Humans and Chimp, its True...

[Autodidact]

Was Darwin a scientist?

Yes. Darwin did science. You are doing anti-science. Instead of looking at all the evidence with an open mind to follow it wherever it may lead, trying to advance knowledge, and looking for what evidence that is out there, you are refusing to look at any evidence that is not consistent with your prior conclusion, trying to retard knowledge, and only looking for evidence that does not exist.

 

[Autodidact]

No...

I see, so then what, you're just really rude? Or you're afraid to respond to me?

 

[Man of Faith]

Yes. Darwin did science. You are doing anti-science. Instead of looking at all the evidence with an open mind to follow it wherever it may lead, trying to advance knowledge, and looking for what evidence that is out there, you are refusing to look at any evidence that is not consistent with your prior conclusion, trying to retard knowledge, and only looking for evidence that does not exist.

I didn't ask if Darwin did science, I asked if Darwin was a scientist.

 

[Tristesse]

I am disappointed in the lack of progress on our scientific method experiment, specifically with the "Test with an experiment" step. I have provided 5 tests, 5 things that would falsify and 5 things that would verify our hypothesis below. I thought we were going to do real science using the real scientific method. I hope this is not how other scientists operate, but I suspect it is. Maybe that is why we cannot sieve the evolution theory though the scientific method. I need to know, is the ToE science or not?

Tests
1) We should test the DNA of the creature before the split of human and chimp. From the chart that you provided below it would be where it points to the common ancestor of human and chimp. That will give us a common DNA map of where we both came from.
2) We should test the DNA of each creature just after separation into different directions to compare to the common ancestor. Your chart shows the human lineage separating from the common ancestor at a point, we should test the DNA of that creature and the DNA of the creature of the chimp just after separation.
3) We should test the DNA of the creature that does not split off from the common ancestor. On your chart there is an arrow moving up between the chimp and human so we should test that creature.
4) We should test the DNA of the creatures along the line of evolution and before the creatures become chimp and human. As they continue to evolve and before they get the chimp and human we should be able to get some valuable DNA maps.
5) We should test the DNA of the creatures that were just before they became human and chimps.

What would falsify our hypothesis:
1) If we fail to find fossil evidence of the creatures that evolved into human and chimps.
2) If we failed to find a mechanism that would cause the behavior differences between chimps and humans. For example, wearing clothes, living in houses, driving cars, burying the dead, praying, using currency, talking, having a self consious, etc.
3) If we fail to observe the human and chimp evolution. If it takes millions of years to produce a human, then millions of years ago when this started we should be seeing it now with some percent of the population.
4) If we fail to find out why humans and chimps don't marry. In some instances there are stories of humans marrying their cousins.
5) If chimps and humans can't reproduce. There should be a great plasticity in the lab between chimps and human reproduction if we are cousins.

What would prove our hypothesis true:
1) If we find concrete proof in the fossil record. We have the common ancestor and we have fossils of every creature along the way of the evolution chain.
2) If we find the mechanism that changes the shapes and usage of bones in hands and feet that are required for this evolution. For example, how could random mutation account for the necessary bone structure for chimps to climb or humans to walk upright.
3) If we observe the common ancestor of chimps and humans producing this split of creatures as they are birthed.
4) Seeing a human and chimp on their honeymoon.
5) Being able to produce offspring between human and chimps.

Let me start off by saying that yes, the theory of evolution is science.

You have quite a few mistakes in your analysis, first off, the failure to find a fossil is not evidence against evolution, the reason being, is that fossils are incredibly difficult to find in the first place, and most creatures don't fossilize, so, the fact that we have any fossils at all, is remarkable.

What does having human traits have to do with a lineage from our common ancestor? Things like wearing cloths, driving cars(btw if you take that analogy, than I guess the people who wrote the bible don't classify as human either.)

We have seen and recorded instances of evolution occurring. You've been presented with many examples of it in the past, but you keep ignoring it for some reason.

 

[Autodidact]

I didn't ask if Darwin did science, I asked if Darwin was a scientist.

Yes, because he did science.

Did you notice how I answered your question? Don't you appreciate that? It's polite, don't you think to answer other people when they ask you direct, relevant questions? Since I have nothing to evade, and I try to be courteous, that's how I roll. Now if I were a big chicken, or had no manners, I might have just ignored your question.

 

[Tristesse]

I didn't ask if Darwin did science, I asked if Darwin was a scientist.

Yes he was.

 

[Man of Faith]

Yes, because he did science.

Did you notice how I answered your question? Don't you appreciate that? It's polite, don't you think to answer other people when they ask you direct, relevant questions? Since I have nothing to evade, and I try to be courteous, that's how I roll. Now if I were a big chicken, or had no manners, I might have just ignored your question.

Well, I am doing science so I am a scientists in the same way that Darwin was.

 

[Man of Faith]

Yes he was.

What made him a scientist?

 

[Autodidact]

Well, I am doing science so I am a scientists in the same way that Darwin was.

Except that you're not.

 

[Autodidact]

What made him a scientist?

He did science.

 

[Autodidact]

Man of Faith:
Do you or don't you want to learn:
(1) What ToE says.
(2) What the evidence is that supports it?

 

[Tristesse]

Well, I am doing science so I am a scientists in the same way that Darwin was.

If you come up with a valid hypothesis and get it accepted by the scientific community and it graduates to a scientific theory, than sure you can call yourself a scientist.

 

[Man of Faith]

Man of Faith:
Do you or don't you want to learn:
(1) What ToE says.
(2) What the evidence is that supports it?

No, I want to see it and experience it, not read about it. I want to talk to a manchimp. That's real science, observation.

 

[tumbleweed41]

Well, I am doing science so I am a scientists in the same way that Darwin was.

Once again, since you insist on using faulty reasoning, faulty methodology, intellectual dishonesty, and intentional ignorance you have failed miserably in your attempt to be considered any type of scientist.

 

[Autodidact]

Fine, that's your option. You don't want to know what the ToE is. Fine. But then, of course, you disqualify yourself from making any statements dependent on knowing what it is. For example, you would never state that it was false, because you have no way of knowing. If you did, you would be lying.

Similarly, you can never honestly make any statement about the evidence that supports it, because you have no idea what it is. If you did, you would be lying.

If you go around lying a lot, we have a word for that. We call that a liar. If you persist in claiming that ToE is false, and the evidence does not support it, that's what you are.

Unfortunately for you, I do not intend to leave RF, so I will point out to everyone, when you continue to lie in this way, that is what you are doing, and that is what you are.

For that reason, if you want to continue the approach of choosing ignorance while posting lies, I suggest you find another forum to do it in.

 

[tumbleweed41]

No, I want to see it and experience it, not read about it. I want to talk to a manchimp. That's real science, observation.

Intellectual dishonesty and intentional ignorance.

 

[Autodidact]

Intellectual dishonesty and intentional ignorance.

tumbleweed--He's a Young Earth Creationist. Your insults are redundant.

 

[tumbleweed41]

tumbleweed--He's a Young Earth Creationist. Your insults are redundant.

They are not insults, just informative facts for the reader..

 

[Man of Faith]

Fine, that's your option. You don't want to know what the ToE is. Fine. But then, of course, you disqualify yourself from making any statements dependent on knowing what it is. For example, you would never state that it was false, because you have no way of knowing. If you did, you would be lying.

Similarly, you can never honestly make any statement about the evidence that supports it, because you have no idea what it is. If you did, you would be lying.

If you go around lying a lot, we have a word for that. We call that a liar. If you persist in claiming that ToE is false, and the evidence does not support it, that's what you are.

Unfortunately for you, I do not intend to leave RF, so I will point out to everyone, when you continue to lie in this way, that is what you are doing, and that is what you are.

For that reason, if you want to continue the approach of choosing ignorance while posting lies, I suggest you find another forum to do it in.

I'm glad you are not leaving the RF. When you point out that I am lying, it would probably make you more credible if you are specific. Saying that I am a liar because I don't believe in the ToE isn't credible in some circles.

 

[Tristesse]

I'm glad you are not leaving the RF. When you point out that I am lying, it would probably make you more credible if you are specific. Saying that I am a liar because I don't believe in the ToE isn't credible in some circles.

She's calling you a liar because you're spreading false information about ToE.