Evidence for macro-evolution

[driewerf]

Who are "they"?
Its great to look for flaws in science.
"Just believe" and "faith in" are ruinous.

But as nobody is known to have ever
uncovered data that
is contrary to ToE, what is it you say
" they" can point to, as wrong?

"they" are hypothetical people that AV1611VET proposes as both knowledgeable about evolution and thinking it is wrong, see post n° 477.

 

[Estrid]

"they" are hypothetical people that AV1611VET proposes as both knowledgeable about evolution and thinking it is wrong, see post n° 477.

But no names wrere named?
Not so odd since there arent any.

We do have some like a Dr. K Wse,
PhD paleo, who surely is knowledgeable.

"....even if all the evidence in the universe
turns against yec, I will still be yec as that is
what the bible seems to indicate".

That of course is the very defimition of
intellectual dishonesty- the lowest and
most shameful category of ToE deniers.

 

[AV1611VET]

That of course is the very defimition of intellectual dishonesty- the lowest and most shameful category of ToE deniers.

Scientific Misconduct

 

[Shemjaza]

Which one is Haroldcookii?

None, because that was a pig.

When it was proposed as an ape there wasn't a skull to study... also any genetic studies of the species would comprehensively show it to not be closely related to humans.

 

[Shemjaza]

Yes.

Skulls passed off as missing links.

Except, I believe, for the upper right one (G), which, if my memory serves me correctly, is a bona fide chimpanzee.

Aside from G, every skull is a human being (or Homo sapiens for clarity).

Diseased human beings.

But human beings just the same.

A is the chimp...

Interesting is that your scope of the Human kind has spread... because B and C are not in the Homo genus... they're Australopithecus.

 

[AV1611VET]

None, because that was a pig.

Okay, thanks.

For the record, I believe you.

When it was proposed as an ape there wasn't a skull to study... also any genetic studies of the species would comprehensively show it to not be closely related to humans.

Question:

When it was:

1. proposed as an ape
2. had no skull to study
3. with genetic studies pending that would have properly identified it

... why was it given a scientific name?

 

[BCP1928]

Okay, thanks.

For the record, I believe you.



Question:

When it was:

1. proposed as an ape
2. had no skull to study
3. with genetic studies pending that would have properly identified it

... why was it given a scientific name?

Why should it not be? As at least a potential species it would be convenient to give it a name so it could be discussed.

 

[AV1611VET]

A is the chimp...

Thanks for the correction.

I corrected someone else with this just recently here:

The upper left is a chimpanzee.

The upper right is Homo erectus.

Then forgot what I said.

LOL -- that's old age for you!

 

[AV1611VET]

Why should it not be?

To save face?

As at least a potential species it would be convenient to give it a name so it could be discussed.

Isn't that jumping the gun?

As Zenith put it, shouldn't the quality go in before the name goes on?

 

[BCP1928]

To save face?



Isn't that jumping the gun?

As Zenith put it, shouldn't the quality go in before the name goes on?

No, a name is just a label. You have to label finds like that in order to keep track of them.

 

[Estrid]

No, a name is just a label. You have to label finds like that in order to keep track of them.

Very convenient to have a label for those who want
endlessly talk about it.
Much easier than calling it " that worn and broken
fossil peccary tooth that some rancher found,
you know, the one that was briefly thought
possibly a primate tooth?"

 

[AV1611VET]

No, a name is just a label. You have to label finds like that in order to keep track of them.

So how many of these mislabeled plants and animals are out there in cyberspace right now, awaiting their proper IDs?

 

[AV1611VET]

Very convenient to have a label for those who want
endlessly talk about it.
Much easier than calling it " that worn and broken
fossil peccary tooth that some rancher found,
you know, the one that was briefly thought
possibly a primate tooth?"

As I said before, the quality should go in, before the name goes on.

But, hey, that's Zenith TVs.

Not science.

They do things differently.

 

[Warden_of_the_Storm]

As I said before, the quality should go in, before the name goes on.

But, hey, that's Zenith TVs.

Not science.

They do things differently.

But how can you quantify and discuss the quality of something if you don't label it?

 

[BCP1928]

As I said before, the quality should go in, before the name goes on.

But, hey, that's Zenith TVs.

Not science.

They do things differently.

A marketing gimmick. A name or a label or even an assigned category are all man-made descriptions of reality. Giving a name or a label to something doesn't change it in any way. Likewise changing the category we assign something to does not affect it in the least.

 

[sfs]

It is not common sense to say you are related to an ape by your shared ancestry.

I didn't say it was. I said that testing ideas by seeing whether their consequences are seen in real life is common sense.

Your car analogy does not work because you can fully examine the 'genome' of your car and come to conclusions about it.

You're missing the point. You don't, in fact, fully examine your car to see why it's not working. You draw the obvious conclusion based on the evidence in front of you. You only object to scientists doing that with genetic data because you don't want humans to be related to chimpanzees, so you invent new barriers to avoid having to accept their conclusions.

 

[sfs]

Regarding your field, I do not see how macro-evolution is relevant at all in terms of any practical applications for forensic science. So maybe creationists simply ignore this request as unimportant and impossible.

I don't understand your reply. I don't do forensic science -- I just do science, sometimes practical and sometimes not. I don't think for one second that you can explain genetic data using creationist assumptions, but you'll go on saying that you can anyway.

 

[sfs]

Adam and Eve had other children. Cain also had other children, there may have been some interbreeding between the two lines though we do not know for sure. The loss of Abel would not figure in the genetic record as he would never appear in it. The genetic code and environment were not as broken as they are now in the pre-flood world making analysis based on today's conclusions dubious.

Doesn't matter. You still cannot get modern human genetic diversity from a single couple. You have to invent later miraculous changes to genes solely to explain away the disagreement with real genetics.

 

[AV1611VET]

A marketing gimmick. A name or a label or even an assigned category are all man-made descriptions of reality. Giving a name or a label to something doesn't change it in any way. Likewise changing the category we assign something to does not affect it in the least.

It it's so routine to find something, label it, investigate it, then relabel it, then what's all the hullabaloo about Nebraska Man?

Even Wikipedia accentuates its error.

But if such errors are normal and expected, then what's the big deal?

I'm not buying it.

I think scientists went into such a frenzy about having found a missing link, they threw caution to the wind, jumped the gun, and had this thing plastered all over the world before they had to admit it wasn't what they said it was.

Now they're trying to downplay it by saying they do this all the time.

Bologna.

 

[BCP1928]

It it's so routine to find something, label it, investigate it, then relabel it, then what's all the hullabaloo about Nebraska Man?

Even Wikipedia accentuates its error.

But if such errors are normal and expected, then what's the big deal?

I'm not buying it.

I think scientists went into such a frenzy about having found a missing link, they threw caution to the wind, jumped the gun, and had this thing plastered all over the world before they had to admit it wasn't what they said it was.

The scientists themselves never said anything but "maybe."

Now they're trying to downplay it by saying they do this all the time.

Bologna.

It happens frequently. But changing labels doesn't change reality.