Darwinian Theator of the Mind: AKA Human Brain Evolution

[TagliatelliMonster]

Not everyone who buys into Darwinian evolution is an atheist, never suggested they were. What is painfully obvious is that anyone who suggests, much less argues, that God is the cause of life or even credits him as designer is branded ignorant, or a perpetrator of falsehoods.

That's because we are talking about a scientific field and unfalsifiable religious ideas have no place in scientific fields.

The only reason why any god-like ingredients / parameters / mechanisms / what-have-you aren't accepted in any scientific fields, is because in science things need to be testable and verifiable. Religious ideas are the exact opposite of that.

"God" isn't a factor in evolution for the exact same reasons that "God" isn't a factor in gravity, germ theory of desease, atomic theory, theory of plate tectonics, etc etc etc.

The a priori assumption of universal common ancestry

That is no longer an assumption. Common ancestry of life is a genetic fact.
You can deny / ignore that if you want, but the facts are the facts are the facts.

The fact is that this was a very famous transitional fossil in a time when there were few such finds.

"famous" in the media, yes. In scientific circles, not so much.
And even if it was - let's just assume it was - who cares?

Scientists exposed it. Scientists corrected for it. And today, it isn't part of anything. Nore is it a problem for evolution. So why is this so relevant for you?

Mistakes are corrected all the time in science. It's actually the strenght of science... to be able to turn around and say "this isn't correct... let's correct it and adjust our models of reality where needed".

How on earth can you hold it against science that they find an error and then correct it???????

Now I'll be the first to admit I'm not above using hyperbole in one of these debates, I also readily admit I enjoy a little satire from time to time. Calling this the great hoax perpetrated in paleontology is not only not an exaggeration, the investigating scientists said the same thing in no uncertain terms:

"Piltdown Man Hoax Is Exposed," announced the New York Times on November 21, 1953. "Part of the skull of the Piltdown man, one of the most famous fossil skulls in the world, has been declared a hoax by authorities at the British Natural History Museum"...On November 20, 1953, they reported their findings in the bulletin of the Natural History Museum. The scientists of 40 years before, they explained, had been victims of "a most elaborate and carefully prepared hoax. The faking of the mandible [jawbone]," they wrote, "is so extraordinarily skillful and the perpetration of the hoax appears to have been so entirely unscrupulous and inexplicable as to find no parallel in the history of paleontological discovery." (Piltdown Man is revealed as fake 1953 A Science Odyssey, PBS)
​

The Washington Post listed it a one of the five most Scientific famous hoaxes of all time, along with The Cardiff Giant and an archaeoraptor fraud, See Five of the most famous scientific hoaxes Washington Post 2015

Again.... what exactly are you complaining about???
That when science identifies a hoax... that they also expose it as such and discard it for what it is? I'm just not getting it.

I would understand your objection if the scientific community knew that something was incorrect, but still held on to it anyway.
But what the very concept of "hoax exposed" demonstrates, is the exact opposite of that.

So, once again, what are you complaining about, really?

 

[Mobezom]

I guess he's saying that evolution itself could be a hoax, because science has been a hoax before?

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

You evidently still don't know what an ad hominem argument is. Consider the two statements:

"Joe's argument is false and he is a jerk."

and

"Joe's argument is false because he is a jerk."

The second is an ad hominem argument. The first is just an insult.

Yeah.... Mark doesn't really know his fallacies, as has been evident for quite some time now.

In some other thread a few weeks ago, he basically branded just about EVERY post that didn't agree with him to being an "ad hominim", simply because the posts said that he was wrong.

 

[Astrophile]

"There is the possibility that the skull itself was legitimately found in the pit. Radiocarbon dating determined it to be from 520-720 years old. Piltdown common had been used as a mass grace during the great plague of AD 1348-49." (Bones of Contention, Lebenow)

First, Lubenow mentions this only as a possibility, not as an established fact.

Second, however Dawson acquired the skull, he stained it to make it look old and broke it into fragments that he could 'find' during the course of the digging in 1912. It wouldn't have made sense for Dawson, or any faker, to plant a lot of non-human bones in the pit, and then, by sheer good luck, to come across a human skull that had been in the pit since the 14th century without his knowing about it. The whole purpose of the fake was to produce an 'ape-man', something apparently transitional between great apes and humans, so the faker would have to include human bones among the 'finds'.

 

[Loudmouth]

The a priori assumption of universal common descent is immutable in modern philosophies of natural history.

Common descent is not an a priori assumption. It is a conclusion drawn from evidence. Until you are honest enough to admit this, the rest of your standard drivel is meaningless.

 

[USincognito]

Oh, has it been six months already? I guess it has been a while since the last "I can't believe it's a brain" post from Mark.

Before I proceed, what are your parameters for identifying a fallacious argument?

Any that arrive at a conclusion other than his.

 

[-57]

Most mutations do absolutely nothing. In face, redundancy in codons means that entirely different gene sequences can code for the exact same protein. Furthermore, more than 5% of mutations can be shown to be demonstrably beneficial to some extent, thanks to studies with fruit flies.

Did you ever notice that the fruit fly is still a fruit fly?

 

[Ophiolite]

Did you ever notice that the fruit fly is still a fruit fly?

Did you ever notice that it is not quite the same fruit fly?

Did you ever notice that if you set out to walk from Paris to Berlin, after several thousand paces you are still in Paris. This does not mean you will never reach Berlin?

Do you think it is reasonable to ignore this point, as if it had not been explained to you multiple times?

 

[-57]

Did you ever notice that it is not quite the same fruit fly?

Did you ever notice that if you set out to walk from Paris to Berlin, after several thousand paces you are still in Paris. This does not mean you will never reach Berlin?

Do you think it is reasonable to ignore this point, as if it had not been explained to you multiple times?

Let me repeat myself....The fruit fly is still a fruit fly.

 

[Ophiolite]

Let me repeat myself....The fruit fly is still a fruit fly.

So what? From evolutionary theory we would not expect anything else after such a small passage of time/number of generations. After I have walked 100 metres I am still in Paris. After I have walked 1km I am still in Paris. It takes many steps before I am even in the suburbs.

What is the difficulty you are having with this concept? Ask and I shall do my level best to enlighten you.

Did you understand the analogy? If so, in what way do you feel it fails to match up with evolution?

 

[USincognito]

Did you ever notice that the fruit fly is still a fruit fly?

Did you ever notice that "fruit fly" is a family?

 

[-57]

So what? From evolutionary theory we would not expect anything else after such a small passage of time/number of generations. After I have walked 100 metres I am still in Paris. After I have walked 1km I am still in Paris. It takes many steps before I am even in the suburbs.

What is the difficulty you are having with this concept? Ask and I shall do my level best to enlighten you.

Did you understand the analogy? If so, in what way do you feel it fails to match up with evolution?

They've been studying fruit flies since 1910. I believe it started at Columbia University. Fruit flies have off spring about every 10 days.
Thats about 3,869 generations...and the fruit fly is still a fruit fly.

 

[USincognito]

They've been studying fruit flies since 1910. I believe it started at Columbia University. Fruit flies have off spring about every 10 days.
Thats about 3,869 generations...and the fruit fly is still a fruit fly.

Tell us what they were studying the fruit flies for. Tell us what the goal and outcome of the studies were.

 

[Herman Hedning]

They've been studying fruit flies since 1910. I believe it started at Columbia University. Fruit flies have off spring about every 10 days.
Thats about 3,869 generations...and the fruit fly is still a fruit fly.

There have not been experiments done continuously on the same population since that long. Also, the experiments have not been aimed to "creating something other that a fruit fly", but rather towards studying the development of specific traits. Here is an interesting book summarizing 20 years of research on Drosophilia melanogaster: Methuselah Flies: A Case Study in the Evolution of Aging.

 

[Ophiolite]

They've been studying fruit flies since 1910. I believe it started at Columbia University. Fruit flies have off spring about every 10 days.
Thats about 3,869 generations...and the fruit fly is still a fruit fly.

I now understand the source and nature of your ignorance. You think that researchers are working in a linear fashion, whereby the fruit flies they use 'today' are the mutated offspring of fruit flies they experimented on 'yesterday'. That would not be a good basis on which to conduct most experiments and it is not how it is done.

I return to my analogy, which I shall modify to reflect more accurately the true situation. Each day you set out from the vicinity of the Louvre and walk for a few hours. You return home in the evening, dine and sleep, setting out the following day from the Louvre for a further walk. You have been doing this all your adult life. Your father did this before you and his father before him.

Between you, you have set out on over 30,000 journeys. As a consequence you have an intimate knowledge of the geography of Paris. And yet there a friends who scoff at you when you say it would be possible to walk from Paris to Berlin, or Paris to Milano. They declare "You and your father and your grandfather have been walking every day for almost a century, and yet you are still in Paris."

That is the nature of your objection and it is just as silly and ill informed as the friends in the analogy.

If you wish to declare that your faith causes you to reject evolution despite the evidence then I will reluctantly accept that is where you are philosophically. I will not accept it when you seek, through ignorance or contrariness, to deny the evidence.

Edit: I note that Herman has made exactly the same point, with the added benefit of having been concise.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

They've been studying fruit flies since 1910. I believe it started at Columbia University. Fruit flies have off spring about every 10 days.
Thats about 3,869 generations...and the fruit fly is still a fruit fly.

The ironic thing is, if fruit flies would produce anything other then fruit flies..... evolution theory would be in trouble.

That's how deep your ignorance on this model of biology goes.... The evidence you demand to see in support of evolution... in reality... would not be evidence in support of evolution but instead the exact opposite.

It's like saying that the off spring of mammals are "still mammals". Well...duh!!

 

[USincognito]

The ironic thing is, if fruit flies would produce anything other then fruit flies..... evolution theory would be in trouble.

That's how deep your ignorance on this model of biology goes.... The evidence you demand to see in support of evolution... in reality... would not be evidence in support of evolution but instead the exact opposite.

It's like saying that the off spring of mammals are "still mammals". Well...duh!!

It's almost as if Creationists don't understand the very thing they're trying to criticize.

 

[Paul Finch]

What is painfully obvious is that anyone who suggests, much less argues, that God is the cause of life or even credits him as designer is branded ignorant, or a perpetrator of falsehoods.

The reason it is ALWAYS rejected is because the assertion in NEVER backed by evidence, it's the exact same reason why pink fairies designing everything is ALWAYS rejected, there is no evidence.
Whatever is put forward as an answer MUST be backed by evidence, evolution is.

 

[Ophiolite]

I am bumping this thread since I note that -57 has been silent since Herman Hedning and myself pointed out the error in his understanding of fruit fly experiments. It would be nice to hear from -57 as whether he now understands the error he was making in interpreting the significance of fruit fly experiments. This would not require that he suddenly accept evolution, merely that he stop egregiously using fruit fly experiments to support his views on evolution. Over to you -57.

 

[Paul Finch]

I am bumping this thread since I note that -57 has been silent since Herman Hedning and myself pointed out the error in his understanding of fruit fly experiments. It would be nice to hear from -57 as whether he now understands the error he was making in interpreting the significance of fruit fly experiments. This would not require that he suddenly accept evolution, merely that he stop egregiously using fruit fly experiments to support his views on evolution. Over to you -57.

I'm afraid that's a big negatory big daddy.