska man? Really?

Well, I know that people hate it when piltdown man is mentioned as it's such old news but be careful to avoid Argumentum Ad Novitatem.

We can still learn things from old news. The law of non-contradiction was an axiom formulated thousands of years ago, but I am to assume that it is still impossible for you to be fully human and fully not human.

Really all of the examples given for human evolution, whether they are poor examples, or whatever, all that's showing is that at one time some people thought X was a relative, and it turned out not to be, and was argued for a time to be. It's no big deal, and I myself feel no need to place any great focus on nebraska man, I am aware for example of floresiensis and naledi, but for me they all come under, "homo", and the pithecines under, "extinct apes".

I myself am not bringing up Nebraska man or Piltdown man, they are simply part of the summary they written.

"Nonsense" is also a question-begging-epithet, because if you only state one word, "nonsense" but your post did not consist of any rebuttal, then we have to accept your epithet. It would be like me saying this to your next post where you discuss ethnicity;

"Damn it Cora, you've been here far too long to bring up this racist trash."

Obviously evolutionists naturally will want to propagate words like, "nonsense" in regards to anything a creationist submits, but right now Cora, "I'm LAUGHING at the superior evo-intellect." - Captain Kirk, The Wrath Of Khan.

P.S. It's not easy to avoid the trap of this type of thinking in your mind; "oh man, this guy has been here years and HE STILL hasn't made any progress because he is still creationist."

But again, that assumes that evolution is the goal, and that knowledge only belongs to it, a false dichotomy the mind tells itself. In fact I have learnt many things in that time, some of which are favourable to creation some of which aren't. Life is far more complex than black and white. I'm not accusing you, but I am estimating from some of the words you have used, that you are tempted to jump to conclusions of that sort and type.

It seems to me human evolution, generally is more of the study of a variety of humans within the homo genus, that all have human features within human range. Some features are argued to be relevant, being more archaic than gracile, but it has been shown that even homo sapiens can have more archaic features, such as a strong brow ridge. I remember seeing a movie recently and saying; "Oh my goodness, look at the brow on this guy". These types of changes to the bone, slightly curved features, differences in size, etc..strike me as rather superficial. If more "archaic" humans can have gracile features and more, "modern" humans can have more archaic features then really it all seems rather explainable without the ape story.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 5 by Coragyps, posted 01-15-2017 5:12 PM Coragyps has not yet responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 48 by Tangle, posted 01-30-2017 7:43 AM mike the wiz has responded

  
mike the wiz
Member
Posts: 4659
From: u.k
Joined: 05-24-2003


Message 49 of 184 (797986)
01-30-2017 7:44 AM


In message #3, #4 and #5 in this following linked thread, I have explained more about chimeras which have mosaic features. Diagrams are easier to show people than explaining it with words only;

http://evolutionfairytale.com/forum/index.php?/topic/6687...

(Again, I don't want to put twenty disclaimers in each post but this isn't an all-out attack on evolution like you think. I know it can be easy to jump to that conclusion because the posts contain a lot of omitted information. Even the information about the platypus and the other examples, aren't a complete evaluation of their anatomies, they are only there to highlight a point I am making.)

One disclaimer is this; I am not saying that all of the evidence, in no way shows anything that might be considered part of an evolution. I actually think a bird with dinosaur features is the type of evidence you might expect had they evolved from them. Not that I would affirm the consequent, I just think the evidence is better explained as the relatively few transitions actually being chimeras, which seems far more parsimonious than assuming the other 99.999999999999% conspicuously absent transitionals, had to exist at some time. But there are interesting features in nature which at least, "count" as a compelling case that would fit with evolution such as the organelle, mitochondria, in eukaryotic cells, originally being a prokaryotic, bacteria. Certainly the striking similarities such as the binary fission, dna without a nucleus, etc...is a compelling case. Certainly I wouldn't say, "this is not to be expected from an evolution as evidence", as that would be like saying that a scar on the chest would not be expected evidence of heart surgery. No but rather, there possibly is other causes for scars on the chest.)

As you can see, I omit a lot of the reasonings and thoughts I have had on these matters, so you mustn't jump to conclusions based on info I omit. The most important point I am making here, is that it seems that generally instead of finding transitions, you actually find fully anatomically complete designs, already, "evolved", such as Tiktaalik, it already has a completely detached head, from the girdle, rather than something between fish and tetrapod. Birds such as Archaeo and others, don't have something between scale and feather, but they have feathers, Platypus has a full bill, etc...for me it represents a smorgasboard of designer features used endlessly because there are so many shared uses.

An example is radio controlled toys, (an example of design), which emulates what we find in nature. For example, a collective pitch helicopter has blades which are flat, collective pitch blades with no angle of attack or pitch. Fixed pitch helicopters have a blade with a fixed pitched angle, with angle of attack. BUT, you can get fixed pitch helicopters which basically are homoplasies of CP helicopters, which have a rotor head which has a pitch but the blade itself is identical or close to identical to a collective pitch.

In the same way, traditionally, CPs will mostly have a tail blade apparatus rather than a tail motor, but you also get some with a tail motor which basically copies from a fixed pitch.

There are plesiomorphs too, for example you have a main gear on the main shaft, in all models. You have a main shaft in all models, be it collective, fixed or coaxial.

So what do we have here? An obvious inference that moasic morphological features can and are used as part of intelligent design. It seems perfectly reasonable that a platypus has a bill and webbed feet for the same reason a duck has them, and that it is a novel design. What better example is there of a chimera? It breaks evolution so clearly, as it proves that shared features where there is a designer-necessity, is expected in design. Oil birds, bats and whales all have echolocation, it's obvious as to why they share it in those examples, so they have been endowed with it, meaning that LOGICALLY, we don't have to jump to the conclusion that such features MUST be evolution, and that is all I am arguing, that there is a reason why the consequent is never affirmed.

Edited by mike the wiz, : No reason given.


Replies to this message:
 Message 68 by Astrophile, posted 03-10-2017 5:12 PM mike the wiz has not yet responded

  
mike the wiz
Member
Posts: 4659
From: u.k
Joined: 05-24-2003


Message 50 of 184 (797988)
01-30-2017 7:50 AM
Reply to: Message 48 by Tangle
01-30-2017 7:43 AM


But if you're honest, a big deal is nevertheless made of fragmentary bones, especially when we consider that a lot of the transitionals such as Lucy, technically were found without feet. Rhodocetus was found without a tail fluke which Gingerich now says wasn't a fluke, etc..yet it seems to me many evolutionists still stick to the stories such as whale-evolution. How can I avoid making mention of examples evolutionists have given of evolution they recanted? It is simply part of the history.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 48 by Tangle, posted 01-30-2017 7:43 AM Tangle has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 55 by Tangle, posted 01-30-2017 8:51 AM mike the wiz has responded

  
mike the wiz
Member
Posts: 4659
From: u.k
Joined: 05-24-2003


Message 51 of 184 (797989)
01-30-2017 7:51 AM
Reply to: Message 47 by Admin
01-30-2017 7:26 AM


Re: feed the trolls
It's a matter of judgement though isn't it Percy? If I determine a topic belongs in X section and I am perhaps not the best judge of it, then what are you asking? You are asking me to have the perfect ability to read your mind.

"Minsinformation", maybe, maybe not, I can't see any, it seems like a matter of opinion whether it is misinformation.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 47 by Admin, posted 01-30-2017 7:26 AM Admin has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 52 by Admin, posted 01-30-2017 8:10 AM mike the wiz has responded

  
mike the wiz
Member
Posts: 4659
From: u.k
Joined: 05-24-2003


Message 53 of 184 (797995)
01-30-2017 8:29 AM
Reply to: Message 52 by Admin
01-30-2017 8:10 AM


Re: feed the trolls
Admin writes:

This is a science discussion board, and the Links and Information forum is for links and information that have scientific support. If you provide good supporting scientific evidence for your views in this thread then you can post your conclusions in the Links and Information forum.

"It's your world, boss." - Bull homo, - The Shawshank Redemption.

AND you said it under, "Admin", my goodness, now I'm scared.

If there is some unsupported misinformation somewhere in there I wasn't aware of it, I only regard it as a fairly well stated summary of human evolution, though looking back it's perhaps not the most fair representation in that it may omit some information.

If this is so, I wasn't aware of it. I'm rusty as to the rules of the forum, which are rather extensive at EvC compared to the forum I usually frequent.

But it would be interesting to see if I could ever score through the impossibly high, goal, "scientific support", when according to evolutionists, that goal is only reached when something is NOT defined in anyway to support creation, whatsoever, rather than evolution.

In other words, I think you're asking me to flip a coin and get a heads, but only if I use your coin, which has tails on both sides. Don't you know nothing creationist is accepted by, "science"?

"Percy, your cake only counts as professional if baked under an examiner."
Percy; "But examiners don't accept any cakes I bake, they have said they will never examine the cakes made by evolutionists."

Don't worry, I'm not here to spam so I don't have a problem with refraining from posting links.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 52 by Admin, posted 01-30-2017 8:10 AM Admin has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 56 by Admin, posted 01-30-2017 9:27 AM mike the wiz has not yet responded

  
mike the wiz
Member
Posts: 4659
From: u.k
Joined: 05-24-2003


Message 54 of 184 (797999)
01-30-2017 8:50 AM
Reply to: Message 52 by Admin
01-30-2017 8:10 AM


Re: feed the trolls
I'll go one better, I shall only submit topics if I do so, from now on, through the proposed section out of good faith, to show I am willing to accept the authority of the respective admins.

I have known Percy and Moose for a long time and generally speaking they have been pretty good, objective admins, so in reality if they only requested I not do something simply because they didn't want me to, I would obey them anyway simply because we have participated in these debates for a very long time now, and call me nostalgic-mike, but I shall respect them in this matter because I am not your enemy, as an individual, and you have allowed me to post many things for many years and express my controversial views without ever banning me on biased whim.

So as a token of good will I shall not post links, unless they help me better explain something, anymore, and I will humbly obey you in this matter, old fellow.

With baba luv 4 U!

Best regards........
The gargantuan megasaur, irrefutable one, extraordinaire...

(I had to get some mischief in there at the last, to keep up my mikey-mischief, content)


This message is a reply to:
 Message 52 by Admin, posted 01-30-2017 8:10 AM Admin has acknowledged this reply

  
mike the wiz
Member
Posts: 4659
From: u.k
Joined: 05-24-2003


Message 57 of 184 (798031)
01-30-2017 12:24 PM
Reply to: Message 55 by Tangle
01-30-2017 8:51 AM


Tangle writes:

Only a fool with a personal agenda would look at a couple of corrected errors made over a 100 years ago and conclude from that that the settled science of evolution as it is today is in any doubt. Utter twaddle.

Well, that's not what I was doing anyway, the summary included for example, Lucy, I assume that's part of the claims of human evolution?

Really this is a summary of the candidates for human evolution, we have several species in homo and the pithecines, which seems to make a tenuous case for evolution, it has nothing to do with consensus from my point of view, it has everything to do with evaluating the case to see if it is strong. It seems to me the case for human evolution is not strong, and it is highly explainable and parsimonious to accept we are seeing a variety of extinct apes and a variety of human beings. All those other motives that you mention, exist in your head.

Tangle writes:

Only a fool

Tangle writes:

But you and your kind are doing a lot of harm to your belief system by your egotism, disingenuity, and, let's be frank, plain lies.

Tangle writes:

Don't you feel a fraud churning out the crap that even you know is crap? It's just narcissism isn't it?

Yes, when we're talking about trolls, I've noticed that primarily your posts seems to consist of tomato throwing.

An obvious contrast to my posts to you, which contain no personal comments about you. Perhaps the, "admin" should concentrate on the true trolling activity.

I am merely assessing claims, an evaluation of human evolution. That is all I am doing. 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, and it seems to me that insulting me won't mean that there is a strong case for human evolution. Call me weird that way, I guess. Lol


This message is a reply to:
 Message 55 by Tangle, posted 01-30-2017 8:51 AM Tangle has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 58 by New Cat's Eye, posted 01-30-2017 12:48 PM mike the wiz has responded
 Message 63 by Tangle, posted 01-30-2017 4:14 PM mike the wiz has not yet responded

  
mike the wiz
Member
Posts: 4659
From: u.k
Joined: 05-24-2003


Message 59 of 184 (798048)
01-30-2017 1:27 PM
Reply to: Message 58 by New Cat's Eye
01-30-2017 12:48 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.

Cat's eye writes:

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.

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.

"ahh, the old is always better." WRONG.
"ahh, science is the age of reason and enlightenment, religion is old, the dark ages." WRONG.

Cat's eye writes:

You could be doing a much better job.

This is just a bare assertion though. You comments are more cordial, I appreciate the lack of eggs and tomatoes perhaps.

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.

I believe those more archaic features in humans are largely superficial, and ironically many evolutionary scientists would agree, (unlike the amateur evolutionists here).. for everything within, "homo" is within, well...."human", and really there doesn't seem to necessarily be any human evolution. And it seems to me Lucy is definitely still bandied as an ape with human feet.

So when you say, I, "could be doing better", what else can I really do? The riddle is easy - that's all things are in life, riddles, and I am good at solving riddles. The answer to this one seems obvious to me, the circumstantial evidence for human evolution is by no means a strong case. Circumstantial evidence that can only give you a more confusing and tenuous, " evolutionary bush", but where do the excuses end? At what stage do you at least entertain the possibility that the evidence expected to be there, isn't there because it never existed? That may look like Argumentum Ad Ignorantiam but it isn't because absence of evidence is not evidence of absence BUT IT IS if the evidence is conspicuously absent.

EXAMPLE; the claim is an orange snooker ball. I check out Bob's table, I don't see any orange ball. I check the pockets, it's not there. Okay, fair enough, it could be kept in the original snooker set box which has the right number of compartments for each ball. Fair enough, it's a possibility, but now I check the box and guess what, there is no orange ball AND all of the spaces are taken up when we take all of his balls off the snooker table and put them in the box.

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

For example, if someone claims 1 billion whales have just washed ashore, are you saying the absence of those whales, would not negate the claim?

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

...Just think it over.....You request I could do better but really how smart do you want me to be, I'm not omniscient, am I? All I can do is my best, the same as anyone else, and many people are more indolent than I am. You can either figure it out or you can't. It seems to me I have, but short of explaining it with hand-puppets for the likes of Tangle and Pressie/DR A, what else can an innocent mikey-saur do?

"I can feel the conflict within....let go of your hate!" - Luke Skywalker.
"There is no conflict!!" - Darth Vader.

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.

Edited by mike the wiz, : No reason given.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 58 by New Cat's Eye, posted 01-30-2017 12:48 PM New Cat's Eye has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 61 by New Cat's Eye, posted 01-30-2017 2:57 PM mike the wiz has not yet responded

  
mike the wiz
Member
Posts: 4659
From: u.k
Joined: 05-24-2003


Message 60 of 184 (798052)
01-30-2017 1:59 PM
Reply to: Message 7 by Modulous
01-15-2017 6:29 PM


Modulous writes:

Except the ones that have been documented.

Which you say are ancestors.

Modulous writes:

That is tautological. The links that are not missing are just links.

A moot point. Darwin said they would be found. The missing links should not still be missing, which is the point being made, which strikes me as a rather had point to miss.

Modulous writes:

150 years ago we didn't know about helium, the germ theory of disease, weather forecasting, Maxwell relations, Rayleigh Scattering, oceanography, Boltzmann equations, the photoconductivity of selenium, thermionic emisisons, Mycobacterium leprae, heroin, DDT, Antarctica, Bacillus anthracis, silent dog whistles, telephone communication, Phobos and Deimos, Iguanadon, scandium, Venn diagrams, piezoelectric effects, the transmission of yellow fever, that squaring the circle is impossible, cathode rays, protons or the function of the pancreas.

That is true, but 150 years ago evolution-theory existed.

Modulous writes:

Since humans are apes, our ancestors must be very ape-like, or even apes themselves.

Your claim is that humans are apes, but anatomically we aren't. I don't accept tenuous DNA comparison as that only applies when we KNOW something is related, but in fact anatomically apes are closer to monkeys. It is the begging-the-question fallacy you commit here. To look at the main defining characteristics of monkeys, apes, and humans please read this opening message here, as you can see, apes are closer to monkeys, human beings can be described as primates, but as evolutionists you have to prove your claim we are apes;

http://evolutionfairytale.com/forum/index.php?/topic/6663...

So your bare-assertion we are apes, is of little logical worth.

Evolution is still accepted as the explanation for the diversity of apes and hominids. It has not been vanquished.

Another bare assertion. This type of sophistry only means something to evolutionists, who commonly argue argumentum ad verecundiam and argumentum ad populum as though this proves something. A neurotic agreement BY evolutionists, that evolution is true, is not impressive. It isn't the best explanation because it is less parsimonious to invoke millions of missing transitions, for example where are the transitionals for the quadruped progenitors for apes?

Modulous writes:

f you want a story, go pick up a story book. In the meantime scientists will continue to attempt to reconstruct natural history.

The Great Apes (Hominidae) appear about 15mya
Pierolapithecus and other Homininae appear about 13mya
Sahelanthropus and Orrorin and other Hominini at about 6-7mya
Australopithecus about 3-4mya, a cousin group of the family Hominidae and potentially part of the group that is ancestral to Homo
Kenyanthropus about 3mya, closely related to Australopithecus

An argument from silence. That things, "appear" at certain of your dates, doesn't mean it follows they did not exist previously. You are quite happy to argue missing transitionals existed even though they would be ABUNDANTLY silent, for the missing transitionals are thousands of forms, not the odd hominid. (double standard, you would argue the VAST transitions did exist, despite their silence yet argue one or two homo sapiens should be found)

For example I could argue thus;

"Pines for a long time did not appear earlier than X date therefore it didn't exist previously"

But then they found a wollemi pine near on 300 fictional millions of years old. They have also now found grass with dinos, and mammals in their bellies.

EXAMPLE;

"If we find Lystrosaurus with species P then they lived at the same time"
"we don't find them together therefore they didn't"

Denial of the antecedent!

Modulous writes:

We know, given fossil scarcity of hominids, we aren't likely to find direct ancestors which we can be 100% confident are direct ancestors. But we've do have a fair amount of information on how the hominid branch of apes changed over time leading us to the modern extant groups of gorillas, chimpanzees, bonobos and humans and the explanation for these changes has remained consistent for over 150 years: they evolved.

An that is a logically worthless statement. First of all the posteriori EXCUSE that "fossil scarcity" would mean you wouldn't find the transitionals, is mostly circular reasoning. In this thread opening message here, I used deductive reason to totally refute this type of ad-hoc sophistry; nor can you affirm the consequent by saying that this picture you believe evidences evolution, therefore means "they evolved,", for that conclusion is affirmation-of-the-consequent. Real scientists don't argue proof, and certain conclusions of evolution, but amateur evolutionists really motivated by atheism, like you, on boards like this, do.

"If we evolved we might expect certain circumstantial evidences P, X and Y"
We do find them, therefore they evolved."

100% FALSE, Modulous.

I have dealt with ALL of the excuses for evolution in this thread;

http://evolutionfairytale.com/forum/index.php?/topic/6685...

The fact is, there is no reasonable argument that can enable you to say that "the expected direct evidence is not there, therefore this other indirect evidence means we evolved anyway".

That's INSUFFICIENT. Do you know LITTLE about the burden of proof? Circumstantial evidence, indirect evidence that superman exists, can in no way replace direct evidence, or are you saying you would believe superman existed based on circumstantial evidence, like with this comment that you believe the evidence shows we evolved from apes?

Absurd. There are no genuine logically meritorious excuses for the various ad-hoc sophistry of appealing to none-existent gaps in the record, the transitionals if evolution occurred, would so swamp all other forms that to see none of the intermediates is the weakest argument possible.

Edited by mike the wiz, : No reason given.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 7 by Modulous, posted 01-15-2017 6:29 PM Modulous has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 62 by Modulous, posted 01-30-2017 3:08 PM mike the wiz 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 © 2019