This thread is dedicated to first going over the basics of science and working up to evolution.

[Astrophile]

And why must we have had ancestors that lived during the Pliocene and earlier epochs?

For the same reason that I know that you must have had great-great-grandparents. Every living thing comes from another living thing of the same kind; living things don't come into existence by spontaneous generation. Our ancestry doesn't fade out as one goes back into the past, only our knowledge of it does.

Do you accept that there was a Pliocene epoch between about 5.3 and 1.8 million years ago, and that plants and animals (including apes, but not including humans) lived during that time? If so, where did the first (Pleistocene) humans come from; were they produced by spontaneous generation or were they descended from non-human Pliocene ancestors? I could ask similar questions about the time before the first apes, or the first whales, or the first equids, or the first birds, or the first dinosaurs, or the first trilobites, etc.

But since according to your perspective evolution is fact and evolution involves both the theory of universal common descent or ancestry and the mechanisms by which change occurs over time, can you explain the mechanisms and chemical changes needed to change body plans along the descent pathway between the australopithecus brain and the present human brain?

No, I can't, because I'm not a biologist. However, you could probably find out by reading books about the subject or by taking a university course in evolutionary biology, although they would need to be fairly high-powered books.

If you were to ask me whether I could explain the details of the structure of, for example, a glycine molecule, and its energy levels, and the rules governing the permitted and forbidden transitions between the energy levels and the intensities and widths of the spectral lines resulting from these transitions, I should have to say 'No'. Would you then maintain that quantum theory and the whole theory of molecular structure and spectroscopy were false?

 

[InChrist]

I deny that life or the natural world has any connection to a designer, but I'm not an atheist. So what evolution do I use? Atheistic or some other kind?

Atheistic evolution, you just have a case of cognitive dissonance going on by holding contradictory beliefs if you are a Catholic.

 

[Rational Agnostic]

So where to start. I have yet to meed a creationist that understands the scientific method. At best they copy and paste a poorly worded definition. To start I will use a very simplified flow chart of the scientific method and discuss the different parts of it:

Steps of the Scientific Method

And please, anyone that has a science based education please feel free to contribute. I know that I will be making some mistakes.

I really like this thread. Hope some creationists are willing to learn.

 

[InChrist]

(The fact you refer to a "pathway" suggests you don't have a great handle on evolution, btw)

Really...

Evolution of complexity in signaling pathways
http://www.pnas.org/content/103/44/16337

Chapter 7Evolution of Central Metabolic Pathways: The Playground of Non-Orthologous Gene Displacement
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/books/NBK20266/

Directed evolution of metabolic pathways
//www.cell.com/trends/biotechnology/fulltext/S0167-7799(05)00298-2?code=cell-site

 

[Subduction Zone]

Atheistic evolution, you just have a case of cognitive dissonance going on by holding contradictory beliefs if you are a Catholic.

You really should not accuse others of your sin.

 

[Subduction Zone]

I really like this thread. Hope some creationists are willing to learn.

Thanks, so far no luck.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Really...

Evolution of complexity in signaling pathways
Evolution of complexity in signaling pathways

Chapter 7Evolution of Central Metabolic Pathways: The Playground of Non-Orthologous Gene Displacement
Evolution of Central Metabolic Pathways: The Playground of Non-Orthologous Gene Displacement - Sequence - Evolution - Function - NCBI Bookshelf

Directed evolution of metabolic pathways
//www.cell.com/trends/biotechnology/fulltext/S0167-7799(05)00298-2?code=cell-site

Equivocation fallacy, try again.

 

[InChrist]

You are aware the there are many scientists who specialize in understanding how bones fit together. For example you have a head. Your head is heavy. If you try to keep your head perpendicular (like a dog) rather than upright, very soon your neck will hurt. That is because your spine enters your skull in such a fashion that the weight of the head is best balanced in top of spine when you are upright. On the other hand the spine of a dog enters its head in such a way that its head is best balanced when it's body is parallel to the ground. Chimps, who knuckle walk, also have a spinal opening such that the head is best balanced when it is on all fours.

But for Lucy, the spinal entry is like that of an upright walking human. Similarly, the hip joint structure makes it best suited to bipedal walking. So on and so forth. These are the kind of things anatomists are experts in. Further we can create casts of the bone and see for ourselves, in what position they would interact most smoothly with each other, where the stress and strains are, etc. These experiments tell us how the skeleton was organized and hence makes scientific reconstruction an outcome of the scientific method.

Yes, there are many scientists who specialize in fitting bones together. Nevertheless, license can be taken with the reconstruction of the available bones and/or fragments, apart from the scientific method to fit their preconceived ideas or conclusions. Australopithicus, more realistically reveal diversity of apes, not evolution or man’s supposed ancestry,

 

[InChrist]

Equivocation fallacy, try again.

No, I am simply pointing out the use of the word pathway is appropriate for a discussion involving evolution. It would be nice if you don't side-track me. I have been extremely busy and still am, but hope to get back to some of the past posts with responses.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Yes, there are many scientists who specialize in fitting bones together. Nevertheless, license can be taken with the reconstruction of the available bones and/or fragments, apart from the scientific method to fit their preconceived ideas or conclusions. Australopithicus, more realistically reveal diversity of apes, not evolution or man’s supposed ancestry,

Prove it. Find some peer reviewed work that supports this claim.

 

[Revoltingest]

Hope some creationists are willing to learn.

I'm sure no creationist would see that as patronizing.

 

[Subduction Zone]

No, I am simply pointing out the use of the word pathway is appropriate for a discussion involving evolution. It would be nice if you don't side-track me. I have been extremely busy and still am, but hope to get back to some of the past posts with responses.

You failed because they used the phrase in a totally different sense than you did. You performed an equivocation fallacy.

 

[Subduction Zone]

I'm sure no creationist would see that as patronizing.

Sadly they have earned that sort of attitude.

 

[Revoltingest]

Prove it. Find some peer reviewed work that supports this claim.

The poster has a valid point about agenda laden reconstruction.
Before the modern bird hipped view of dinosaurs, some were
reconstructed with splayed legs. But I think his criticism is
outdated, now that methods are greatly improved, & more data
is available.

Btw, double post above this one.

 

[Kangaroo Feathers]

Atheistic evolution, you just have a case of cognitive dissonance going on by holding contradictory beliefs if you are a Catholic.

Not remotely. There's no contradiction between evolution and Catholicism.

 

[Kangaroo Feathers]

Really...

Evolution of complexity in signaling pathways
Evolution of complexity in signaling pathways

Chapter 7Evolution of Central Metabolic Pathways: The Playground of Non-Orthologous Gene Displacement
Evolution of Central Metabolic Pathways: The Playground of Non-Orthologous Gene Displacement - Sequence - Evolution - Function - NCBI Bookshelf

Directed evolution of metabolic pathways
//www.cell.com/trends/biotechnology/fulltext/S0167-7799(05)00298-2?code=cell-site

Metabolic pathways are not evolutionary "pathways". Thanks for reinforcing my point.

 

[InChrist]

You failed because they used the phrase in a totally different sense than you did. You performed an equivocation fallacy.

It doesn't matter if the phrase is used in a different sense. Human beings are much more than just bones. If evolution as you are proposing happened, i.e. human and apes have common ancestry and Lucy is an example of this then the metabolic pathways and chemical basis of the evolutionary mechanisms must be seen also.

Humans alone have the capacity for art, music, advanced communication, advanced mathematics and spirituality. Therefore, if the common descent model is accurate, there would have to have been a massive and presently unexplainable infusion (intrinsic and/or extrinsic) along the proposed descent pathway between australopithicus and modern humans. If it were an intrinsic infusion, then the requisite anatomical or chemical differences between the modern human brain and other hominid brains are presently indiscernible and unfathomable. And the chemical basis of the evolutionary mechanisms for such changes is both unknown and presently immeasurable.
So where is the evidence of the mechanisms needed to reveal change along the descent pathway between the australopithicus brain and modern human brains if humans were indeed commonly descended as predicted by the theory of common ancestry? Bones are not adequate to show this, therefore I don't think Lucy is evidence to show apes and humans share common ancestry.

 

[Subduction Zone]

It doesn't matter if the phrase is used in a different sense. Human beings are much more than just bones. If evolution as you are proposing happened, i.e. human and apes have common ancestry and Lucy is an example of this then the metabolic pathways and chemical basis of the evolutionary mechanisms must be seen also.
Humans alone have the capacity for art, music, advanced communication, advanced mathematics and spirituality. Therefore, if the common descent model is accurate, there would have to have been a massive and presently unexplainable infusion (intrinsic and/or extrinsic) along the proposed descent pathway between australopithicus and modern humans. If it were an intrinsic infusion, then the requisite anatomical or chemical differences between the modern human brain and other hominid brains are presently indiscernible and unfathomable. And the chemical basis of the evolutionary mechanisms for such changes is both unknown and presently immeasurable.
So where is the evidence of the mechanisms needed to reveal change along the descent pathway between the australopithicus brain and modern human brains if humans were indeed commonly descended as predicted by the theory of common ancestry? Bones are not adequate to show this, therefore I don't think Lucy is evidence to show apes and humans share common ancestry.

Gibberish and a special pleading fallacy.

I thought that you were going to try to be honest here.

 

[InChrist]

You really should not accuse others of your sin.

"Sin"? Does that word have any meaning to you?

 

[InChrist]

Gibberish and a special pleading fallacy.

I thought that you were going to try to be honest here.

Not gibberish...Reality. I think you simply have already closed your mind.