Modern man like footprints found, evolution theory in doubt.

[shmogie]

"Faith" is what theists have, not scientists.

Much of what he believed, yes, because they been confirmed, but certainly not all. We don't worship Darwin.

You have faith that the scientific method will some day answer questions that it cannot answer today. Faith is faith, you cannot qualify it by denying that yours is somehow different than mine.

 

[shmogie]

Why not? Have you looked into the evidence?

Yep, different genomes. We have some genes in common with bacteria, that doesn't make us bacteria, any more than common genes with apes makes us apes

 

[leibowde84]

Yes, that is your hope, your faith, your mantra. The process, though it cannot answer many extremely important questions, is what is important. The process is the crutch that supports the faith. Religion has given no answers ? What are your questions ?

I think the issue is not answers, as every religion provides many answers. The lacking is in verifiable evidence. They provide answers, but often fail to back those answers up with actual evidence.

 

[leibowde84]

Yep, different genomes. We have some genes in common with bacteria, that doesn't make us bacteria, any more than common genes with apes makes us apes

Humans are apes from a taxonomy viewpoint. Ape (Hominoidea) is a superfamily and is made up of the families Hylobatidae and Hominidae. Within Hominidae there are four genera: Pongo, Gorilla, Pan, and Homo.

 

[metis]

You have faith that the scientific method will some day answer questions that it cannot answer today.

We hope.

Faith is faith, you cannot qualify it by denying that yours is somehow different than mine.

False equivalency since religion and science are based on entirely different approaches, such as religion having no "scientific method" to try and eliminate bias.

In essence, religious beliefs are unfalsifiable, whereas what might appear to be scientific evidence today may be negated tomorrow. Plus, there's ample evidence that humans have evolved but there's no objective evidence whatsoever for a deity or deities.

If you don't think so, try and provide evidence that it's not "deities" but a "deity".

 

[SkepticThinker]

Yes, that is your hope, your faith, your mantra. The process, though it cannot answer many extremely important questions, is what is important. The process is the crutch that supports the faith. Religion has given no answers ? What are your questions ?

If you want to call that faith, go right ahead. I fail to see how it's the same as religious faith, nor have you given a convincing argument in that direction.

Science is a tool. Science has demonstrably been a very useful tool in helping us determine what is going on in our universe and on our planet. In fact, it's the only tool that has helped us do so. Science is useful, so I'm sticking with it.

 

[shmogie]

There are only two ways to describe the transitional form, mammal like reptiles or reptile like mammals. Both can be used depending on the character set. Saying they are still reptiles or mammals is very disingenuous.

Apes like bonobos already walk on two legs sometimes. Early hominins are characterized by greater adaptations to bipedilaty meaning the proportion of time spent on two legs increased. They still spent time on four legs, especially on trees.

Yes it did. Also more brilliant people came into paleontology due to Jurassic Park effect. Assistive sciences like biology, ecology, climatology and geology has been completely revolutionized (genetics, conservation science, plate tectonics, climate change science etc.). Current teams contain 20-30 scientists of diverse disciplines to extract multidimensional data from fossil beds.

Are mammal like reptiles, still reptiles ? Are reptile like mammals still mammals ? To say they are somehow "transitional" is disingenuous. Biologic niches are filled by creatures that can functionally fill that niche. Functional resemblance for this purpose doesn't mean the creature is morphing into what it might resemble in totally different classification of animal

 

[SkepticThinker]

You have faith that the scientific method will some day answer questions that it cannot answer today. Faith is faith, you cannot qualify it by denying that yours is somehow different than mine.

It is a reasonable expectation that science will some day answer questions that we don't have answers to today. It's a reasonable expectation because we have used science to do so in the past, and the present. Our ancestors thought lightning came from the gods. We now know what lightning actually is, and where it actually comes from. Do you think that information came from believing in god(s), or from following the evidence, as per science?

 

[shmogie]

We hope.

False equivalency since religion and science are based on entirely different approaches, such as religion having no "scientific method" to try and eliminate bias.

Perfect equivalency. It doesn't make one whit of difference about method. You believe something WILL answer questions that HAVE NOT been answered. That is simple faith. You put faith in your method, I do not.

 

[SkepticThinker]

I think the issue is not answers, as every religion provides many answers. The lacking is in verifiable evidence. They provide answers, but often fail to back those answers up with actual evidence.

This ^^^

 

[Polymath257]

Are mammal like reptiles, still reptiles ? Are reptile like mammals still mammals ? To say they are somehow "transitional" is disingenuous. Biologic niches are filled by creatures that can functionally fill that niche. Functional resemblance for this purpose doesn't mean the creature is morphing into what it might resemble in totally different classification of animal

You seem to think the dividing line between 'reptile' and 'mammal' is thin and clear. But that is *exactly* what is not the case. The examples of reptile-like mammals and mammal-like reptiles exist *because* the line is fuzzy and a matter of *our* definition and not something inherent in the animals themselves. It is sort of like the question of whether Pluto is a planet. It depends on your definition.

Nature isn't broken up into nice clean categories. But we humans try to understand it in that way. So, occasionally, the reality and our classifications will conflict.

 

[shmogie]

It is a reasonable expectation that science will some day answer questions that we don't have answers to today. It's a reasonable expectation because we have used science to do so in the past, and the present. Our ancestors thought lightning came from the gods. We now know what lightning actually is, and where it actually comes from. Do you think that information came from believing in god(s), or from following the evidence, as per science?

You seem to think I am denying the value of science, I do not. I simply do not see science ever answering the questions that are important to me, nor do I see it EVER being able to answer the questions that are fundamental to our existence and the existence of all there is. You place your faith in what seems totally futile to me, as mine seems futile to you.

 

[Polymath257]

You seem to think I am denying the value of science, I do not. I simply do not see science ever answering the questions that are important to me, nor do I see it EVER being able to answer the questions that are fundamental to our existence and the existence of all there is. You place your faith in what seems totally futile to me, as mine seems futile to you.

Could it be that your questions simply don't have an answer because they make assumptions that are false? or, perhaps, that they aren't as meaningful as you think?

 

[shmogie]

This ^^^

It depends upon the nature and the quality of the evidence. Ultimately the evidence must be judged by a jury of one. In that capacity the evidence of everything coming from nothing as a natural phenomena fails, just as life coming from non living chemicals fails, just as the Darwinian chain of life, fails, for me. To quote the great mythical Sherlock Holmes " when you have eliminated all the possibilities, what is left, no matter how impossible, is the answer"

 

[shmogie]

Could it be that your questions simply don't have an answer because they make assumptions that are false? or, perhaps, that they aren't as meaningful as you think?

Neither. I decide what has meaning for me, no one else

 

[sayak83]

Are mammal like reptiles, still reptiles ? Are reptile like mammals still mammals ? To say they are somehow "transitional" is disingenuous. Biologic niches are filled by creatures that can functionally fill that niche. Functional resemblance for this purpose doesn't mean the creature is morphing into what it might resemble in totally different classification of animal

Reptiles and Mammals simply differ due to a set of anatomical characteristics. Say there are 100 such anatomical differences. A transitional form that has 40 mammal like features and 60 reptile like features is called a mammal like reptile. A reptile like mammal will have the reverse. The continuity has to be labeled by us into bins for our convenience only. In the reptile to mammal evolution, one sees a gamut of transitional forms from the Permian to the Triassic with such a Mish mash of features. Animals with greater and greater % of mammalian features appear until most of the features characteristic of basic mammals have arisen by Cretaceous. This is an unambiguous case of transitional form and evolution. Even today reptile like mammals exist and are with us. They would be monotremes like the platypus that lays eggs.

 

[shmogie]

You seem to think the dividing line between 'reptile' and 'mammal' is thin and clear. But that is *exactly* what is not the case. The examples of reptile-like mammals and mammal-like reptiles exist *because* the line is fuzzy and a matter of *our* definition and not something inherent in the animals themselves. It is sort of like the question of whether Pluto is a planet. It depends on your definition.

Nature isn't broken up into nice clean categories. But we humans try to understand it in that way. So, occasionally, the reality and our classifications will conflict.

Really ? There are many physiological, identifiable differences between reptiles and mammals. These are perfectly clear. A mammal that fills a niche that may look like a reptile can be readily identified as a mammal by these differences.

 

[Jose Fly]

Are mammal like reptiles, still reptiles ? Are reptile like mammals still mammals ? To say they are somehow "transitional" is disingenuous. Biologic niches are filled by creatures that can functionally fill that niche. Functional resemblance for this purpose doesn't mean the creature is morphing into what it might resemble in totally different classification of animal

I think at this point you need to say what the term "transitional fossil" means to you.

 

[shmogie]

Reptiles and Mammals simply differ due to a set of anatomical characteristics. Say there are 100 such anatomical differences. A transitional form that has 40 mammal like features and 60 reptile like features is called a mammal like reptile. A reptile like mammal will have the reverse. The continuity has to be labeled by us into bins for our convenience only. In the reptile to mammal evolution, one sees a gamut of transitional forms from the Permian to the Triassic with such a Mish mash of features. Animals with greater and greater % of mammalian features appear until most of the features characteristic of basic mammals have arisen by Cretaceous. This is an unambiguous case of transitional form and evolution. Even today reptile like mammals exist and are with us. They would be monotremes like the platypus that lays eggs.

Yes, the spiny echidna and platypus lay eggs. Rattlesnakes give live birth, nevertheless, they are still easily classified as reptile and mammal. They aren't "transitional", they are species that have a particular reproductive mechanism for a particular reason. Now, if you could show a clear chain of slow physiological change from a specific reptile through many generations where these physiological features change, you would have something.

 

[SkepticThinker]

It depends upon the nature and the quality of the evidence. Ultimately the evidence must be judged by a jury of one. In that capacity the evidence of everything coming from nothing as a natural phenomena fails, just as life coming from non living chemicals fails, just as the Darwinian chain of life, fails, for me. To quote the great mythical Sherlock Holmes " when you have eliminated all the possibilities, what is left, no matter how impossible, is the answer"

Are you a person who is interested in discovery truths about the world we live in?

Evolution says nothing about everything coming from nothing.
It has been demonstrated numerous times, that it's at least possible that life could develop from non-living chemicals.
The evidence for the theory of evolution is robust, and the theory has not been falsified, to this day.