Understanding through Discussion


Welcome! You are not logged in. [ Login ]
EvC Forum active members: 64 (9046 total)
109 online now:
(109 visitors)
Newest Member: Dade
Post Volume: Total: 887,294 Year: 4,940/14,102 Month: 538/707 Week: 93/176 Day: 2/20 Hour: 0/1


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Lucy (Australopithecus)
Taq
Member
Posts: 8488
Joined: 03-06-2009
Member Rating: 7.4


(2)
Message 13 of 88 (819935)
09-15-2017 10:37 AM
Reply to: Message 1 by Porkncheese
09-14-2017 11:38 PM


Porkncheese writes:

From these few bones

So you knew that there were more bones than this which went into the reconstruction, but you failed to mention them. Do you see the problem here?

With Lucy, we have a nearly complete skeleton from the neck down, assuming that one side is a mirror image of the other side. We also have numerous A. afarensis skulls that are nearly complete and match up with the pieces from Lucy.

How is this speculative?


This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by Porkncheese, posted 09-14-2017 11:38 PM Porkncheese has not yet responded

  
Taq
Member
Posts: 8488
Joined: 03-06-2009
Member Rating: 7.4


Message 14 of 88 (819936)
09-15-2017 10:39 AM
Reply to: Message 5 by Porkncheese
09-15-2017 3:00 AM


Porkncheese writes:

Presumptuous indeed

That has nothing to do with the opening post. You are trying to change the subject now that you have been caught misrepresenting the evidence.

Also, we find fossils of a bipedal ape from the same time period and same geographic area. What is wrong with saying that A. afarensis is the top suspect for leaving those footprints?


This message is a reply to:
 Message 5 by Porkncheese, posted 09-15-2017 3:00 AM Porkncheese has not yet responded

  
Taq
Member
Posts: 8488
Joined: 03-06-2009
Member Rating: 7.4


Message 21 of 88 (819943)
09-15-2017 11:29 AM
Reply to: Message 16 by Porkncheese
09-15-2017 10:48 AM


Re: yes.
Porkncheese writes:

And I see a striking similarity with renaissance art the way its presented. But as you said it's a hypothetical reconstruction where the finer details like hair amount, etc are an artists impression.

They also use modern analogues to do these reconstructions. For example, the correlation between human skin color and latitude is well known. Populations at higher latitudes tend to have fairer skin than populations at lower latitudes because of the selection pressures for skin cancer and vitamin D production. The size of a muscle correlates with the size of the bone it is attached to, so smaller fragile bones will have smaller muscles attached to them. All of this allows artists to add an approximate details to the skull.

At the end of the day, scientists use the bones themselves to determine if they are transitional, not these reconstructions.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 16 by Porkncheese, posted 09-15-2017 10:48 AM Porkncheese has not yet responded

  
Taq
Member
Posts: 8488
Joined: 03-06-2009
Member Rating: 7.4


(1)
Message 22 of 88 (819944)
09-15-2017 11:31 AM
Reply to: Message 20 by Porkncheese
09-15-2017 11:24 AM


Porkncheese writes:

Otherwise it sounds as though you dismiss a source if written by a creationist regardless of weather the argument is secular. Thats not science, its just childish.
Another example of debating a persons view and not the subject.

It is always better to go to the original source, the scientists who actually did the science. Creationists on creationist websites aren't doing the science.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 20 by Porkncheese, posted 09-15-2017 11:24 AM Porkncheese has not yet responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 34 by Phat, posted 09-15-2017 6:01 PM Taq has responded

  
Taq
Member
Posts: 8488
Joined: 03-06-2009
Member Rating: 7.4


(2)
Message 30 of 88 (819995)
09-15-2017 3:07 PM
Reply to: Message 28 by Porkncheese
09-15-2017 2:41 PM


Re: there is no culture of truth or honesty in Creationism.
Prokncheese writes:

I guess what Im saying is that type of hate and stereotype is no good for science. Sure there will always be fanatics and their the people you guys are speaking of probs.

You are projecting. It is the creationists who constantly attack the character of scientists because they have no scientific evidence to stand on. Just look at your most recent posts. None of them contain anything close to scientific. Instead, they are allegations about scientists making speculations and other misdeeds.

So I can't trust them because of their looking to oppose ToE.

They are wrong because the evidence doesn't support their claims.

I notice this kind of urgency to present this so called "human missing link" which lead to hysteria, propaganda and painting a picture we are not 100% sure about. As admittedly we could do with more fossils which are obviously difficult to encounter.

Once again with the attacks on peoples' character. Why?

Why can't you discuss the features the fossil has and how it relates to the fossil being transitional? Why the constant attacks on character?


This message is a reply to:
 Message 28 by Porkncheese, posted 09-15-2017 2:41 PM Porkncheese has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 41 by Porkncheese, posted 09-15-2017 10:08 PM Taq has responded

  
Taq
Member
Posts: 8488
Joined: 03-06-2009
Member Rating: 7.4


(2)
Message 72 of 88 (820244)
09-18-2017 10:35 AM
Reply to: Message 34 by Phat
09-15-2017 6:01 PM


Phat writes:

Next question: Is there only one way to do the science or are there several ways? If several, must the conclusions match up?

The only way to do science is through the scientific method.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 34 by Phat, posted 09-15-2017 6:01 PM Phat has acknowledged this reply

  
Taq
Member
Posts: 8488
Joined: 03-06-2009
Member Rating: 7.4


Message 73 of 88 (820245)
09-18-2017 10:37 AM
Reply to: Message 35 by Phat
09-15-2017 6:07 PM


Re: Compare and Contrast
Phat writes:

I often observe that there is a prejudice against creationism. The reasoning is that creationists are not scientists--or so we are told. Perhaps we should compare and contrast methodologies used in forming conclusions---to see if secular science and creationism science are using the same tools and methods.

It is the same prejudice that we hold towards all liars and con men, and it isn't because they are not scientists.

Also, if it is science then they need to be using the scientific method. Putting qualifiers like "secular" and "creationism" before science is just nonsense. Either it is science or it is not.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 35 by Phat, posted 09-15-2017 6:07 PM Phat has acknowledged this reply

  
Taq
Member
Posts: 8488
Joined: 03-06-2009
Member Rating: 7.4


(1)
Message 74 of 88 (820246)
09-18-2017 10:38 AM
Reply to: Message 41 by Porkncheese
09-15-2017 10:08 PM


Re: there is no culture of truth or honesty in Creationism.
Porkncheese writes:

Mate. Who's character have I attacked? Where?

In every post where you accuse scientists of "hysteria" or "speculations".


This message is a reply to:
 Message 41 by Porkncheese, posted 09-15-2017 10:08 PM Porkncheese has not yet responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 76 by Phat, posted 09-18-2017 10:45 AM Taq has responded

  
Taq
Member
Posts: 8488
Joined: 03-06-2009
Member Rating: 7.4


Message 75 of 88 (820247)
09-18-2017 10:42 AM
Reply to: Message 42 by Porkncheese
09-15-2017 11:15 PM


Re: creationist vs athiest radicals
Porkncheese writes:

I don't think anyone who has very firm beliefs can be objective here, weather they're creationist or atheist. Ideally they should be agnostic with no disposition at all.

Why? If the evidence points to a conclusion why shouldn't we accept that conclusion? Should we just pretend the evidence doesn't exist?

With Lucy we have a fossil species with a mixture of ape and modern human features. We have a theory that predicts such creatures existed in the past. Why shouldn't we accept this as evidence in support of the theory?

Creationists claim all the fossils to be either man or another species of ape.
And by only observing the fossils one can interpret it any way they like realy.

The problem is that creationists don't interpret fossils. They have no criteria for determining if a fossil is ape or human. All they have is claims.

The hardcore atheists (not you) claim everything is scientifically proven, that we know it all but there are variations in opinions between evolutionists as well.
For example this link is an article from the scientific journal, Nature.

All of the atheists on this site, including myself, are careful to never claim that any theory is absolutely proven. Once again, you are trying to attack the character of people on this forum instead of focusing on the actual science.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 42 by Porkncheese, posted 09-15-2017 11:15 PM Porkncheese has not yet responded

  
Taq
Member
Posts: 8488
Joined: 03-06-2009
Member Rating: 7.4


(1)
Message 77 of 88 (820249)
09-18-2017 10:53 AM
Reply to: Message 76 by Phat
09-18-2017 10:45 AM


Re: there is no culture of truth or honesty in Creationism.
Phat writes:

To be honest, I am the same way regarding not only whether Jesus existed (He Had To!) or whether Jesus is God (If not, that shoots my whole boat full of holes and I may as well sink into the nasty sea of agnosticism..)

I think there is a difference between a belief held in the absence of evidence (faith) and a belief held in contradiction to mountains of evidence (denial, cognitive dissonance).

Your belief in Jesus and God is based on faith. It isn't contradicted by evidence, it merely lacks it. The disagreement between atheists and theists is focused around the idea that faith is not a reliable method for finding knowledge.

That differs greatly from denial. Many theists and atheists agree that we should ditch beliefs that are contradicted by evidence. This is why many theists accept evolution and the old age of the Earth.

Overall, we should be cognizant of where our disagreements lie, and where we agree.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 76 by Phat, posted 09-18-2017 10:45 AM Phat has acknowledged this reply

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2018 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.0 Beta
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2021