Let's see if we can figure this out about the old Piltdown Man

[QuestioningMind]

The continuum of genomes regarding "similar natural experiments" conducted over "many millions of years" -- what? -- have not been ascertained or verified. Claims obviously are made, but -- no experimentation can solve this conundrum. In other words, the observation of the links of GENOMES are m-i-s-s-i-n-g. Perhaps you can show otherwise, and I'll reverse that statement to say, "Oh, yes! The next step showing evolution of genomes and dna is there..." To be clear, to the best of what I have read, the "missing link" connecting the so-called "natural evolution" of humans, bonobos, chimpanzees, gorillas from something is simply not there. It's "missing."

Not sure what you read or where you read it, but it's the exact same tired argument that's been made about the extensive fossil record. Just because we don't have fossil records for every single species involved in an evolutionary transition - and the fossilization of remains is really quite rare - that it somehow means we can't map clear evolutionary progressions from the numerous fossils we do have. That's simply not true.

And just because we don't have DNA samples for all of the species involved in an evolutionary transition doesn't mean that we can't map clear evolutionary progressions from the DNA samples we do have. And just like with the fossil records, where scientists can further confirm the theory by making predictions about what traits the fossils remains for a transitionary species would have based on the fossils they do have and then discovering fossil evidence for a species that matches the predictions; scientists can now start to predict what the genomes for a transitionary species we haven't yet discovered will look like based upon the samples we already have, and if DNA from a transitionary species is ever found we can see if it matches the predictions. If it does, that's yet further evidence to support the theory.

Making accurate predictions is a key component of scientific research. A theoretical model is proposed and if accurate predictions can be made based upon that theoretical model it greatly increases the chances that the model is correct. The only way we know that the Earth and other planets orbit around the sun is because of accurate predictions made based on such a model. The fact that based on this model we can accurately predict where the other planets will be in the sky at any given time is why the Heliocentric Theory of the solar system is considered to be true.

The results of the Genome Project fit perfectly with what one would expect, based on the model proposed by the ToE. It's another accurate prediction that adds to the evidence that supports the validity of the theoretical model. If the ToE had never been conceived of and someone ended up conducting the Genome Project, scientists around the world would have looked at the results and been forced to come up with a model just like the ToE in order to explain it.

 

[QuestioningMind]

Hardly. At least you agree that mice remain mice no matter how long their legs grow. They don't become horses or lions so far.
"The common ancestor to mice and humans was an inconspicuous rodent-like mammal that scurried along the surface of the earth some 65 million years (myr) before present (BP)." 2.2 WHERE DO MICE COME FROM?.
So mice and humans supposedly have a "common ancestor" in the form of an "inconspicuous rodent-like mammal," according to that assessment. And over 65 mllions years ago they say. (lol about the timing.)
And then there's "the RODENT that lived in China 160m years ago. A mouse-like creature that scurried about in bushes and trees 160 million years ago gave rise to humans, say scientists. The small, furry placental mammal lived in what is now north east China during the Jurassic era when dinosaurs ruled the Earth.Aug 25, 2011"
We all evolved from rodent that lived in China 160m years ago

My, oh my, one says 65 million years, another says 160 million years ago -- rodents to humans!!!!

And now there's more -- with "about" the same number of genes.
"The genome analysis, by 20 institutions from six countries, showed that humans, rats and mice have about the same number of genes."
(Doesn't mean they evolved by "natural" or "forced" selection. And now it's a common ancestor about 80 million years ago.
" It also reveals that humans and rodents went our separate ways from a common ancestor about 80 million years ago, with rats and mice diverging between 12 and 24 million years ago.Mar 31, 2004"

Rat genome reveals supercharged evolution | New Scientist

Truly I'm beginning to think it's all a bunch of rodent droppings.

The common ancestor to mice and humans...

You do understand that this doesn't mean that a mouse gave birth to a human, don't you? It's really pretty basic. Small changes over relatively short periods of time can add up to extensive changes over extremely long periods of time.

 

[QuestioningMind]

I agree that fossils can reflect animals and objects from many, many years ago. But there is far more evidence that the earth orbits the sun than mice eventually evolved by natural selection and/or survival of the fittest to become humans.

Absolutely not true. There is more evidence to support the ToE than there is evidence to support any other scientific theory in existence.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

You are substantively wrong in the assumption that the ToE says anything else. You already agree with the ToE in that respect, mice will always give birth to mice and flies will always lay fly eggs from which fly maggots will emerge. The ToE would be wrong if it predicted anything else.
You are fighting windmills.

I have informed him of that on countless, countless occasions.
He keeps repeating the same nonsense as if it was never said.

It's a very serious case of ostrich defenses.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

Hardly. At least you agree that mice remain mice no matter how long their legs grow. They don't become horses or lions so far.

How many times have I explained to you that if mice produce non-mice, evolution would be falsified?
I don't even know. MANY times.

"The common ancestor to mice and humans was an inconspicuous rodent-like mammal that scurried along the surface of the earth some 65 million years (myr) before present (BP)." 2.2 WHERE DO MICE COME FROM?.
So mice and humans supposedly have a "common ancestor" in the form of an "inconspicuous rodent-like mammal," according to that assessment.

Yes. A mammal.

Last time I checked, humans and mice were "still" mammals.
At no point in the evolutionary history of both humans and mice, did any creature give birth to a creature that wasn't of the same species.

At no point did a member of species X produce a member of not-X.
Both humans and mice are SUB-species of the original common ancestor of both.

Like how Spanish, Italian and French are all ROMAN languages. "sub-species" of latin.
At no point in history did a latin speaking mother ever raise a spanish speaking child.

And over 65 mllions years ago they say. (lol about the timing.)
And then there's "the RODENT that lived in China 160m years ago. A mouse-like creature that scurried about in bushes and trees 160 million years ago gave rise to humans, say scientists. The small, furry placental mammal lived in what is now north east China during the Jurassic era when dinosaurs ruled the Earth.Aug 25, 2011"
We all evolved from rodent that lived in China 160m years ago

A placental mammal you say.
Would you look at that... and humans still are placental mammals!
Who would have thought?

Certainly not you, since you insist on ignoring those explanations.

My, oh my, one says 65 million years, another says 160 million years ago -- rodents to humans!!!!

And now there's more -- with "about" the same number of genes.
"The genome analysis, by 20 institutions from six countries, showed that humans, rats and mice have about the same number of genes."
(Doesn't mean they evolved by "natural" or "forced" selection. And now it's a common ancestor about 80 million years ago.
" It also reveals that humans and rodents went our separate ways from a common ancestor about 80 million years ago, with rats and mice diverging between 12 and 24 million years ago.Mar 31, 2004"

Rat genome reveals supercharged evolution | New Scientist

Truly I'm beginning to think it's all a bunch of rodent droppings.

I'm not beginning to think - I have known for a long time - that you are willfully ignorant to boot and intellectually dishonest when it comes to this subject.

All the stuff you keep getting wrong, insist on being wrong about, have been explained to you ad nauseum.

You keep ignoring it and repeating the same mistakes.

There comes a point where people can no longer give you the benefit of the doubt.
At this point, I completely question your sincerity.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

I agree that fossils can reflect animals and objects from many, many years ago. But there is far more evidence that the earth orbits the sun than mice eventually evolved by natural selection and/or survival of the fittest to become humans.

Humans didn't evolve from mice.
Mice are modern annimals.

The common ancestor of humans and mice, weren't mice. Or humans.

 

[Terrywoodenpic]

Are humans that understand science a sub species of those who believe in creationism.
Is this evolution in progress.

 

[Heyo]

Are humans that understand science a sub species of those who believe in creationism.
Is this evolution in progress.

If the ability to understand science is genetic, yes.
It is hypothesized that the propensity to attribute agency to natural phenomena (let's call it "gullibility" for short) is an inheritable trait (and one that once had a survival benefit). But there are also mutants born without that gene (I think I'm one of them). If a separation of the subspecies would occur, we'd expect that'd lead to speciation.

 

[Wildswanderer]

I bet. They would if they were objectively obvious.

ciao

- viole

No because atheist be like: "even if God came down in a Buick and talked to me I'd assume I was just dreaming."

 

[Wildswanderer]

Why not? What does being closed-munded have to do with experiencing miracles?

God isn't as likely to reveal himself to those who deliberately reject him as even possible. And besides atheist be like:" if God does speak to me Im obviously just imagining it."

 

[ppp]

God isn't as likely to reveal himself to those who deliberately reject him as even possible. And besides atheist be like:" if God does speak to me Im obviously just imagining it."

I take it that you don't believe in an all knowing all powerful god. Because such a god would not be limited to a disembodied voice. Such a god would know exactly how to convince me of his existence, and would be easily capable of doing so.

And if such a god wanted me to know that he exists, he would do the thing that would convince me.

 

[Valjean]

My comment: mice and flies do NOT, I repeat not, become anything but mice and flies no matter what experiment is done and how many generations, mutations or selective breeding is done. If I'm substantively wrong as shown by experiments, please inform. Thanks.

Why do you believe this?
If you believe small changes are possible, what keeps them from accumulating into big changes?

 

[SkepticThinker]

God isn't as likely to reveal himself to those who deliberately reject him as even possible. And besides atheist be like:" if God does speak to me Im obviously just imagining it."

Why not? It seems to me that if this God really loved us and thought it was in our best interest for us to believe in and worship "him" that he'd go out of his way to persuade the non-believers to come to "him." Especially give the fact that so many believers claim to have had personal experiences with this same God and cite that as their reason for believing. If all your claims about this God are true, then this God should know exactly what evidence I would require that would bring me to him.

 

[SkepticThinker]

I take it that you don't believe in an all knowing all powerful god. Because such a god would not be limited to a disembodied voice. Such a god would know exactly how to convince me of his existence, and would be easily capable of doing so.

And if such a god wanted me to know that he exists, he would do the thing that would convince me.

Beat me to it!

 

[tas8831]

So now, for many years it was broadly accepted that fossilized bones put together were the remains of an early human. Although not everyone accepted it, yet it was widely accepted as indicative of an early human. The hoax was finally verified in 1953. Seems that in 1912, a man named Charles Dawson claimed that he had discovered the "missing link" between ape and man. Finally found out to be a fraud even though accepted by many for decades.

Cool oversimplification.
What of it?

Why do creationists keep bringing this up?

Maybe we can cast doubt on Christianity by pointing out all of the Ark hoaxes or fake 'miracles' they've fallen for?

Give it a rest. We get it - you are desperate to prop up your ancient middle eastern beliefs. Pity you cannot present a positive argument for them.

 

[tas8831]

Actually all the findings in support of evolution have turned out to be negative over the years.
...
A simple example is the fine-tuning of our universe.

What a laugh!

What - EXACTLY - does the myth of 'fine tuning' of the universe have to do with the Theory of Evolution?


If that is the first thing that popped into you head re: "findings in support of evolution have turned out to be negative", then I submit you are amazingly gullible and uninformed on the matter and should probably head back to the Sports forum.

 

[Wildswanderer]

Why not? It seems to me that if this God really loved us and thought it was in our best interest for us to believe in and worship "him" that he'd go out of his way to persuade the non-believers to come to "him." Especially give the fact that so many believers claim to have had personal experiences with this same God and cite that as their reason for believing. If all your claims about this God are true, then this God should know exactly what evidence I would require that would bring me to him.

God's not required to stoop down and baby talk to you. He's left plenty of evidence everywhere.
If you reject it that's on you.

 

[tas8831]

Here is another good one. Let's watch Richard Dawkins wave his magical wand around and make it so that something comes from nothing, because nothing is really something (these are the the ones people look up to for their beliefs in evolution):

Perhaps you can explain how cosmology has anything to do with biological evolution?

And after you do that, let's see your evidence FOR your deity creating biochemicals from silicates.

 

[tas8831]

God's not required to stoop down and baby talk to you. He's left plenty of evidence everywhere.
If you reject it that's on you.

And if you make it up like creationists do, that is on you.

 

[Wildswanderer]

And if you make it up like creationists do, that is on you.

I don't make up anything. I just look around and see God talking.