Evidence For And Against Evolution

[Dan From Smithville]

Chimps and bonobos never evolved into humans and never will. Chimps and bonobos are our cousins, not our direct ancestors.

Seriously, you really should just take a few minutes to peruse some scientific sites and get acquainted with what evolution actually is.

I have noted the discrepancy between his claimed level of education and his apparent lack of knowledge as expressed on here. I cannot reconcile the difference based on any reasonable evidence. Surely he is not making up an education he doesn't have. That would be a sin.

I think it was this observation that got me put on his shunned list. The downside of that is that it looks like he is avoiding responding to me, because he cannot provide meaningful rebuttal.

 

[SkepticThinker]

I have noted the discrepancy between his claimed level of education and his apparent lack of knowledge as expressed on here. I cannot reconcile the difference based on any reasonable evidence. Surely he is not making up an education he doesn't have. That would be a sin.

I think it was this observation that got me put on his shunned list. The downside of that is that it looks like he is avoiding responding to me, because he cannot provide meaningful rebuttal.

Right? Like, I'm not even seeing understanding of the most basic concepts of evolution. Not that I'm some supergenius on the subject myself or anything, but if I don't know or understand a thing, I make a point to go and learn about it, long before trying to spout off on the subject.

It's too bad you've been ignored, because you've been one of the most informative posters on the thread (and ones like it).

It's a shame that the poster has made up their mind about evolution when they understand so little about it. That's actually one of my pet peeves in life.

 

[Dan From Smithville]

Right? Like, I'm not even seeing understanding of the most basic concepts of evolution. Not that I'm some supergenius on the subject myself or anything, but if I don't know or understand a thing, I make a point to go and learn about it, long before trying to spout off on the subject.

It's too bad you've been ignored, because you've been one of the most informative posters on the thread (and ones like it).

It's a shame that the poster has made up their mind about evolution when they understand so little about it. That's actually one of my pet peeves in life.

I would not expect to see some of the points that are made or the questions being asked, if the level of competence were at all near what has been alleged.

As you indicate, it is not that difficult for a person to learn the basics on their own these days.

Thanks for the compliment. It is reciprocated and I would not downplay the value you contribute as well.

 

[YoursTrue]

Why should I feel anything but good about an improvement in a dating technology? This doesn't upset any of the basic principles of evolution.

Scientists are always debating. That's how science advances. All scientific knowledge is provisional, as new evidenced is uncovered or new tests performed, our understanding grows.

Actually, dating methods may alter conventional historical data quite a bit. Carbon Dating Gets a Reset
What was true last year may not be true next year.

 

[YoursTrue]

The same way we know that it weren't Ice Giants that took them out.

Carbon Dating Gets a Reset
As has been stated, many scientists are arguing about what's true and what's not true. What was true yesterday may not be true tomorrow.

 

[YoursTrue]

Why should I feel anything but good about an improvement in a dating technology? This doesn't upset any of the basic principles of evolution.

Scientists are always debating. That's how science advances. All scientific knowledge is provisional, as new evidenced is uncovered or new tests performed, our understanding grows.

Yes, but just how recent are humans as opposed to Neanderthal humanoid type beings?
Scientific American: "Archaeologists vehemently disagree over the effects changing climate and competition from recently arriving humans had on the Neanderthals' demise." Why do they say "recently arriving humans" vs Neanderthals? Carbon Dating Gets a Reset
See, that was my question, it wasn't about scientists that vehemently disagree with each other. Just how recent are humans, and did they emerge, evolve, from Neanderthals? My main question is: just how recently arrived are humans, particularly in relation to Neanderthals?

 

[YoursTrue]

How do you know it was?

I don't know it was since the Bible does not say God took the dinosaurs out, but then -- (neither do you know it was whatever some scientists say it was).

 

[YoursTrue]

Right? Like, I'm not even seeing understanding of the most basic concepts of evolution. Not that I'm some supergenius on the subject myself or anything, but if I don't know or understand a thing, I make a point to go and learn about it, long before trying to spout off on the subject.

It's too bad you've been ignored, because you've been one of the most informative posters on the thread (and ones like it).

It's a shame that the poster has made up their mind about evolution when they understand so little about it. That's actually one of my pet peeves in life.

What is a shame is that many of my questions are not answered or addressed. And guess what I think? That you don't really know the answers. But, depending on circumstances, I may even keep asking questions and pondering over your assertions.

 

[Wandering Monk]

I don't know it was since the Bible does not say God took the dinosaurs out, but then -- (neither do you know it was whatever some scientists say it was).

Except you don't find any dinosaur fossils above the iridium deposit caused by the asteroid that hit the Yucatan about 65 million years ago.

 

[YoursTrue]

Except you don't find any dinosaur fossils above the iridium deposit caused by the asteroid that hit the Yucatan about 65 million years ago.

By this time I do not trust speculations made by time-setters as if they were absolute, for certain reasons, some of which are that ground shifts, bones are swept away, ridges can form. They may have reason to speculate, but there can be mitigating circumstances, as scientists continue investigating and debating.

 

[YoursTrue]

The same way we know that it weren't Ice Giants that took them out.

Do you have any testimony that Ice Giants created the heavens and the earth?

 

[YoursTrue]

Except you don't find any dinosaur fossils above the iridium deposit caused by the asteroid that hit the Yucatan about 65 million years ago.

Here's a point I found while looking on the internet. From Scholastic.com.
"Why didn't all plants and animals die when the dinosaurs died?
A: Great question! Most animals and plants did die out with dinosaurs, just as they did about five other times when there were huge disasters in the billions of years of earth history. That's not very often, so I wouldn't worry about it happening while we are around. We don't know why any of this happened, so we don't know why it didn't destroy all living things. There was probably a big weather change, from volcanoes or asteroids changing the climate. Some animals and plants that were tough, or little, could survive even these big changes in weather. I'm just glad all plants and animals didn't die out with the dinosaurs, or there would be no us. (Don Lessem)"
So here's my question: It was said that it didn't happen very often that there were huge disasters in the earth's history. And it was said that he wouldn't worry about it happening while we are around. Did the dinosaurs worry? Do plants worry? Do lions worry that a huge disaster will wipe them out? (What do you think?)

 

[YoursTrue]

"Lola" was kind of pretty, wouldn't you say?
Face of Stone Age woman revealed thanks to DNA from Neolithic 5,700-year-old 'chewing gum'

 

[Wandering Monk]

By this time I do not trust speculations made by time-setters as if they were absolute, for certain reasons, some of which are that ground shifts, bones are swept away, ridges can form. They may have reason to speculate, but there can be mitigating circumstances, as scientists continue investigating and debating.

My goodness. If you know more than the geologists, where is your Nobel Prize?

 

[Polymath257]

Actually, dating methods may alter conventional historical data quite a bit. Carbon Dating Gets a Reset
What was true last year may not be true next year.

Hmmm....so getting more accuracy is making past statements false? Only if you ignore the error bars that have always been there.

 

[Polymath257]

Carbon Dating Gets a Reset
As has been stated, many scientists are arguing about what's true and what's not true. What was true yesterday may not be true tomorrow.

Yes, they argue over what is true and not true. But this article isn't showing that.

It is showing that *known* issues can be resolved using more data. And that helps accuracy other places.

I fail to see why you seem to think this is a bad thing for science.

 

[YoursTrue]

My goodness. If you know more than the geologists, where is your Nobel Prize?

If geologists argue and debate with one another about their conclusions and testing, what makes you think I think I know more than they? I don't trust their conclusions when they disagree with what the Bible says, and for the reasons I mentioned as well, especially when they contradict their own findings. I'm beginning to think you don't think.

 

[Polymath257]

If geologists argue and debate with one another about their conclusions and testing, what makes you think I think I know more than they? I don't trust their conclusions when they disagree with what the Bible says, and for the reasons I mentioned as well, especially when they contradict their own findings. I'm beginning to think you don't think.

Geologist I: This layer is 58.2 million years old.
Geologist II: No, it is 58.6 million years old.

You: Geologists disagree, so it's reasonable to think it is all less than 20,000 years old.

 

[YoursTrue]

Yes, they argue over what is true and not true. But this article isn't showing that.

It is showing that *known* issues can be resolved using more data. And that helps accuracy other places.

I fail to see why you seem to think this is a bad thing for science.

As I said in the past in other discussions regarding what was taught as absolute truth in the NYC school system especially during Stephen Jay Gould's day (note the word 'day' there, please, doesn't mean a 24-hour period) -- the theory of ontogeny recapitulates phylogeny was not taught as a possibility. It as taught as diehard truth. And frankly, I've seen the most absurd defenses of not just the theory, but defenders here and otherwhere declaring that it was not really 'wrong,' and contested by other scientists. Contested perhaps, but taught as absolute truth in NYC in the 60's. If a student did not agree, he got that question WRONG. It was not taught as a possibility. No matter what you say. I'm glad Dr. Gould recognized that, yes, even though he was a believer in evolution and did not believe in God a Creator. I give credit to Dr. Gould, because I know what he said is TRUE about Haeckel's theory and the NYC school system. As I said, one day things are true, the next day not true as far as I am concerned, particularly when it contradicts what the Bible says.

 

[YoursTrue]

Geologist I: This layer is 58.2 million years old.
Geologist II: No, it is 58.6 million years old.

You: Geologists disagree, so it's reasonable to think it is all less than 20,000 years old.

Nope, that's not the "bottom layer" of it all. And so what I have found is what those such as Michael Behe and others like him say, if you don't agree with the diehard believers in evolution as popular, it's possible one's career in those sciences is doomed due to political reasons. And I have seen that prejudice here, such as in your above post. (Thank you.)