Denial of evolution III

[jpappl]

786,

Hmmm..... I said I don't know when Humans started to live--- don't go confusing things.

Ok, my bad

“ Thirdly, if god did create things to evolve, why is it so hard to accept us evolving ? ”

I'm perfectly fine with accepting we came from apes.... Do you think my initial argument was against evolution?

Yes, it appears so, because evolution requires no intervention from a supreme being, which at least from what I am getting from you, believe that that is the source of us.

“ They can deny it but the evidence is there for it, and there is not evidence to dis-prove it, which is just as important. ”

Yes.... but no body said anything about proving evolution wrong... I was talking about a non-science disciple that can use an extra assumption, for example God, and then based on that deny Evolution... (NOT REJECT IT- I think I said this 10 times already)- all of you are asking me for scientific evidence when I'm talking about a non-science interpretation of the data that you acquired- If I gave you scientific evidence for its validity- then it would be science! And I already said NON-Science... Read my argument again folks.... don't get into a discussion without knowing what the other guy is actually proposing.

I came into this conversation mid stream. Can you link me to your post that lays it out.

Based on the above statement from you, what your saying is that anyone can deny evolution and make a claim of an alternative. The problem persists though in what that claim is and what evidence it has to support it AND what evidence dis-proves it.

With god, there is no way to prove or dis-prove.

There is also no way to prove something does not exist.

“ Ok, so what are you suggesting happened ? ”

I was actually not arguing for 1 case... I was talking in general terms that a separate (non-science) disciple can use an 'extra assumption' and based on that 'deny' evolutionary interpretation of the data. Of course it would be 'unscientific' but who gave 'science' the authority to be the only way to understand the world? Its a personal choice and based on that everything and anything is subject to denial!

Well we can choose to deny all of the evidence and support something with no evidence of course. But that does not put that person in a position to learn anything or to gain knowledge.

Knowledge is a justified true belief.

Justification requires some kind of evidence.

You can have 30 people studying nonsense and nobody will learn anything.

There are all sorts of nonsensical theories with no evidence to justify a belief in them but people still believe in them.

If that is your only point then yes people have the right to believe whatever they want.

 

[(Q)]

I don't even know what the Theory of Creationism teaches
Only thing I know is God created everything....

Then, you are well acquainted with creationism.

I'm not really a creationist so no reason to bring it up with me...

Yes you are, self-admitted creationist.

And secondly my discussion has nothing to do with whether creationism is right or wrong... it is more about why someone can deny evolution..

It is denied in favor of creationism, that which you support.

 

[(Q)]

Hmmm..... I said I don't know when Humans started to live---

Here's a hint. It wasn't when dinosaurs roamed the earth. No need to thank me, that one was a freebie.

Actually it does say that we have come from 'changing shapes' which could be seen as evolution..

It could be seen as getting squashed by a flatdeck, too. Or, going from skinny to being fat. It says nothing about evolution.

but anyways I'm not even trying to argue creationism or against evolution.

You'll just outright dismiss evolution, yes, we know.

I'm perfectly fine with accepting we came from apes.... Do you think my initial argument was against evolution?d

We didn't. We and the apes came from a common ancestor.

If I gave you scientific evidence for its validity- then it would be science! And I already said NON-Science...

Then, it's all just pure faith based speculation on your part.

who gave 'science' the authority to be the only way to understand the world?

No one did, it simply works.

Its a personal choice and based on that everything and anything is subject to denial!

You're free to be an idiot and choose to be in denial, as a personal choice. Good luck with that.

 

[wsionynw]

Yes that would be true. But even still the evidence in the fossil record would be much more than for completed animals. Also some of these would still live because, there mutation may not be life threatening. Also science says there are enough fossils found and researched to support their theory on evolution, but none found that support all the transitional ones that should be there. Especially when the transitional ones should be in the millions compared to completed animals. This is a major flaw in the theory of evolution. Darwin even knew that.
Evolution as science is saying is totally impossible.

Hay, you claim to have read up on evolution science yet this paragraph betrays your ignorance.
What the hell is a completed animal? More to the point, what in your view is an incomplete animal?

I honestly think you have been reading the wrong books, either that or you are playing a joke on us all.

 

[spidergoat]

Are you <deleted> stupid!!!!!!!! I never said you don't need a 'reason' but 'scientific evidence'--- the 'extra assumption' changes the worldview of everything- believing in that extra assumption gives you the reason to believe something other than science.

Now my question is can you show that an extra assumption is illogical?

Peace be unto you

If the "reason" is that the belief makes you feel good about there being a powerful father figure in the sky, I wouldn't call that logical. It's human perhaps, but not logical.

 

[origin of species]

If Evolution were a law

 

[Fraggle Rocker]

If Evolution were a law

The definition of a law, in science, is:

A statement describing a relationship observed to be invariable between or among phenomena for all cases in which the specified conditions are met, e.g.: the law of gravity.

There are very few laws in science. According to Michael Powell (I assume this is the celebrated Cambridge mathematician) there are fewer than twenty, and most of them pertain to physics, astronomy and macro- and microcosmology, or at least link those sciences to other sciences such as chemistry: the Laws of Thermodynamics, the Heisenberg Principle, Kepler's Laws of Planetary Motion, Archimedes' Principle, Relativity, Conservation of Mass, Energy, Momentum, Angular Momentum and Charge, etc.

All of these laws, to at least a minimal extent, can be observed to be true throughout the universe.

There are no laws of biology, for the very good reason that our study of biology is limited to one planet. The evidence for evolution from at least two different avenues of research (paleontology and DNA analysis) is consistent and overwhelming. This qualifies it as a canonical scientific theory: one which has been proven true beyond a reasonable doubt. But regardless of how true it is on Earth, we can't properly call it a law until we find it at work in many other places throughout the universe. That could take some time.

Evolution is a theory, a word which has a different meaning in science than in vernacular language: An analytic structure designed to explain a set of empirical observations. A scientific theory does two things:

• Identifies a set of distinct observations as a class of phenomena.
• Makes assertions about the underlying reality that brings about or affects this class.

In this case, the class of phenomena is a pattern of similarities among species that appear and vanish over time, and the underlying reality is the evolution of one or more species from an earlier species.

 

[Jack_]

Early Human Primates

Missing link between man and apes found

A "missing link" between humans and their apelike ancestors has been discovered​

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/science/evolution/7550033/Missing-link-between-man-and-apes-found.html

Presumably, these early humans are superior to other species of monkeys and apes alive today.

So, why are early human origins that are from a Darwinian view superior to current primates, extinct?

 

[James R]

Jack_:

In what sense are you using the word "superior"?

Do you think a cat is "superior" to a dog? Is a dolphin "superior" to an elephant? Is a hippopotamus "superior" to a whale? Is the swine flu virus "superior" to human beings?

 

[spidergoat]

I was going to ask him, why "presumably"? There is no reason to presume such a thing.

In any case, many ancient species, if reincarnated in our modern would, would become highly successful invasive species. They just failed to hop-scotch over some adverse factor in their own time. Fittest just means, fittest in relation to it's present environment, not fittest in comparison to all the species that ever lived.

 

[Michael]

Another great discovery - Good Job!

 

[Neverfly]

From the article:

The new discovery could help to rewrite the history of human evolution by filling in crucial gaps in the scientific knowledge.

Ignorant journalists should be shot.

If it fills gaps-- Great. That doesn't mean that squat is getting "rewritten."

 

[Jack_]

Jack_:

In what sense are you using the word "superior"?

Do you think a cat is "superior" to a dog? Is a dolphin "superior" to an elephant? Is a hippopotamus "superior" to a whale? Is the swine flu virus "superior" to human beings?

Would you contend an early human should be less likely to survive with a large brain, bipedal motion and an opposable thumb?

 

[Jack_]

I was going to ask him, why "presumably"? There is no reason to presume such a thing.

In any case, many ancient species, if reincarnated in our modern would, would become highly successful invasive species. They just failed to hop-scotch over some adverse factor in their own time. Fittest just means, fittest in relation to it's present environment, not fittest in comparison to all the species that ever lived.

If you cannot presime anything, they you cannot presume the survival of the fittest unles you can explain why early humans were not fit to survive whereas modern primates are.

 

[spidergoat]

I could guess, but it would be presumptuous to do so. Why do bacteria still survive when the giant sloth does not? Fittest does not mean prepared for all possible circumstances. Isolation is a main driver for speciation, but it also makes that species vulnerable.

 

[Jack_]

I could guess, but it would be presumptuous to do so. Why do bacteria still survive when the giant sloth does not? Fittest does not mean prepared for all possible circumstances. Isolation is a main driver for speciation, but it also makes that species vulnerable.

If you are contending the TOE is illogical, then fine.

But, there are classes of species. That is what I am talking about.

 

[spidergoat]

I'm not contending that the Theory of Evolution is illogical. You just don't understand what is meant by fitness. Sudden changes in the environment can lead to extinction, no matter how fit your species was before the change. Horses seem fit to me to survive in North America, and yet they died out there, only to thrive again once re-introduced by the Spanish.

 

[Jack_]

I'm not contending that the Theory of Evolution is illogical. You just don't understand what is meant by fitness. Sudden changes in the environment can lead to extinction, no matter how fit your species was before the change. Horses seem fit to me to survive in North America, and yet they died out there, only to thrive again once re-introduced by the Spanish.

I see so why would early humans be extinct in Africa and not monkeys?

You will need to explain this.

You cannot assume the theory works and then prove it works. That is a typical SR argument.

The theory needs to survice on its own without assumptions to protect it.

Now, indicate why primates live in Africa today but not early humans. Use TOE to explain it and not conjecture.

 

[Michael]

You seem to be suggesting that modern primates are the same as early hominids? Also, modern primates are not the same as early primates.

 

[James R]

Would you contend an early human should be less likely to survive with a large brain, bipedal motion and an opposable thumb?

Possibly. While those things may be advantageous in certain environments, they may well be an impediment in others.

For example, there's a cost to a large brain. Large brains need more oxygen and more energy to run. If there's a shortage of food, for example, then having a large brain may well be detrimental to your survival chances.