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

[Subduction Zone]

What is this "fundamental flaw?"

God done did it

 

[IndigoChild5559]

God done did it

That's the fundamental flaw of evolution? He was saying that the TOE had one fundamental flaw. I was inquiring what THAT was.

 

[Subduction Zone]

That's the fundamental flaw of evolution? He was saying that the TOE had one fundamental flaw. I was inquiring what THAT was.

That's my best guess. Seriously you know that this is the sort of throw away claim that creationists make. They spout all sorts of falsehoods about the theory of evolution and then when one rightfully demands that they support that claim they act as if no such claim was made. They seem to think there is a exception in the Ninth Commandment when it comes to attacking evolution. They do not ever seem to realize that by making the claims that they do that they are almost always bearing false witness against others.

 

[Deeje]

What is this "fundamental flaw?"

There are a few of them actually....all related.

The fundamental flaw that uses language that basically says "we are making educated guesses about all this"....and the reason why they use that language is because their conclusions are mostly based on guesswork.

The fundamental flaw that not one scientific experiment on speciation demonstrated anything but a new variety in an existing family of organisms.

If you read the article on "Speciation" in Wiki e.g. what do you find? Organisms evolving into new organisms?...or simply a new variety produced through adaptation, in a single family of creatures.....whether or not they can interbreed is irrelevant. None of them step outside of their taxonomy....no creatures ever have or could.....science assumes that they have because they add time to the equation as if a little automatically proves a lot if millions of years elapse. The truth is, no one really knows. Assumption, suggestion and guesswork are not real science.

You can't even artificially breed animals of the same family and see them breed according to kind. Horses and donkeys (both equines) produce mules, but mules are sterile. Lions and tigers (felines) can interbreed but their offspring too, are sterile. These would never naturally breed in the wild. But genetic roadblocks exist even in these close relatives.

The fundamental flaw in assuming that a single celled organism can magically appear for no apparent reason, out of nowhere, and then over time transform itself into a dinosaur.....do you really believe that? That is more fantasy than what we get accused of.

Assumptions are not facts and should never be presented as such.

As Darwin observed on the Galapagos Islands.....the finches were all just new varieties of finches seen on the mainland, and the tortoises were a new variety of tortoise. The iguanas were a marine adapted iguanas...but all of them were still clearly recognized as new varieties of their mainland 'cousins'. Where is the basis for evolution?

When you understand how much suggestion is used to provide "evidence" for macro-evolution, you begin to see what a colossal snow job it really is.

 

[ImmortalFlame]

I think scientists at one time believed in that idea, until it was demonstrated to be wrong.
I believe life was created. That does not mean popped out of thin air.

You earlier said:
"The fossil record shows all major life forms arriving on the scene, fully formed, and leaving the scene with little or no change."
If these major life forms didn't just appear out of nowhere "fully formed", then where did they come from?

So, if you believe #1, then I would think there is a problem - What reproduced to produce the first reproducing ancestor?

That's irrelevant. We're discussing how life changes over time, not how it started, and #1 only deals with COMPLEX living things, not simple living things.

Looking at the fossil record does not show what you say,

Yes, it does. You can deny that if you want, but you would be objectively wrong.

but I understand we wil not move past this for the next 180 years.
Abrupt appearance of major bilaterian clades in the fossil record during the first three stages of the Cambrian Period has puzzled the scientific world since 1830s.

But modern genetics has revealed that representing evolutionary history as a tree is misleading, with scientists saying a more realistic way to represent the origins and inter-relatedness of species would be an impenetrable thicket.

Evolution is far too complex to be explained by a few roots and branches, [scientists] claim.

Biology currently lacks a robust and comprehensive description of early evolution. We should aim to fill that void, but in a language that operates with biology and chemistry, not with branching patterns in phylogenetic trees, versions of which based on informational genes are called the tree of life.

After 180 years, we still have a rootless tree, and still can't figure out how we got branches, yet you think everything is smooth.

That's not what I wrote. Perhaps you can respond to what I wrote before erecting a strawman.

Do you or do you not agree that the only currently known mechanism that produces complex life forms is reproduction?

I don't recall saying I presume any such thing.
What I recall saying, was this...
Aside from that, are the many inferences made which basically are made to represent a hypothesis, or idea.
The problems to the theory, namely the millions of missing transitions, have been "swept under the rug", and many "band=aids put on the sores", so in my view, the theory is actually like a broken toy, fixed up to look nice for the little children to come in and buy.

Once again, in order to possess examples of every "missing transition" would literally require us to possess a sample of every generation of every populations of organisms that has ever existed. You're asking the same thing.

The one who propose the theory in 1859 in his book "On the Origin of Species", is the one who acknowledged the many features of the theory that are missing, including the slow and gradual process.

You are aware Darwin was writing over 150 years ago, right?

You think nothing's been done since then?

Did I say something that isn't true?

Yes.

 

[ImmortalFlame]

I do understand how the fossil record is interpreted. Do you understand that?

Then please propose an explanation of the fossil record that has greater explanatory power and evidenciary support than the proposition that the fossil record shows a nested hierarchy that was produced via reproduction with variation over time.

I have heard the ifs before, and the theory is still standing.
On the Origin of Species
By the theory of natural selection all living species have been connected with the parent-species of each genus, by differences not greater than we see between the varieties of the same species at the present day; and these parent-species, now generally extinct, have in their turn been similarly connected with more ancient species; and so on backwards, always converging to the common ancestor of each great class. So that the number of intermediate and transitional links, between all living and extinct species, must have been inconceivably great. But assuredly, if this theory be true, such have lived upon this earth.

If it could be demonstrated that any complex organ existed, which could not possibly have been formed by numerous, successive, slight modifications, my theory would absolutely break down.

Once again, Darwin was writing over 150 years ago when he was merely PROPOSING his theory. Why are you still hung up on what he wrote when science has come so far that theory is no longer even called Darwinism?

Also, do you have any examples of an organism which could not possibly has formed by numerous, successive, slight modifications?

Sorry. I didn't mean to. I was quite tired at the time.
No, I don't believe species magically appear, fully formed, out of nothing.

Then please explain how a species can enter the fossil record "fully formed" and then "leaving it with little or no change", if they were not the result of a previous population reproducing.

 

[ImmortalFlame]

If you read the article on "Speciation" in Wiki e.g. what do you find? Organisms evolving into new organisms?...or simply a new variety produced through adaptation, in a single family of creatures.....whether or not they can interbreed is irrelevant.

Okay, Deeje, we need to sit down together and settle this once and for all. Let's start with a simple question:

What, to you, would constitute a "new organism"?

Please, be specific but as concise as you can be, and please do not bring up anything that isn't an answer to the question or isn't directly related to answering the question.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

You didn't know to whom the hat belongs.
The eyewitness tells you to whom it belongs.
If the guy isn't dead, he can confirm the story, and identify the hat.
If he is dead, at least you have an eyewitness, and his account of what happened, as well as the person it is claimed the hat belongs to... and we have the item of interest - the hat.
The next step, is to find if there are any more witnesses.

On the other hand...
If there are no eyewitness, but just the hat, you have nothing.
The next step is to look for clues that might help you find out more about this hat.
So you start looking for the best clue - hair.
What is the likelihood that you will find hair pulled from the head of the wearer? At that point, you say a prayer.

The Bible accounts have the testimony of many witnesses, who all point to, or identify the item of interest, as belonging to one person.
Doesn't mean we have to accept that they are all telling the truth, but we can determine if they are, by a simple test.
Did they all know each other? Did they collaborate?
If the answer can be shown to be no, then there is no reason to doubt their accounts... imo

Something to think about for you:

If you do find hairs in the hat and the dna doesn't match the person's who the "witness" claims the hat belongs to, the "witness" claims will be instantly dismissed.

Because real evidence beats mere claims any day of the week.

Because indeed, make no mistake, "testimony" really is just CLAIMS and nothing else.

 

[Deeje]

Okay, Deeje, we need to sit down together and settle this once and for all. Let's start with a simple question:

What, to you, would constitute a "new organism"?

Please, be specific but as concise as you can be, and please do not bring up anything that isn't an answer to the question or directly related to answering the question.

I guess this is where we get to talk about "kinds" being true to their taxonomy. A new variety is not a new organism....it is related to its specific family....an adapted variety is still true to its kind.

A new "species" is still a member of the same family.

It's when we get to the process where single celled organisms, that seemingly appeared out of nowhere, can transform themselves into every kind of creature that ever existed.....that is what seems to be glossed over.....ignored. How on earth can science do anything but guess about that period all those millions of years ago before taxonomies were even fixed? When no one was there to record anything....and fossils don't talk unless scientists put words in their mouth.

How do we go from a four legged land dweller to a whale with nothing but a similar earbone as evidence? Science suggests that it "might be" or "could be" possible. Does that mean it "must have" happened that way?

 

[Polymath257]

I guess this is where we get to talk about "kinds" being true to their taxonomy. A new variety is not a new organism....it is related to its specific family....an adapted variety is still true to its kind.

OK, so you find two populations animals (or plants). How do you determine whether or not they are of the same 'kind'?

We know how to determine if they are the same species (see if they interbreed).

What test is there to determine if they are the same kind?

Note that species are 'true to their taxonomy' in evolution: the whale that swims in the ocean is in the same taxonomy as that land animal with the same inner ear.

 

[ImmortalFlame]

I guess this is where we get to talk about "kinds" being true to their taxonomy. A new variety is not a new organism....it is related to its specific family....an adapted variety is still true to its kind.

A new "species" is still a member of the same family.

It's when we get to the process where single celled organisms, that seemingly appeared out of nowhere, can transform themselves into every kind of creature that ever existed.....that is what seems to be glossed over.....ignored. How on earth can science do anything but guess about that period all those millions of years ago before taxonomies were even fixed? When no one was there to record anything....and fossils don't talk unless scientists put words in their mouth.

How do we go from a four legged land dweller to a whale with nothing but a similar earbone as evidence? Science suggests that it "might be" or "could be" possible. Does that mean it "must have" happened that way?

Deeje, nothing you have written here is actually an answer to the question. All you have said is that it is "related to its specific family". That's basically meaningless.

Please, be specific and don't digress. Specify exactly what would constitute a "new organism" such that you can confidently say that no population has ever evolved into a "new organism".

 

[Deeje]

Deeje, nothing you have written here is actually an answer to the question. All you have said is that it is "related to its specific family". That's basically meaningless.

Please, be specific and don't digress. Specify exactly what would constitute a "new organism" such that you can confidently say that no population has ever evolved into a "new organism".

Can you answer my questions?

 

[Polymath257]

How do we go from a four legged land dweller to a whale with nothing but a similar earbone as evidence? Science suggests that it "might be" or "could be" possible. Does that mean it "must have" happened that way?

The similarity in the ear bone is one of the pieces of evidence. It is NOT the only piece of evidence.

On its own, the ear bone would strongly suggest a connection because we know what ear bones look like across species. But we have much more than that. We have a succession of fossil animals showing the transition from land animal to water animal, both in small increments and in successive time periods.

And *that* what shows it *did* happen that way. It isn't solely from the ear bone.

 

[Deeje]

OK, so you find two populations animals (or plants). How do you determine whether or not they are of the same 'kind'?

We know how to determine if they are the same species (see if they interbreed).

Can mules interbreed with other mules? Can ligers interbreed with other ligers? They are the same kind. How does it happen that sterility results in one generation.

Note that species are 'true to their taxonomy' in evolution: the whale that swims in the ocean is in the same taxonomy as that land animal with the same inner ear.

By what stretch of whose imagination are they of the same family?

 

[Deeje]

The similarity in the ear bone is one of the pieces of evidence. It is NOT the only piece of evidence.

On its own, the ear bone would strongly suggest a connection because we know what ear bones look like across species. But we have much more than that. We have a succession of fossil animals showing the transition from land animal to water animal, both in small increments and in successive time periods.

And *that* what shows it *did* happen that way. It isn't solely from the ear bone.

"Strongly suggests" is not fact. Suggestions are assertions.

 

[Polymath257]

Can mules interbreed with other mules? Can ligers interbreed with other ligers? They are the same kind. How does it happen that sterilitybresults in one generation.

Irrelevant to the question. How do you determine whether two populations are of the same kind?

By what stretch of whose imagination are they of the same family?

Well, for one, they are both mammals. They have similar skeletal structures that they share but that are NOT shared with other mammals.

What properties are you using to determine they are NOT the same family?

 

[Polymath257]

"Strongly suggests" is not fact. Suggestions are assertions.

Read the rest of the post. The ear bone is one piece of evidence that strongly suggests a connection. The rest of the evidence confirms it.

Would you do the same type of reasoning if you were on a jury? Well, that there was blood that matches the victim's blood on the defendant, that the defendant owned a gun and bullets match the wear pattern of those that killed the victim, that we have footprints that match the defendants shoes at the location where the victim died, well that could all be circumstantial. No contrary evidence has been given, but it didn't *have* to be that the defendant killed the victim.

So you acquit?

 

[ImmortalFlame]

Can you answer my questions?

I've asked you a question first, can you please answer it?

I specifically asked you to answer my question and not digress.

 

[ImmortalFlame]

Can mules interbreed with other mules? Can ligers interbreed with other ligers? They are the same kind. How does it happen that sterility results in one generation.

That's not an answer to their question either, Deeje.

 

[nPeace]

You earlier said:
"The fossil record shows all major life forms arriving on the scene, fully formed, and leaving the scene with little or no change."
If these major life forms didn't just appear out of nowhere "fully formed", then where did they come from?

You tell me.

That's irrelevant. We're discussing how life changes over time, not how it started, and #1 only deals with COMPLEX living things, not simple living things.

We are? I think there should be a correction there. You are.
Your #1 said, quote : "The only known and understood mechanism of complex living things coming into existence is reproduction,... end quote.
So now what simple living things are you excluding? So that I can be on the same page as you are.

Yes, it does. You can deny that if you want, but you would be objectively wrong.

That's not what I wrote. Perhaps you can respond to what I wrote before erecting a strawman.

Do you or do you not agree that the only currently known mechanism that produces complex life forms is reproduction?

I think you created the strawman, from the start... and this is a strawman.... and a distraction.

Once again, in order to possess examples of every "missing transition" would literally require us to possess a sample of every generation of every populations of organisms that has ever existed. You're asking the same thing.

I don't recall saying anything about every missing transition. There's an obvious strawman.

You are aware Darwin was writing over 150 years ago, right?

You think nothing's been done since then?

Another strawman.

Yes.

What?