New 'on-line museum' challenges evolution

[outhouse]

they were closely related to us and shared a common ancestor

thats all im argueing

 

[LuisDantas]

I said you need a fine detail in the fossil record to establish ancestor/descendant relationships between species in the fossil record. Which is something you agree is true.

Nope. I most certainly disagree. Fossils are convenient, but hardly necessary.

 

[painted wolf]

Nope. I most certainly disagree. Fossils are convenient, but hardly necessary.

True, with genetics, morphology, comparative anatomy, biogeoraphy, molecular studies and so on, fossils are nice icing to the cake but evolution doesn't collapse without them.

wa:do

 

[Revoltingest]

Science does not deal in proof, as the saying goes "proof is for mathematics and alcohol". Science will never say a theory had been proved. But by any other standard such as common usage ToE has been proven to be correct.

True dat. It's an underappreciated feature of science.

 

[LuisDantas]

True, with genetics, morphology, comparative anatomy, biogeoraphy, molecular studies and so on, fossils are nice icing to the cake but evolution doesn't collapse without them.

wa:do

More specifically, even the evidence for evolution does not particularly revolve around fossils. You wouldn't guess so from the attitude of some Creationist circles, but that is the truth.

 

[outhouse]

More specifically, even the evidence for evolution does not particularly revolve around fossils. You wouldn't guess so from the attitude of some Creationist circles, but that is the truth.

there playing the house of cards mentality since creation is based on this very principle.

Because creationism falls apart if one card is removed, they think evolution is built on the same shakey fragile ground.

 

[David M]

Nope. I most certainly disagree. Fossils are convenient, but hardly necessary.

As already mentioned I was solely talking about species in the fossil record and only using the fossil record to establish relationships.

The consilience between nested heirarchies derived from morphology and genetics, for example, is a separate matter and not relavent to the quote from Talk Origins that started this.

 

[LuisDantas]

As already mentioned I was solely talking about species in the fossil record and only using the fossil record to establish relationships.

May I ask why? What would the point be in using such a weird restriction for the evidence?

The consilience between nested heirarchies derived from morphology and genetics, for example, is a separate matter and not relavent to the quote from Talk Origins that started this.

It can possibly be a separate matter if we are seriously intending to talk about the validity of the evidence. Ignoring other, less chancy kinds of evidence might be fine for some goals, but they fit better in reality tv programs than in discussion of quality of evidence. I assumed from your tone that you were interested in the quality of evidence. My apologies if I was mistaken.

 

[David M]

May I ask why? What would the point be in using such a weird restriction for the evidence?

Because the quote from Talk Origins that Outhouse said was wrong was only talking about the fossil record and the ability to establish ancestor/descendant relationships using the fossil record.

It can possibly be a separate matter if we are seriously intending to talk about the validity of the evidence. Ignoring other, less chancy kinds of evidence might be fine for some goals, but they fit better in reality tv programs than in discussion of quality of evidence.

I was never talking about the validity of the evidence, I was talking about the validity of a single statement from TalkOrigins that was being questioned.

TalkOrigins was correct that the fossil record does not allow ancestor/descendant relationships to be absolutely established for the hominid lineage based just on the fossils as explained in their FAQ. And that statement is correct for almost all relationships when you just look at just the fossils.

I assumed from your tone that you were interested in the quality of evidence. My apologies if I was mistaken.

No, not the issue at all. Just the accuracy of a statement in the TalkOrigins Hominid Fossil FAQ.

It seems we have been talking past each other, but at least its increased my post count.

 

[outhouse]

Outhouse said was wrong was only talking about the fossil record and the ability to establish ancestor/descendant relationships using the fossil record.

David more then half our arguement is based on half misinterpretations

I understand your point and your right that fossils do not show a clear path of homo sapiens ancestors, I took it wrong. I admit my mistake.

I look at the skulls and they all look like our early ancestors to me.

On neanderthal im partialy right as its hard to tell someone that has neanderthal DNA that were are not a common ancestor. [as you stated this earlier as well]

I understand now how we are not a direct ancenstor.


I let passion get in my way sometimes and let a few things out of the box I shouldnt.

 

[David M]

David more then half our arguement is based on half misinterpretations

I understand your point and your right that fossils do not show a clear path of homo sapiens ancestors, I took it wrong. I admit my mistake.

Frubals for you good sir.

I look at the skulls and they all look like our early ancestors to me.

They certainly do even though some of them are possibly not directly in our lineage. But the pattern that is shown by those skulls makes it almost certain that some of them are in our lineage and that humans did evolve from earlier hominids.

I let passion get in my way sometimes and let a few things out of the box I shouldnt.

No problem, we all do that sometimes.

 

[painted wolf]

It's always good to remember that evolution is a bush not a ladder.

wa:do

 

[ellenjanuary]

How far did I get? Hmm... origins of the theory of evolution and the journey of the HMS Beagle. Let us click this link and discover... what do I find? Darwinism.

Man, cannot they hide their agenda better than 1.2 seconds?

 

[ellenjanuary]

when you have a stroke or a heart attack make sure you tell the doctor this when he saves your life anyway, with science.

My life was not saved by a doctor in the above conditional. My life was preserved through balloon angioplasty. A methodology "proven to be effective" through experimentation. Performed not by doctors, but by technicians.

 

[outhouse]

Ok you got me silly me

a technician saved your life, arg im full of mistakes lol

 

[ellenjanuary]

Ok you got me silly me

a technician saved your life, arg im full of mistakes lol

It is just that it is not "proven," per se; it is just way better than open heart surgery. Being on the table, I agree. Since I'm still here to run my neck, it works.

And I can tell you the same thing a doctor will tell you - the only thing that actually "saves a life" is the will to live.

 

[outhouse]

It is just that it is not "proven," per se; it is just way better than open heart surgery. Being on the table, I agree. Since I'm still here to run my neck, it works.

And I can tell you the same thing a doctor will tell you - the only thing that actually "saves a life" is the will to live.

without the heart work,,,,, allot of will takes you only so far

 

[ellenjanuary]

without the heart work,,,,, allot of will takes you only so far

You just want to be stubborn.

One thing we do seem to agree on, reading between the lines. Those who emerge from the hospital "thanking god," and disregarding the work of professionals; are full of crap.