The problem of evil

[Archaeopteryx]

And interestingly,like scientists do as well. Apparently it's human nature.

You haven't shown that they are "making it up." If anything, you've shown that you don't understand what you're talking about.

 

[bhsmte]

And interestingly,like scientists do as well. Apparently it's human nature.

You continue to fail in demonstrating your claim.

 

[FrumiousBandersnatch]

Why don't scientists admit that they don't know for sure if we descended from a common ape-like ancestor then?

Multiple independent lines of evidence make it beyond reasonable doubt. But, like all scientific theories, it is open to revision given new evidence, and the details of the evolutionary path from common ancestor to extant primate species, including modern man, are subject to ongoing refinement as new evidence is discovered.

If you could suggest the kind of tests we could do to falsify your favoured hypothesis, or the kind of evidence you would expect to find if it was valid, the paleoanthropological community would probably have some helpful information for you.

 

[amariselle]

You haven't shown that they are "making it up." If anything, you've shown that you don't understand what you're talking about.

Your denial of the obvious is amazing.

 

[bhsmte]

Your denial of the obvious is amazing.

Serious projection.

 

[amariselle]

You continue to fail in demonstrating your claim.

No, you continue to fail to actually take an honest look at what scientists are doing. Not my problem.

 

[amariselle]

Serious projection.

Oh really? Read the article and watch the video. Are scientists manufacturing their own "evidence" to fill the huge gaps in the fossil record or aren't they?

It's pretty obvious what is happening. Deny it if you want. Your choice.

 

[bhsmte]

No, you continue to fail to actually take an honest look at what scientists are doing. Not my problem.

More projection.

 

[bhsmte]

Oh really? Read the article and watch the video. Are scientists manufacturing their own "evidence" to fill the huge gaps in the fossil record or aren't they?

It's pretty obvious what is happening. Deny it if you want. Your choice.

It is obvious what they are doing and how they explain what they are doing.

One would have to be willing to understand it though, instead of creating a strawman.

 

[amariselle]

More projection.

Is that the only answer you have?

Can you answer my question?

 

[amariselle]

Are scientists manufacturing their own "evidence" to fill the huge gaps in the fossil record or aren't they?

 

[amariselle]

I'm still waiting for the answer to this question.

Are scientists manufacturing their own "evidence" to fill the huge gaps in the fossil record or aren't they?

http://www.cam.ac.uk/research/news/...st-common-ancestor-of-humans-and-neanderthals

 

[Chany]

I'm still waiting for the answer to this question.



http://www.cam.ac.uk/research/news/...st-common-ancestor-of-humans-and-neanderthals

You do realize that the paper is them using a program to make a prediction on what these common ancestors would look like, right? It's not them saying that this is definitively what they looked like or that the "fossil" generated is part of the core pieces of evidence in order to show the relationship between Neanderthals and humans.

 

[amariselle]

You do realize that the paper is them using a program to make a prediction on what these common ancestors would look like, right? It's not them saying that this is definitively what they looked like or that the "fossil" generated is part of the core pieces of evidence in order to show the relationship between Neanderthals and humans.

Actually, they are admitting that the way their models look may not be exact, but they ARE using these models to "prove" that such evolution is a reality.

The fact remains, they are using these models to fill huge gaps in the fossil record. Scientists have been making bold claims about the evolution of man for many years now, and there is still no adequate fossil evidence to support their claims.

 

[FrumiousBandersnatch]

http://www.cam.ac.uk/research/news/...st-common-ancestor-of-humans-and-neanderthals

The paper clearly says they are making predictions based on empirical data. This is common practice in all walks of life - is there some reason you disapprove of scientists doing it?

Abstract
The timing and geographic origin of the common ancestor of modern humans and Neandertals remain controversial. A poor Pleistocene hominin fossil record and the evolutionary complexities introduced by dispersals and regionalisation of lineages have fuelled taxonomic uncertainty, while new ancient genomic data have raised completely new questions. Here, we use maximum likelihood and 3D geometric morphometric methods to predict possible morphologies of the last common ancestor of modern humans and Neandertals from a simplified, fully resolved phylogeny. We describe the fully rendered 3D shapes of the predicted ancestors of humans and Neandertals, and assess their similarity to individual fossils or populations of fossils of Pleistocene age. Our results support models of an Afro-European ancestral population in the Middle Pleistocene (Homo heidelbergensis sensu lato) and further predict an African origin for this ancestral population.

 

[amariselle]

The paper clearly says they are making predictions based on empirical data. This is common practice in all walks of life - is there some reason you disapprove of scientists doing it?

Exactly my point. They've admitted their shortcomings, but instead of stopping there and investing in the continued search for actual evidence, they fill the gaps with their computer models, and call THAT evidence.

Computer models are NOT evidence, they are mere conjecture.

 

[Loudmouth]

Horrible sometimes, not all the time.

I live in a city that has had a horrible tragedy and I believe in God more than ever. I see the ways that God carries people through struggles and brings them together. I believe in a God that has overcome the world and brings evil out of good. I do not believe in an angry God who loves some and hates others.

What we are talking about is the inescapable conclusion that the God described by Christian theology is immoral. I guess you wouldn't have to hate a child to watch the child suffer a painful death and do nothing about it, all the while having the power to instantly heal the child with a minimum of effort. However, no moral deity would do such a thing.

 

[Loudmouth]

Exactly my point. They've admitted their shortcomings, but instead of stopping there and investing in the continued search for actual evidence, they fill the gaps with their computer models, and call THAT evidence.

No, they call it a scientific model.

Computer models are NOT evidence, they are mere conjecture.

They are scientific models, which are more than mere conjecture.

 

[amariselle]

No, they call it a scientific model.

They are scientific models, which are more than mere conjecture.

So you can rename something and refer to it with fancy sounding terminology and that makes it more credible? Are you serious?

It is what it is. They can call it a "scientific model" all they want, it doesn't change the fact that they are overreaching.

 

[Loudmouth]

So you can rename something and refer to it with fancy sounding terminology and that makes it more credible?

You are trying to rename something to make it sound less credible. You seem to be projecting.

Scientists refer to these as scientific models or conclusions, quite separate from scientific evidence. You are the only one trying to change scientific conclusions into something they aren't.

It is what it is. They can call it a "scientific model" all they want, it doesn't change the fact that they are overreaching.

How are they overreaching?

Scientists aren't allowed to use observations to make tentative conclusions?