Creation & EvolutionForum for the discussion of this important topic. This forum is open to non-believers. There is a Christians-only forum in the Christians-only section too.
On the contrary, the series of fossils that show the gradual evolution of species culminating in Homo sapiens is direct evidence that humans share a common ancestor with modern apes. And this is simply one of multiple independent lines of evidence: chronological dating by any of the various techniques available allows us to know where to place the fossils in the timeline.
We don't arrange them according to morphology: we arrange them by chronology. The morphological gradation is what we see when we arrange them chronologically, and this provides very strong evidence for evolution.
And then, of course, there's all the other lines of evidence.
We use chronology to arrange bones. However, if the chronology is wrong but not aware of, the wrong arrangement may STILL "make sense". If the chronology is corrected later, then the rearranged bones would get another sensible interpretation. That is the moment same as when one does not know how to put a few odd pieces into established categories.
We use chronology when the morphology is confusing. The goal is still focused on the morphological sequence. After the help of chronology, the rest of the story is still developed based on the morphological change.
Common, you may as well quit on this line. I am not a paleontologist. But I have a few as my neighbors for many years. I know the study.
Then why do we see a plethora of fossils that, when placed chronologically in order, clearly show the gradual evolution of the human species? Take the skulls, for instance:
As I said, chronology is only a help.
I believe if one is really good in morphology (such as me, to non-biological stuff), the chronology help is not needed. Chronological data are only used to ease the mind.
So juv, just wondering... you do know you are wrong about the fresh water / salt water fish that i referred to, dont you? Im just curious, do you simply ignore it when you are wrong and go on to the next thing to be wrong about?
Or do you ever accept it that you were wrong? Are you going to this time?
Yes, I might be wrong on that one according to the textbook. But, 1. it is not the main point in the argument. 2. It still can be argued. There are many ways to see one thing. Nothing is set in the stone.
In my classes, I do not use textbook anymore. I don't think you would feel happy in that situation. Because there is not a single correct answer on anything. When the textbook info contradicts to what I said, the textbook is wrong.
That is what I am saying. Paleontology = taxonomy + interpretation.
In an effort to uncover the relationships between fossils (as well as living organisms) among other things, two scientific disciplines are particularly crucial; systematics and its subdivision taxonomy. Systematics deals with the kinds, diversity, and apparent evolutionary history of organisms,which enables taxonomy to identify, name, and classify them into related groups. Dealing with fossils, paleontology employs systematics in the above manner and then uses taxonomic principles to classify them; however, this is no different than any other such study of organisms. Botany proceeds in the same way, as does zoology, mycology, microbiology, etc.
So while paleontology does use interpretation + taxonomy + other tools of science, it's folly to pick out one of these tools, classification, and cite it as defining the study of prehistoric life.
One can use all other studies for the interpretation part. But is only a part which interprets the taxonomy. In other words, no taxonomy, no paleontology.
And no comparative anatomy, no paleontology. And no Radiometric and comparative dating techniques, no paleontology. And no proper fossil preparation, no paleontology.
Taxonomy does not lead to conclusion.
Sure it can. By having classification schemes in place one can more easily conclude where a particular fossil may best fit in the hierarchal framework of ancient life.
So paleontological interpretation should never be taken as any conclusion.
If you mean absolute conclusion, then you're correct, but that's not how scientists regard their conclusions, no matter how much they may argue a point. All scientists recognize that very little if anything in science is writ in stone. And this is why reclassifications are so common: new evidence can very well require it.
juv sez...Yes, I might be wrong on that one according to the textbook. But, 1. it is not the main point in the argument. 2. It still can be argued. There are many ways to see one thing. Nothing is set in the stone.
In my classes, I do not use textbook anymore. I don't think you would feel happy in that situation. Because there is not a single correct answer on anything. When the textbook info contradicts to what I said, the textbook is wrong.QUOTE/////////////
Well, that is as thin and qualified an admission as i ever saw. And it was like pulling teeth to get that much.
Not set in stone? That is EXACTLY where the bones are set, and if you are... which i dont believe...any sort of geologist at all you know its real easy to tell marine deposits from fresh water. You ARE wrong, and its NOT just "according to the textbook". It is according to the rock that the fish are in. The fish are fresh water fish. You used the idea that they are marine fish as an argument which, like all your arguments, is based on ignorance.
Oh and really, dont bother trying to belittle me with comments that you make up about what would or wouldnt make me happy and how you think I have to have just one answer.
As for you are right and the text wrong....wow.
Like I said, a man really ought to know his limitations.
In an effort to uncover the relationships between fossils (as well as living organisms) among other things, two scientific disciplines are particularly crucial; systematics and its subdivision taxonomy. Systematics deals with the kinds, diversity, and apparent evolutionary history of organisms,which enables taxonomy to identify, name, and classify them into related groups. Dealing with fossils, paleontology employs systematics in the above manner and then uses taxonomic principles to classify them; however, this is no different than any other such study of organisms. Botany proceeds in the same way, as does zoology, mycology, microbiology, etc.
So while paleontology does use interpretation + taxonomy + other tools of science, it's folly to pick out one of these tools, classification, and cite it as defining the study of prehistoric life.
And no comparative anatomy, no paleontology. And no Radiometric and comparative dating techniques, no paleontology. And no proper fossil preparation, no paleontology.
Sure it can. By having classification schemes in place one can more easily conclude where a particular fossil may best fit in the hierarchal framework of ancient life.
If you mean absolute conclusion, then you're correct, but that's not how scientists regard their conclusions, no matter how much they may argue a point. All scientists recognize that very little if anything in science is writ in stone. And this is why reclassifications are so common: new evidence can very well require it.
Paleontology started thousands years ago without any other supporting studies. Compare bones is only thing you need to do. Of course, the better the tools, the better the classification.
So, to be confident on human evolution is wrong. One should study human evolution, but with no confidence on anything.
Linear Mode
