Darwin's Illusion

[Dan From Smithville]

Thankfully there ARE some rules, isn't THAT true? Or would you have mankind make up its own rules individually all the time, what do you think?

We do make up rules and all the time. The rules here were made by humans unless you have evidence they weren't.

 

[Dan From Smithville]

A bird is a bird and a mammal is a mammal. Me and you are mammals.

I had decided not to respond, but hit the wrong button. So might as well.

I can't understand how people that don't understand think such erroneous or meaningless notions have any use in the conversation. No one has ever said that birds become squirrels or trees. Or that mammals suddenly change or give birth to insect or lizards. Why this is continually repeated despite being corrected from numerous different people is beyond me and starts to seem more than a little disrepectful.

 

[Dan From Smithville]

I'm up to 323 and that's for my local bird club area, I've been working on it for about 10 years but have got the bulk of them in the last 4 years since I got a better camera. But I've only gotten 2 new species this year. I'd probably be at about 380 if I counted birds from the rest of Australia and overseas.

That isn't really unusual to see for that sort of activity. Once you get the more common things, those that are increasingly uncommon become increasingly more difficult to find. It's a similar phenomenon experienced in collecting anything.

 

[Dan From Smithville]

I'm up to 323 and that's for my local bird club area, I've been working on it for about 10 years but have got the bulk of them in the last 4 years since I got a better camera. But I've only gotten 2 new species this year. I'd probably be at about 380 if I counted birds from the rest of Australia and overseas.

I know of a beetle collector, an engineer with an interest in beetles, who developed techniques to find the rarer species of beetles in the groups he was interested in. Through patience and the use of these techniques he was noted as being very successful at finding species of beetles that were almost never found otherwise.

 

[John53]

I had decided not to respond, but hit the wrong button. So might as well.

I can't understand how people that don't understand think such erroneous or meaningless notions have any use in the conversation. No one has ever said that birds become squirrels or trees. Or that mammals suddenly change or give birth to insect or lizards. Why this is continually repeated despite being corrected from numerous different people is beyond me and starts to seem more than a little disrepectful.

I have no idea, it baffles me. I used to think they were trolls but now I feel they grasp onto anything they think agrees with their belief system, I have no idea why I bothered responding, probably boredom.

 

[John53]

That isn't really unusual to see for that sort of activity. Once you get the more common things, those that are increasingly uncommon become increasingly more difficult to find. It's a similar phenomenon experienced in collecting anything.

There were Eastern Yellow Wagtails spotted only about 20 minutes drive from, they are rarely seen around here and will soon be heading back to the Northern Hemisphere. I could have gone and tried for them but it's been over 40c and the I couldn't bring myself to wander around a swamp for hours. A couple of years ago I would have been there every day until I got them.

 

[Dan From Smithville]

I have no idea, it baffles me. I used to think they were trolls but now I feel they grasp onto anything they think agrees with their belief system, I have no idea why I bothered responding, probably boredom.

I've lost interest too for many reasons. What is the point when you get treated badly and ignored as if you said nothing. Then what you tried to explain was wrong is repeated and repeated, etc.

 

[Dan From Smithville]

There were Eastern Yellow Wagtails spotted only about 20 minutes drive from, they are rarely seen around here and will soon be heading back to the Northern Hemisphere. I could have gone and tried for them but it's been over 40c and the I couldn't bring myself to wander around a swamp for hours. A couple of years ago I would have been there every day until I got them.

I can imagine there are a number of beetles that could be found in a place like that too. But 40C in a swamp doesn't have the appeal it once did.

 

[John53]

I've lost interest too for many reasons. What is the point when you get treated badly and ignored as if you said nothing. Then what you tried to explain was wrong is repeated and repeated, etc.

Yep. They ask for evidence and when it's provided they can't even be bothered looking then make the same old claims over

 

[exchemist]

You don't really think I believe that. I love that phrase "not exactly at the point of divergence." Because it's ridiculous. Not exactly. Like they have more 'proof' hiding somewhere maybe. You can believe what you want or what seems relevant to you. I think the possible "commion ancestor" of humans & gorillas is a bunch of made up nonsense.

Well there is more evidence hiding somewhere. We have only dug out a tiny fraction of all the fossils there are, trapped in the ground somewhere.

Just think for a moment what the chances are of us finding a fossil of an extinct creature. First the creature has to become fossilised. Most do not. Then the rock in which the fossil is embedded has to come close to the surface. Most obviously will stay buried hundreds of feet down. And then some enterprising person has to find it. It is remarkable how many links in the chain we have been able to piece together from the fossils we have found. It is not remarkable that there are still gaps.

 

[Audie]

Does it count if my jeans were made in China?

Asian by intent. We will,take that under advisement.

 

[Audie]

Well there is more evidence hiding somewhere. We have only dug out a tiny fraction of all the fossils there are, trapped in the ground somewhere.

Just think for a moment what the chances are of us finding a fossil of an extinct creature. First the creature has to become fossilised. Most do not. Then the rock in which the fossil is embedded has to come close to the surface. Most obviously will stay buried hundreds of feet down. And then some enterprising person has to find it. It is remarkable how many links in the chain we have been able to piece together from the fossils we have found. It is not remarkable that there are still gaps.

Organisms are often known only by a fragment of one specimen.

Aside from what does or doesn't get fossilized theres the minute
fraction of those that happen to become, millions of years later,
exposed at the surface again- for a brief time before they are
eroded away. And the tiny fraction of those that are found.

The wilfully and proudly ignorant scoffers know nothing about
such considerations.

 

[Audie]

Thankfully there ARE some rules, isn't THAT true? Or would you have mankind make up its own rules individually all the time, what do you think?

The rules of survival saw to it that people ( and monkeys)
are not like that. People who think know that.

 

[It Aint Necessarily So]

I can't understand how people that don't understand think such erroneous or meaningless notions have any use in the conversation.

That's what creationist anti-evolution apologetics is - bad science (mutations decrease information, entropy prevents increasing complexity), incredulity, and irrelevant objections, such as science hasn't delineated all of the pathways evolution took yet (so what), or these next two:

There is no proof that gorillas, humans, chimpanzees and whatever else they say emerged (evolved) from a "Common Ancestor,"

So what? Do you think that makes the idea wrong? If it were correct, would we expect proof? Is there supporting evidence for the hypothesis? And why is a faith-based thinker requiring proof? None of your beliefs about gods and afterlives are proven by the standards of critical analysis. They're all unfalsifiable, which also means unverifiable.

Gorillas as of yet remain gorillas and humans stay humans.

Once again, so what? Do you think that this argues against the theory? It doesn't.

still unknown, is true.

Not to me and millions of others who are satisfied with what is possible - "proof" beyond reasonable doubt. So robust is that supporting evidence that it is no longer tenable for critical thinkers to seriously doubt the science.

 

[cladking]

Are they growing plants in the pond?

They change the niche to grow the plants that they prefer.

Is there any evidence that beavers have a language and science?

I have been presenting such evidence.

It is illogical to assume the first beaver dam came into existence through genetics just as it is illogical to assume it was "trial and error" due to the fact that errors would not produce what was needed.

No. Sure, they can communicate, but it isn't through an organized language with words and syntax.

Of course they have words. What else would a tail slap on the water mean than danger?

As I've said numerous times in natural language "words" are representative and concrete rather than defined. A bee dancing to the NE is telling the hive through representation the direction to food. A slime mold leaves a chemical trail to communicate that it has been here before and is a dead end. I'm sure we'll find nature has countless different ways for species to form words just as humans can create complex meaning with nothing more than a glance.

I think a beaver is a pretty fascinating mammal, but giving them fanciful abilities on a whim for no good reason doesn't explain anything and isn't useful information.

There is nothing "fanciful" about consciousness nor is there about "metaphysics". Our metaphysics is so simple a child can understand it is it really so difficult to believe consciousness is orders of magnitude more complex? Is it really so difficult to imagine consciousness underlies behavior and it is composed largely of experience and genetics?

 

[metis]

I have seen pictures of such and it is true that genetics plays a part and one might say he looked like a gorilla from behind but I doubt it. The bodily form and shape is different plus feet & hands plus the amount of hair.

I didn't say nor imply he was a gorilla!

 

[metis]

Oh yes, lest I forget, humans are not gorillas. And, of course, I still go back to the fact that apparently (I use the word fact delicately) there is no "common ancestor" known amoing gorillas and humans. Do I think that God made man different than gorillas? Yes I do. Insofar as I am concerned, the differences are significant and inexplicable by testable science.

You simply have no clue what you're talking about as I previously mentioned that I was referring to a scientific hypothesis that has support from d.n.a. testing comparisons. We have observable testing results that we use in science such as in this case, so can you say the same about your belief in God? I believe in God, but it's not because of any evidence that can be observed or tested in any way.

IOW, your position is 100% hypocritical because you're using a double standard: one for your belief and another in how you are dealing with actual science. I left the fundamentalist church I grew up in because of hypocrisy like this.

 

[Subduction Zone]

I didn't say nor imply he was a gorilla!

Hmm, have you considered using Ancestry.com?

 

[Dan From Smithville]

Yep. They ask for evidence and when it's provided they can't even be bothered looking then make the same old claims over

No amount of evidence will convince them and they offer no amount of evidence that supports them.

I find the claim that evidence has been offered literally thousands of times in support of a claim when it has not to be among the most common empty claims. I think it illustrates a confusion that a claim is evidence of itself. That repeating what is claimed and believed circles back around to support itself. Logic isn't often employed in the dismissal of facts in many of these denials of science.

 

[Astrophile]

There is no proof that gorillas, humans, chimpanzees and whatever else they say emerged (evolved) from a "Common Ancestor," still unknown, is true. One bone doesn't do the job. Neither do ideas that some humans have lots of hair on their backs, fronts, legs, etc. None whatsoever. Gorillas as of yet remain gorillas and humans stay humans. Now I find it interesting that it was brought out that the "races" of humankind is a misleading concept, since humans are humans no matter what color their skin is or how long their limbs are.

If you could go back in time to Africa during the Late Miocene epoch (about 5.3 to 11.6 million years ago), what species of primates would you expect to see? Would you expect modern humans, chimpanzees, bonobos and gorillas, perhaps along with some extinct species, or would you expect various genera (for example Orrorin and Sahelanthropus) that were clearly apes but not the same as any modern genus of apes?