Isn't this cute?

[Bear Wild]

I know by now that science takes what is deemed to be evidence of a theory and declare it to be right, correct, truth. I say truth even though by this time I know that word isn't used much. Nevertheless though, for the record, I appreciate scientists such as those that look for vaccines, doctors, and others that do such work,
When I went to school we were taught certain things about evolution as FACTS. At that time, I believed everything I was taught about evolution, not realizing (and we were not told) that what are called facts might change.

You do know the information about vaccines and medicine have all the same "gaps" and disagreements between scientists that evolution has! Ideas and theories of medicine change all of the time yet you are willing to say that is ok yet totally dismiss evolution which uses the same process to explain the theory.

 

[Dan From Smithville]

Think about how many times we've all tried to explain to the same creationists what "theory" means in science, that science doesn't "prove" things, that scientists updating their models to reflect new data is how science works, etc., only to see those creationists go on to repeat the same original mistakes and act as if no one had ever explained anything to them?

For me, at some point the focus turns away from the creationists and their obvious refusal to learn, and towards the people who keep trying to educate them. I can understand trying to explain something to a creationist a few times, but after a while you have to wonder about the person who keeps saying the same things to the same person over, and over, and over, and over....all to no effect.

The "appeal to lurkers" doesn't apply, given how the point had been explained many, many times before, which means something else is going on. The two main things I figure drive folks to this folly are extreme boredom and stubbornness.

I suppose it is could also be a means to self reinforce indoctrination to a particular sects demands. Or that certain brands demand obedience and those creationists must resist even the more basic points that have no direct impact on their beliefs.

I wonder sometimes if it is resistance against the realization that science is such a powerful tool for discovery. Resistance, because deep down they know it is.

 

[Dan From Smithville]

I know by now that science takes what is deemed to be evidence of a theory and declare it to be right, correct, truth. I say truth even though by this time I know that word isn't used much. Nevertheless though, for the record, I appreciate scientists such as those that look for vaccines, doctors, and others that do such work,
When I went to school we were taught certain things about evolution as FACTS. At that time, I believed everything I was taught about evolution, not realizing (and we were not told) that what are called facts might change.

Facts do not change. Understanding does.

I have no idea what you were taught or the quality of the system that you went through. However, given that you regularly declare that you memorized all the information you were given, I find it odd that you never bring that information to bear in dealing with these subjects. The way you maneuver through this material it is as if you have never been familiarized with it at all.

 

[Dan From Smithville]

I know by now that science takes what is deemed to be evidence of a theory and declare it to be right, correct, truth. I say truth even though by this time I know that word isn't used much. Nevertheless though, for the record, I appreciate scientists such as those that look for vaccines, doctors, and others that do such work,
When I went to school we were taught certain things about evolution as FACTS. At that time, I believed everything I was taught about evolution, not realizing (and we were not told) that what are called facts might change.

It is strange, since 99% of those scientists you appreciate accept the theory of evolution and use it to understand disease, viruses and bacteria and how to develop those vaccines.

 

[Dan From Smithville]

Yes.....I am pointing out that this is a very big fraud. Having read up on the findings of later research, I saw that this skull was identified by other scientists as a young ape......not related to humans.

There are no intermediate species, because evolution has NO concrete proof for its validity. It is based on “interpreted” evidence, rather than actual facts. Supposition and suggestions are not facts. “Evidence” can be “interpreted” any way science wants to present it....that doesn’t make it true.

What fraud are you talking about? Purposely including a human fetal skull and claiming it to be from a one year old human? Either intentionally or accidentally, it doesn't offer you much credit toward your conclusions.

 

[Deeje]

It is an ape. But so are humans. And it *is* related to humans.

Related? You mean like Pakicetus is to a whale?

Funny. The Taung child and other Australopithecus species are good evidence of 'intermediate' species, both in time and in anatomy.

Funny, but some scientists will disagree with you.....why do some scientists disagree? Because "interpretation" of the "evidence" can be construed any way scientists want to interpret it. If it were a provable fact, there would be no room to do that. We have the same problem with people who read the Bible....it all boils down to the preferred interpretation because that changes everything about people's perceptions. I can see that "faith" and "belief" are at the base of both views. Neither has proof.

Any interpretation has to agree with the actual data. And we can measure various aspects of the fossils and compare to similar aspects of modern apes, modern humans, as well as other ancient apes and ancient humans.

How much of the Taung Child's skull was actually found? Not much compared to what was manufactured apparently.

In all appearances the Tuang Child looks like the skull of a baby ape of some kind. Scientists claim that Australopithecines “..mature faster than humans”, but how can that be known, from the existing evidence? Without knowing the full stature of a mature specimen, and without having the bones at various stages of growth.....by what stretch of the imagination can anyone confirm such wild speculation?
So, again, compare the two pics above....anyone who can't see a species of baby ape is conveniently blind IMO.

Interesting, too, is that some anthropologists speak of the “foramen magnum” found in a piece of this reconstructed skull (I have not been able to find a clear picture of it yet…) The base of the skull where the hole would be is simply too incomplete to be conclusive evidence of an upright posture.

Edited to add:....so that there is evidence that the foramen magnum is entirely missing in this Tuang fossil skull (pictured above) compared to where it is located on a human skull.

And this is where I believe that we see the crux of the whole problem. Who is responsible for the "actual data" that you rely on? Scientists convincing other scientists will only quibble about the details of a scientific dilemma.....one-up-manship is considered a good thing in their world of egos and scientific credibility. But they will never question the theory itself because in science, you cannot do that, unless you want to commit career suicide. All data collected, therefore must fall within the parameters set by the pre-conceived idea that evolution (amoebas to dinosaurs) "must have" happened in the dim dark past.....I don't believe it did on the scale, or in the way, that science imagines....and imagination is backed up by their own interpretation of the "evidence". Suggestions take the place of proof. If a theory was provable, it would no longer be a theory and all arguments would be silenced. The defense of this theory takes on religious fervor.

Science is not my religion.

In the case of the Taung child, we have an example of an intermediate between ancient apes and modern humans. That isn't a matter of interpretation alone. it is a matter of looking at the characteristics of the skull and comparing it to ancient apes, modern apes, and modern humans, as well as other ancient human-like species.

If we have the same Creator, who used the same basic building blocks to create all living things "according to their kind"....isn't that what we see in nature? Mutations are rarely beneficial and the detrimental ones usually die out because they are not conducive to perpetuation by reproduction. Nature has a way of eliminating bad copies.
Google beneficial mutations in humans and see how many come up and how important they are for survival.

It is an assumption that apes evolved into humans because the fossils are a poor record and genetics are demonstrating that all living things are related in their DNA......that means that plants are the forerunners of sentient creatures who take myriad forms. Are you related to a banana?....I have heard it said that we are.....
If a potter makes two completely different vessels out of the same clay...are they related? Yes, because of their Maker, not because one morphed into the other.

I have seen the evidence for evolution assuming that adaptation 'must be' the way all life evolved....but what do the studies really show? That adaptation can only produce new varieties of a single species. There is no real evidence that adaptation can move a species into a new taxonomy by creating branches off fictitious "common ancestors". These so-called "common ancestors" are never identified, but are given credit for the supposed continual chain of evolution.......but no one knows who or what they were....their existence is assumed but not proven. If you have a chain with missing links...what do you call that?

 

[SkepticThinker]

Related? You mean like Pakicetus is to a whale?


Funny, but some scientists will disagree with you.....why do some scientists disagree? Because "interpretation" of the "evidence" can be construed any way scientists want to interpret it. If it were a provable fact, there would be no room to do that. We have the same problem with people who read the Bible....it all boils down to the preferred interpretation because that changes everything about people's perceptions. I can see that "faith" and "belief" are at the base of both views. Neither has proof.

How much of the Taung Child's skull was actually found? Not much compared to what was manufactured apparently.

In all appearances the Tuang Child looks like the skull of a baby ape of some kind. Scientists claim that Australopithecines “..mature faster than humans”, but how can that be known, from the existing evidence? Without knowing the full stature of a mature specimen, and without having the bones at various stages of growth.....by what stretch of the imagination can anyone confirm such wild speculation?
So, again, compare the two pics above....anyone who can't see a species of baby ape is conveniently blind IMO.

Interesting, too, is that some anthropologists speak of the “foramen magnum” found in a piece of this reconstructed skull (I have not been able to find a clear picture of it yet…) The base of the skull where the hole would be is simply too incomplete to be conclusive evidence of an upright posture.

Edited to add:....so that there is evidence that the foramen magnum is entirely missing in this Tuang fossil skull (pictured above) compared to where it is located on a human skull.

And this is where I believe that we see the crux of the whole problem. Who is responsible for the "actual data" that you rely on? Scientists convincing other scientists will only quibble about the details of a scientific dilemma.....one-up-manship is considered a good thing in their world of egos and scientific credibility. But they will never question the theory itself because in science, you cannot do that, unless you want to commit career suicide. All data collected, therefore must fall within the parameters set by the pre-conceived idea that evolution (amoebas to dinosaurs) "must have" happened in the dim dark past.....I don't believe it did on the scale, or in the way, that science imagines....and imagination is backed up by their own interpretation of the "evidence". Suggestions take the place of proof. If a theory was provable, it would no longer be a theory and all arguments would be silenced. The defense of this theory takes on religious fervor.

Science is not my religion.


If we have the same Creator, who used the same basic building blocks to create all living things "according to their kind"....isn't that what we see in nature? Mutations are rarely beneficial and the detrimental ones usually die out because they are not conducive to perpetuation by reproduction. Nature has a way of eliminating bad copies.
Google beneficial mutations in humans and see how many come up and how important they are for survival.

It is an assumption that apes evolved into humans because the fossils are a poor record and genetics are demonstrating that all living things are related in their DNA......that means that plants are the forerunners of sentient creatures who take myriad forms. Are you related to a banana?....I have heard it said that we are.....
If a potter makes two completely different vessels out of the same clay...are they related? Yes, because of their Maker, not because one morphed into the other.

I have seen the evidence for evolution assuming that adaptation 'must be' the way all life evolved....but what do the studies really show? That adaptation can only produce new varieties of a single species. There is no real evidence that adaptation can move a species into a new taxonomy by creating branches off fictitious "common ancestors". These so-called "common ancestors" are never identified, but are given credit for the supposed continual chain of evolution.......but no one knows who or what they were....their existence is assumed but not proven. If you have a chain with missing links...what do you call that?

You really should cite the poor source you are using, lest anyone think you may be plagiarizing.

Taung child – Truthopia

 

[exchemist]

You really should cite the poor source you are using, lest anyone think you may be plagiarizing.

Taung child – Truthopia

Well spotted - and what a lousy source, indeed.

 

[A Vestigial Mote]

There are no intermediate species, because evolution has NO concrete proof for its validity. It is based on “interpreted” evidence, rather than actual facts. Supposition and suggestions are not facts. “Evidence” can be “interpreted” any way science wants to present it....that doesn’t make it true.

Every creature alive is an "intermediate species." Some really obvious examples are things that have varying levels of attributes without having the whole shebang. For instance, "flying" squirrels. They have the start of wings, but can only (currently) glide. They are potentially making their way toward full-fledged flight (if such ends up necessary for ongoing survival), somewhat like the precursors to bats must have done at some point in the past. They have the start to attaining the "flight" attribute, but aren't entirely there. There are a great many squirrel species that get on pretty well without that extra flap of skin that allows these others to glide. Why the change-up of schematic (thinking from God's perspective) without just going to full-on flight for these creatures? Is this one of those times you might tell me that I "cannot pretend to know the mind of God?" All the while yourself (and a great many of your theist friends of Christian variety) running around telling anyone who will listen "what God thinks/wants."

Besides this, there is plenty of "concrete" evidence for evolution at work. Human-imposed dog/canine variety, for example. Using evolutionary principles, dog breeders hand-selected the attributes they wanted to propagate into the resulting progeny - which is an artificial means of selection, but mirrors the same sorts of "selection" that can happen in nature. In other words - the results are the same whether humans do the selecting or nature has its hand in it. And those results are (sorry to say) evolution. Think about that the next time you are faced with a Chihuahua or a Toy Pomeranian - canines that would not exist were it not for the plausibility of evolution and human tinkering in that realm.

And since I know my above paragraph will have you spitting your lunch with froth on your mouth to tell me that "dogs are all the same kind" (see how predictable you creationists are?), please inform me why a horse and a donkey/jack produce a (almost always) sterile creature (the mule, or hinny)? Why would these two "kinds" or creature be able to reproduce, and yet their offspring not be able to do so? There is a very simple explanation given evolution as the basis of thought on the matter. Much more difficult to answer as to the planning behind that when you consider some "all knowing" creator in the mix. It's like a software bug, isn't it? Some kind of glitch? Why would God propagate such? Why not fix the error? Make it such that the two cannot reproduce, or that if they do, they produce something viable within the same "kind?"

Go ahead, say it. "You cannot know the mind of God." Please remember that the next time you plan to speak on His behalf.

 

[Dan From Smithville]

You really should cite the poor source you are using, lest anyone think you may be plagiarizing.

Taung child – Truthopia

That is a problem with creationists. They often post material directly pulled from the internet and post it without attribution so it appears as if it is their own words.

I get the impression that it is a mad dash through Google to find something, anything that offers even the hint of support for what they want to be true. In this case, it is not "some scientists", but some person's blog. Not a scientist.

At least the pictures have been updated and are not so misleading. Some scientist is responsible for pointing that out.

 

[exchemist]

Think about how many times we've all tried to explain to the same creationists what "theory" means in science, that science doesn't "prove" things, that scientists updating their models to reflect new data is how science works, etc., only to see those creationists go on to repeat the same original mistakes and act as if no one had ever explained anything to them?

For me, at some point the focus turns away from the creationists and their obvious refusal to learn, and towards the people who keep trying to educate them. I can understand trying to explain something to a creationist a few times, but after a while you have to wonder about the person who keeps saying the same things to the same person over, and over, and over, and over....all to no effect.

The "appeal to lurkers" doesn't apply, given how the point had been explained many, many times before, which means something else is going on. The two main things I figure drive folks to this folly are extreme boredom and stubbornness.

There is, I think something else, as well, though. Personally, I find it hard to leave deliberate misrepresentation unchallenged on a public forum. Though in this case, admittedly, the OP was mere trollery.

 

[Jose Fly]

I suppose it is could also be a means to self reinforce indoctrination to a particular sects demands. Or that certain brands demand obedience and those creationists must resist even the more basic points that have no direct impact on their beliefs.

One creationist I used to argue with would just repeat "science supports creation" over and over, regardless of what he was supposed to be replying to. I eventually concluded that it was a self-soothing mantra that he needed to repeat to himself to make himself feel better.

I wonder sometimes if it is resistance against the realization that science is such a powerful tool for discovery. Resistance, because deep down they know it is.

Definitely. They know science is our primary way of solving problems and discerning truth about the world around us. That's why they try and dress up their arguments to look scientific. They crave its credibility.

 

[Jose Fly]

There is, I think something else, as well, though. Personally, I find it hard to leave deliberate misrepresentation unchallenged on a public forum. Though in this case, admittedly, the OP was mere trollery.

LOL.....the classic cartoon...

 

[Deeje]

You really should cite the poor source you are using, lest anyone think you may be plagiarizing.

Taung child – Truthopia

Refute what I posted. You shoot the messenger but you cannot dismiss the photographs as faked unless you have counter evidence....do you? Are the photographs an accurate depiction of the reality? If not, then show us where the author of the pictures was in error. Give us pictures of the foramen magnum in this specimen so that we can see clearly why the pics were misleading. This is supposed to be one of the key features that show that the specimen was bi-pedal.....who is lying?

Whining about the source without identifying where the photographic evidence was in error, is a bit pathetic IMO.

Give us the real evidence. The responses here so far are just empty protests. Give us the real evidence that this Tuang skull is not what I have shown, regardless of the source of the pictures. Prove to us photographically that he is wrong.....

 

[Deeje]

@A Vestigial Mote, that was one of the most creative posts I have ever read.....it gave me a good laugh, so thank you for that....

And since I know my above paragraph will have you spitting your lunch with froth on your mouth to tell me that "dogs are all the same kind" (see how predictable you creationists are?), please inform me why a horse and a donkey/jack produce a (almost always) sterile creature (the mule, or hinny)? Why would these two "kinds" or creature be able to reproduce, and yet their offspring not be able to do so?

Rather than “spitting my lunch with froth on my mouth to tell you that "dogs are all the same kind", I’ll actually thank you again for demonstrating why evolution is nonsense to me.

The very fact that there is a genetic roadblock to interbreeding demonstrates to me that sterility would prevent any species from ever crossing over into a new taxonomy. If horses and donkeys are the end of the genetic line and lions and tigers also produce hybrid offspring, then what do these have in common? They are artificially bred. Neither of these related species would ever mate in the wild...reinforcing the Bible's statement that creatures will reproduce only "according to their kinds"......on land or sea, all creatures seek out a mate of their own specific species. When was a horse not an equine...or a dog not a canine? Don't these creatures know instinctively what their own "kinds" are? Many varieties are found within all species.....they are all the same family and would remain so no matter how much time elapsed.....but they will not breed with other varieties even of their own kind unless there are biological circumstances that are outside of the normal range....and even then, that would be the end of the line. The sterility is inbuilt...programmed into the genes. Varieties never go outside of their "kinds".

Darwin's discoveries on the Galapagos Islands also proved that this was true.....adaptation did not take the finches, the iguanas or the tortoises out of their "family" (kind) but simply created an adapted species, suited to a new environment and food supply. Adaptation is not "evolution" of the magnitude suggested by science. It is an inbuilt ability in all living things to adapt and survive.

Evolution falls down right at its very beginnings......its first premise is unprovable and unsubstantiated by anything but pure speculation and assertion....therefore it is a shaky platform upon which to build such an impressive edifice....if the foundations are matchsticks, its bound to fall down sooner or later IMO.

There is a very simple explanation given evolution as the basis of thought on the matter. Much more difficult to answer as to the planning behind that when you consider some "all knowing" creator in the mix. It's like a software bug, isn't it? Some kind of glitch? Why would God propagate such? Why not fix the error? Make it such that the two cannot reproduce, or that if they do, they produce something viable within the same "kind?"

Where you see error I see wisdom. It is all perfectly explained in the Bible but what would be the point in elaborating? You are fixed in your viewpoint and I am fixed in mine......we will all find out one day if we backed the winning horse, I guess....

 

[YoursTrue]

It is strange, since 99% of those scientists you appreciate accept the theory of evolution and use it to understand disease, viruses and bacteria and how to develop those vaccines.

It's strange to you, not to me. Especially since some of my close relatives are doctors and scientists. Among other close association I had with others professionally in the realm of science. The theory of evolution is not formulated by distinction or experimentation.

 

[YoursTrue]

One creationist I used to argue with would just repeat "science supports creation" over and over, regardless of what he was supposed to be replying to. I eventually concluded that it was a self-soothing mantra that he needed to repeat to himself to make himself feel better.


Definitely. They know science is our primary way of solving problems and discerning truth about the world around us. That's why they try and dress up their arguments to look scientific. They crave its credibility.

That is what I am seeing. About the theory of evolution. Or have seen since I began realizing the dark holes not of the sky, but in the theory of evolution. But not all will see or admit those dark holes exist. to be clear, in the theory of evolution.

 

[YoursTrue]

You do know the information about vaccines and medicine have all the same "gaps" and disagreements between scientists that evolution has! Ideas and theories of medicine change all of the time yet you are willing to say that is ok yet totally dismiss evolution which uses the same process to explain the theory.

Here's the problem with that. Statistics show that some vaccines are successful in their application to dampen effects of disease. They have been scientifically developed. Tried and applied, stats taken. No such thing with the theory of...evolution. in fact there was some experimentation with humans and interbreeding with animals. Didn't work out. Of course, let's be honest...that last unknown ancestor just is not said to be around any more, is it? So no experiments can be had.

 

[Bear Wild]

that was one of the most creative posts I have ever read.....it gave me a good laugh, so thank you for that....

You know we all want to make you laugh. It makes the world a little softer.

Rather than “spitting my lunch with froth on my mouth to tell you that "dogs are all the same kind", I’ll actually thank you again for demonstrating why evolution is nonsense to me.

Sorry my wife's King Charles Caviler is not the same kind as my neighbors Husky. I hope you are at least familiar enough with these breeds to see the difference. You can see the difference right? Not the same kind clearly.

The very fact that there is a genetic roadblock to interbreeding demonstrates to me that sterility would prevent any species from ever crossing over into a new taxonomy. If horses and donkeys are the end of the genetic line and lions and tigers also produce hybrid offspring, then what do these have in common?

Sorry but you are wrong about that which of course refutes the absolutism of the bible. Wild cats and domestic cats have breed successfully and not sterile. Two different species of sharks have interbred in none other than Australia you land down under. There are plants that remain fertile and salamanders. There even mules that are fertile. Well so much for the absolute interpretation of the bible. Always appreciate your changes my friend the keep me learning. In favor of evolution however.

Darwin's discoveries on the Galapagos Islands also proved that this was true.....adaptation did not take the finches, the iguanas or the tortoises out of their "family" (kind) but simply created an adapted species, suited to a new environment and food supply. Adaptation is not "evolution" of the magnitude suggested by science. It is an inbuilt ability in all living things to adapt and survive.

The fact that the finches in a relatively short time could change sufficiently to adapt is amazing proof of how evolution works. Tortoises will not become finches but they can change with time. Iguanas also change generically with time but will not become finches. What any of the species will become will take far greater time that we as individual have on this planet. Adaptation is not evolution how true. Adaptation is the process which causes changes in the genetic code that leads to evolution. The ability to change is written in stone with no question about its meaning.

It is never to late to accept evolution my friend.

 

[YoursTrue]

There is, I think something else, as well, though. Personally, I find it hard to leave deliberate misrepresentation unchallenged on a public forum. Though in this case, admittedly, the OP was mere trollery.

Not really, although I was wondering about facsimiles by artists renderings in reference to similitude of fossils thought to be hominids. Meantime, although the answer was muscular proposed attachment to the skeletal remains, the idea of evolution from chimp-like ancestors biologically to humans by evolution no longer makes sense to ME. It obviously does to you, and so that's where I am leaving it now, because I have learned a few things. One is that there is no proof of evolution. Only conjecture. Vaccines, at least, are proven to be effective or ineffective when applied.