The Fossils for Human Evolution

[Warden_of_the_Storm]

They are pretty much all contested if you look into it.

Of course everything is contested in science. That's how advances are made, by contesting things.
But they're never contested in the way you are implying they are.

 

[renniks]

Of course everything is contested in science. That's how advances are made, by contesting things.
But they're never contested in the way you are implying they are.

You mean in the way that some scientists think they aren't legitimate? I hope you aren't serious.

 

[Warden_of_the_Storm]

You mean in the way that some scientists think they aren't legitimate? I hope you aren't serious.

There very likely are scientists that think certain finds won't be legitimate in some shape or form. There are also likely many scientists who will question and query every find that is made because that is a scientist's job.
You won't find any scientists that will say that a whole find is illegitimate and thus everything connected to that find is false.

 

[Bungle_Bear]

They are pretty much all contested if you look into it.

Not in the way you're implying, they aren't. Try looking beyond Creationist sites at what real scientists say.

 

[sesquiterpene]

The aquatic ape theory isn't the author's - it was postulated by a couple of scientists in the 1930s and then popularised by Alastair Hardy and Desmond Morris in the 1960s. It was resurrected in the 1990s by Elaine Morgan.

Many, many years ago I came across a thread in the Usenet group sci.anthropology about the aquatic ape theory. In it the professional scientists were schooling a clueless newbie about some of the finer points of anthropology and why they showed the AAT to be wrong. I found it very educational because I was a clueless newbie concerning anthropology - and still am.

I was many messages into the thread before I realized the clueless newbie, one Elaine Morgan, had actually written an entire book advocating the Aquatic Ape Theory, despite being completely clueless. Every time I see the AAT mentioned I think back to that thread and say to myself, fairly or not, "clueless newbie!"

It looks like her book The Aquatic Ape came out in 1982. I probably was reading the thread in the early 1990s.

 

[renniks]

There very likely are scientists that think certain finds won't be legitimate in some shape or form. There are also likely many scientists who will question and query every find that is made because that is a scientist's job.
You won't find any scientists that will say that a whole find is illegitimate and thus everything connected to that find is false.

Um, wrong. If a find isn't legitimate, then obviously nothing connected to it is legitimate.

 

[renniks]

Not in the way you're implying, they aren't. Try looking beyond Creationist sites at what real scientists say.

I have. Yes, there are finds that are questionable. Which means they should not be accepted. If a find that's said to be a human ancestor is actually the bones of a modern human for all intents and purposes mixed with the bones of an extinct ape, would that be legitimate?

 

[Warden_of_the_Storm]

Um, wrong. If a find isn't legitimate, then obviously nothing connected to it is legitimate.

That is true.
But you aren't able to show that evolution isn't legitimate, or anything to do with the theory of evolution is illegitimate. So why waste your time?

 

[AV1611VET]

Of course everything is contested in science.

It's when they win that contest, causing others to lose (some dramatically), that science can take a hike.

 

[Warden_of_the_Storm]

It's when they win that contest, causing others to lose (some dramatically), that science can take a hike.

... come again?

 

[AV1611VET]

... come again?

Challenger, Thalidomide, Deepwater Horizon, cigarettes, LSD, to name a few.

You know? those things they blame on big pharmacies, big government, big management, the press?

 

[Warden_of_the_Storm]

Challenger, Thalidomide, Deepwater Horizon, cigarettes, LSD, to name a few.

You know? those things they blame on big pharmacies, big government, big management, the press?

I really suggest that you go and seek therapy because you taking so much revelry in pointing out deaths and disasters is not a healthy thing.

And no, it's not incorrect to blame those things on big pharma, the government and all that because your singular focus on every disaster being the fault of scientists and science is childish and frankly... well, the only word I can use would definitely get me banned, but I will say it's very un-Christian.

 

[AV1611VET]

I really suggest that you go and seek therapy because you taking so much revelry in pointing out deaths and disasters is not a healthy thing.

What did you think I meant, when I said this ...

causing others to lose (some dramatically)

... and you asked for clarification?

 

[Ophiolite]

Except you're not. Even if the theory of evolution was shown to be wrong, that does not automatically mean that creationism or Creationism is correct and can be used as a theory in its place.

And that, as you rightly understood, was exactly the point I was making, but that AV was seemingly unable to grasp.

 

[Warden_of_the_Storm]

What did you think I meant, when I said this ...... and you asked for clarification?

It made no sense and still makes no sense. All you are doing is once again showing that you revel in pointing out death and disasters which are multifaceted and not easily blamable to a single being solely at the feet of scientists and science.

 

[renniks]

That is true.
But you aren't able to show that evolution isn't legitimate, or anything to do with the theory of evolution is illegitimate. So why waste your time?

If supposed human ancestors aren't that at all, why would I believe that the ToE is legitimate?

 

[Warden_of_the_Storm]

If supposed human ancestors aren't that at all, why would I believe that the ToE is legitimate?

But you haven't shown that they are. Your problem comes from the science conflicting with your preconceived religious beliefs and you refuse to actually try and make them work out, so you refuse to acknowledge one as even a possibility.

 

[renniks]

But you haven't shown that they are. Your problem comes from the science conflicting with your preconceived religious beliefs and you refuse to actually try and make them work out, so you refuse to acknowledge one as even a possibility.

You just made all that up, you actually have no idea why I reject evolution as an overall theory of origins.

And it doesn't matter how many inconsistencies I show in the so called Fossil record, the people on here that are loyal to the theory of evolution don't accept any of it. I've done it before...You would think that it was thier religion or something.

 

[Warden_of_the_Storm]

You just made all that up, you actually have no idea why I reject evolution as an overall theory of origins.

And it doesn't matter how many inconsistencies I show in the so called Fossil record, the people on here that are loyal to the theory of evolution don't accept any of it. I've done it before...You would think that it was thier religion or something.

But evolution isn't a theory on origins. Evolution is the theory of how life diversified after life came about on the planet.
And you've also shown nothing except a poor understanding of science, arguments from incredulity and a refusal to accept that you have been shown to be wrong about your comments.

 

[renniks]

And you've also shown nothing except a poor understanding of science, arguments from incredulity and a refusal to accept that you have been shown to be wrong about your comments.

Lol, that's your opinion. Which is worth exactly what I paid for it.