More News on the Changing Evolution Scene :-) !!! :-)

[YoursTrue]

It is evidence for human evolution. Please do not give me any more of this "does not prove" crap. You know that is wrong. An honest person would quit making that argument.

Do we need to go over the concept of evidence again? You were given a burden of proof. You could not meet it. Continued denial in the face of your failure is not proper.

Here is the problem. So I ask what you think in the form of a question. Do you think that there was no divine guidance in the history of evidence of the various forms of life?

 

[Subduction Zone]

From the article, near the end -- (endnotes) -- "Hominins are defined those members of our lineage, both living humans and our extinct relatives, that are more closely related to ourselves than to apes. All known hominins are identified as being bipedal" Lucy is not considered human by scientists, is she?

No, she is our first "non human" ancestor. She is the "missing link" that creationists constantly demand.

 

[YoursTrue]

It is evidence for human evolution. Please do not give me any more of this "does not prove" crap. You know that is wrong. An honest person would quit making that argument.

Do we need to go over the concept of evidence again? You were given a burden of proof. You could not meet it. Continued denial in the face of your failure is not proper.

So sorry, but scientists themselves keep coming up with more theories about what and how it all happened. Changing face of Lucy. Do you think I think that things like CV-19 come from God? Please answer that question about what you think I think, and perhaps we can go on.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Here is the problem. So I ask what you think in the form of a question. Do you think that there was no divine guidance in the history of evidence of the various forms of life?

There is no evidence for such a guidance.

There could have been. But creationists cannot find it and since it is their claim the burden of finding that evidence lies upon them, not upon others.

 

[YoursTrue]

No, she is our first "non human" ancestor. She is the "missing link" that creationists constantly demand.

ah...she is the "missing link." So now they found the Common Ancestor, you think (that scientists think)? Is that it?

 

[Subduction Zone]

So sorry, but scientists themselves keep coming up with more theories about what and how it all happened. Changing face of Lucy. Do you think I think that things like CV-19 come from God? Please answer that question about what you think I think, and perhaps we can go on.

Yes, scientists refine course ideas and get closer and closer to what actually happened. What is wrong with that? It is far superior than believing a book of myths that was refuted over 200 years ago.

 

[Subduction Zone]

ah...she is the "missing link." So now they found the Common Ancestor, you think (that scientists think)? Is that it?

That is not what I claimed.

You can do better than that.

 

[YoursTrue]

There is no evidence for such a guidance.

There could have been. But creationists cannot find it and since it is their claim the burden of finding that evidence lies upon them, not upon others.

OK, you say there is no evidence for guidance. It's either/or for many people. Do you think that I think God made the corona virus and variants like that?

 

[Subduction Zone]

OK, you say there is no evidence for guidance. It's either/or for many people. Do you think that I think God made the corona virus and variants like that?

No, they appear to be the natural result of evolution.

But once again, if you want to claim that God was behind anything the burden of proof is upon you. You might as well blame Bigfoot if you cannot find any evidence.

 

[YoursTrue]

Yes, scientists refine course ideas and get closer and closer to what actually happened. What is wrong with that? It is far superior than believing a book of myths that was refuted over 200 years ago.

It's interesting that you keep excusing changing scientific theories as to what happened. Scientists still do not agree with many things. It's not quite like experimenting with a new vaccine, where testing can be done, and reports made about the effectiveness. Yet the surmise about how it all happened is still there. I don't find that Lucy is evidence of a Common Ancestor leading to humans. It's evidence that some animal had some bone structures that resemble some parts of the human body. Even in a trial, if the evidence appears plausible, doesn't mean it's truth leading to the right verdict.

 

[YoursTrue]

No, they appear to be the natural result of evolution.

But once again, if you want to claim that God was behind anything the burden of proof is upon you. You might as well blame Bigfoot if you cannot find any evidence.

I no longer believe the burden of proof of evolution is supported by the theorists of evolution as it stands. I used to believe it. I no longer do. There are too many holes in the theory. Now granted that if a person doesn't believe in evolution as the theory goes by the Darwinian kind, then what's left? And that is the question. So if you want to believe in the theory that you believe is supported by evidence of bones, that is where you're at, along with many others.

 

[YoursTrue]

No, they appear to be the natural result of evolution.

But once again, if you want to claim that God was behind anything the burden of proof is upon you. You might as well blame Bigfoot if you cannot find any evidence.

Look, you believe life came about by itself (more or less as in a fusion of things). I no longer believe that, one reason is because it is incredible. By incredible I mean -- beyond reason. Anyway -- have a good night.

 

[Subduction Zone]

It's interesting that you keep excusing changing scientific theories as to what happened. Scientists still do not agree with many things. It's not quite like experimenting with a new vaccine, where testing can be done, and reports made about the effectiveness. Yet the surmise about how it all happened is still there. I don't find that Lucy is evidence of a Common Ancestor leading to humans. It's evidence that some animal had some bone structures that resemble some parts of the human body. Even in a trial, if the evidence appears plausible, doesn't mean it's truth leading to the right verdict.

Stop it. You should know better than this. Scientists continually narrow in on the correct answer in all fields. And since it is all but impossible to get the absolutely right answer there will always be disagreements. This is another one of your poor arguments that can be refuted with a "So what?" Yes, there are disagreements, but only about details. There is no doubt about evolution itself.

 

[Subduction Zone]

I no longer believe the burden of proof of evolution is supported by the theorists of evolution as it stands. I used to believe it. I no longer do. There are too many holes in the theory. Now granted that if a person doesn't believe in evolution as the theory goes by the Darwinian kind, then what's left? And that is the question. So if you want to believe in the theory that you believe is supported by evidence of bones, that is where you're at, along with many others.

It does not matter what you believe. What you believe has been demonstrated to be wrong time after time. It matters what claims you can support and you do not appear to be able to support any of your claims. That is not true for those on the side of reality.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Look, you believe life came about by itself (more or less as in a fusion of things). I no longer believe that, one reason is because it is incredible. By incredible I mean -- beyond reason. Anyway -- have a good night.

It is beyond your comprehension to understand. Do not assume that your flaws are the flaws of everyone else.

You should be asking how scientists know what they know. All you have is denial in the face of evidence and logical arguments. The only one that you can convince with that poor reasoning is yourself.

 

[metis]

It is the basic foundation, sorry if I wasn't the most tactful.

But that "basic foundation" makes sense if one knows what to look for. "Lucy" was not and is not some sort of outlier since other similar Australopithecines have been found, so it's sorta like a jigsaw puzzle that's getting at least partially filled in even though we well know that we will never get the picture 100%.

Thanks for the apology, have a great weekend, and take care.

 

[metis]

ah...she is the "missing link."

Actually she's not. Both fossil and dna evidence points to a common ancestry probably around the 6-7 bp mark, which is much earlier than Lucy. As far as today's humans, dna suggests a common "Eve" for all of us roughly around 200,000-300,000 year bp if my memory is correct.

 

[SkepticThinker]

Because for one thing, as I understand it, "Lucy's" feet were never found. Therefore posing her as a hairy female (very hairy) with feet and breasts is a stupid ridiculous depiction.

Again, scientists have found more than 300 different Australopithecus afarensis ("Lucy") specimens.
Australopithecus afarensis | The Smithsonian Institution's Human Origins Program

 

[SkepticThinker]

Just like some others here do not say humans are apes, I don't believe in your form of evidence proving or indicating evolution per the theory of the Darwinian concept. No proof, evidence in your mind leads up to conclude (accuse, convict?) Darwin's theory. Not to obfuscate, you can say humans are apes, I do not believe even if you do, that they are apes. You are obviously free to believe whatever you want. So no proof necessary, as you say. Or do you not say? You're funny. No proof or evidence to show that fish evolved to be landrovers.

So you do not believe in demonstrable evidence. That's as you simultaneously believe every un-demonstrable thing mentioned in the Bible without question.

What's wrong with this picture?

You just admitted you don't know what evidence is, so why would I waste my time providing you with more, when you won't even recognize it for what it is? The same evidence, mind you, that shows you that you are related to your own family members. You accept it in one case (your family members) but not in another (life on earth) even though the science shows the same genetic connections, not to mention all the other mountains of evidence that shows evolution to be a biological fact of life drawn from practically every field of science.

Details of Evolutionary Transition from Fish to Land Animals Revealed
https://evolution.berkeley.edu/evolibrary/article/evograms_04

 

[Subduction Zone]

Actually she's not. Both fossil and dna evidence points to a common ancestry probably around the 6-7 bp mark, which is much earlier than Lucy. As far as today's humans, dna suggests a common "Eve" for all of us roughly around 200,000-300,000 year bp if my memory is correct.

Lucy is the "missing link" in the sense that she is different enough so that no creationist (well perhaps almost no creationist) will call her human. They have no problem calling her an ape, even though of course we are all apes, They have to deny her since if they admit that Lucy is our ancestor than those darned evolutionists had to have been right all along.