|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
EvC Forum active members: 64 (9164 total) |
| |
ChatGPT | |
Total: 916,788 Year: 4,045/9,624 Month: 916/974 Week: 243/286 Day: 4/46 Hour: 0/1 |
Thread ▼ Details |
|
|
Author | Topic: Are there any "problems" with the ToE that are generally not addressed? | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Loudmouth Inactive Member |
quote: If it isn't then creationism should not be used as a theory to falsify evolution. Therefore, a creationist source should not be used in a scientific argument and it is right to ignore such sources.
quote: None, unless you count such entities as Morris and family.
quote: An old earth, lack of evidence for a global flood, and universal common ancestory. C'mon, you should know this stuff by now.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Percy Member Posts: 22492 From: New Hampshire Joined: Member Rating: 4.9 |
Hi WillowTree,
While legitimate questions can be raised about fossils classified as Homo habilis, the doubts you're raising seem without support. You claim that there are extremely few habilis fossils, and that those that have been found have been misclassified. Addressing just the first of your points, that there are extremely few habilis fossils, here is a list of significant habilis fossils from This Page at Talk.Origins. Legitimate questions can be raised about many of these, and we can get into that if you like, but this list is just to rebut your point about the paucity of habilis fossil evidence:
Now let's examine the Milton quote you provided:
Milton writes: Homo habilis is the first time a new human species was claimed as such based entirely on a lower jaw with teeth, collarbone, a finger bone, and some small skull fragments. Unless Milton is actually just referring to the initial speculation about a possible new homonid species after the first habilis find, he's wrong. As can be seen by the list I just provided, Homo habilis is supported by far more evidence than Milton is telling you. As I said above, the evidence can be legitimately questioned, but that's not what Milton is doing. He's ignoring the evidence, not rebutting it. --Percy
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Cold Foreign Object  Suspended Member (Idle past 3074 days) Posts: 3417 Joined: |
If it isn't then creationism should not be used as a theory to falsify evolution. Therefore, a creationist source should not be used in a scientific argument and it is right to ignore such sources. If the scientific argument leaves its perimeter of expertise and trespasses into Genesis then it is perfectly legitimate to expose anything erroneous in the argument. Ignoring arguments only creates suspicion as to why. You can exclude whoever you want but the exclusion is explained by the N.T. Methodological naturalism and Rational enquiry claim Divine neutrality - I think. But it doesn't matter because EVERYONE has an axe to grind for or against Genesis, which renders the claims of Divine neutrality by sceintific methodologies deceptive, silly, and again, the motive is explained by the N.T.
WT writes: What specific evidence falsifies a creationist scientific position ? responding Loudmouth writes: An old earth, lack of evidence for a global flood, and universal common ancestory. C'mon, you should know this stuff by now. Genesis supports an old Earth. At issue is the defintion of "old". Vocal fundamentalists/YEC's have misrepresented the Bible. But more importantly, Genesis opposition has categorized every creationist to be a god-damn fundie. Global flood is a fact based upon the worldwide flood accounts. This spectacular evidence is completely ignored and eviscerated of its obvious meaning by atheists who have a lot to lose if this evidence is simply taken at face value. IOW, atheists must assert their trump card of ancients and their mythical confusion = avoidance of the evidence wholesale. IOW, everyone is a liar and you atheists are the only ones smart enough to see how every ancient is a confused believer in some type of God. IOW, there are two camps: Believers in Divine and modern intellectuals who have zero belief in the Divine. The latter is clearly explained by God-sense removal as these persons simply ignore and or change any and all evidence which contradicts their worldview. It is irrational on a incalulable scale to assert the worldwide flood accounts are ALL based upon local catastrophes = evasion of plain evidence supporting the origin of the true protected version of events in Genesis which all flood stories originate from. The only reason South America has great flood accounts is because a Great Flood happened. This evidence is only rejected because it so clearly supports Genesis = rejection thereof = proof of God-sense removal = claim of N.T. explaining why atheism exists. Only God senseless persons stripped of any ability to be rational towards Divine claims reject such sweeping and irrefutable evidence.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
AdminNosy Administrator Posts: 4754 From: Vancouver, BC, Canada Joined: |
Loud, WT, please reveiw the topic of this thread.
And stick to it! Thanks.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Cold Foreign Object  Suspended Member (Idle past 3074 days) Posts: 3417 Joined: |
Admin is right.
If you choose to respond Loudmouth then take your response to the God-sense topic in the "Is it Science ?" Forum. WT
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
dubois Inactive Member |
Dr. White pointed out that the habilines were ALSO of a stature comparable to modern pygmies. This is a logical observation that would come to mind for anyone subjecting the homo habilis claim to falsification.
We've already addressed this in message 229, remember? White provided no data in support of his claim. Scientists who do analyze the data find out that habilis had smaller brains than humans of equivalent size would have. Yes, pygmies are about the same stature as Homo habilis, but they have much larger brains. White's argument would have had equal validity [i.e. none] had he pointed out that monkeys have smaller brains than humans, but also have smaller body size which compensates for it, so they really have just as large brains as humans relatively speaking. Handwaving is worthless; you've to analyze the data.
I guess I will defend Milton's argument. Page 206 of his book, "Shattering the Myths of Darwinism": Homo habilis is the first time a new human species was claimed as such based entirely on a lower jaw with teeth, collarbone, a finger bone, and some small skull fragments. END MILTON CITE. IOW, a few scraps = the basis to prop up the "preexisting narrative structure" of hominid evolution. Milton says one of the hand bones is a piece of vertebra, and two other bones could belong to a tree dwelling monkey, and six others came from some unspecified nonhominid.
Guess what? All of this is irrelevant. Yes, the original habilis fossils were scrappy, but they're not what people think of when they talk about habilis now. They've found quite a few more habilis fossils since then including some skulls, but apparently Milton doesn't want you to know about that.
And all of Milton's material on homo habilis is in the context of the convicts which found Eugene Dubois Java man - a known jigsaw puzzle of a fraud. (skullcap, femur, and two teeth = Java man)
Milton is so hilariously clueless that he didn't even know how one of the most famous fossils of all time is classified nowadays. Java man isn't a fraud; it's a member of Homo erectus, for reasons which are common knowledge but apparently not to Milton. This was thrashed over in great detail in our debate. Jim
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
SoulSlay Member (Idle past 5637 days) Posts: 44 From: billy's puddle, BC Joined: |
This may have been said already, but I find the main problem for the theory of evolution to be that it has no basis. It logically explains how speciation occured from single celled-life billions of years ago, but does not explain how that first life was created. Even if by some chance amino acids and nucleotides and phospholipids were stuck together into the form of a cell, it would just be molecules. How would the dna know to divide, which proteins to make, or when to make a copy of itself? How do the molecules in cells move with purpose? Theory of Evolution does not explain this, and why develop a theory when the basis for it is unknown? Im not trying to be synical; if you have an answer, please give it to me.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Loudmouth Inactive Member |
quote: Geology can explain how beaches and tidal plains can be formed and found in the fossil record. Do you feel that this is weakened because geology can't explain where silica, iron, and other elements came from? The germ theory of disease is based on bacteria and yet the theory works fine even though it doesn't hypothesize where bacteria came from. The laws of thermodynamics work fine even though we don't know where the laws came from. All scientific theories have their limitations and requirements. For evolution, the theory starts with the first replicator and does not venture any farther into the past. I don't need to know where the laws of fluid dynamics came from or even where air came from to build an airplane, do I?
quote: They don't, not anymore than oxygen and hydrogen move with a purpose to form water. Life is chemistry, and the chemistry within the cell does not differ from the chemistry found outside of the cell.
quote: The basis of the theory of evolution is that life exists, that life varies, and that variation will cause some organisms to be better fit in their environment. There is ample evidence that all of this exists now and existed in the past. Tell me again how evolution is baseless?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
glorfindel Inactive Member |
Hello, first post. I heard this argument somewhere in my debates and was wondering. Breeders and scientists have bred many animals to a very high degree, as in, beyond what natural selection would produce. For instance, rock pigeons with such large breast muscles and feathers that they are physically incapable of flying and are only kept alive because they are cared for by human aid. The point of the illustration is this. Why do animal breeders hit an "invisible barrier" when breeding animals where they do not change any more regardless of the specimens used. For another instance, feathers were mutated to such a high degree that the rachis was gigantic and the barbs no longer interlocked, but that they could not get the mutation to go much farther than that point. The barbs fused in a few instances but not regularly, and the feather still remained a feather. Should we not be able to scientifically breed animals backwards to prove evolution?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
AdminNosy Administrator Posts: 4754 From: Vancouver, BC, Canada Joined: |
Welcome aboard.
Give it a few hours and you'll have several answers to your question. Enjoy the stay, Please ask any questions in the Questions and Suggestions thread. Comments on moderation procedures (or wish to respond to admin messages)? - Go to: Change in Moderation? (General discussion of moderation procedures)or Thread Reopen Requests or Considerations of topic promotions from the "Proposed New Topics" forum or Introducing the new "Boot Camp" forum
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
PaulK Member Posts: 17827 Joined: Member Rating: 2.3 |
There are two possible reasons for hitting a "barrier". Some barriers may be fundamental - there's no requirement in evolution that we ought to be able to produce any change we can imagine.
But in the case of selective breeding another reason is probably more important. There are limits to the amount of variation actually within the gene pool of a species. While the amount of variation available is greater than we might think, if we did not have the examples from domestication it is still a limit. And while mutations add to that variation the appearance of useful variations is relatively infrequent, and so it is quite easy to hit a temporary barrier until a variation that allows further progress appears (and that may take hundreds or thousands of years).
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
glorfindel Inactive Member |
I do not need a horse changing to a cow, just a horse changing back to his anscestors. Surely the genetic material from earlier evolution should still be in the horse now. Sometimes I've heard that recessive genes come out and a horse is born with three toes. Should not other genes exist, and allow us to breed it backwards?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Zawi Member (Idle past 3656 days) Posts: 126 From: UK Joined: |
Horse Evolution. Although it doesn't strictly answer your question, I thought I'd add this link so we can read about the evolution of the horse.
This message has been edited by Zawinul, 12-26-2004 10:55 AM
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
JonF Member (Idle past 194 days) Posts: 6174 Joined: |
quote: Typically not. The changes involved in evolution are seldom masking something that could later be restored, they are almost always random changes to the "specifications" that happen to be beneficial but also destroy the old "specifications". Sometimes we can approximate an ancient organism by cross-breeding between modern organisms that have lost different parts of the ancient "specifications". And who knows what we will be able to do in the future with ancient DNA. Now, those few that argue that all possible variations were built into each "kind" at creation should be able to explain how to restore an ancient horse from a modern one ...
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
PaulK Member Posts: 17827 Joined: Member Rating: 2.3 |
As others have said some changes will be irreversible in practical terms.
Evolution generally occurs by genetic changes becoming "fixed" in a population - that is the "new" version of the gene (or versions with further mutations) is in every individual. Which means that all the older versions are lost unless another mutation undoes the first. Statistically that is unlikely in most cases. "Throwbacks" would either be the result of those rare cases when the mutation is (relatively) likely to reverse or possibly a product of a recessive gene which has not entirely been lost.
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024