Just Accidental?

[lewisnotmiller]

Well, it seems to me that I hear way more people say..."if only I'd gone with my gut".....than people who say they were glad they did....that would be because those who did probably had nothing to say about how badly things turned out.

Waddyareckon?

I saw a guy in Papua New Guinea approach an electrical fire with a garden hose. Give me education and science over gut ANY time.

This has been born out time and time again. Purely in the realm of basketball, I could give you all sorts of studies proving that counter-intuative strategies in certain areas are much more effective than the one most likely to be your 'gut' feeling.

Interested in some proof?

 

[sayak83]

Well, it seems to me that I hear way more people say..."if only I'd gone with my gut".....than people who say they were glad they did....that would be because those who did probably had nothing to say about how badly things turned out.

Waddyareckon?

The immense problems of people thinking "from their gut" is well known and well documented. One of the goals of scientific education is to stop people going by gut feeling and improve their deliberative rational and empirical mind that over-rules one's instinctive reactions and beliefs when it comes to truth finding.

https://www.amazon.com/dp/B00555X8OA/ref=dp-kindle-redirect?_encoding=UTF8&btkr=1

It is inevitable that your conclusions about the nature of reality are flawed when the thought process you use is for that purpose is known to provide unreliable results and is considered unsuitable for rationally and empirically grounded investigation in the first place.

 

[Sonofason]

I'm not sure I understand the question. Are you saying that we must deny the existence of atoms because we can't see them? What does science "know" as opposed to "suggest" about atoms?

"The tiniest speck that can be seen under an ordinary microscope is composed of more than ten billion atoms! Yet, in 1897 it was discovered that the atom has tiny orbiting particles called electrons. In time, the nucleus of the atom, around which the electrons orbit, was found to consist of larger particles—neutrons and protons. The 88 different kinds of atoms, or elements, that occur naturally on earth are basically the same size, but they vary in weight because each has a progressively larger number of these three basic particles.
The electrons—in the case of the hydrogen atom, one single electron—whirl through space around the atom’s nucleus billions of times every millionth of a second, thus providing shape to the atom and causing it to behave as if it were solid. It would take nearly 1,840 electrons to equal the mass of a proton or a neutron. Both the proton and the neutron are about 100,000 times smaller than the entire atom itself!
To get some idea of how empty an atom is, try to visualize the nucleus of a hydrogen atom in relation to the atom’s orbiting electron. If that nucleus, consisting of a single proton, were the size of a tennis ball, its orbiting electron would be about two miles [3 km] away!

A report on the centennial celebrations of the discovery of the electron commented: “Few think twice about celebrating something no one has seen, which has no discernible size and yet has a measurable weight, an electric charge—and spins like a top......Today no one questions the idea that things we can never see do exist.” (Excerpt 2000 Awake!)
Look at that! Not one "suggestion" to be seen.

"In the physical world, precise timing can be seen on a microscopic as well as on a macroscopic scale. Atoms vibrate at consistent rates. International time-standard clocks regulated by atomic vibrations are accurate to 1 second in 80 million years."
Atoms are amazing!



Or those who think "natural selection" is the blanket answer to all the impossible questions. If it's good enough for you, be my guest...it isn't good enough for me. If God created, then he created the fully formed creature just as he said he did. I see what he created with my own eyes and I know none of it was the product of accidental chance mutations over millions of undocumented years. I do not believe that the Creator began some process and then stood back and watched it evolve. You can if you want to.

Regarding your last comment, I find it awesome. I have caused evolutionary processes to fit into my beliefs regarding God's Creation. I do not require evolution to be the true path for the existence of so many wonderful and beautiful creatures, but I have the possibility of evolutionary means worked out and fitting into the context of the Bible. As a result, my faith in God will not be diminished should I find out that He created all living entities as they exist, nor if I should discover that God employs evolutionary processes in His creation. But I do admire those who stick to their guns. I believe God rewards such faith.

 

[lewisnotmiller]

Regarding your last comment, I find it awesome. I have caused evolutionary processes to fit into my beliefs regarding God's Creation. I do not require evolution to be the true path for the existence of so many wonderful and beautiful creatures, but I have the possibility of evolutionary means worked out and fitting into the context of the Bible. As a result, my faith in God will not be diminished should I find out that He created all living entities as they exist, nor if I should discover that God employs evolutionary processes in His creation. But I do admire those who stick to their guns. I believe God rewards such faith.

Religious people have been responsible for both discovering and suppressing scientific advancements.

To my mind, belief in God is no issue in and of itself. I see no reason for a religious person to need to 'protect' their God.

Your view seems to make sense to me, that being the case. I can't envisage a scientific discovery that would prove there is no God. I guess some would disagree.

 

[Sonofason]

Religious people have been responsible for both discovering and suppressing scientific advancements.

To my mind, belief in God is no issue in and of itself. I see no reason for a religious person to need to 'protect' their God.

Your view seems to make sense to me, that being the case. I can't envisage a scientific discovery that would prove there is no God. I guess some would disagree.

Well, thank you Lewis. You're comment is much appreciated. I too cannot envision a scientific discovery that could prove there is no God. In fact, as far as I can recall, all the scientific discoveries that I am aware of seem to have strengthened my faith in God. They force me to reexamine the scriptures. And then something clicks. Sometimes a different perspective clears up everything including doubt.

 

[Deeje]

Science promotes nothing beyond its level of certainties. Your carping about images used in popular articles to aid the understanding of those who are not scientfically trained is just a desperate attempts to legitimize your blind rigid faith based evidence-less beliefs.
Tell me

IS the World Flat? For sure most maps depict the earth that way.

Wow, the map makers are touting a lie aren't they for making the world flat!

But the fact that I can circumnavigate the earth either by air or by sea is "proof" that the earth is not flat.....totally provable isn't it?

Oh look! another travesty!They are making alchohol molecules look like this:-

What a travesty! All those lying chemists! You can't trust anyone these days!

Sorry, I'm not really up on my alcohol molecules, but I assume that when you say "They are making alcohol molecules look like this" that this is something scientists are doing?

The sheer childish petulance of your objections blows my mind.

LOL I think its called frustration

and I think you should chill out a bit. If what I am saying is rubbish, then why are you so defensive? I am confident of my position and I don't have to lose my cool over it. This is a discussion, not an inquisition. Resorting to childish petulance yourself is a bit telling really.

If I have proof, I can believe, but I have never seen actual proof of one species evolving into another.....I have seen changes within a species that perhaps altered features like color or the shape of a body part to facilitate a different food source, but I have seen no evidence that one species evolved into something completely different.

If you were actually serious about interacting with the science you would have interacted with the evidence about human evolution I have detailed in previous posts

I have interacted with your posts on science to show you how vague and suggestive the rhetoric is, but you just get angry.

And not make such silly objections about pictures that are aid as visualization tools so that ordinary folks can easily grasp the probable form of the creature whose bones the scientists are discussing. That said, the human species above is Homo Erectus, whose multiple available complete skeletons as well as use of fire gives us great evidence for reconstructing the body form on everything other than skin color.

And no, this no modern human skeleton as any trained anatomist or a doctor of bones will tell you.

Since the DNA of primates and humans is so close, and humans of the earliest kind are fully erect and identifiable as human, anything that looks like an ape, probably is.

Gut instincts are there only to help us survive from day to day in the messy world of human society and the world at large, and not for an analysis of truths. For that one needs to abandon ones instincts and use rationality and empiricism.

Not to mention common sense and reasoning ability unhindered by bias. Gut instinct is what we use when we have little time to use our rationale and investigative reasoning.

1) Gut instinct militates against the idea that the world is around spinning sphere revolving around the world in empty space

The Creator actually put paid to this thousands of years ago through one of his prophets....he said simply..."He is stretching out the north over the empty place, Hanging the earth upon nothing" (Job 26:7) And in Isaiah 40:22 he says "There is One who dwells above the circle of the earth, And its inhabitants are like grasshoppers." How did earth bound humans know this thousands of years ago?
How did the writer of Genesis know that life began in the oceans? (Genesis 1:20-21)

2)Gut instinct militates against the idea that the substances are made of atoms, light is both a wave and a particle and has a finite speed.

You are confusing ignorance with knowledge. Once it is demonstrated that atoms exist and make up all matter, enlightenment replaces ignorance...does it not?

3) Gut instinct militates against the idea of electricity, of bacteria or virus, against aircrafts, steel ships that float in water...

Doesn't lightning demonstrate the power of electricity? All humans did was learn to make it and harness it.
Good 'ol Ben Franklin eh?

Didn't the hygiene laws in Israel protect them from bacterial infections way before anyone knew what bacteria was?

As humans grew in knowledge of ship building from experience they knew about displacement and the capacity to remain seaworthy based on height to width to depth ratios? Those ratios were the very same ones used for Noah's ark.

No gut instincts required really, just a capacity to use accumulated knowledge. Its a human trait.

To pursue science and engineering the first thing one has to do is to leave the gut instinct at the door. Maybe useful to dodge snakes in backyards or doing social networking or at the football field, but not in science. For that we have rationality, logic, math, evidence and experimentation.

yes I know.....

Tomorrow can take care of itself. The only thing I care about as a scientist is that I honestly and unbiasedly look at the evidence that is there today and assess it to have the most likely version of truth about the reality that can be constructed today.

So why argue so vehemently about something that could all change tomorrow? Just admit that the theory is actually a theory and be done with it.
Don't claim as a fact something that has nothing but supposition to back it up. Is that too much to ask?

If this Creator is not a fiction and were to reveal Himself, He will confirm that He let life arise on earth through evolution through natural selection. And He will not be the the One your Bible speaks about, which is a fiction. What will you do then?

The Creator tells us that he will reclaim his rulership of this earth once some issues are settled, and all those who wanted him to go away will actually be the ones to disappear...."go extinct" as it were. So if you are right we have nothing to look forward to, and if I am right those who had faith in the Creator despite all attempts to cancel his existence will be around to tell the story to their grandchildren.

And I shall show just how flimsy your objections are.

What does this prove?...except that these creatures perhaps existed in the distant past when humans were not around to observe them or to study them? Where is the proof for evolution? How do you know that Ambulocetus is even related to Basilosaurus? Who determined that Rhodesaurus is an intermediary? You think that throwing in a few million years makes the story any more credible?

I know what's looking flimsy.

 

[Deeje]

Under the heading...
'First human' discovered in Ethiopia" the BBC reports......

It goes on to say.....

"Scientists have unearthed the jawbone of what they claim is one of the very first humans.

The 2.8 million-year-old specimen is 400,000 years older than researchers thought that our kind first emerged.

The discovery in Ethiopia suggests climate change spurred the transition from tree dweller to upright walker.

The head of the research team told BBC News that the find gives the first insight into "the most important transitions in human evolution".

Prof Brian Villmoare of the University of Nevada in Las Vegas said the discovery makes a clear link between an iconic 3.2 million-year-old hominin (human-like primate) discovered in the same area in 1974, called "Lucy".

Could Lucy's kind - which belonged to the species Australopithecus afarensis - have evolved into the very first primitive humans?

"That's what we are arguing," said Prof Villmoare.

But the fossil record between the time period when Lucy and her kin were alive and the emergence of Homo erectus (with its relatively large brain and humanlike body proportions) two million years ago is sparse.....

The dating of the jawbone might help answer one of the key questions in human evolution. What caused some primitive ancestors to climb down from the trees and make their homes on the ground.

A separate study in Science hints that a change in climate might have been a factor. An analysis of the fossilised plant and animal life in the area suggests that what had once been lush forest had become dry grassland.

As the trees made way for vast plains, ancient human-like primates found a way of exploiting the new environmental niche, developing bigger brains and becoming less reliant on having big jaws and teeth by using tools.

Prof Chris Stringer of the Natural History Museum in London described the discovery as a "big story".

He says the new species clearly does show the earliest step toward human characteristics, but suggests that half a jawbone is not enough to tell just how human it was and does not provide enough evidence to suggest that it was this line that led to us."

http://www.bbc.com/news/science-environment-31718336

Now tell me how "evidence based" these findings actually are.

 

[Sonofason]

But the fact that I can circumnavigate the earth either by air or by sea is "proof" that the earth is not flat.....totally provable isn't it?



Sorry, I'm not really up on my alcohol molecules, but I assume that when you say "They are making alcohol molecules look like this" that this is something scientists are doing?



LOL I think its called frustration

and I think you should chill out a bit. If what I am saying is rubbish, then why are you so defensive? I am confident of my position and I don't have to lose my cool over it. This is a discussion, not an inquisition. Resorting to childish petulance yourself is a bit telling really.

If I have proof, I can believe, but I have never seen actual proof of one species evolving into another.....I have see changes within a species that perhaps altered features like color or the shape of a body part to facilitate a different food source, but I have seen no evidence that one species evolved into something completely different.



I have interacted with you posts on science to show you how vague and suggestive the rhetoric is, but you just get angry.


Since the DNA of primates and humans is so close, and humans of the earliest kind are fully erect and identifiable as human, anything that looks like an ape, probably is.




Not to mention common sense and reasoning ability unhindered by bias. Gut instinct is what we use when we have little time to use our rationale and investigative reasoning.


The Creator actually put paid to this thousands of years ago through one of his prophets....he said simply..."He is stretching out the north over the empty place, Hanging the earth upon nothing" (Job 26:7) And in Isaiah 40:22 he says "There is One who dwells above the circle of the earth, And its inhabitants are like grasshoppers." How did earth bound humans know this thousands of years ago?
How did the writer of Genesis know that life began in the oceans? (Genesis 1:20-21)


You are confusing ignorance with knowledge. Once it is demonstrated that atoms exist and make up all matter, enlightenment replaces ignorance...does it not?


Doesn't lightning demonstrate the power of electricity? All humans did was learn to make it and harness it.
Good 'ol Ben Franklin eh?

Didn't the hygiene laws in Israel protect them from bacterial infections way before anyone knew what bacteria was?

As humans grew in knowledge of ship building from experience they knew about displacement and the capacity to remain seaworthy based on height to width to depth ratios? Those ratios were the very same ones used for Noah's ark.

No gut instincts required really, just a capacity to use accumulated knowledge. Its a human trait.

yes I know.....



So why argue so vehemently about something that could all change tomorrow? Just admit that the theory is actually a theory and be done with it.
Don't claim as a fact something that has nothing but supposition to back it up. Is that too much to ask?



The Creator tells us that he will reclaim his rulership of this earth once some issues are settled, and all those who wanted him to go away will actually be the ones to disappear...."go extinct" as it were. So if you are right we have nothing to look forward to, and if I am right those who had faith in the Creator despite all attempts to cancel his existence will be around to tell the story to their grandchildren.



What does this prove?...except that these creatures perhaps existed in the distant past when humans were not around to observe them or to study them? Where is the proof for evolution? How do you know that Ambulocetus is even related to Basilosaurus? Who determined that Rhodesaurus is an intermediary? You think that throwing in a few million years makes the story any more credible?

I know what's looking flimsy.

If I could, I'd give you one of each of all available frubals for this comment.

 

[sayak83]

But the fact that I can circumnavigate the earth either by air or by sea is "proof" that the earth is not flat.....totally provable isn't it?

No, the ability to circumnavigate the earth only suggests it is spherical but does not prove it. There is not a single piece of scientific knowledge that can proved, its simply a matter of likelihood and probabilities.

Yet that was not my point at all. My point was just because the map shows a flat earth, but the earth itself is spherical, does not make the map an exercise in deception.

Sorry, I'm not really up on my alcohol molecules, but I assume that when you say "They are making alcohol molecules look like this" that this is something scientists are doing?

It is a simplified model of alchohol molecule. While it conveys important true information about alchohol, the actual way an alchohol molecule looks is very very different. However, such a figure is still not a case of deliberate deception as it conveys to people in a simplified form, important information about the alchohol molecule. This is the same case regarding the portraits of creatures whose bones scientists have found.

LOL I think its called frustration

and I think you should chill out a bit. If what I am saying is rubbish, then why are you so defensive? I am confident of my position and I don't have to lose my cool over it. This is a discussion, not an inquisition. Resorting to childish petulance yourself is a bit telling really.

Actually I am being intense and deliberately so. Because I see that you have closed your eyes and ears and hearts to science, all in order to hang on to a highly flawed idea about God . I care that you see what is true, and that care causes me to be intense about this. You are letting yourself down, and you deserve better.

If I have proof, I can believe, but I have never seen actual proof of one species evolving into another.....I have see changes within a species that perhaps altered features like color or the shape of a body part to facilitate a different food source, but I have seen no evidence that one species evolved into something completely different.

Again a childish objection. Why would all processes in a billion year earth happen within the attention span of a human? Evolution, for the start, has been considered a slow process that alters organisms and brings new species into existence over time. Given that, we find exactly the kind of evidence that such a slow process will leave behind.

I have interacted with your posts on science to show you how vague and suggestive the rhetoric is, but you just get angry.

You have not interacted in any way with the scientific evidence of human evolution I have presented in the thread, apart from saying its nonsense without justification.

Since the DNA of primates and humans is so close, and humans of the earliest kind are fully erect and identifiable as human, anything that looks like an ape, probably is.

They look neither like an ape not like a human but in different ways in the middle. I have detailed completely the features and their analysis in the human evolution thread.

Not to mention common sense and reasoning ability unhindered by bias. Gut instinct is what we use when we have little time to use our rationale and investigative reasoning.

Reasoning ability yes, not common sense. Very irrational beliefs often mask themselves as common sense.

The Creator actually put paid to this thousands of years ago through one of his prophets....he said simply..."He is stretching out the north over the empty place, Hanging the earth upon nothing" (Job 26:7) And in Isaiah 40:22 he says "There is One who dwells above the circle of the earth, And its inhabitants are like grasshoppers." How did earth bound humans know this thousands of years ago?
How did the writer of Genesis know that life began in the oceans? (Genesis 1:20-21)

I am not interested in discussing Genesis in this thread (or anywhere). My one and only point was none of these scientific discoveries look either in accordance to gut instinct or intuitions or in accordance to common sense. Your belief that science should somehow be guided by what seems common sense is therefore flawed. Nothing you said caters to any of this.

You are confusing ignorance with knowledge. Once it is demonstrated that atoms exist and make up all matter, enlightenment replaces ignorance...does it not?

It never demonstrated. Science still only suggests that atoms probably exist given the current evidence.

So why argue so vehemently about something that could all change tomorrow? Just admit that the theory is actually a theory and be done with it.

Even Einstein's General Relativity and Theory of Quantum Mechanics can change tomorrow. The theory of evolution is as well supported by evidence as these two (or the atomic theory). Your refusal to accept this fact is the problem.

Don't claim as a fact something that has nothing but supposition to back it up. Is that too much to ask?

Absolutely, for you refuse to accept that the evidence for evolution is as much as the evidence for well established theories of physics and chemistry, which is fact.

The Creator tells us that he will reclaim his rulership of this earth once some issues are settled, and all those who wanted him to go away will actually be the ones to disappear...."go extinct" as it were. So if you are right we have nothing to look forward to, and if I am right those who had faith in the Creator despite all attempts to cancel his existence will be around to tell the story to their grandchildren.

Hinduism and Buddhism believes that ALL will be saved or attain liberation. I am absolutely confident that if a theistic God does exist, His nature will be akin to the theology of Indian religions where annihilation or damnation of beings is out of the question. Thus I spend not a single instant of my time worrying about such illogical fears.

What does this prove?...except that these creatures perhaps existed in the distant past when humans were not around to observe them or to study them? Where is the proof for evolution? How do you know that Ambulocetus is even related to Basilosaurus? Who determined that Rhodesaurus is an intermediary? You think that throwing in a few million years makes the story any more credible?

These are ancestral whales. Theory of evolution predicted that in the ancient layers of rock we would find bones of creatures who will have features betraying close kinship with modern whales and who will show a progression to increasingly aquatic life. The prediction is validated, again, by the discovery of these fossils that meet these exact expectations.

I know what's looking flimsy.

Of course it will to you, because your mind has been blinded by bias and refuses to truly process the evidence.

 

[sayak83]

Under the heading...
'First human' discovered in Ethiopia" the BBC reports......

It goes on to say.....

"Scientists have unearthed the jawbone of what they claim is one of the very first humans.

The 2.8 million-year-old specimen is 400,000 years older than researchers thought that our kind first emerged.

The discovery in Ethiopia suggests climate change spurred the transition from tree dweller to upright walker.

The head of the research team told BBC News that the find gives the first insight into "the most important transitions in human evolution".

Prof Brian Villmoare of the University of Nevada in Las Vegas said the discovery makes a clear link between an iconic 3.2 million-year-old hominin (human-like primate) discovered in the same area in 1974, called "Lucy".

Could Lucy's kind - which belonged to the species Australopithecus afarensis - have evolved into the very first primitive humans?

"That's what we are arguing," said Prof Villmoare.

But the fossil record between the time period when Lucy and her kin were alive and the emergence of Homo erectus (with its relatively large brain and humanlike body proportions) two million years ago is sparse.....

The dating of the jawbone might help answer one of the key questions in human evolution. What caused some primitive ancestors to climb down from the trees and make their homes on the ground.

A separate study in Science hints that a change in climate might have been a factor. An analysis of the fossilised plant and animal life in the area suggests that what had once been lush forest had become dry grassland.

As the trees made way for vast plains, ancient human-like primates found a way of exploiting the new environmental niche, developing bigger brains and becoming less reliant on having big jaws and teeth by using tools.

Prof Chris Stringer of the Natural History Museum in London described the discovery as a "big story".

He says the new species clearly does show the earliest step toward human characteristics, but suggests that half a jawbone is not enough to tell just how human it was and does not provide enough evidence to suggest that it was this line that led to us."

http://www.bbc.com/news/science-environment-31718336

Now tell me how "evidence based" these findings actually are.

Tell me. Do you get your science from 24*7 news channel websites? Because I sure do not. Apart from the mere fact of alerting me to a new discovery , very little of such media blurbs provide any correct or even half way true understanding of science. Many isolated jaw bones or other pieces of skeletons are found in different strata of time , it is by integrating the data from all such finds together after careful analysis of tens of years or more that a clear and accurate picture emerges. It is those well compiled analysis in scientific monograph done after years of research on various discoveries, long after the news cycle have forgotten about it, which constitutes science. If you have any doubts about this, please point me to any news article clips being used to talk and teach science anywhere from school to the university.

As far as the paper associated with the article is concerned, it simply reports that a jawbone that could be related to an early species in the genus Homo has been discovered. The researchers associated with the discovery have assigned some tentative identifications and are looking for more fossils to confirm or disconfirm them.

EDIT:- What kind of scientific monograms am I talking about. See below a relavant example discussing all aspects of the major transitions in human evolution. When, where and why they occurred and what evidence exists for them, published by the Royal Society.

http://rstb.royalsocietypublishing.org/content/371/1698

 

[Deeje]

Tell me. Do you get your science from 24*7 news channel websites? Because I sure do not. Apart from the mere fact of alerting me to a new discovery , very little of such media blurbs provide any correct or even half way true understanding of science. Many isolated jaw bones or other pieces of skeletons are found in different strata of time , it is by integrating the data from all such finds together after careful analysis of tens of years or more that a clear and accurate picture emerges. It is those well compiled analysis in scientific monograph done after years of research on various discoveries, long after the news cycle have forgotten about it, which constitutes science. If you have any doubts about this, please point me to any news article clips being used to talk and teach science anywhere from school to the university.

As far as the paper associated with the article is concerned, it simply reports that a jawbone that could be related to an early species in the genus Homo has been discovered. The researchers associated with the discovery have assigned some tentative identifications and are looking for more fossils to confirm or disconfirm them.

EDIT:- What kind of scientific monograms am I talking about. See below a relavant example discussing all aspects of the major transitions in human evolution. When, where and why they occurred and what evidence exists for them, published by the Royal Society.

http://rstb.royalsocietypublishing.org/content/371/1698

The premise that science begins with is flawed. There is no chain of evolution involving "transitions" in the line of human evolution or of any other species on this planet.

The truth is, there is no line or chain found in the fossil record, which by science's own admission is "sparse"...... there are no transitional species linking one form to the next.....they find something that resembles what they might be looking for and before we know it, a tooth or a bone fragment or even a partial skeleton becomes the "link" in a chain that never existed in the first place.

Supposition, "maybe's" and "could be's" about many things do not result in facts. If nothing else, this thread is stressing the difference between fact and fiction.....it is understanding the power of suggestion used by scientists to establish their own way of thinking.
Science is the 'religion' of the intellectual. It has 'gods' and 'holy' writings and prophets who "know" what happened millions of years before any human walked the earth. People who want to believe, eat up every word they say.....if that isn't worship, I don't know what is.

It is a "theory" in the full dictionary definition of the word.
Changing the definition of the word does not make it truth. That is the point.

 

[sayak83]

The premise that science begins with is flawed. There is no chain of evolution involving "transitions" in the line of human evolution or of any other species on this planet.

Sure you want to believe that. Evidence (tons of it) is against you.

The truth is, there is no line or chain found in the fossil record, which by science's own admission is "sparse"...... there are no transitional species linking one form to the next.....they find something that resembles what they might be looking for and before we know it, a tooth or a bone fragment or even a partial skeleton becomes the "link" in a chain that never existed in the first place.

There is such a chain of descent and the similarity among extinct species in the fossils is evidence for such a chain of descent. Ignoring the evidence does not make it go away.
You are hanging onto that word sparse used in a different context entirely in a popular media report with the desperation of a person whose certainties and faith are sinking like a capsizing ship. No, the fossil record of ancient hominins between 3 and 2 million years is not sparse. I will demonstrate this in the upcoming post in my human evolution thread. Stay tuned.

Supposition, "maybe's" and "could be's" about many things do not result in facts. If nothing else, this thread is stressing the difference between fact and fiction.....it is understanding the power of suggestion used by scientists to establish their own way of thinking.
Science is the 'religion' of the intellectual. It has 'gods' and 'holy' writings and prophets who "know" what happened millions of years before any human walked the earth. People who want to believe, eat up every word they say.....if that isn't worship, I don't know what is.

You are engaging in mere rhetoric based on your biased imagination. But its good to see that now you are doing it for all scientific fields which always talks in terms of likelihoods based on evidence.

It is a "theory" in the full dictionary definition of the word.

False. Its as much a theory as the theory of general relativity.

Changing the definition of the word does not make it truth. That is the point.

Changing the definition of truth does not make truths into falsehoods. That is my point.

 

[Hockeycowboy]

To whom? Don't you think this a very subjective conclusion?

Excuse me? To whom else would it matter, but to a possible mate from the species, and to humans, since we are inherently designed with the capacity for appreciation!

So, in that sense...no it's not subjective.

Does a bear or cat reach "conclusions" based on sentient thought? Nope.

 

[Hockeycowboy]

The premise that science begins with is flawed. There is no chain of evolution involving "transitions" in the line of human evolution or of any other species on this planet.

The truth is, there is no line or chain found in the fossil record, which by science's own admission is "sparse"...... there are no transitional species linking one form to the next.....they find something that resembles what they might be looking for and before we know it, a tooth or a bone fragment or even a partial skeleton becomes the "link" in a chain that never existed in the first place.

Supposition, "maybe's" and "could be's" about many things do not result in facts. If nothing else, this thread is stressing the difference between fact and fiction.....it is understanding the power of suggestion used by scientists to establish their own way of thinking.
Science is the 'religion' of the intellectual. It has 'gods' and 'holy' writings and prophets who "know" what happened millions of years before any human walked the earth. People who want to believe, eat up every word they say.....if that isn't worship, I don't know what is.

It is a "theory" in the full dictionary definition of the word.
Changing the definition of the word does not make it truth. That is the point.

The truth is, there is no line or chain found in the fossil record....

Only between species, which is microevolution.

.....which by science's own admission is "sparse"......

It cracks me up, evolutionary scientists are always inclined to say, "The fossil record is incomplete."

Maybe it's more complete than they care to recognize!

 

[Hockeycowboy]

We have some of these.
The (European version) longtail lives in the high latitudes, surviving well even in rough sea areas. The others cannot.
The Shoveller (big bill) can sift more fine foods from water than the others. The others cannot.
The Tree-duck) Carolina can nest in high trees and its ducklings can survive great falls. The others cannot.
The Widgeon is a grass cropper. The others cannot crop grass!
The Mallard (2 pics) is ubiquitous and can manage to survive in more urban places as well as the wild.

They are all different, evolved separately, to survive in different ways.

....And they are all still ducks.

 

[lewisnotmiller]

....And they are all still ducks.

Yeah, but I doubt you'd agree with the list if he snuck a velociraptor in there...

 

[Valjean]

How do microevolutionary changes know when to stop, so as to avoid accumulation into macroevolutionary changes?

 

[Deeje]

How do microevolutionary changes know when to stop, so as to avoid accumulation into macroevolutionary changes?

The genetic boundaries are pre-set by the Creator. Its the reason why a mule cannot mate with another mule and produce a mule.
Only a donkey crossed with a horse can produce a mule.

I'm pretty sure a zonkey can reproduce either.

A zebriod or a zorse.....

Horses, donkeys and zebras are of one "kind" because they can interbreed.....not that they would naturally do so in the wild.

Its what keeps all the species of fish in the oceans from interbreeding.....they only mate with their own "kind" yet they are all fish.

 

[ArtieE]

The genetic boundaries are pre-set by the Creator.

Just to be perfectly clear: If you took a number of animals from the same species and placed out on two completely separate islands and those two islands were kept completely separate, say after 500 million years the animals on one island could still breed with those on the other? And the animals 500 million years down the line would still be able to breed with those we originally put out on the same island?

 

[Valjean]

The genetic boundaries are pre-set by the Creator. Its the reason why a mule cannot mate with another mule and produce a mule.
Only a donkey crossed with a horse can produce a mule.

Horses, donkeys and zebras are of one "kind" because they can interbreed.....not that they would naturally do so in the wild.

Its what keeps all the species of fish in the oceans from interbreeding.....they only mate with their own "kind" yet they are all fish.

How do you explain ring species?