Isn't this cute?

[YoursTrue]

What does any of this have to do with dating techniques that you claimed you were going to begin discussing?

I'm speaking of eugenics and evolution, the theories of, and how they were intermingled, rightly or wrongly.

 

[Dan From Smithville]

Is biological relatedness of mammal not a probable fact? Let's see.

Hi,Dan. It appears that's what the post said about popularizing the facial and physical characteristics. I don't recall seeing something about intentional deceit. But popularizing the findings is what I read, thus not really telling the "scientific" truth. Since the representative faces and bodies are made up and from my research, quite different from one another of the same supposed person. When I come across it again, I will be happy to give you the information.

It is not truth, but accuracy and it is the scientists that are concerned with optimizing it. Do you not think that scientists should be concerned about that or make efforts to improve popular representations of science? It seems like you found something that demonstrates a concern of scientists and an effort by them to work with artists to reduce bias and make improvements and you are using this to attack the validity of their work, which is another matter entirely. Bias in the artistic representations does not invalidate the scientific findings.

 

[Dan From Smithville]

I'm speaking of eugenics and evolution, the theories of, and how they were intermingled, rightly or wrongly.

I understand what you were talking about. But I still do not see what that has to do with dating techniques.

 

[Dan From Smithville]

Hi, Dan. Can you please show or explain the evidence you declare?

Why? What is there to make me think that this time you will actually acknowledge it? I have seen it presented to you numerous times before and here you again claiming there is no evidence for it.

I have to ask myself if looking for it is worth the time.

Surely you can do a search on your own. Try Google Scholar.

 

[Bear Wild]

Who said that all mammals must be related? That is an assumption, not a probable fact. Many different creatures are mammals....Australia has several that are difficult for scientists to figure out....especially the monotremes.

Certainty there is variation in kinds but they are all of the same kind - mammals. That is because we define what is a kind not the natural world. Vertebrates are also a "Kind" and include the kind Koala of Australia.

Adaptation does not create new “kinds”....it creates new varieties within a “kind”.....real evidence has proven that.

Here you are partly right but you have those "gaps" of knowledge. Sorry could not help using that term. Adaptation is a mechanism of change. For new species or "kinds" you need other events - new habitats to exploit, changing environment, expansion geographically of a species with separation at a point. These all happen on the earth thus adaptations facilitates new genetic lineages and ultimately create sufficient changes that we as humans then label them as a new kind. So there are some of the "gaps" you were missing.

The “rate of change” is also an assumption.

The rate of change is determined by the reproductive rate and the complexity of the environment. Do not worry it has nothing to due with assumptions. Assumptions are the providence of Creationists and ID people who only have assumptions to go on an no evidence. With your astute observations you surely are not one of those.

Indeed....gotta love nature......and that motivates gratitude for its Creator for me.
Who do you thank? “Mother Nature”?
Wrong parent IMO.

Of course I thank Mother Nature. There is no one else better to thank. She generates the true gratitude for all the true gifts we have in this world.

It is time to leave the dark side @Deeje and join the side of light with the rest of us evolutionists.

 

[Bear Wild]

I agree. It comes down to an issue of doctrine rather than one of compatibility between belief and reality.

I see a will to connect the science with atheism, but fortunately, a poorly executed effort to that end. There are no "two camps" with regards to religion and science in the context of a conflict. That is manufactured by doctrines that have their own agendas beyond the salvation of humanity. If two camps do exist, it is between observed reality and understanding and those misguided doctrines that punish believers for thinking outside the doctrine.

So true my friend!

 

[Bear Wild]

Plants and animals demonstrate their uniqueness. I find it fascinating that human history written is a bit of an excuse among set believers in evolution, claiming that those of the human category just didn't "need" to write before maybe 5,000 years ago or so, and so for the amount of time of written history, no real evolution changes have been recorded. This business with "Neanderthal" man etc. is getting crazier and crazier to me. No proof, no nothing, other than saying the craniums and bones look similar. Maybe. And they interbred with something to what? make homo sapiens that have remained homoi sapiens? Aside from the fact (yes, fact) that skulls have been uncovered that resemble homo sapien (?) skulls -- maybe -- the methodology of the dating proess is questionable.

How old is science? How old is the theory of evolution? Are you actually saying that at the time of the invention of the written language the people were collecting data to see if animals or plants have changed? That is crazy. Neanderthal lineage has tremendous genetic similarity with Homo sapiens. Homo sapiens have developed tremendous diversity. As for the dating process (excluding the Neanderthal and homo sapien romantic dating) is every well established and predictive physics.

 

[Deeje]

Certainty there is variation in kinds but they are all of the same kind - mammals. That is because we define what is a kind not the natural world. Vertebrates are also a "Kind" and include the kind Koala of Australia.

There are a wide variety of mammals in the world, from Ardvarks to Zebras......to relate them all to a common ancestor is beyond the capability of science to even imagine, let alone trying to establish through "evidence", that any of it actually happened with any certainty.

The only thing science is certain of is that evolution must be true no matter how many holes they have to fill with supposition and conjecture. I have never seen the power of suggestion more beautifully executed....no wonder the advertising world relies on it......and the intelligent minds that have been convinced of this nonsense with so little in the way of real concrete evidence is staggering....but I guess not unexpected when egos are in the forefront of it all. The hallowed halls of Academia would ring with laughter and derision at any who dared to question "the science".....but the trouble is, there is no real science......its like the Emperors new clothes. You are all walking around naked.....

Here you are partly right but you have those "gaps" of knowledge. Sorry could not help using that term. Adaptation is a mechanism of change. For new species or "kinds" you need other events - new habitats to exploit, changing environment, expansion geographically of a species with separation at a point. These all happen on the earth thus adaptations facilitates new genetic lineages and ultimately create sufficient changes that we as humans then label them as a new kind. So there are some of the "gaps" you were missing.

Adaptation takes place as a survival mechanism that is inbuilt in all living things.....a new environment or a new food source is a trigger for this to take place....but it never alters the organism to the point of taking it out of its taxonomy.
Darwin's finches were still finches, not some new species of bird. The iguanas were still recognizable as iguanas though they were adapted to marine life....they did not turn into a new species of lizard. The tortoises were still tortoises but different to their mainland cousins. There is no evidence for adaptation ever being responsible for amoebas to dinosaurs.....that is science's fairy story.

The rate of change is determined by the reproductive rate and the complexity of the environment. Do not worry it has nothing to due with assumptions. Assumptions are the providence of Creationists and ID people who only have assumptions to go on an no evidence. With your astute observations you surely are not one of those.

LOL....if there were no assumptions...there would be no "evolution" of the "macro" kind even possible. Why? Because they are devoid of all proof that what they "believed" to have taken place in the dim dark past, ever did.
They assume that it "must have".....because they have no other explanation......certainly not the existence of an all powerful Intelligent Designer.
But all mention of that possibility and some of them can't help themselves.....

hurling insults is all they know how to do.

Of course I thank Mother Nature. There is no one else better to thank. She generates the true gratitude for all the true gifts we have in this world.

As I said....you are giving credit to the wrong parent....but wouldn't Mother Nature have to have the same attributes as the real Creator. Do you think that this earth with all its wondrous lifeforms, was created for him/her...or us?

Can this possibly be an accident of nature, with no intelligent direction.....?

It is time to leave the dark side @Deeje and join the side of light with the rest of us evolutionists.

I left the dark side over 50 years ago......no way I will ever wander back there again..... When you are blind, you cannot see the light unless God opens your eyes.....that is my hope for you.....

 

[Astrophile]

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.

Can you be more specific about what you were taught about evolution at school? For example, how much did you learn about comparative anatomy, or about genetics, or about biogeography? Have you supplemented what you learnt at school by studying more recent research into these matters and their bearing on evolution?

 

[Astrophile]

No, it’s amazing how adaptation works. Adaptation does not in any way prove evolution. It can never take a species over into another “family” of creatures. Like Pakicetus could never morph into a whale. Calling a four legged furry creature the size of a dog, the ancestor of a whale, is one of the most preposterous fairy tales I have ever heard.

So what were the ancestors of whales? Do you think that whales evolved from ichthyosaurs or plesiosaurs or mosasaurs, or do you think that they evolved directly from fish?

 

[Deeje]

So what were the ancestors of whales?

Not a small furry four legged land dweller the size of a dog. My guess is that they were probably whales......since all living things reproduce according to their "kinds", ancestors of whales, had to be whales.....isn't that logical? When was an equine not an equine...or a canine not a canine? Varieties within these families may have come and gone, but the Family taxonomy itself was not altered.

Do you think that whales evolved from ichthyosaurs or plesiosaurs or mosasaurs, or do you think that they evolved directly from fish?

That's easy...I believe that they were a direct creation of a highly Intelligent Creator, whose power science cannot measure or even imagine, but that doesn't stop them from imagining so many other highly improbable things. .....he told us that he created these creatures as is......no evolution required. He instilled a mechanism to facilitate survival, should any creature find themselves in a different environment or with a different food source, but these adaptations would be minor, not requiring the "amoeba to dinosaur" fantasy that science proffers. If the first premise is false, then everything you build on it will be false as well.

 

[tas8831]

Perhaps it is rayon.

Indeed. I am especially interested in the blue/green contact lenses.

 

[tas8831]

Not a small furry four legged land dweller the size of a dog.

So much jargon - who are you trying to fool?

 

[Dan From Smithville]

Indeed. I am especially interested in the blue/green contact lenses.

I am more interested in how a Middle Eastern Jewish woman gave birth to a white male European 2,000 years ago. Surely that is not the artistic bias that is being pinned on science is it.

 

[Wildswanderer]

Both and neither. The Taung Child is an Australopithecus Africanus. This species, about 3 million years old, is a very early hominid and could certainly deserve the moniquer of "transitional form" between hominid and other great apes.

Whole lot of speculation there.

 

[Wildswanderer]

It was an ape. But then, so are humans, so that isn't much help.

It was NOT a chimp, although it has a number of similarities to a young chimp (which is expected since it was young).

It also was not human.

It was a *transitional* species between other apes and modern humans. You know, the exact type of thing that is predicted by evolution.

Prove it.

 

[Kooky]

Whole lot of speculation there.

Do you have a superior explanation?

 

[Wildswanderer]

The entire Hadar- Laetoli collection of around 300 bones is claimed to be from a single hominin species, supposedly a human ancestor. There were bones in there basically identical to modern humans.
These were found near human looking footprints.
Contrary to what you might find in a science book, there was no universal consensus by scientists that these were all Bones from the same specie of ape.
If you want my opinion the guy that found them went with the explanation that will bring him the most Glory.

Do you have a superior explanation?

 

[Dan From Smithville]

Do you have a superior explanation?

I haven't seen one explanation, but the opinion of those so ill-informed on science that they don't even understand how confused they are.

 

[epronovost]

Whole lot of speculation there.

It's not speculation. It's based on analysis of the fossil's features. The Taung child is pretty much identical to other fossils of Australopithecus Africanus. It's not a like all other great ape since it's fully bipedal, possess a larger cranial capacity and has evidence of living in a largely matriarchal group (which is very rare in great apes) all of which are hominid characteristics, but possess a lot of great ape characteristics like hands with fingers all the same size, strong bone crest, strong jaw, etc.