Who knows about the "Taung child" fossil?

[shunyadragon]

Science is self correcting? Let's examine that a bit. As Dan touched on, would you say science is a person?

By 'self correcting' it refers to the Scientific Methodology determines that new objective verifiable evidence can falsify new theories and hypothesis that changes or find old hypothesis and theories false.

Examples; (1) Advances in the sciences that are the basis of evolution have determined that Lamarckian Theory false. (2) The Theory of a static universe have been found false with the discoveries and research that have determined the different theories that propose an expanding universe ~13.77 billion years old is the best explanation. (3) Discoveries and research have determined that the Australopithecus species like 'Lucy' are not direct ancestors of humans, but a separate Australopithecus Group of species with common ancestors to the Homo Group that humans belong.

 

[tas8831]

The problem is, you won't step outside the evolution worldview and see that there are other explanations for every piece of evidence.

Every piece? Are you sure about that? OK, what is the non-evolutionary worldview that explains this:

Anat Rec. 1977 Aug;188(4):477-87.
Sperm/egg interaction: the specificity of human spermatozoa.
Bedford JM.
Abstract
Human spermatozoa display unusually limited affinities in their interaction with oocytes of other species. They adhered to and, when capacitated, penetrated the vestments of the oocyte of an ape--the gibbon, Hylobates lar--both in vivo and in vitro. On the other hand, human spermatozoa would not even attach to the zona surface of sub-hominoid primate (baboon, rhesus monkey, squirrel monkey), nor to the non-primate eutherian oocytes tested. Among the apes the gibbon stands furthest from man. Thus, although the specificity of human spermatozoa is not confined to man alone, it probably is restricted to the Hominoidea. This study also suggests that the evolution of man and perhaps the other hominids has been accompanied by a restrictive change in the nature of the sperm surface which has limited and made more specific the complementary surface to which their spermatozoa may adhere. For the failure of human spermatozoa to attach to the zona surface of all non-hominoid oocytes stands in contrast to the behaviour of spermatozoa of the several other mammals studied which, in most combinations, adhered readily to foreign oocytes, including those of man. Taxonomically, the demonstration of a compatibility between the gametes of man and gibbon, not shared with cercopithecids, constitutes further evidence for inclusion of the Hylobatidae within the Hominoidea.

 

[tas8831]

You realize there are many A. afarensis specimens, right?

Australopithecus afarensis | The Smithsonian Institution's Human Origins Program

"Australopithecus afarensis is one of the longest-lived and best-known early human species—paleoanthropologists have uncovered remains from more than 300 individuals!"​

But... but.. that one... its a fake!

Like when Fred Hoyle and a creationist pal tried to 'prove' one of the 8 Archaeopteryx fossils was a fake. To what end, who knows, and their work was so shoddy that only a British photography magazine would publish it.

 

[YoursTrue]

Sorry bud, but I have zero interest in trying to teach you....well, anything. I've watched countless others try to get you to understand even the most basic, uncontroversial things only to grow frustrated with your refusal or inability to learn, and eventually give up.

If you really, truly want to learn about evolutionary biology, then go take a course or buy a layperson-friendly book on the subject.

You and some others have taught me basically what I need to know.

 

[Jose Fly]

But... but.. that one... its a fake!

Like when Fred Hoyle and a creationist pal tried to 'prove' one of the 8 Archaeopteryx fossils was a fake. To what end, who knows, and their word was so shoddy that only a British photography magazine would publish it.

My bet is they're counting on their audience (creationists) to not only not know any better, but also to never bother to check. I guess that's why the "con" in con man stands for "confidence". They know their audience has confidence in them and will just take their word for it on just about anything.

 

[YoursTrue]

Every piece? Are you sure about that? OK, what is the non-evolutionary worldview that explains this:

Anat Rec. 1977 Aug;188(4):477-87.
Sperm/egg interaction: the specificity of human spermatozoa.
Bedford JM.
Abstract
Human spermatozoa display unusually limited affinities in their interaction with oocytes of other species. They adhered to and, when capacitated, penetrated the vestments of the oocyte of an ape--the gibbon, Hylobates lar--both in vivo and in vitro. On the other hand, human spermatozoa would not even attach to the zona surface of sub-hominoid primate (baboon, rhesus monkey, squirrel monkey), nor to the non-primate eutherian oocytes tested. Among the apes the gibbon stands furthest from man. Thus, although the specificity of human spermatozoa is not confined to man alone, it probably is restricted to the Hominoidea. This study also suggests that the evolution of man and perhaps the other hominids has been accompanied by a restrictive change in the nature of the sperm surface which has limited and made more specific the complementary surface to which their spermatozoa may adhere. For the failure of human spermatozoa to attach to the zona surface of all non-hominoid oocytes stands in contrast to the behaviour of spermatozoa of the several other mammals studied which, in most combinations, adhered readily to foreign oocytes, including those of man. Taxonomically, the demonstration of a compatibility between the gametes of man and gibbon, not shared with cercopithecids, constitutes further evidence for inclusion of the Hylobatidae within the Hominoidea.

And so? This proves,,,oops,,,no, demonstrates...exemplifies...?...insinuates...what? That it is evidence of evolution?

 

[YoursTrue]

My bet is they're counting on their audience (creationists) to not only not know any better, but also to never bother to check. I guess that's why the "con" in con man stands for "confidence". They know their audience has confidence in them and will just take their word for it on just about anything.

Never bother to check what, when you can't answer the...basic question...which is, do all these facts about gametes and DNA show, demonstrate, EVIDENCE that they evolved? Of course from one or two cells to the different species? You can say, yes! It means all living things EVOLVED. ... But that doesn't mean you are right. Nothing proves, demonstrates, shows, or evidences that the different species evolved. No science, no fossil demonstrates, proves, shows that. And that is what I have learned from your answers as well as any scientific articles, explanations and opinions.

 

[Jose Fly]

Never bother to check what, when you can't answer the...basic question...which is, do all these facts about gametes and DNA show, demonstrate, EVIDENCE that they evolved? Of course from one or two cells to the different species?

LOL....when you find a way to make some sort of coherent point, let me know. Sheesh....

 

[YoursTrue]

By 'self correcting' it refers to the Scientific Methodology determines that new objective verifiable evidence can falsify new theories and hypothesis that changes or find old hypothesis and theories false.

Examples; (1) Advances in the sciences that are the basis of evolution have determined that Lamarckian Theory false. (2) The Theory of a static universe have been found false with the discoveries and research that have determined the different theories that propose an expanding universe ~13.77 billion years old is the best explanation. (3) Discoveries and research have determined that the Australopithecus species like 'Lucy' are not direct ancestors of humans, but a separate Australopithecus Group of species with common ancestors to the Homo Group that humans belong.

Scientific methodology is incorporated of people. Scientific methodology has not proved, evidenced, demonstrated, that all living things came about by evolution.

 

[YoursTrue]

LOL....when you find a way to make some sort of coherent point, let me know. Sheesh....

Based on the evidence, the facts, you àre not making sense.i wish you well.

 

[tas8831]

Oh my goodness. You know that there was controversy over whether she was even a she right?

Which YEC website are you getting this from?

Bones don't exactly talk.

That is why it takes time and expertise to examine such things.

You know his coworker Mary was convinced it was two separate species right?

Coworker? You mean Mary Nicol? Or Mary Leakey?

See "missing links", Oxford University press, page 383, 2011

You mean:

Reader J (2011) Missing Links: In Search of Human Origins.
New York: Oxford University Press.

It would be nice if you could provide better references.

OK, so I know which Mary it is (I have the book) but I don't see anything on p.383 that would indicate that the fossil skeleton we now know as 'Lucy' had this mix of bones you are implying.

Provide the quote that you think does this, and I will check.

 

[tas8831]

Yes people of faith accept that we take the Biblical accounts on faith.

Pretty low bar.

Science isn't supposed to be by faith or so I'm told over and over and over again.
So if there's no proof, why would we accept it?

Why would ask that question when you are replying to a post that explains that we do not use proof in science?
Why should anyone believe what you do as it is based on mere faith?

 

[tas8831]

You can conclude anything you want...that doesn't make it so.

You can assert anything you want.... doesn't make it so. Especially given your rap.

 

[tas8831]

Smart Alec comments don't negate the truth. We demand solid evidence in every other kind of science. I guess I'm supposed to make an exception for the ToE?

Who is "we"? The people that take their views on faith?

 

[tas8831]

The internet isn't the holy grail. It doesn't contain all truth. In fact most internet searches give you a certain slant on the information you are seeking.

Like when you google stuff from YEC websites and present it as your own while not even understanding it?

HINT: not everyone is as dependent on confirmation bias and groupthink as creationists with no science background are.

 

[tas8831]

Got anything more current? Maybe from this century?

Or at least demonstrate that he had read any of those instead of just sort of copy-pasting them from some creationist source. Like provide a quote or an explanation instead of the sort of 'look ma I got a prize at the arcade look ma look ma! ' meandering tripe that WAS provided.

 

[tas8831]

Your math needs work.

1989.1992 1978

Ok bro...

 

[tas8831]

And so? This proves,,,oops,,,no, demonstrates...exemplifies...?...insinuates...what? That it is evidence of evolution?

And that you are asking such a question tells me that you should not be asking such questions, you should be taking Biology 101 at the local community college then about 4 more classes, then read that again. If folks like you are going to try to argue against evolution, you should at least be able to grasp the scientific issues (though that doesn't seem to help those that do).

 

[YoursTrue]

Pretty low bar.

Why would ask that question when you are replying to a post that explains that we do not use proof in science?
Why should anyone believe what you do as it is based on mere faith?

You can't prove evolution. If I thought now that evolutionary process is how life came about, I'd agree with it. You might parallel that thought or contention with religious faith in a creator, but that is not the subject here.

 

[YoursTrue]

And that you are asking such a question tells me that you should not be asking such questions, you should be taking Biology 101 at the local community college then about 4 more classes, then read that again. If folks like you are going to try to argue against evolution, you should at least be able to grasp the scientific issues (though that doesn't seem to help those that do).

As I have mentioned in the past, I was an honor student, got a scholarship. Not that it qualifies me as an expert, but I did well enough on tests in biology, and... believed whatever they (the teachers of science supposed experts) taught me. I was not a science major. But I was interested in biology ànd continued reading. The questions I have about evolution have not been answered adequately here in truth except for...that of upholding faith (without proof, of course) in evolution. That is one reason I ask questions of those who firmly and unequivocally adhere to what they see as the truth of the theory. I no longer believe the conclusions. Thanks again. I wish you the best.