Who knows about the "Taung child" fossil?

[Wildswanderer]

It would be a miracle if you ever posted anything to back up what you claim. Just cause yawl say it don't make it true bro or make it a controversy that sure be bringin' this here ole science to its knees. Didn't some good ole experts ever tell you bout usin' evidence?

So you are saying there's no disagreement or are you just talking to hear yourself?

 

[Wildswanderer]

What about the controversies in Christianity that are discussed on this forum?

The Trinity. Sola scriptura. The fission of Christianity into 45,000 denominations. Questioning the Christianity of anyone that disagrees with a particular doctrine, view on science, political position, etc., etc., etc.

If we follow the logic of controversy espoused here for science, then according to that logic, Christianity is falling apart.

I do not believe that, but that is the next turn following fallacious logic that is not externally consistent.

If there's room to question the fossil finds then there's room to question the whole theory.

 

[YoursTrue]

Yes evolution isnot a law, but this is the only thing you have gotten right in this thread.

This does not address the subject of your thread. It only represents your total unbelievable ignorance of how ALL of science, and the science of evolution works.

You misrepresent and dishonestly misuse scientific references. Nothing above represets an honest view of the science involving gravity nor evolution.

No, I do not. You are prejudiced for not seeing the substance of the reality and then assailing me because I tell the truth. Since I am not perfect, I am going to make mistakes. When I do, and you can show me how and where, I accept that. However, you have neither proved your point or made any assertions upholding your conjectures. That you make vague assertions and then go into diatribe is indicative that you are prejudiced. Anyway, do have a nice evening. When you are ready to actually say something substantive with facts, please do so. I'll be waiting.

 

[YoursTrue]

. . . and not responding honestly to scientific references.

If you can explain the scientific references you refer to, going step by step and point by point as if you understand them, are willing to discuss these points you cite in the publications you are referring to, please do so, I'm assuredly waiting.

 

[YoursTrue]

It is clear to me that you are very wise in the ways of science.

A law in science is a description of an observed phenomenon. It does not offer an explanation of the phenomenon. There are theories that explain gravity based on the evidence. Just as there is a theory to explain the evidence of evolution.

You sound like you are raving now and I see no reason to continue discussion with you on the subject.

Whether you respond or not, gravity is certain. It is virtually unassailable in concept and reality. However it happens, it's a law, and not questionable. Evolution is not a law. Now the question is: why not? Why is it not a law? (So don't answer, it's ok.)
Either it happens, or -- it doesn't. There is no proof to say unquestionably that evolution exists merely because -- some fossils resemble other fossils, and some animals look like others.

 

[YoursTrue]

Whether you respond or not, gravity is certain. It is virtually unassailable in concept and reality. However it happens, it's a law, and not questionable. Evolution is not a law. Now the question is: why not? Why is it not a law? (So don't answer, it's ok.)
Either it happens, or -- it doesn't. There is no proof to say unquestionably that evolution exists merely because -- some fossils resemble other fossils, and some animals look like others.

P.S. The law (not of evolution, but of living matter) can be expressed that worms reproduce worms, humans reproduce humans, fish reproduce fish, lobsters reproduce lobsters. Grass produces grass, trees produce trees. Viruses produce viruses.

 

[YoursTrue]

False, as we well know and science has well established the very simple fact that life forms evolve. The "variations" of the covid virus we currently see is just one recent example of this.

Well let's examine that for a moment, because, to the best of my knowledge, viruses stay viruses, no matter that they change to different form of virus. If you think that means evolution, all I can say is, best to you, and take care. But if I'm wrong, please explain more.
By the way, granted that I'm not as well educated as you are on the subject, I would hope you can explain why you think viruses might evolve to another form of life. In fact, what do scientists project viruses change to if they don't stay a virus?

 

[YoursTrue]

If so, then it actually supports the notion of evolution, since if things were 'created' independently to be individual 'kinds', then it stands to reason that there should be no such difficulties.

No evidence that life evolved by slow or fast transitional kinds. So, whether you believe in creation or not, again -- what's left? Something that really can't be proved? Yes, there is no law of evolution. There is a certainty that worms can be eaten by fish, but worms do not evolve into fish, in the long or short run. Now if you want to say that viruses evolve, again -- what do they evolve to? Fish?

 

[shunyadragon]

No, I do not. You are prejudiced for not seeing the substance of the reality and then assailing me because I tell the truth. Since I am not perfect, I am going to make mistakes. When I do, and you can show me how and where, I accept that. However, you have neither proved your point or made any assertions upholding your conjectures. That you make vague assertions and then go into diatribe is indicative that you are prejudiced. Anyway, do have a nice evening. When you are ready to actually say something substantive with facts, please do so. I'll be waiting.

I prefer to srick to the subject of the thread and the reference you provided. I gave a detailed explanation of the classification of the "Taung child fossil," reference to the original academic research article, and quoted and explained the article you referenced. It would help if you fully read my posts and make an honest effort to understand the research article you referenced.

I do have a masters plus in geology and many courses including over fifty years field work literally around the world including China and published several academic journal articles. I will answer specific questions from an academic science perspective, but at present you have not been willing to understand the science from an unbiased perspective. Yes, as far as academic science goes you have gotten everything wrong.

As far as the sciences involved with evolution and the tens of thousands of research articles involving organic chemistry, genetics, geology, geochemistry, paleontology, and comparative anatomy at least. There are general interest publications from National Geographics and films that give a more than adequate explanations of evolution if you are not willing to get the education and read the material.

 

[YoursTrue]

I prefer to srick to the subject of the thread and the reference you provided. I gave a detailed explanation of the classification of the "Taung child fossil," reference to the original academic research article, and quoted and explained the article you referenced. It would help if you fully read my posts and make an honest effort to understand the research article you referenced.

I do have a masters plus many courses including over fifty years field work literally around the world including China and published several academic journal articles. I will answer specific questions from an academic science perspective, but at present you have not been willing to understand the science from an unbiased perspective.

As far as the sciences involved with evolution and the tens of thousands of research articles involving organic chemistry, genetics, geology, geochemistry, paleontology, and comparative anatomy at least. There are general interest publications and films that give a more than adequate explanations of evolution if you are not willing to get the education and read the material.

Classifications are those given by estimators based on what they claim to see in a fossil and as a result evaluate it as to the category they think it belongs in. While the categories are connected with the theory promoted by evolutionists, the categories do not prove anything besides classification by theorists, and placing them in what they think looks to be a similar identity. It is not proof of evolution, as you probably already know.

 

[shunyadragon]

Classifications are those given by surmisers based on what they claim to see in a fossil and as a result evaluate it. While the categories are connected with the theory promoted by evolutionists, the categories do not prove anything besides classification by theorists, and placing them in what they think is a similar identity. It is not proof of evolution, as you probably already know.

It still remains that you are still getting everything wrong concerning academic science. The above is very confusing. It seems you are trying to tell science what is wrong without any acadeic background in the sciences involved with evolution.

What is your academic background in the sciences related to evolution that makes you qualified to make such judgements?

 

[Dan From Smithville]

So you are saying there's no disagreement or are you just talking to hear yourself?

If you have nothing of any value to contribute it is perfectly ok to say so or just not post.

 

[Dan From Smithville]

If there's room to question the fossil finds then there's room to question the whole theory.

So you have nothing then. Of course, what did I expect?

What you claim here makes no sense. What you are saying is that disagreement over details brings the entire theory into question and that simply is not true. Does a difference of ammo choice mean that the entire hunt has to be scrubbed. Of course not. No sensible person would say that.

It is ok to actually support your claims. Even with the least pretense at evidence. Feel free. Any time.

 

[Dan From Smithville]

So you are saying there's no disagreement or are you just talking to hear yourself?

Any chance on that evidence thing? Hello. Hello. Is there anyone there?

 

[Dan From Smithville]

Whether you respond or not, gravity is certain. It is virtually unassailable in concept and reality. However it happens, it's a law, and not questionable. Evolution is not a law. Now the question is: why not? Why is it not a law? (So don't answer, it's ok.)
Either it happens, or -- it doesn't. There is no proof to say unquestionably that evolution exists merely because -- some fossils resemble other fossils, and some animals look like others.

Clearly you know very little about scientific laws and theories. We see evolution happen just as we see the phenomenon of gravity. We have theories about gravity too and these attempt to explain it. We have theories about evolution and the evidence for it. A law is a description of a phenomenon that indicates the repeatability of that phenomenon. A theory is an explanation of a phenomenon. When you have an very powerful explanation, that includes within it, recognition of of observed phenomena, you do not need a separate listing of those observations as laws. You are under the impression that scientific laws rest at the top of a scientific hierarchy. However, it is theories that hold that spot. Theories do not graduate into laws.

I know you think of your post as a "gotcha" moment, but that is only because of your limited understanding of science and not due to actually having something to work with.

 

[Dan From Smithville]

Classifications are those given by estimators based on what they claim to see in a fossil and as a result evaluate it as to the category they think it belongs in. While the categories are connected with the theory promoted by evolutionists, the categories do not prove anything besides classification by theorists, and placing them in what they think looks to be a similar identity. It is not proof of evolution, as you probably already know.

I am not clear what you are going on about, but I will address this confusion as best I can.

Modern taxonomy historically began in 1758, about 100 years prior to Darwin's publishing On the Origin of Species. Your conjecture regarding how taxonomy is carried out falls quickly apart on that fact alone. Taxonomists discover, describe and categorize species based on a variety of evidence. The theory of evolution helps taxonomist understand the connections between different species and groups, but it does not dictate how they are to be classified in some prescribed doctrine that is against the evidence. The relationships and the nested hierarchy observed in viewing these taxa at different scales is, in turn, evidence supporting the theory of evolution. I know that this will fall on deaf ears with you, but it may help others better understand why the theory of evolution has held up and been very useful for over 150 years. Taxonomic evidence ranks highly as supporting evidence and nothing determined or discovered by taxonomists has falsified the theory. No magical poofing of one species into another or a termite suddenly turning into a stork.

Today, taxonomists not only have morphological evidence to hypothesize on and establish these connections, but there is evidence from genetics, molecular biology, ecology, physiology, biochemistry, paleontology and other fields that provide support for the sorting of species together within higher taxonomic levels. It turns out that a lot of the taxonomy established using classical morphology has held up under the scrutiny of new tools from genetics and molecular biology, but these have contributed to refining and providing evidence for inclusion and exclusion of various species in one taxon or another.

 

[tas8831]

When two scientists disagree over some detail, that of course means that all theories fall apart. Especially that nasty theory of evolution. It does not matter how minor the detail might be. It just automatically destroys science and we have to start all over.

They actually seem to think that... yet dismiss that huge disparity between Old Earth and Young earth creationists. Claiming that it is not 'doctrinal', so no biggie... What a cop out.

 

[tas8831]

It's a pretty major issue when some scientists don't find the evidence for Lucy to be conclusive for example.

"Some". How many? And is that enough to make is a controversy? If so, why then is not controversial when MANY Christian bible experts do not think the timeline in Genesis is the truth?

Double standards?

Some agreed that it's actually a mix of different species bones.

"Some." 'People are saying.'

Well, at least you've not engaged in sleazy sad plagiarism of late. Why did you do that those times I caught you - keep in mind that I have only plagiarism-checked 3 of your posts (so far) and found 2 that were blatantly plagiarized in violation of both forum rules and ethical standards - ? Did you really think that you could pass it off and 'score points' for Jehovah?

 

[SkepticThinker]

Whether you respond or not, gravity is certain. It is virtually unassailable in concept and reality. However it happens, it's a law, and not questionable. Evolution is not a law. Now the question is: why not? Why is it not a law? (So don't answer, it's ok.)
Either it happens, or -- it doesn't. There is no proof to say unquestionably that evolution exists merely because -- some fossils resemble other fossils, and some animals look like others.

For the umpteenth time ...

Evolution is a fact. We know it happens. It demonstrably happens. There is a demonstrable and observable change in the heritable characteristics of biological populations over successive generations. It happens.
The theory of evolution explains how evolution operates and the mechanisms involved.

 

[SkepticThinker]

Classifications are those given by estimators based on what they claim to see in a fossil and as a result evaluate it as to the category they think it belongs in. While the categories are connected with the theory promoted by evolutionists, the categories do not prove anything besides classification by theorists, and placing them in what they think looks to be a similar identity. It is not proof of evolution, as you probably already know.

And you've ascertained this based on your extensive and rigorous study on the subject matter in an academic setting?

Ooops, nope. It's based on your total lack of understanding of what evolution is and how it operates.