I may have discovered the best evidence for evolution

[Loudmouth]

What other plausible explanation is there for life falling into the twin nested hierarchies of morphology and DNA? Well, I'm no expert, but the two main arguments on here have been:

1. Life doesn't fall into a nested hierarchy;

It does.

and
2. Intelligent design.

Why would an intelligent designer be forced to make life fall into a nested hierarchy?

I said that Darwinism remains, as all other scientific theories are, unproven.

However, the theory of evolution is supported by mountains of evidence, and there is no other theory that explains the facts in such a complete manner.

And no, it is not intellectually dishonest to note that all scientific theories are unproven.

It is intellectually dishonest to require 100% absolute proof before you tentatively accept a scientific theory.

 

[Dizredux]

confirmed predictions don't support theories.

Gosh, you just threw the entire scientific method out the window. Talk about nihilism, I don't think I have run into anything this extreme before.

Dizredux

 

[Smidlee]

Gosh, someone had better tell the Paleontologists about this as they seem to be blissfully unaware that the fossil evidence doesn't support evolution.

they already know this.

Geneticists are another group you need to break the news to as they too seem to be rather unaware that evolution has been destroyed.

You have a lot of work ahead of you, best get busy.

Dizredux

It has been known for a long time when something is proven wrong in science it will slowly correct itself one funeral at a time.

 

[Loudmouth]

they already know this.

Says the person who has to ignore the transitional fossils.

It has been known for a long time when something is proven wrong in science it will slowly correct itself one funeral at a time.

The only thing proven wrong thus far is your claims about science.

 

[FreedByte]

Agnostic | Define Agnostic at Dictionary.com

noun
1. a person who holds that the existence of the ultimate cause, as God, and the essential nature of things are unknown and unknowable, or that human knowledge is limited to experience.
2. a person who denies or doubts the possibility of ultimate knowledge in some area of study.
3. a person who holds neither of two opposing positions on a topic
5. asserting the uncertainty of all claims to knowledge.

Dictionaries. Who knew, right?!

I was referring to agnosticism in the context of religion, as in the "faith icon" on CF.

 

[Smidlee]

:

If you want to be brainwashed then Tyson is the man.
http://thefederalist.com/2014/09/15...ust-try-to-justify-blatant-quote-fabrication/
Another Day, Another Quote Fabricated By Neil deGrasse Tyson

He is famous of making up quotes no one ever said. I wonder what else he made up.

 

[Smidlee]

Says the person who has to ignore the transitional fossils.

What transitional fossil ? Boobzilla?

The only thing proven wrong thus far is your claims about science.

 

[Delphiki]

He is famous of making up quotes no one ever said. I wonder what else he made up.

I make up my own quotes all the time. Not sure what you're trying to say is bad about that. It's not like he's erroneously quoting others or stealing quotes without giving proper credit. People are allowed to come up with their own quotes, you know.

 

[FreedByte]

If you want to be brainwashed then Tyson is the man.

Another Day, Another Quote Fabricated By Neil deGrasse Tyson

He is famous of making up quotes no one ever said. I wonder what else he made up.

I get my brainwashing from Dawkins and Hitchens, no need to worry

 

[Loudmouth]

What transitional fossil ?

These:

 

[Smidlee]

These:

Oh man , The evolution Bible site Talkorigins. The picture is old and out of date. Scientific American did a whole issue on human origins and stated clearly everything you have been told about human origins is wrong. They are working of new version by it ay take decades to come up with a new fairy tale.

I make up my own quotes all the time. Not sure what you're trying to say is bad about that. It's not like he's erroneously quoting others or stealing quotes without giving proper credit. People are allowed to come up with their own quotes, you know.

So you don't care if the quote is real or not? Why doesn't that surprise me.

 

[Loudmouth]

Oh man , The evolution Bible site Talkorigins.

Those are from the Smithsonian. Also, I see that you are already trying to make up excuses for ignoring the transitional fossils.

The picture is old and out of date. Scientific American did a whole issue on human origins and stated clearly everything you have been told about human origins is wrong.

What is wrong?

They are working of new version by it ay take decades to come up with a new fairy tale.

Says the person who is ignoring the fossil evidence.

 

[Smidlee]

Those are from the Smithsonian. Also, I see that you are already trying to make up excuses for ignoring the transitional fossils.

but that's what needs to be proven since last year some of these skulls that evolutionist believe transitionals were 100% human.

What is wrong?



Says the person who is ignoring the fossil evidence.

I don't question the fossils but the assumption made about those fossils as someone is suppose to be doing when it comes to science.

 

[Paul of Eugene OR]

First of all, Fingerprints are not scientific evidence. Second, DNA evidence can be used at crime scenes in a specific way–it can rule people out as potential suspects. If a gun is found and DNA is found on it, that DNA could prove that I was not the killer. It does not, however, prove that the person whose DNA it is was the killer. It's circumstantial evidence.

People are sent to the death on what you call "circumstantial evidence" and deny is proof. The juries and the judge considered it proof.

Why don't you think such evidence is proof?

 

[Paul of Eugene OR]

Oh man , The evolution Bible site Talkorigins. The picture is old and out of date. Scientific American did a whole issue on human origins and stated clearly everything you have been told about human origins is wrong. They are working of new version by it ay take decades to come up with a new fairy tale.

So you don't care if the quote is real or not? Why doesn't that surprise me.

Hey, I have the article and nowhere does it say "everything you have been told about human origins is wrong".

You say the picture is "old" and "out of date". Well, every single fossil is real. If it is out of date, the only way that could be possible is . . . if there are MORE fossil skulls to add to the gradation we clearly see.

Is that what you are trying to admit too, or exactly what else did you mean to say by "it is old and out of date"?

 

[Paul of Eugene OR]

but that's what needs to be proven since last year some of these skulls that evolutionist believe transitionals were 100% human.
.

Please provide a link to what you are claiming here. I am all to familiar with blatant mistakes being made as to what a source actually says.

 

[Loudmouth]

but that's what needs to be proven since last year some of these skulls that evolutionist believe transitionals were 100% human.

Homo erectus is considered to be human, and Homo erectus is still transitional. All Homo species are considered to be human, but only one species is considered to be an anatomically modern human.

I don't question the fossils but the assumption made about those fossils as someone is suppose to be doing when it comes to science.

What is being assumed?

The eye ridges in H. erectus are facts. The decreased brain size in H. erectus is fact. H. erectus has more basal ape features than anatomically modern humans. H. erectus has a mixture of features from earlier Australopithecines and later H. sapiens. H. erectus is transitional, by definition.

 

[Smidlee]

Hey, I have the article and nowhere does it say "everything you have been told about human origins is wrong".

You say the picture is "old" and "out of date". Well, every single fossil is real. If it is out of date, the only way that could be possible is . . . if there are MORE fossil skulls to add to the gradation we clearly see.

Is that what you are trying to admit too, or exactly what else did you mean to say by "it is old and out of date"?

Of course I'm referring to the interpretations of those fossils and not the fossils themselves. They are lined up as if to mean something which is a little misleading.

I don't have the article with me but here a quote from it:
" Awash in this flood of fresh insights, scientists have to revise virtually every chapter of the human saga, from the dawn of humankind to the triumph of Homo sapiens over the Neandertals and other archaic species."

 

[Loudmouth]

There are line up as if to mean something which is a little misleading

Except for the chimp skull at the very beginning, they are lined up by their age. What is misleading about that?

I don't have the article with me but here a quote from it:
" Awash in this flood of fresh insights, scientists have to revise virtually every chapter of the human saga, from the dawn of humankind to the triumph of Homo sapiens over the Neandertals and other archaic species."

Not the first time that a journalist has used over-the-top verbage to sell a story. What do the actual scientists say?

 

[Split Rock]

but that's what needs to be proven since last year some of these skulls that evolutionist believe transitionals were 100% human.

Which are you referring to? References?

I don't question the fossils but the assumption made about those fossils as someone is suppose to be doing when it comes to science.

Go ahead and explain them, then. Explain fossil after fossil, after fossil, all with characteristics intermediate between us and other higher primates.