What does the fossil record say?

[newhope101]

Originally Posted by newhope101
I appreciate that all evo modelling is biased.

Dirty Penguin Quote:I see you're still peddling this word and haven't a clue as to what it means. Your religious view of the diversity of life is biased. It precludes you from accepting any evidence that would contradict it. You give people the impression that those biologist who accept the fact of evolution are some how non-theist and have an agenda. If so this is far from the truth. There are plenty of theist biologist who are simply presenting what the current evidence suggest (i.e Ken Miller). If this is not what you're insinuating then I'd like to know how you come to the conclusion that the field of non-theist and theist biologist are biased.
You are similarly biased. If you know anything about your computer modelling then I do not need to educate you. They are all based on probabilities for a start, ancestry is presumed by comparisons against model species, the results change as you enter new data based on finds. Hence they are no more than theoretical, changeable and in my opinion nonsense.
Originally Posted by newhope101
In relation to my evidence...do you really think that I am going to accept the flimsy refutes put up to it or anything for that matter from researchers that cannot agree amongst themselves on major issues eg birds and other links.

You should considering you've been shown to be incorrect pretty much every step of the way (i.e. birds and bird like creatures). It's not surprising though. You've presented no empirical evidence of "God" nor that this god, out of the thousands of gods in various cultures, is the one responsible for "creation"....
Oh no I am not wrong. Don't ever think not geting back to something means I think I am wrong. I am not wrong. I prove my point and when the asides start rolling in I know I have won the day. The last word here means nothing other than being an illustration of people that are here all day and have no life and nothing better to do.

Your researchers found footprints that predate the ancestors they were meant to have evolved from. That is a fact my dear, acknowledged by your own researchers. They had 'modern traits'. That says it all to me. The 'from unknown dinos' is exactly the kind of thing your researchers do when they are befuddled. Then you have researchers saying birds did not come from dinos at all. Hence your research is as clear as mud. That is the fact, lovey! You may aside and ignore to your hearts content but that will not change the facts.
Originally Posted by newhope101
It is just that many "toe faith" holders here are religious biggots and outdated in their attitudes as far as the advanced western world is concerned.

Insults can be a way to deflect ones shortcomings. You should try and work on that. But just so you know...if I'm to be branded a " religious bigot" then at least I'm consitent in my bigotry. I'm a non believer in all gods and supernatural claims from every religion on the planet. I'd rather be a Consistent Bigot than a hypocritical bigot.
The insults were aimed at 'some'. However if the cap fits I welcome you to wear it.
Originally Posted by newhope101
ScienceDaily (Feb. 16, 2011) — "Too simple" and "not so fast" suggest biological anthropologists from the George Washington University and New York University about the origins of human ancestry. In the upcoming issue of the journal Nature, the anthropologists question the claims that several prominent fossil discoveries made in the last decade are our human ancestors. Instead, the authors offer a more nuanced explanation of the fossils' place in the Tree of Life. They conclude that instead of being our ancestors the fossils more likely belong to extinct distant cousins.

What part of this article should I be disagreeing with? Should I also disagree with,


You need to acknowledge that your researcher do not have a clue. And this nonsense that is put up as evidence is debated by very well credentialed researchers. This one reckons your classifications are wrong re human lineage. I agree. Not unlike the bird debarkle, you have researchers again looking at the same evidence and coming up with different hypothesis. You will continue to lie in bed with these guys because they remain evos and offer alternative theories. So if one dismisses the evidence for any status quo, as these researchers have, but are still evos, then they are OK according to you. But a creationist that dismisses the evidence as unconvincing is 'misguided' are stupid are they? Are you intelligent enough to see the hypocricy?

Here is another little tidbit for you to ignore and take aside, from yet another researcher saying some of your assumptions are yet again wrong. There is no end to this stuff.

Simple marine worms distantly related to humans

Professor Telford said: "We can no longer consider the acoelomorphs as an intermediate between simple groups such as jelly fish and the rest of the animals. This means that we have no living representative of this stage of evolution: the missing link has gone missing!"


The straw grabbing will never end.

Originally Posted by newhope101
So basically this research supports my assertion that many of your fossils, such as Ardi, that are meant to be human ancestors, are nothing more than varieties of non-human primates, some of which are now extinct. It appears that these are arguing woodlands or not and this is the basis of whether or not Ardi is in the human or gorilla line. Seriously, this is commic strip level entertainment.

While scientific nuances are debated on....and debated on (ALL THE TIME) in (ALL FIELDS OF SCIENCE)....it's clear they agree that humans and primates share a common ancestors....
Of course they are. Now you are truly showing a lack of education and insight! Again same evidence, different hypothesis and as clear as mud.
Was Israel the birthplace of modern humans?

Out of arid Africa: debate heats up on whether climate change sparks evolutionary outbursts. - Free Online Library

So now you have homo sapiens in Isreal 400,000ya. Mmmm! this appear to put the creation of mankind where they should be!

BTW your geological strata timescales are also inaccurate, just like the molecular clock and the constant mutaton rate, but that's another story. New earthers may yet win the day.
Chapter 17 FOSSILS AND STRATA Part 5



Do you have a link that shows you can make a human female from the genetic material of a human male?
YEP! There is a 0.5% humans variation, when copy numbers are included. However using a similar comparison Humans and chimps have a 30% variation. If you drop all the straw grabbing one can easily see that even with biased ancestrally presumptive modelling the gap between humans and chimps is huge.
Human genetic variation - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Chimpanzee genome project - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is the sort of data that needs to hit the headlines, not your straw grabbing 1% human/chimp variation.

Even if your strata info is on track, the creation is staged also. What the fossil record does not show is the gradualism Darwin expected. Hence punctuated equilibrium. Darwins theory is long dead. You are all trying to resussitate a corpse with any straw available to keep your faith alive. That is certainly the way it appears to me.

This is fine except many of you have no respect for those that have made an informed alternative choice of faith. People that hate religionists are religious biggots, and if the hat fits one needs to wear it. To not accept anothers view is one thing, but to hate religionists is biggotry and very outdated in todays western world.

Q. What does the fossil record say?
A. Darwin was wrong.

 

[newhope101]

Paintedwolf please cite your research. I'll bet without even knowing what the hell your speaking to, that any life made in the lab involved the addition of an already living cell.

Otherwise you will appear to be a desperate liar! Please quote this amazing research I'd say you have again misrepresented.

I'd also like to know what it is about prions and virons that you expect me to answer.

A prion (pronounced /ˈpriː.ɒn/ (

listen)[1]) is an infectious agent composed of protein in a misfolded form.[2] This is in contrast to all other known infectious agents, which must contain nucleic acids (either DNA, RNA, or both) along with protein components. The word prion, coined in 1982 by Stanley B. Prusiner, is a portmanteau derived from the words protein and infection.[3] Prions are responsible for the transmissible spongiform encephalopathies in a variety of mammals, including bovine spongiform encephalopathy (BSE, also known as "mad cow disease") in cattle and Creutzfeldt–Jakob disease (CJD) in humans. All known prion diseases affect the structure of the brain or other neural tissue and all are currently untreatable and universally fatal.[4]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Prion


Historically, there were problems with all of these hypotheses: The regressive hypothesis did not explain why even the smallest of cellular parasites do not resemble viruses in any way. The escape hypothesis did not explain the complex capsids and other structures on virus particles. And, the virus-first hypothesis contravened the definition of viruses in that they require host cells.[39] However, viruses are now recognised as ancient and to have origins that pre-date the divergence of life into the three domains.[50] This discovery has led modern virologists to reconsider and re-evaluate these three classical hypotheses.[50]
The evidence for an ancestral world of RNA cells[51] and computer analysis of viral and host DNA sequences are giving a better understanding of the evolutionary relationships between different viruses and may help identify the ancestors of modern viruses. To date, such analyses have not proved which of these hypotheses are correct.[51] However, it seems unlikely that all currently known viruses have a common ancestor and viruses have probably arisen numerous times in the past by one or more mechanisms.[52]
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Virons

So what.. you have another mess. Is that the point you are trying to make.

 

[ImmortalFlame]

Newhope, a bit of advice:

Constantly repeating the phrases "I am not wrong" and "that is a fact" don't make you sound more certain. They make you sound like you're only trying to convince yourself.

 

[Oneatatime]

I guess I dont warrant a response from Newhope

 

[wilsoncole]

I think I may have given up on you before. I should have realized that metaphors would be lost on you.

Lost metaphjors my foot! You don't seem to realize that if you don't deal with abiogenesis first, you are going to have serious problems later.

*sigh* *sigh* As I said, it's hard to educate people who are resisting learning.

When you preach then try to teach junk you don't turn out wise pupils.

Yes, you will have problems down the road.

Like the man said: "Pay me now or pay me later."
Everything about abiogenesis that has been put forward so far has been seen as inadequate. Even its most ardent proponents seem to know it.

He's still right.

Might seem that way.
“There exists a way that is upright before a man, but the ways of death are the end of it afterward.” (Proverbs 14:12)

It makes no difference to science whether the question involves living things or not.

You are not the personification of science and cannot speak for it.

The process and principles are the same.

And that is why they always end up the same way. Dead end!

You can solve one problem or one part of a problem without solving the whole thing.

Evolution does not solve any problems or even part of them. It only creates more and they get far more complex. What lasting benefits has accrued from the ToE?

Obviously. Forget about evolution. Forget about animals.

That is something you cannot do. You seem driven to root out all opposing views no matter what it takes.
Fear causes you to step on intelligent dissenters with serious intentions. Professors are threatened or fired or forced to keep quiet. Students are given failing grades if they disagree with the teaching.

If I know who your grandparents are, I know who they are, regardless of whether I know who your great-great-grandparents are.

Do you believe that all men descended from one man?
When and how did evolution decide on the male/female concept? Or did it “just happen?”

If I know ToE is correct, then I know it's correct, regardless of whether we understand abiogenesis.

You can do no building of a tower without a foundation. So, if you cannot see the foundation of a building, you’re still confident that it is there or will be - right? Confident enough to live in it? On what would your confidence be based?
And you have the nerve to vilify faith?

They are two different things.

That is a very poor attempt to skirt the issue that you have to face - what started life?

This is not a complicated concept.

You mean the first cell you talk about was not complicated? Can you show me a simple cell?

Why do you think you're having such a hard time understanding it?

I am having an easy time rejecting it. I will tell you the same thing the next time you ask me that question.
　
(\__/)
( ‘ .‘ )
>(^)<

Wilson

 

[wilsoncole]

&#12288;

The bible nor the notion that "God did it" is good enough. Obviously, over time, life has changed.

Chemistry, good and evil hasn't. But, for the most part, it has changed for the worse.

Evolution tells us how and why.

It does no such thing! Guesses, conjecture, assumptions wrong conclusions - the entire summary of evolution.

Coming full stop at "God did it" is mentally crippling.

That is a nasty blow at believers - but then, evolutionists seem to think that attitude is necessary in order to maintain their air of superiority.
I believe God did it and certainly don't consider myself mentally crippled. I don't think you do, too. Otherwise you would have been able to overpower me at will. You must realize by now that you can't do it.

In the past almost everything that occurred in nature was attributed to "God" or gods. (i.e. rain, thunder, lightning, earthquakes). We now know none of that has to do with a supernatural as there is a scientific explanation for them.

There is no scientific explanation for life, the most important issue on earth. There is no scientific remedy for lack of peace, economic breakdown, political corruption, greed, terrorism, modern slavery that even YOU approve and condone.


(\__/)
( &#8216; .&#8216; )
>(^)<

Wilson

 

[wilsoncole]

Newhope, a bit of advice:

Constantly repeating the phrases "I am not wrong" and "that is a fact" don't make you sound more certain. They make you sound like you're only trying to convince yourself.

Which evolutionist refrains from doing that?


(\__/)
( ‘ .‘ )
>(^)<

Wilson

 

[Dirty Penguin]

ancestry is presumed by comparisons against model species, the results change as you enter new data based on finds. Hence they are no more than theoretical, changeable and in my opinion nonsense.

This is how all areas of science work so I don't understand what you're rambling on about. Man once thought the sun revolved around the Earth, the Earth was flat and we were at the center of the universe....Now we know all of that is incorrect. These findings, using the Scientific Method, have lead to even more discoveries....

Oh no I am not wrong. Don't ever think not geting back to something means I think I am wrong. I am not wrong.

You weren't wrong because you may not have gotten back to a particular person's argument. I never said that. You are wrong when it comes to the information you present. Better yet....the interpenetration and blatant quote mining of the information you present.

Your researchers found footprints that predate the ancestors they were meant to have evolved from.

All that was found were tracks with distinct morphological characteristics that looked like modern day birds from a "bird like" creature but was not a like modern day perching bird as your bible says your god created. Your bible says your god created flying birds and they were commanded to be fruitful and multiply. Where is "this" "bird like" creature today? The birds outlined in your bible are flying/perching birds. Your creation myth does not have an answer for the fossil record. If it does then where does this fit?

The insults were aimed at 'some'. However if the cap fits I welcome you to wear it.

It takes much more than your insecure back biting to upset me.

You need to acknowledge that your researcher do not have a clue. And this nonsense that is put up as evidence is debated by very well credentialed researchers.

The debating doesn't bother me and it is what is to be expected. Some researchers are just outright wrong (i.e. Behe - "Irreducible Complexity"). Just because they're credentialed does not mean I have to agree with them which has been obvious when refuting the "IC" claim. If you're comfortable with appealing to authority or appealing to numbers that's on you but don't expect the rest of us to be as naive as you.

This one reckons your classifications are wrong re human lineage. I agree. Not unlike the bird debarkle,

And yet they all still contend that primates and humans share a commons ancestor. At least that's what your source says. Ancestry, morphologically speaking, is not dependent on Ardi. Before Ardi the evidence still pointed to human and primate ancestry. Even if you completely remove Ardi from the list we still share ancestry with primates. As far as the "bird like" creature..this has already been dealt with. See above.

you have researchers again looking at the same evidence and coming up with different hypothesis.

Sounds like the various Christian denominations around the globe....all looking at the same bible with a different interpretation of the current data they have. What's your point?

While scientific nuances are debated on....and debated on (ALL THE TIME) in (ALL FIELDS OF SCIENCE)....it's clear they agree that humans and primates share a common ancestors....
Of course they are.

Glad you're finally starting to agree.

Do you have a link that shows you can make a human female from the genetic material of a human male?
YEP! There is a 0.5% humans variation, when copy numbers are included. However using a similar comparison Humans and chimps have a 30% variation. If you drop all the straw grabbing one can easily see that even with biased ancestrally presumptive modelling the gap between humans and chimps is huge.
Human genetic variation - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Chimpanzee genome project - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Nope. I thought your links were going to show that it's possible to take human male genetic material and make a woman. Sadly it didn't. Your bible says it did.....How?

 

[Gunfingers]

Which evolutionist refrains from doing that?


(\__/)
( ‘ .‘ )
>(^)<

Wilson

We back up our facts, Newhope just asserts that the things she says are facts.

 

[Dirty Penguin]

&#12288;

Chemistry, good and evil hasn't. But, for the most part, it has changed for the worse.

What...

&#12288;
It does no such thing! Guesses, conjecture, assumptions wrong conclusions - the entire summary of evolution.

It sure does tell us the how and why. It doesn't concern itself with unsubstantiated claims attributed to the supernatural.

&#12288;
That is a nasty blow at believers - but then, evolutionists seem to think that attitude is necessary in order to maintain their air of superiority.

No it was to show that you haven't the slightest clue as to how it would be biologically possible to take a man and make a woman.

&#12288;
There is no scientific explanation for life, the most important issue on earth.

The ToE has never been about Abiogenisis. It's about the diversity of existing life on the planet.

&#12288;
There is no scientific remedy for lack of peace, economic breakdown, political corruption, greed, terrorism, modern slavery that even YOU approve and condone.

These are not concerns of Evolution (per se). These are economical and social concerns. For the record and so you know...I DO NOT condone terrorism or slavery. Please don't put that on me.

 

[outhouse]

I believe the fossil record proves genesis is a myth

the whole creation myth is nothing more then ancient mans imagination for what he did not know.

They didnt have that great a imagination as the creation myth was probably taken from previous pagan sources

 

[newhope101]

Oneatatime..I don't reply to all as I am not here all day. I rarely reply to silly points or asides. if I had nothing better to do I would. But since you specifically request a reply and it's raining, I'll oblige.

Let's see

You have produced a ranking that is based on presumptive computer modells that change and is inconsistent re primate ancestry.

Fossils may look like human bones: Biological anthropologists question claims for human ancestry

The researchers in the link above disagree with some human ancestors. So we se that.

Homoplasy: A good thread to pull to understand the evolutionary ball of yarn

For example, studying situations where a derived trait surfaces in two lineages that lack a recent common ancestor, or situations where an ancestral trait was lost but then reappeared many generations later, may help scientists identify the processes and mechanisms of evolution.
The authors provide many fascinating examples of homoplasy, including different species of salamanders that independently, through evolution, increased their body-length by increasing the lengths of individual vertebrae. By contrast, most species grow longer by adding vertebrae through evolution.
The authors also explain how petals in flowers have evolved on six separate occasions in different plants. A particularly striking example of homoplasy cited by the authors is the evolution of eyes, which evolved many times in different groups of organisms--from invertebrates to mammals--all of which share an identical genetic code for their eyes.


So we know similar traits mean nothing re common ancestry. Got that?

The primate lineage is thought to go back at least 65 mya (million years ago),[9] even though the oldest known primate from the fossil record is Plesiadapis (c. 55–58 mya) from the Late Paleocene.[10][11] Other studies, including molecular clock studies, have estimated the origin of the primate branch to have been in the mid-Cretaceous period, around 85 mya.[12][13][14]
In modern cladistic reckonings, the Primates order is monophyletic. The suborder Strepsirrhini, the curly-nosed or "wet-nosed" primates, is generally thought to have split off from the primitive primate line about 63 mya,[15] although earlier dates are also supported.[16] The seven strepsirhine families are the five related lemur families and the two remaining families that include the lorisids and the galagos.[1][17] Older classification schemes wrap the Lepilemuridae into the Lemuridae and the Galagidae into the Lorisidae, yielding a three-two family split instead of the five-two split as presented here.[1] During the Eocene, most of the northern continents were dominated by two groups, the adapiforms and the omomyids.[18][19] The former is considered a member of Strepsirrhini, but it does not have a toothcomb like modern lemurs; recent analysis has suggested Darwinius masillae fits into this grouping.[20] The latter was related closely to tarsiers, monkeys, and apes. It is unclear exactly how these two groups relate to extant primates. Omomyids perished about 30 mya,[19] while Adapids survived until about 10 mya.[21]


Your pretty picture there looks real pretty, but is really the best your researchers can do given they need to produce something. Got that?

There very few fossil primates (probably because they are chucked into the human line for headlines). Given you have no evidence apart from theory It is possible that your pretty picture represents 'kinds', apes and monkeys, which God may have created only one pair of or many pairs either identical or varied. If your researchers were asking the right questions, we may actually have some answers!

While Heads conjectures that primates were widespread across Pangaea some 185 million years ago, the ages of the oldest primate fossils known to date suggest they emerged some 56 million years ago, while genetic data suggested they originated some 80 to 116 million years ago. Primatologist John Fleagle at Stony Brook University in New York added that Heads' findings "are inconsistent with all other evidence we have about the timing of major events in primate evolution."
Heads notes that fossils often serve as an incomplete record for what and when animals actually existed. He added that genetic data might also potentially lead scientists to underestimate ages by tens of millions of years.

New Theory of Primate Origins Sparks Controversy | LiveScience

I have provided links to refute your simplistic claims of clarity. Your chart names what appears to be kinds with virtually no evidence for its evolutionary basis other than presumptive modelling and contradictory research, that despite the bias and presumptions remains as clear as mud.

So in answer to you I say in future you will need to post much better a challenge than simply putting up some theoretical chart as evidence of anything, to get my attention. I just am not here all day like some.

 

[Amill]

You don't seem to realize that if you don't deal with abiogenesis first, you are going to have serious problems later.

If only it was as easy as saying "god did it" without having to provide details.

 

[painted wolf]

Paintedwolf please cite your research. I'll bet without even knowing what the hell your speaking to, that any life made in the lab involved the addition of an already living cell.

Nope sorry... if you include viruses as "alive" then no additions are needed. Just slap them together and they will go like normal.
BBC NEWS | Science/Nature | First synthetic virus created

Otherwise you will appear to be a desperate liar! Please quote this amazing research I'd say you have again misrepresented.

Bwahahahaha.... :biglaugh:
Why are so quick to accuse me of being a liar when you don't even bother to figure out what I'm talking about? :slap:
You seem utterly desperate to try to discredit me... does it keep you up nights?

I'd also like to know what it is about prions and virons that you expect me to answer.

If this was meant for you (and it wasn't btw) then I would expect you to answer the question I posted... are they alive?

The question was for Wilsoncole as part of a conversation we were having about defining life...Not every post is about you Newhope.

wa:do

 

[Oneatatime]

Do you really understand the context in which these articles have been written or how science progresses Newhope?

The first article advises caution when placing fossils within a particular lineage. The second article advises scientsits to be careful not to allow their estimates of similarity to be distorted by convergent evolution. This is reasonable advice on both counts and actually betters the science being done rather than rendering it invalid. As for the third article its not uncommon for a new theory to be seen as controversial because it stimulates discussion and the evidence bar is usually set rather high when it comes to trying to convince people that a new theory is credible. Science thrives on this so I'm not unduly worried when a new theory kicks up a fuss, its a sign of a healthy scientific community.

I don't normally like making personal comments against people but in your case its fairly clear that you aren't sufficiently informed of the subject matter to pass judgement on it. As already mentioned you clearly don't understand the context in which these articles were written but particually damning is your dissmissal of the genetic evidence for human evolution. As far as I can tell you seem to think that humans can be seperated from the rest of life by asserting that all similarities between humans and the rest of life can be explained as being a result of convergent evolution which is clearly nonsense.

I know its highly unlikely that you will actually do this but I suggest that you learn about evolution and the evidence for humans place in it before coming commenting on it. I would ask the same of anyone who believes that humans share a common ancestor with primates but only does so because they have been told this is the case but doesn't understanding or know of the supporing evidence for why this is the case.

 

[Autodidact]

Lost metaphjors my foot! You don't seem to realize that if you don't deal with abiogenesis first, you are going to have serious problems later.

This is simply wrong. There is no reason on earth why science has to deal with questions in the chronological order in which they happen. We can read a newspaper and discover that a given person died last week. We don't need to uncover their entire ancestry and the history of their ancestor's immigration to understand that. There is no relationship between the order that things happen in and the order we solve problems in. If there were, all of Biology would have to stop while everyone worked on one problem--abiogenesis--until they solve it, and then they could move on to single-cell organisms. There isn't. We can study tigers, without having to first learn everything about dinosaurs.

We figured out that the earth revolves around the sun way before we understood the Big Bang. True, no origin of the universe, no sun to revolve around, but that didn't stop Copernicus and Galileo from figuring out heliocentrism.

Get it?

Everything about abiogenesis that has been put forward so far has been seen as inadequate. Even its most ardent proponents seem to know it.

Yes, that's right. We haven't solved that problem yet. We're still working on it. That doesn't prevent us from figuring out the answers to other problems.

You are not the personification of science and cannot speak for it.

If you think I am mistaken, explain how.

And that is why they always end up the same way. Dead end!

So you think science is just a dead end?
Evolution does not solve any problems or even part of them[/quote] How would you know, since you don't know the first thing about it, including what it is?

. It only creates more and they get far more complex. What lasting benefits has accrued from the ToE?

Understanding of life on earth.

That is something you cannot do. You seem driven to root out all opposing views no matter what it takes.
Fear causes you to step on intelligent dissenters with serious intentions. Professors are threatened or fired or forced to keep quiet. Students are given failing grades if they disagree with the teaching.

They are given failing grades if they don't understand the material. That's how school works.

Do you believe that all men descended from one man?

And one woman, yes.

When and how did evolution decide on the male/female concept? Or did it &#8220;just happen?&#8221;

Nothing in evolutionary history "just happened," nor was anything decided. If you ever decide you're interested in learning what the Theory of Evolution actually says, just let us know. Alternatively, you could take a Biology class or read a book.

You can do no building of a tower without a foundation.

Abiogenesis is not the foundation of evolution. It makes no difference to evolution how the first self-replicating organism got here. We can all assume that God magically zapped it into existence with God-magic. ToE explains what happens next.

Again, this is not a complicated idea. Either you are working hard NOT to understand it, or you are incapable of grasping simple concepts.

So, if you cannot see the foundation of a building, you&#8217;re still confident that it is there or will be - right?

If the building is standing properly, probably. I don't know enough about architecture to know, really.

Confident enough to live in it? On what would your confidence be based?

Your knowledge of how buildings work, the permitting process, the experience of prior tenants, and so forth.
btw, you could learn all about the wiring on the 12th floor without having to inspect the foundation.

And you have the nerve to vilify faith?

what are you talking about? Who's discussing faith? We were talking about whether science has to solve abiogenesis before it solves divergence of species. Are we in the same conversation?

That is a very poor attempt to skirt the issue that you have to face - what started life?

I don't know. Yes, this is an important scientific question, but no, you don't have to solve it first in time.

You mean the first cell you talk about was not complicated? Can you show me a simple cell?

Not the cell, wilson, the idea. The idea that we can study things as we come across them, we don't have to solve scientific problems in chronological order. It's really pretty simple.

I am having an easy time rejecting it. I will tell you the same thing the next time you ask me that question.

I think you're working hard on not understanding it, so that you can reject it.

I can give you example after example. Your doctor can diagnose your disease. He doesn't have to figure out who you caught it from. We can solve a murder, without learning everything about the upbringing of the criminal. We can study modern history, without knowing everything about pre-history. I can understand who the last Emperor of China is, without having to be certain who the first one is.

It is simply not the case that we have to figure things out in the order they happened.

Which is a good thing, because the oldest stuff is usually the hardest to figure out.
&#12288;
(\__/)
( &#8216; .&#8216; )
>(^)<

Wilson[/quote]

 

[Dirty Penguin]

Let's see

Fossils may look like human bones: Biological anthropologists question claims for human ancestry

The researchers in the link above disagree with some human ancestors. So we se that.

Your source says...

"........It is easy to differentiate between the fossils of a modern-day chimpanzee and a modern human. However, it is more difficult to differentiate between the two species when examining fossils that are closer to their common ancestor, as is the case with Orrorin, Sahelanthropus, and Ardipithecus."

"Similarly, Oreopithecus bambolii, a fossil ape from Italy shares many similarities with early human ancestors, including features of the skeleton that suggest that it may have been well adapted for walking on two legs. However, the authors observe, enough is known of its anatomy to show that it is a fossil ape that is only distantly related to humans, and that it acquired many "human-like" features in parallel."

What's patently obvious is while they disagree over morphological nuances they all continue to maintain we are still related via a common ancestor.... Got it?

Homoplasy: A good thread to pull to understand the evolutionary ball of yarn

For example, studying situations where a derived trait surfaces in two lineages that lack a recent common ancestor, or situations where an ancestral trait was lost but then reappeared many generations later, may help scientists identify the processes and mechanisms of evolution.
The authors provide many fascinating examples of homoplasy, including different species of salamanders that independently, through evolution, increased their body-length by increasing the lengths of individual vertebrae. By contrast, most species grow longer by adding vertebrae through evolution.
The authors also explain how petals in flowers have evolved on six separate occasions in different plants. A particularly striking example of homoplasy cited by the authors is the evolution of eyes, which evolved many times in different groups of organisms--from invertebrates to mammals--all of which share an identical genetic code for their eyes.


So we know similar traits mean nothing re common ancestry. Got that?

Sure it can but no one ever said it's the number one determining factor. I think you're reading too much of your bias into what is being said here.

Your pretty picture there looks real pretty, but is really the best your researchers can do given they need to produce something. Got that?

What I get from this is you're unable to crack open your bible and tell me where this fits.

There very few fossil primates (probably because they are chucked into the human line for headlines). Given you have no evidence apart from theory It is possible that your pretty picture represents 'kinds', apes and monkeys, which God may have created only one pair of or many pairs either identical or varied.

Wrong...but what's more wrong about this is that it's a stock photo from wikipedia from a particular line of hominid that's far removed from being a species of Ape or monkey. Thank you for confirming what I already suspected about you....

 

[wilsoncole]

What...
It sure does tell us the how and why. It doesn't concern itself with unsubstantiated claims attributed to the supernatural.

The ToE does not tell how OR why. Why has to do with cause and you want nothing to do with that.
Well - let's test it out! What caused evolution?
Now we'll find out if you really know why.

No it was to show that you haven't the slightest clue as to how it would be biologically possible to take a man and make a woman.

And the ToE actually tells you how? Let's test that out, too!
Which came first - man or woman?

The ToE has never been about Abiogenisis.

It hasn't been about anything sensible.
The ToE cannot escape it. If you can assert that all life on earth began with a single cell, then you should be able to tell where that single cell came from.

It's about the diversity of existing life on the planet.

But before you can diversify, you have to invent or originate.
That's the most important part and you're trying desperately to skip over it.

These are not concerns of Evolution (per se).

Why are life in peace, economic breakdown, political corruption, greed, terrorism, modern slavery of so little importance to evolutionists? Is it because you have no concern for other people?

These are economical and social concerns. For the record and so you know...I DO NOT condone terrorism or slavery. Please don't put that on me.

Maybe not terrorism as it is generally understood, but you most certainly condone and approve modern slavery.
&#12288;
(\__/)
( ‘ .‘ )
>(^)<

Wilson

 

[painted wolf]

Why are life in peace, economic breakdown, political corruption, greed, terrorism, modern slavery of so little importance to evolutionists? Is it because you have no concern for other people?

What??? :areyoucra

wa:do

 

[Autodidact]

The ToE does not tell how OR why. Why has to do with cause and you want nothing to do with that.

It tells how. That's what science is for.

Well - let's test it out! What caused evolution?

Organisms that replicate imperfectly, plus a finite environment.
Now we'll find out if you really know why.

And the ToE actually tells you how? Let's test that out, too!
Which came first - man or woman?

sorry, this question makes no sense, and demonstrates that you don't understand ToE. My offer to explain it to you stands, if you ever want to learn.

It hasn't been about anything sensible.
The ToE cannot escape it. If you can assert that all life on earth began with a single cell, then you should be able to tell where that single cell came from.

This does not follow.

But before you can diversify, you have to invent or originate.

Yes, but to understand the diversification, you don't have to understand the origination. This is where you get confused.

That's the most important part and you're trying desperately to skip over it.

Both parts are important. We're not skipping over it, it's just not solved yet.

Why are life in peace, economic breakdown, political corruption, greed, terrorism, modern slavery of so little importance to evolutionists?

What makes you think that Biologists don't care about these things? Do you mean, why isn't Biology about these things?

Is it because you have no concern for other people?

I don't think you understand what evolution is. It's a scientific theory. Like, say, atomic theory. Why don't atomists care about greed or terrorism? Well, that's not what atomic theory is about.

Maybe not terrorism as it is generally understood, but you most certainly condone and approve modern slavery.

I don't. God, however, condones and authorizes slavery. But that is subject for another thread.