Remarkably complete’ 3.8-million-year-old cranium of human ancestor discovered in Ethiopia

[TagliatelliMonster]

So if it is, by your own admission not a human, what makes it a human!? It seems we are dealing with heavily religious speculation.

Nobody is saying it's a human.

Maybe first inform yourself before making yourself look.... eum... "uninformed".

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

Variation within taxa is the product of adaptation......adaptation is not proof for evolution on the scale suggested by science.

The process of evolution is no more or less then the accumulation of "adaptions" over generations. DNA is hereditary, in case you haven't noticed.

I'm sorry if after all this time you still haven't realised this.

Evolutionary science teaches that all living things go back to a common source....that all life sprang from a single celled organism that just popped into existence one day for no apparent reason and found a way to replicate itself. From those primitive beginnings, all life, past and present, living and extinct, came into existence through gradual evolutionary changes and what is called branching. From amoebas to dinosaurs....its all the one process. Sorry I am not buying it....there is no actual proof for any of that.

Your incredulity and ignorance on the topic, is not a valid argument against it.
And it certainly isn't a valid argument for religious creation stories.

When did life become suitable enough for classification into taxa, families and clades? Who put them there?
They had to cross taxonomic lines to even be included in a classification in the first place.

No. Again, if creatures would "cross taxonomic lines", then evolution would be false.
Sorry if you can't comprehend that. It's kind of evolution 101.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

So here we go again, another thread on evolution where the Jehovah's Witnesses show up, post as if they're the true experts in almost every field of science, and make all sorts of grand declarations about what the true science really is. Yet if anyone were to ask them if maybe....just maybe, being Witnesses influences their opinions on the subject, they'd act all indignant and shocked at the mere suggestion of such a thing. Weird!

Since I think all of them have me on "ignore", I'll just post this for everyone else. Never, ever forget it when you're trying to discuss evolution with a Jehovah's Witness.

Should I Believe in Evolution? — Watchtower ONLINE LIBRARY

"If evolution is true, life has no lasting purpose. If creation is true, we can find satisfying answers to questions about life and the future."​

That's all you ever need to know about JWs and evolution.

Or this gem right here Evolution Undermines Faith — Watchtower ONLINE LIBRARY


Or that scripted playbook I found on that website, where it literally instructs JWs on what to say when and to whom when discussing evolution. It reads like a script for salespeople in a callcenter. Not meant to provide correct information, but instead just meant to make sales.

 

[nPeace]

I love how you just assume that the whole thing must be suspect and a fraud.

Off course you have to believe that, in order to clinge to your a priori religious dogma.

DEBUNKED
That would not stop you from repeating the misguided and obviously "makes me feel good, and superior saying it" assumption.
Well... if it makes you feel good...

 

[nPeace]

Because one is supported by independenlty testable evidence, while the other is just make-belief for wish you require "faith"

The willfully ignorant do say that.

 

[nPeace]

Now you are being dishonest. Not having all of the answers does not mean that no one knows.

If you want to have questions answered you must take back your incorrect statements.

Try that one in court.
"Your honor. We don't have all the facts, but we know the suspect is guilty."

 

[Polymath257]

Well I am sorry but "something" OUTSIDE of the natural world
created the natural world. Nature can do wonderful things all
by itself, including creating life, but nature can't make itself.
Period.

OK so far.

Science tell us that every phenomena in the universe is a part
of cause and effect. Rain is caused by condensation of water
vapor. Condensation is caused by sunlight. Sunlight is caused
by the fusion of hydrogen to helium in the sun. Fusion is caused
by gravity. Gravity is caused by distortion of space time. Space
time is caused by the Big Bang. The Big Bang is caused by....
................................................................................................

and if we find the cause of the Big Bang it has to be something
mechanical, physical, conforming to physical laws etc.. And
then, where did that "something" come from? Eventually we
have to say, "It all started by magic, or it started by God."

Are you assuming that time existed before the Big Bang? To even talk about causality requires time to exist. But one of the features of the the Big Bang is that time *started* at that point.

Also, don't forget that quantum mechanics, which is *by far* the most accurate description of the universe we have ever had, is not a causal description. It is probabilistic.

 

[PruePhillip]

OK so far.



Are you assuming that time existed before the Big Bang? To even talk about causality requires time to exist. But one of the features of the the Big Bang is that time *started* at that point.

Also, don't forget that quantum mechanics, which is *by far* the most accurate description of the universe we have ever had, is not a causal description. It is probabilistic.

True. Quantum is truly amazing. Good article in this week's New Scientist on it.
But... quantum is a product of space-time, no? In a quantum universe a duck
can appear in the vast emptiness of space and time - simply out of probability.
So too can other universes, particularly with this idea of virtual particles. But...
quantum itself is a child of nature and the physical universe - it too had to be
created, along with its physical laws and critical variables.

 

[Polymath257]

True. Quantum is truly amazing. Good article in this week's New Scientist on it.
But... quantum is a product of space-time, no? In a quantum universe a duck
can appear in the vast emptiness of space and time - simply out of probability.
So too can other universes, particularly with this idea of virtual particles. But...
quantum itself is a child of nature and the physical universe - it too had to be
created, along with its physical laws and critical variables.

I'm not sure it makes sense to talk about causality of natural laws. That is because causality, such as it exists, derives from the natural laws.

So, to say that quantum mechanics needs to be created seems, well, strange. It isn't a product of nature, it is how nature works.

 

[nPeace]

Because planets orbit stars and are formed at the same time as the stars form and from the same overall cloud of dust and gas. In particular, those protoplanetary disks are pretty relevant for planet formation.

So you also know when planets form....
Let's see...
The various planets are thought to have formed from the solar nebula, the disc-shaped cloud of gas and dust left over from the Sun's formation.
Thought
noun

1. 1.
   an idea or opinion produced by thinking, or occurring suddenly in the mind.
   "Maggie had a sudden thought"
   synonyms: idea, notion, line of thinking, belief, concept, conception, conviction, opinion, view, impression, image, perception, mental picture;
2. 2.
   the action or process of thinking.
   "Sophie sat deep in thought"
   synonyms: thinking, reasoning, contemplation, musing, pondering, consideration, reflection, introspection, deliberation, study, rumination, cogitation, meditation, brooding, mulling over, reverie, brown study, concentration, debate, speculation;
   rarecerebration
   "it only took a moment's thought"

And then you say religious people are unreasonable. My...

Because planets are formed from exactly such collisions.

Yup. Speculation.

They show a record of the types of collsions that also lead to planet formation.

No they don't.

Sorry if you don't see the relevance of what I wrote.

No need to apologize. I know, you can't help it - not that you couldn't, but simply because you insist on speculating.

Sorry, but that is sort of like asking if we understand atoms. At what level of detail? We understand them pretty well, but not perfectly.

Same thing with planet formation. We understand the general process, but don't understand a lot of the details. In particular, we do know when they were formed in our system. We know there was a period where they built up from collisions. We don't understand a lot of the dynamics of collisions, especially in orbit and how that affects the formation.

I understand you like to believe you know.... but you don't know all of that stuff.

It just isn't a simple yes or no question.

Interesting.
Apparently because it's, No.

So you know, someone did what for obvious reasons, you were reluctant to do - provide the data.
It confirms the truth of this statement "We don't know how planets formed in the beginning,", and further shows how much conjecture is passed off as science, by the majority of scientists.
Conjecture
noun

1. an opinion or conclusion formed on the basis of incomplete information.
   "conjectures about the newcomer were many and varied"
   synonyms: guess, speculation, surmise, fancy, notion, belief, suspicion, presumption, assumption, theory, hypothesis, postulation, supposition;

verb

1. form an opinion or supposition about (something) on the basis of incomplete information.
   "many conjectured that the jury could not agree"
   synonyms: guess, speculate, surmise, infer, fancy, imagine, believe, think, suspect, presume, assume, hypothesize, take as a hypothesis, theorize, form/formulate a theory, suppose
   "I conjectured that the game was about to end"

Is it not interesting that the very accusations made of religious people, are the same that scientists - emphasis on scientists - are guilty of using? My...

Are speculations always wrong? No... Neither are they automatically right.
Do they have any place in real science?

Scientific theories are the most reliable, rigorous, and comprehensive form of scientific knowledge, in contrast to more common uses of the word "theory" that imply that something is unproven or speculative (which in formal terms is better characterized by the word hypothesis).
Scientific theories are distinguished from hypotheses, which are individual empirically testable conjectures...

Yes. Their place is in hypotheses - ideas not verified nor proven.
So when someone points that out, they are really not saying anything bad. They are speaking the truth.
Why do some scientists and other skeptics try to disqualify that fact? Simply, they want to live in a pipe dream, that science is the creme de la creme... and religion? Phhbt

Ignorant thinking, isn't it?

Well, part of it is you ask questions as if they are binary, yes or no questions, when they are not.

The question I asked was not difficult. Some scientists - not all - apparently find it difficult, for the obvious reason, I mentioned above.
Other scientist are not biased and opinionated, because God, or an alternative to their belief, is not their "cup of tea".

A perfect example. At what level of detail? We understand the general
process, but not many of the details.

You understand the general process of your assumptions. That's fine. Keep that hypothesis, until the next generation of tech.

There was, but you either didn't understand it or ignored it.

Well I didn't ignore it, because I responded to it, and my response does not indicate that I don't understand it. So... you just want to be right, is all. You are wrong. However, you are right in one thing - you have the right to assume, but not the right to claim scientific knowledge.
Ideas are not scientific knowledge. (Although today it is common for scientists to call them such)

Yes, let's. We will have more detail about the whole process. And that will be a good thing. But it doesn't change when the process happened. And it doesn't change the fact that it is *completely* contrary to the Biblical picture.

Say what? Come again... Do tell. How is it "*completely* contrary to the Biblical picture"?
By the way, there are no facts as to when planets were formed. Read my lips... Those are assumptions.

Well, read a few Biblical archeologists, like Israel Finkelstein 'The Bible Unearthed' or William Dever 'Did God Have a Wife' (answer: yes).

Right now, I have little time, but I will return to this in a while.

I'm trying to show how physical evidence is superior to witness testimony when the two conflict. And that is my point: physical evidence is always superior when it can be used to reach a conclusion. In your original scenario, it could not. So I added aspects to make it possible and to put the physical and witness aspects in conflict.

If a witness gives testimony, and there is physical evidence to back it up, it makes his testimony more sound. If there is no physical evidence, it is still an objective opinion that should not be dismissed as not being credible.

Physical evidence is subject to faulty interpretation, and inaccurate conclusions - which does not make it anymore reliable than witness testimony. More evidence still needs to be found to give strength to that evidence.

You needed to create that scenario in order to give it strength.
Life does not always work like Hollywood, where a stage is set with props conveniently set in place.

I changed the *example* to be more realistic. I had asked whether physical evidence or eyewitness testimony was superior. So, we need a situation where they conflict to see which one would win.

You set a stage. Neither wins without the right circumstances.

Whao! I thought we were talking about planets. Now you want to talk about evolution?

We were talking about evolution. You made an issue on an example I used with planets.
The difference here is that one is pure conjecture, that cannot be verified - evolution. The other has been verified - accurate historical events; true scientific discoveries... found in the Bible.

Didn't see anything relevant there.

Then obviously, you missed the point.

Huh? You seem to think that scientists get rich off of government funds. Which is, frankly ridiculous.

What you seem to not understand is that there is *always* another level to investigate. You can always ask what happens at the next decimal place, or at the next refinement, etc. So, just because we understand that cells are chemical factories doesn't mean we understand every process in the cells. Just because we know the general physical laws doesn't mean we know what happens in every situation, especially in complex systems.

This is the way or research: every question answered leads to 10 new questions. There is *always* more to learn.

Huh? What are you talking about?
I'm saying, if the theory of evolution were an undeniable fact, no credible scientist would / could deny it, without very serious consequences. Maybe I am wrong.

 

[Subduction Zone]

DEBUNKED
That would not stop you from repeating the misguided and obviously "makes me feel good, and superior saying it" assumption.
Well... if it makes you feel good...

That article does not help you. At best it only says some creationists are not science deniers. That does not appear to include you.

 

[Subduction Zone]

The willfully ignorant do say that.

Finally we are getting somewhere. Recognizing your flaws is the first step in correcting them.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Try that one in court.
"Your honor. We don't have all the facts, but we know the suspect is guilty."

It happens all of the time. This only once again reinforces the fact that you have no clue.

For example, in very few murder cases with convictions do we know what the defendant had for breakfast. Not knowing all of the facts is expected.

 

[Jose Fly]

We were discussing planets, weren't we? Then these are irrelevant.
Was there a particular reason you mentioned stars?


So? Oh. Here comes the speculations.
They are not relevant in this argument.


So? What does that have to do with planet formation?


Wow. You gave me nothing, and then continue with 'So'.
Assumptions.


Well Columbus.
So we don't know how planets are formed.
Getting a simple, "Admittedly..." seems to be like pulling molars.
What is wrong with agreeing with those who disagree with you?
You only wind up prolonging the obvious.

Suppose we stop circling needlessly.
Direct question - Do we know how planets are formed? Yes or No.


There's nothing useful there.


Yes, the current assumptions. I see that.
Let's wait till the next generation then.

It's positively fascinating to see someone exhibit black/white thinking so clearly. Here, it's either we know everything about how planets form, or we know nothing about it.

Fascinating.

 

[Jose Fly]

Now you are being dishonest. Not having all of the answers does not mean that no one knows.

It does to someone who can only think in black/white terms. To them, there is no space between knowing everything and knowing nothing.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

DEBUNKED
That would not stop you from repeating the misguided and obviously "makes me feel good, and superior saying it" assumption.
Well... if it makes you feel good...

What exactly are you claiming has been debunked?

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

The willfully ignorant do say that.

No, instead: those who pay attention notice that.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

Try that one in court.
"Your honor. We don't have all the facts, but we know the suspect is guilty."

That's not at all what he said.
How dishonest of you.

 

[tas8831]

Or this gem right here Evolution Undermines Faith — Watchtower ONLINE LIBRARY


Or that scripted playbook I found on that website, where it literally instructs JWs on what to say when and to whom when discussing evolution. It reads like a script for salespeople in a callcenter. Not meant to provide correct information, but instead just meant to make sales.

But being anti-science is definitely NOT part of JW doctrine....

 

[tas8831]

Try that one in court.
"Your honor. We don't have all the facts, but we know the suspect is guilty."

More like:

DA:
"We don't have all the facts, but we do have B, C, D, F, G, H, I, L, M, N, O, S, T, U, W, X, and Z. And the facts we do have point to the suspect being guilty."

JW creationist with no legal degree or experience in the gallery:
"Then he is totally innocent! You don't have A, or... or...J??? Or even Y??? Mr.Manson must be let go!!"

Judge:
"Bailiff - get that moron out of here and throw Manson in jail!!"