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

[Jose Fly]

What if person B engages person A not with the primary intent of debating person A and showing them to be wrong... Is person B being competitive?

I guess it would depend on what the actual primary intent of person B is.

 

[nPeace]

I guess it would depend on what the actual primary intent of person B is.

Person B was in a discussion with person K. Person A came in on Topic T, and there were two different views. Person A is trying to show person B his view which he argues is a fact. Person B does not believe that what Person A is saying is a fact is true. Therefore, a back and forth debate on the topic continues.
Person A asks person B, why he is continue the debate on the topic. It seem to me person A expects person B to stop, and say, "okay", which would be like saying, "Yes, what you say is a fact". So person A responds by saying, "Because you are adamant that you are right, and I know I can show you are wrong. so whether you admit you are wrong or not, I will present the proof that you are wrong." Basically Person A just intends to present information that would show that what person A is saying is fact, is not true. Yes, it would prove person A wrong, but person B's prime motive is to show that person A's assertion is false. It is not about competing, but simply proving the other person's assertion to be false.

I think those who go to great lengths to argue, and pull up data to prove their argument, are doing so in order to prove that they are right, even if they deny it, and claim otherwise.

May I ask, did you join RF to teach and educate people about what they may not know?
May I ask, did you join RF to convince persons into having a different view?

 

[Jose Fly]

Person B was in a discussion with person K. Person A came in on Topic T, and there were two different views. Person A is trying to show person B his view which he argues is a fact. Person B does not believe that what Person A is saying is a fact is true.
Therefore, a back and forth debate on the topic continues.
Person A asks person B, why he is continue the debate on the topic. It seem to me person A expects person B to stop, and say, "okay", which would be like saying, "Yes, what you say is a fact". So person A responds by saying, "Because you are adamant that you are right, and I know I can show you are wrong. so whether you admit you are wrong or not, I will present the proof that you are wrong." Basically Person A just intends to present information that would show that what person A is saying is fact, is not true. Yes, it would prove person A wrong, but person B's prime motive is to show that person A's assertion is false. It is not about competing, but simply proving the other person's assertion to be false.

I think those who go to great lengths to argue, and pull up data to prove their argument, are doing so in order to prove that they are right, even if they deny it, and claim otherwise.

Exactly. I didn't come into this thread all like "YOU'RE WRONG nPEACE!!!!" Rather my first post was more like "Here's some additional information on the material you cited", which then set off our discussion. I never once thought of my purpose in this thread as being about proving you wrong.

OTOH, you specifically stated your goal here was to show me to be wrong.

May I ask, did you join RF to teach and educate people about what they may not know?
May I ask, did you join RF to convince persons into having a different view?

I don't ever expect to persuade anyone in internet forums. I don't think such places are conducive to that sort of thing at all.

As far as educating people.....eh.....maybe, if the person is open to it. I know I've learned a lot from these sorts of discussions, which I consider to be a good thing, so I hope others will do the same.

What about you? Are you here to teach and educate? Are you hoping to persuade?

 

[nPeace]

Exactly. I didn't come into this thread all like "YOU'RE WRONG nPEACE!!!!" Rather my first post was more like "Here's some additional information on the material you cited", which then set off our discussion. I never once thought of my purpose in this thread as being about proving you wrong.

OTOH, you specifically stated your goal here was to show me to be wrong.


I don't ever expect to persuade anyone in internet forums. I don't think such places are conducive to that sort of thing at all.

As far as educating people.....eh.....maybe, if the person is open to it. I know I've learned a lot from these sorts of discussions, which I consider to be a good thing, so I hope others will do the same.

What about you? Are you here to teach and educate? Are you hoping to persuade?

I didn't really get an answer that I can be clear on you know.
Is it possible that I can get a yes or no answer, or is it a bit difficult to express that way?

 

[Jose Fly]

I didn't really get an answer that I can be clear on you know.
Is it possible that I can get a yes or no answer, or is it a bit difficult to express that way?

Okay, let me try again.

"Did you join RF to teach and educate people about what they may not know?" No.

"Did you join RF to convince persons into having a different view?" No.

 

[nPeace]

Okay, let me try again.

"Did you join RF to teach and educate people about what they may not know?" No.

"Did you join RF to convince persons into having a different view?" No.

Are you here to teach and educate? Are you hoping to persuade?
I joined RF primarily to engage in spiritual discussion - not with any intent to teach and educate - with respect to RF rules, but of course to share.

I soon realized it was very tempting to engage in a range of other subject matter, so I found myself caught up in those quite frequently - especially since it was much easier to push someone to prove what they were saying, rather than they just repeat opinions, with no backing.

Thanks.

 

[Jose Fly]

Are you here to teach and educate? Are you hoping to persuade?
I joined RF primarily to engage in spiritual discussion - not with any intent to teach and educate - with respect to RF rules, but of course to share.

I soon realized it was very tempting to engage in a range of other subject matter, so I found myself caught up in those quite frequently - especially since it was much easier to push someone to prove what they were saying, rather than they just repeat opinions, with no backing.

Thanks.

Seems entirely reasonable to me.

 

[nPeace]

Seems entirely reasonable to me.

I think so.

 

[tas8831]

In the meantime... just keep in mind that there are many new studies being carried out, all revealing basically the same thing.
19 March 2010

'Junk' DNA gets credit for making us who we are - That stuff is useful after all
Unlike the a priori approach which led to the conclusion that 98% of the genome is useless, these studies are based on experiment and observation.

In the meantime, there is this pub from 2014:

PLoS Genet. 2014 May; 10(5): e1004351.
Published online 2014 May 8. doi: 10.1371/journal.pgen.1004351
PMCID: PMC4014423
PMID: 24809441
The Case for Junk DNA

Concluding Remarks
For decades, there has been considerable interest in determining what role, if any, the majority of the DNA in eukaryotic genomes plays in organismal development and physiology. The ENCODE data are only the most recent contribution to a long-standing research program that has sought to address this issue. However, evidence casting doubt that most of the human genome possesses a functional role has existed for some time. This is not to say that none of the nonprotein-coding majority of the genome is functional—examples of functional noncoding sequences have been known for more than half a century, and even the earliest proponents of “junk DNA” and “selfish DNA” predicted that further examples would be found. Nevertheless, they also pointed out that evolutionary considerations, information regarding genome size diversity, and knowledge about the origins and features of genomic components do not support the notion that all of the DNA must have a function by virtue of its mere existence. Nothing in the recent research or commentary on the subject has challenged these observations.

 

[gnostic]

I joined RF primarily to engage in spiritual discussion - not with any intent to teach and educate - with respect to RF rules, but of course to share.

If you really wanted discussions and not debates, then why are you in the Debate sections of RF, and why do you deliberately started topics in the “Evolution Vs Creationism” or in “Science and Religion”?

If you don’t want people to disagree with you, or put your religious belief under scrutiny then post in the Discussion sections.

 

[nPeace]

If you really wanted discussions and not debates, then why are you in the Debate sections of RF, and why do you deliberately started topics in the “Evolution Vs Creationism” or in “Science and Religion”?

If you don’t want people to disagree with you, or put your religious belief under scrutiny then post in the Discussion sections.

You read that? I sure didn't write what you have cooked up... I don't want to assume your motives. I'm sure you know.

 

[SA Huguenot]

From the linked article...
"The most important conclusion scientists have made is that Australopithecus anamensis coexisted for at least 100,000 years with its descendant species, Australopithecus afarensis, debunking the previous theory that evolution was simply linear over time.

I can't speak to how they identified it & the others.
But it's clear that they don't think it's just any ape.

"

naturally they wont like to call it by what it is...and Ape...
Then they would not get funding, publish bulldung books, become famous...
it is too boring ....

 

[Revoltingest]

naturally they wont like to call it by what it is...and Ape...
Then they would not get funding, publish bulldung books, become famous...
it is too boring ....

Whatever the name, tis the features differentiating one critter from others
over time which matters. But to call every kind of hominid over many eons
simply "ape" would be less useful than giving each its own name.

By analogy, while the layman might call every kind of sheet metal "tin",
it's useful for those of keener mind to differentiate between the various
metals & alloys, eg, galvanized steel, anodized aluminum.
Still....HVAC guys are "tin knockers".

 

[metis]

naturally they wont like to call it by what it is...and Ape...

Absolutely false as we well know that different characteristics that differentiate the two even back then.

Even when Leaky first saw the jawbone he knew he had likely found an early human, and many other subsequent finds have confirmed that. His use of the terminology "Dawn Ape" [i.e. "Australopithecus"] was in reference to a new "ape" as our ancestors evolved out of earlier form(s) of them.

From Wiki:
Australopithecus species played a significant part in human evolution, the genus Homo being derived from Australopithecus at some time after three million years ago. In addition, they were the first hominids to possess certain genes, known as the duplicated SRGAP2, which increased the length and ability of neurons in the brain. One of the australopith species evolved into the genus Homo in Africa around two million years ago (e.g. Homo habilis), and eventually modern humans, H. sapiens sapiens... -- Australopithecus - Wikipedia

 

[Jose Fly]

In the meantime, there is this pub from 2014:

PLoS Genet. 2014 May; 10(5): e1004351.
Published online 2014 May 8. doi: 10.1371/journal.pgen.1004351
PMCID: PMC4014423
PMID: 24809441
The Case for Junk DNA

Concluding Remarks
For decades, there has been considerable interest in determining what role, if any, the majority of the DNA in eukaryotic genomes plays in organismal development and physiology. The ENCODE data are only the most recent contribution to a long-standing research program that has sought to address this issue. However, evidence casting doubt that most of the human genome possesses a functional role has existed for some time. This is not to say that none of the nonprotein-coding majority of the genome is functional—examples of functional noncoding sequences have been known for more than half a century, and even the earliest proponents of “junk DNA” and “selfish DNA” predicted that further examples would be found. Nevertheless, they also pointed out that evolutionary considerations, information regarding genome size diversity, and knowledge about the origins and features of genomic components do not support the notion that all of the DNA must have a function by virtue of its mere existence. Nothing in the recent research or commentary on the subject has challenged these observations.

Thanks for posting that. @nPeace if you're still interested in this subject, I highly recommend you read this paper.

 

[nPeace]

Thanks for posting that. @nPeace if you're still interested in this subject, I highly recommend you read this paper.

I don't understand what you mean. Are you referring to the topic in the OP, or the theory of evolution? Are you referring to the Wiki article above your post?

 

[Jose Fly]

I don't understand what you mean. Are you referring to the topic in the OP, or the theory of evolution? Are you referring to the Wiki article above your post?

I mean, if you're still interested in the subject of junk DNA, you read the paper Tas posted: CLICK HERE

 

[nPeace]

I mean, if you're still interested in the subject of junk DNA, you read the paper Tas posted: CLICK HERE

Thanks, but wasn't that one of the articles I linked?
So you know tas is on my ignore list, so if you think he has anything you consider useful, feel free to do what you did here... post it.

 

[Jose Fly]

Thanks, but wasn't that one of the articles I linked?

It may have been.

So you know tas is on my ignore list, so if you think he has anything you consider useful, feel free to do what you did here... post it.

Will do.

 

[tas8831]

Thanks, but wasn't that one of the articles I linked?
So you know tas is on my ignore list, so if you think he has anything you consider useful, feel free to do what you did here... post it.

LOL!

Of course - I guess if someone had totally humiliated me on an issue that I brought up, I'd ignore them, too!