The Evolution Chamber: Early Fossil Record

[Polymath257]

Does an ape become a man? What is a mule? Did the light colored Pepper Moth Exist with the dark colored Pepper Moth? Did pollution cause an evolutionary change in the case of the Pepper Moth or did evolution?

Do you realize that the changes due to pollution are an example of evolution?

 

[exchemist]

Imagination with photographs... Clever

Yes this in fact is an example of the sort of observational prediction that a good theory of science makes. The theory said there should be fossils that show this sort of progression, if we can only find them. A bit like Prof Higgs, and his boson, which remained undiscovered for so long. And now we do have some of these fossils. Nice pics.

 

[Audie]

Tsk tskt, breaking the Ninth Commandment.

Now now, that may well be a very exactly how he
sees it. No 9th involved.

The word "facile" comes to mind, perhaps
"facile with extreme prejudice".

He has let us know he went to a very poor
school where they evidently taught no science
at all. Memorize (shove down throat, in a
certain crude phrase) things and regurg
for test, with no understanding at all.

That lack of understanding is obvious.

It is clear enough that none of our creationists
here understand much if any science.

Look how many times people say that Pasteur
disproved abio! That is wrong and uninformed
in so many ways, it makes your head spin.

But they really think that, because they really
dont know any better. And as a rule, dont want
to.

It is not lying to say Pasteur disproved abio,
or that human evolution is all just "speculation".
It is clear-thru-to-the-bone, and back- out -the-
other- side ignorance.

A normal person who'd done his diligence could not
say something like "speculation" or "pasteur
disproved.." with a straight face, would not say
it at all because they would know they were
lying.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Now now, that may well be a very exactly how he
sees it. No 9th involved.

The word "facile" comes to mind, perhaps
"facile with extreme prejudice".

He has let us know he went to a very poor
school where they evidently taught no science
at all. Memorize (shove down throat, in a
certain crude phrase) things and regurg
for test, with no understanding at all.

That lack of understanding is obvious.

It is clear enough that none of our creationists
here understand much if any science.

Look how many times people say that Pasteur
disproved abio! That is wrong and uninformed
in so many ways, it makes your head spin.

But they really think that, because they really
dont know any better. And as a rule, dont want
to.

It is not lying to say Pasteur disproved abio,
or that human evolution is all just "speculation".
It is clear-thru-to-the-bone, and back- out -the-
other- side ignorance.

A normal person who'd done his diligence could not
say something like "speculation" or "pasteur
disproved.." with a straight face, would not say
it at all because they would know they were
lying.

He may not be lying, but he is still breaking the Ninth. It is overly simplistic to see that as a ban on lying. It is a ban on bearing false witness against others. That means that if a person says something negative against another and it was not true that is bearing false witness whether one believes it or not. It is essentially warning one to be very careful when saying bad things about others.

 

[Audie]

He may not be lying, but he is still breaking the Ninth. It is overly simplistic to see that as a ban on lying. It is a ban on bearing false witness against others. That means that if a person says something negative against another and it was not true that is bearing false witness whether one believes it or not. It is essentially warning one to be very careful when saying bad things about others.

Who knows what it rally means, everyone has his own take.

Spreading falsehoods-

Whether is is deliberate or negligent
in some ways it is the same thing

I'd think as a matter of self respect one might try doing
his diligence, even if he has so little regard for integrity
or showing some respect for others that lying
is otherwise acceptable.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Who knows what it rally means, everyone has his own take.

Spreading falsehoods-

Whether is is deliberate or negligent
in some ways it is the same thing

I'd think as a matter of self respect one might try doing
his diligence, even if he has so little regard for integrity
or showing some respect for others that lying
is otherwise acceptable.

For some Christians lying for Jesus is always acceptable. That is all that an argument against the theory of evolution often becomes.

 

[Audie]

You think that is so?

I have heard the equivalent is true for
Islam, but I am not so sure that any
but the aforementioned cynical AIG
sorts are knowingly lying.

Maybe one of our creationists would like
to clarify.

 

[Subduction Zone]

You think that is so?

I have heard the equivalent is true for
Islam, but I am not so sure that any
but the aforementioned cynical AIG
sorts are knowingly lying.

Maybe one of our creationists would like
to clarify.

They may not openly say that, but it is hard to imagine how they do not know that they are making false claims. I suppose being delusional is a third excuse.

 

[Audie]

They may not openly say that, but it is hard to imagine how they do not know that they are making false claims. I suppose being delusional is a third excuse.

"Delusional"is a bit of name calling we see on both
sides, lib / con, or whatevs.

I dont find it hard to imagine how it is done. First,
they KNOW the bible is true, and that all in opposition
is perforce false.

Also, the people on their side (AIG, Chick, etc) are
on the side of truth and goodness, and would not
lie to them. No need to, if you are right.

Many think that those on the side of ToE are
actually dupes of Satan. TCOSSTSTTOTB
members. In the event anything to support
evolution is by definition false.

Combine that with being of the low information set,
not especially skilled thinking, it goes round and
round and comes out as it does.

I really dont think a person saying that Pasteur
disproved abio is deliberately lying. They
just are confused, and since abio is wrong
anyway, a minor error, should there be one,
is still on the side of the angels.

 

[Revoltingest]

Have they?

If one reads popular mags like National Geographic or Smithsonian, such finds are regularly reported.

 

[Audie]

If one reads popular mags like National Geographic or Smithsonian, such finds are regularly reported.

In Darwin's time, paleontology such as it was, was basically
a casual hobby for a few rich eccentrics.

A lot has changed since Darwin We have like airplanes
and computers now.

Pretty remarkable that someone could feel equipped to
challenge ToE while so ill informed and incurious as to be unaware that an awful lot of paleontology has been done in the last hundred and some years.

 

[Revoltingest]

In Darwin's time, paleontology such as it was, was basically
a casual hobby for a few rich eccentrics.

A lot has changed since Darwin We have like airplanes
and computers now.

Pretty remarkable that someone could feel equipped to
challenge ToE while so ill informed and incurious as to be unaware that an awful lot of paleontology has been done in the last hundred and some years.

Challenging the TOE is easy.
Just say "Improbable!", "Fraud!", "Piltdown Man", & finally "Hitler!".
The last one is no mere Godwin Law realization because it's oft
claimed that he used evolution to justify his master race agenda.

 

[Audie]

Easier than that to challenge.

I could challenge the Williams sisters
to a tennis match.

 

[Revoltingest]

Easier than that to challenge.

I could challenge the Williams sisters
to a tennis match.

You strike me as someone who could actually win.

 

[Audie]

You strike me as someone who could actually win.

"I'm not the kind of girl who gives up just like that."

 

[Jose Fly]

"The early theories of human evolution are really very odd, if one stops to look at them. David Pilbeam has described the early theories as ‘fossil-free.’ That is, here were theories about human evolution that one would think would require some fossil evidence, but in fact there were either so few fossils that they exerted no influence on the theory, or there were no fossils at all.

That is correct. Over a century ago there was little to no fossil evidence to support human-primate common ancestry.

So between man’s supposed closest relatives and the early human fossils, there was only the imagination of nineteenth century scientists." - The Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists, "Fifty Years of Studies on Human Evolution," by Sherwood Washburn, May 1982, pp. 37, 41

Sorry, but not everyone is subject to such black/white thinking, where there's either fossil evidence or no evidence at all. At the very least, early ideas about human-primate common ancestry extended from evidence related to shared anatomies, the nested hierarchy of primate species, and biogeography. The latter is what led Darwin to accurately predict that humans evolved from Africa.

 

[Thermos aquaticus]

Little to no evidence needed. Just the imagination of scientists.

These don't appear to be imaginations:

 

[shunyadragon]

"The early theories of human evolution are really very odd, if one stops to look at them. David Pilbeam has described the early theories as ‘fossil-free.’ That is, here were theories about human evolution that one would think would require some fossil evidence, but in fact there were either so few fossils that they exerted no influence on the theory, or there were no fossils at all. So between man’s supposed closest relatives and the early human fossils, there was only the imagination of nineteenth century scientists." - The Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists, "Fifty Years of Studies on Human Evolution," by Sherwood Washburn, May 1982, pp. 37, 41

You claim there is a problem of limited evidence for Darwin to propose a Theory of Evolution in the first 50 years. Well, ah . . . this is common in science. For example, when Einstein proposed his original Theory of Relativity he had very little objective evidence, probably none, to support his proposal. It was based mostly on math trying to resolve problems with the properties of light that could not be explained by conventional physics. In fact the early research to confirm Einstein's work was flawed and did not in reality work involving an eclipse in 1919, even though it appeared to confirm Einstein's work. It was later work and research that confirmed Einstein's work and theories.

Einstein's work was primarily based on the desire to resolve problems with the behavior of light initially based on limited evidence. Darwin's proposal for the relationship between the ancestry of animals was based on the problems of how to resolve these similarities in science, and of course, initially based on limited evidence.

 

[Audie]

Maybe the roth is gone forever again.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Maybe the roth is gone forever again.

Sure, go ahead and yell "Beetlejuice" at the top of your lungs.