A thread on evolution

[createdtoworship]

To what end though? I mean, we're not talking about bucking a trend of social behavioral norms or pop culture or something. We're talking about science.

I guess people can revel in rejecting scientific thought, but I'm not sure as to the point.

For example, the Botanical Society of America put creationism's failures into a succinct statement:

"Creationism has not made a single contribution to agriculture, medicine, conservation, forestry, pathology, or any other applied area of biology. Creationism has yielded no classifications, no biogeographies, no underlying mechanisms, no unifying concepts with which to study organisms or life." - Statement on Evolution, Botanical Society of America​

So congrats, you believe something that from a scientific POV is completely useless. Yay?



I think you're confused here, since I'm not using popularity to support an argument. I'm merely pointing out the fact that every branch of mainstream science contradicts creationism (YECism at least) in one regard or another.

again it's a bandwagon fallacy, please research this, and edit your post. (aka appeal to authority).
Appeal to authority and Appeal to the populous:

Examples: Evolution is true because everyone believes it. Truth is not made on the basis of the popular vote. OR Evolution is true because the majority of scientists are evolutionists: This is an appeal to authority, and just because a scientist believes it does not make evolution 100% correct. For example scientists believed in spontaneous generation for many years, or blood letting for example. So the appeal to authority is a fallacy. Something is true based on it’s scientific data, not on how many believe it.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Transitional from fish to tetrapods:

Ichthyostega - Wikipedia

"Ichthyostega (Greek: "fish roof") is an early tetrapod genus that lived at the end of the Upper Devonian period. It was a labyrinthodont, one of the first tetrapods in the fossilrecord. Ichthyostega possessed lungs and limbs that helped it navigate through shallow water in swamps. Though undoubtedly of amphibian build and habit, it is not considered a true member of the group in the narrow sense, as the first true amphibians appeared in the Carboniferous period. Until finds of other early tetrapods and closely related fishes in the late 20th century, Ichthyostega stood alone as the transitional fossil between fish and tetrapods, combining a fishlike tail and gills with an amphibian skull and limbs."

Neither a true fish nor a true amphibian.

And a link to one of many peer reviewed articles on it. Like many true peer reviewed articles you will have to pay to read it, or you could go to a college library:

The axial skeleton of the Devonian tetrapod Ichthyostega - ProQuest

 

[pitabread]

again it's a bandwagon fallacy, please research this, and edit your post. (aka appeal to authority).

You are still highly confused and do not appear to recognize the difference between stating facts versus making arguments.

 

[Shemjaza]

pictures or scans will do, post them and address what two genus they are transitioning, thanks.

Here you go:
Australopithicus!

Lucy is clearly not a chimp, as seen compared to Pan troglodytes, but she isn't exactly a "human" (as you called him) when compared to Homo habilis.

 

[Subduction Zone]

By the way, the Wikipedia article is based upon peer reviewed articles. There are links to those articles so that you can see if Wikipedia is accurate. Again, they are real peer reviewed articles and you will have to pay to read them.

 

[pitabread]

By the way, the Wikipedia article is based upon peer reviewed articles. There are links to those articles so that you can see if Wikipedia is accurate. Again, they are real peer reviewed articles and you will have to pay to read them.

Yeah, but they don't include cross tabulated references made during the full moon of the 12th month by a scientist whose first name starts with the letter "L". Therefore they don't count.

 

[pitabread]

Here you go:
Australopithicus!

Lucy is clearly not a chimp, as seen compared to Pan troglodytes, but she isn't exactly a "human" (as you called him) when compared to Homo habilis.

Sorry, but this doesn't count either. For starters you can clearly tell they used filler to make up the missing fragments of the skulls, therefore evolutionists are just inventing evidence. Also that Australopithicus skull falls within the size range of the chimp skull, therefore they are obviously the same thing. Plus, that chart uses a non-standard serif based font and therefore is completely invalid.

Another evolutionist fail. *sigh*

 

[Warden_of_the_Storm]

again say I am talking about little puppies for 9 minutes and then change topics and talk about little kitty cats right at the 4.5 minute mark, for one minute. If you quote about the kitty cats, it is a fully contextualized quote, but you cannot prove it, either way. So you have no argument here.

Except if I used video cutting software and take out the part where you talk about cats and then make an entire web article saying that you only care about cats while ignoring dogs, even if you are a world renowned dog expert, then that would be a quote-mine.
Gradyll, I think it's obvious here that not only do you do know what a quote-mine is, you do not what the word 'prove' means.

 

[TBDude65]

pictures or scans will do, post them and address what two genus they are transitioning, thanks.

If you are sincere about learning about evolution (I'm not convinced this is true) from me on this forum, it is going to require you to do quite a bit of work. Primarily because this is not a typical or normal format for teaching and learning. It also doesn't help that I don't know anything about what you already know about the relevant subjects, and based on the comment I am replying to it is clear that your understanding of basic terminology with respect to biology is lacking. So I need to know what relevant coursework you've completed on subjects related to biology, geology, and paleontology. It would also help if you've had any experience with learning statistics. College level completion for any of these subjects, or are we talking high school education? Secular institutions or religiously affiliated? (I need to know because this defines how basic I have to start off. Apparently I can't start off with the assumptions I made in my initial posts explaining evolution because you clearly don't understand the basic scientific principles that those observations, evidence, and explanations are built on).

 

[createdtoworship]

You are still highly confused and do not appear to recognize the difference between stating facts versus making arguments.

well your comment was proven wrong, so if you don't edit, I am simply going to move on to other comments.

 

[pitabread]

well your comment was proven wrong, so if you don't edit, I am simply going to move on to other comments.

There was nothing "proven wrong" about my comment. It's simply a fact that creationism (specifically YECism) is contradicted by the various branches of physical sciences. If you think otherwise, I don't know what to tell you.

 

[createdtoworship]

Here you go:
Australopithicus!

Lucy is clearly not a chimp, as seen compared to Pan troglodytes, but she isn't exactly a "human" (as you called him) when compared to Homo habilis.

yes, thank you.

so far only one skull in the list is human like, the second from the right.

apes have what is called a shovel face, really seen well in the chimp skull. some homo habilis skulls are human like, but many are actually ape like. Apes have a more prominent cheek bone as found in the side picture, which this does not have. So it's sort of incomplete. We would need both sides to fully examine the skulls. So far no transitions seen.

 

[VirOptimus]

yes, thank you.

so far only one skull in the list is human like, the second from the right.

apes have what is called a shovel face, really seen well in the chimp skull. some homo habilis skulls are human like, but many are actually ape like. Apes have a more prominent cheek bone as found in the side picture, which this does not have. So it's sort of incomplete. We would need both sides to fully examine the skulls. So far no transitions seen.

Humans are apes. Learn the facts.

 

[bhsmte]

Humans are apes. Learn the facts.

To some, facts are scary.

 

[createdtoworship]

Humans are apes. Learn the facts.

you beg the question as to the facts of the matter. If the facts are what is in question. You can't simply proclaim I am right" and you are wrong". Not having an argument in a debate is similar to getting sued, but not showing up in court. You still lose in the end.

 

[createdtoworship]

To some, facts are scary.

again not having a premise in a debate to negate another's conclusions is like getting sued in court and not showing up. In the end your lack of debate fails.

 

[pitabread]

you beg the question as to the facts of the matter. If the facts are what is in question. You can't simply proclaim I am right" and you are wrong". Not having an argument in a debate is similar to getting sued, but not showing up in court. You still lose in the end.

Except he is right and you are wrong. Humans are apes. We're classified as members of the Hominidae family which is collectively known as the "Great apes": Hominidae - Wikipedia

When people say "humans are apes" that is what they are referring to. It's taxonomy 101. Best learn it before trying to have a discussion about transitionary fossils and cladistics.

 

[Shemjaza]

yes, thank you.

so far only one skull in the list is human like, the second from the right.

apes have what is called a shovel face, really seen well in the chimp skull. some homo habilis skulls are human like, but many are actually ape like. Apes have a more prominent cheek bone as found in the side picture, which this does not have. So it's sort of incomplete. We would need both sides to fully examine the skulls. So far no transitions seen.

The whole point was that it was a transitional between the chimp and the pre-human.

Do you seriously assert that one of those Homo habilis is "clearly human" and the other is "clearly ape"?

(This is taking the "now you have two more gaps" canard to a new level.)

 

[createdtoworship]

Except he is right and you are wrong. Humans are apes. We're classified as members of the Hominidae family which is collectively known as the "Great apes": Hominidae - Wikipedia

When people say "humans are apes" that is what they are referring to. It's taxonomy 101. Best learn it before trying to have a discussion about transitionary fossils and cladistics.

homindae is not part of traditional taxonomy, and was added later to presuppose evolutionary concepts. you will have to make a peer reviewed argument as to the preference of homindae over say family taxonomical concepts.
it looks like the inventor of the modern taxonomy also views genus as

a type of barrier:


"The FROG-FISH, or the metamorphosis is very paradoxical, as Nature
would not admit the change of one Genus into another one of a
different Class. Rana, as all amphibians, possesses lungs and spiny bones. Spiny
fishes are provided with gills instead of lungs. Therefore this change would be
contrary to nature's law. For if this fish is provided with gills, it will be different from Rana and the amphibians; if with lungs, it will be a Lizard, for there is all
the world of difference between them and Chondropterygii and Plagiuri. "

Carl Linnaeus work systema naturae 1735 (translated from latin to english)

from
https://www.kth.se/polopoly_fs/1.19...umn-content/attachment/Linnaeus--extracts.pdf


so chimps and humans are of a different genus, and cannot mate or evolve into each other due to not being able to mate. Homo-erectus and Homo-sapiens are different species but not different types of creatures. They could still inter breed, and thus not cross the genus barrier.

 

[createdtoworship]

The whole point was that it was a transitional between the chimp and the pre-human.

Do you seriously assert that one of those Homo habilis is "clearly human" and the other is "clearly ape"?

(This is taking the "now you have two more gaps" canard to a new level.)

the terms I use are human like and ape like, and generally when it says homo (...) it is a human like species, while when the subject starts with an "a" for example, it's an ape like species. Generally speaking that has been the case. But I see conflicting reports on homo habilis. Some skulls are clearly human like, while other examples are ape like. Perhaps this is where these scientists are getting confused.