Darwin's Illusion

[YoursTrue]

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?

I personally wouldn't expect to see humans during that time. But then you and I have a different idea as to when humans first appeared.

 

[YoursTrue]

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.

Evidence of branching out from a "common ancestor" way back when? And, of course, gorillas, bonobos, etc. show no evidence, do they, of evolving from their present state, or is it that the human development just hasn't discovered it yet?

 

[YoursTrue]

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.

1. I don't believe that unless you offer information beyond your own words with explanations.
2. " " " ----
3. I won't discuss fundamentalist churches now but I also do wonder if a religion says that evolution is or may be true (that is, a religion which claims belief in Jesus and the Scriptures), where and when does God fit in the picture? I mean then, IS THERE A GOD? Is Jesus the SON OF GOD, or is it possible or not? If one believes there is a God how does that person justify that belief and then belong to a religion that claims belief in what the Bible says plus more?

 

[YoursTrue]

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

And so it depends upon which rules we will or want to follow, I guess.

 

[YoursTrue]

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

Of course not. But you did imply, didn't you, that 'we' humans evolved from a common ancestor with lots and lots of body hair similar to gorillas and monkeys, etc. If that's wrong, let's say that is a wrong concept, meaning that it was simply genes that gave this appearance of so much hair. And nothing else is to be concluded from that. ?

 

[Subduction Zone]

Of course not. But you did imply, didn't you, that 'we' humans evolved from a common ancestor with lots and lots of body hair similar to gorillas and monkeys, etc. If that's wrong, let's say that is a wrong concept, meaning that it was simply genes that gave this appearance of so much hair. And nothing else is to be concluded from that. ?

Yep, you have just as much body hair as a gorilla. Sorry to tell you that.

 

[YoursTrue]

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

The rules people or ruling classes make can conflict with each other, can't they?

 

[Audie]

I personally wouldn't expect to see humans during that time. But then you and I have a different idea as to when humans first appeared.

" generally"

 

[Audie]

The rules people or ruling classes make can conflict with each other, can't they?

Kinda like them " god" rules that way. " shalt not kill", say.

 

[metis]

1. I don't believe that unless you offer information beyond your own words with explanations.

OK, here: Human evolution - Wikipedia

Even though it is not a scientific source per se, it has a great many links that can connect you to the myriads of scientific studies. Now, will you spend time and read it and them?

 

[metis]

3. I won't discuss fundamentalist churches now but I also do wonder if a religion says that evolution is or may be true (that is, a religion which claims belief in Jesus and the Scriptures), where and when does God fit in the picture? I mean then, IS THERE A GOD? Is Jesus the SON OF GOD, or is it possible or not? If one believes there is a God how does that person justify that belief and then belong to a religion that claims belief in what the Bible says plus more?

I've dealt with this many times before with you and explained my position in brief, so why do you again post questions like this? And who are you to question someone else's faith? Have you no shame?

 

[metis]

Of course not. But you did imply, didn't you, that 'we' humans evolved from a common ancestor with lots and lots of body hair similar to gorillas and monkeys, etc. If that's wrong, let's say that is a wrong concept, meaning that it was simply genes that gave this appearance of so much hair. And nothing else is to be concluded from that. ?

AGAIN. this was already explained for you from myself and some others here.

 

[Astrophile]

I personally wouldn't expect to see humans during that time.

So what species of primates would you expect to see?

But then you and I have a different idea as to when humans first appeared.

So when do you think that humans (however you define them) first appeared, and what do you think were the parents of the first humans?

 

[cladking]

So when do you think that humans (however you define them) first appeared, and what do you think were the parents of the first humans?

They've already made it clear that species are continually "Evolving" but every species is the same as the preceding.

They call it a "paradox" that things change even though nothing changes.

They shoullda kept this "theory" under wraps until they perfected at least the language and definitions.

 

[cladking]

Or mebbe they could just admit that individuals comprise species and even individuals change. Then start looking for how this affects the "species". Instead of studying change in species they have reduced the irreducible, put the cart before the horse, and ignored everything that is fundamental to change in life.

 

[Audie]

I've dealt with this many times before with you and explained my position in brief, so why do you again post questions like this? And who are you to question someone else's faith? Have you no shame?

WF

 

[Audie]

Or mebbe they could just admit that individuals comprise species and even individuals change. Then start looking for how this affects the "species". Instead of studying change in species they have reduced the irreducible, put the cart before the horse, and ignored everything that is fundamental to change in life.

FF

 

[Audie]

OK, here: Human evolution - Wikipedia

Even though it is not a scientific source per se, it has a great many links that can connect you to the myriads of scientific studies. Now, will you spend time and read it and them?

" I dont"= I absolutely won't. No matter what.

 

[metis]

They've already made it clear that species are continually "Evolving" but every species is the same as the preceding.

They call it a "paradox" that things change even though nothing changes.

Both are categorically false. For just one example, humans of 3-4 million years ago look very different than those today, and if you saw one, you've far more likely to believe it was some different form of ape. If we go back 1 billion years ago or more, there has not been even one multi-celled organism found.

 

[It Aint Necessarily So]

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

Why do you want to call all communication signals words? This is where the ambiguity is introduced. For increased clarity we need increased granularity in language, that is, distinct concepts get distinct terms. What you are doing is the opposite here - conflating distinct concepts by giving them the same name, which facilitates equivocation and loss of fidelity in communication (how close the message received is to the one intended).

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.

Words as abstract symbols with learned, arbitrary definitions are distinct from other kinds of signals. The former require consciousness.

They've already made it clear that species are continually "Evolving" but every species is the same as the preceding.

I think that you're referring to the claim that no member of any species naturally gave birth to a member of another species.

They call it a "paradox" that things change even though nothing changes.

The paradox is that it seems that since once there were no human beings and now there are, there must have been a beginning to humanity, yet no first human can be defined or identified.

They shoullda kept this "theory" under wraps until they perfected at least the language and definitions.

They're working on a beaver tail slap version.

Or mebbe they could just admit that individuals comprise species and even individuals change. Then start looking for how this affects the "species".

Did you mean that species comprise individuals (that's a hard word to use properly)? The change in individuals is not biological evolution unless it is change in the DNA of a germ cell that will someday fertilize another germ cell and become part of the population's gene pool.

Instead of studying change in species they have reduced the irreducible, put the cart before the horse, and ignored everything that is fundamental to change in life.

Another warning? I see a few a day these days. Somebody on another thread was referring to not throwing out the baby with the bath water when leaving religion, as if something of value were being left behind without any attempt to characterize what that is, what its value is, and what the cost of not heeding the warning might be. Then I hear about empiricism being a myopic perspective that misses so much truth, but when asked where's the beef, we get a vegan nothing burger. We hear of evolution being in crisis, but nothing close toa crisis can be identified. And you depict science as wrong-minded and on the wrong track, needing to be rethought from the ground up, but don't point to any specific problem, say why it's a problem, offer any solution, or show why it's a solution. Just warnings that the sky is falling.