"Assumptions" is a magic word

[Critias]

Then please don't insult those of us who do evolutionary science if you can't support yourself. If you just want to rattle peoples' cages and make trouble, please take it somewhere else.

Again, they were not meant as insults. However, if you choose to make them that way for your case then that's your choice. I'll let you get back to defending creationism.

 

[Mallon]

Again, they were not meant as insults. However, if you choose to make them that way for your case then that's your choice.

Saying that the science of "Evolution makes the assumption that man evolved from an ape-like ancestor and then pieces 'evidence' it finds to support that assumption" is insulting for those of us who actually practice the science, regardless of whether you meant to be insulting or not. It's an insult not only to the individual, but to the field as a whole. You don't slap someone in the face and then tell them it wasn't meant to hurt.

 

[Dark_Lite]

It's also completely wrong. Those conclusions came from the observations Darwin made. He didn't just set out saying "LOL LETS FIND A WAY TO SAY HUMANS CAME FROM MONKEYS!" Current evidence is "retrofitted" into the theory, but that's because the conclusions already exist from previous observations, and these new pieces of evidence help further justify that conclusion.

 

[Critias]

Saying that the science of "Evolution makes the assumption that man evolved from an ape-like ancestor and then pieces 'evidence' it finds to support that assumption" is insulting for those of us who actually practice the science, regardless of whether you meant to be insulting or not. It's an insult not only to the individual, but to the field as a whole. You don't slap someone in the face and then tell them it wasn't meant to hurt.

Ah. Ok. You got me. I totally meant to slap you in the face. In fact I was really hoping it hurt. Apparently I succeeded.

You shouldn't take evolution so seriously that any criticism affects you so...

 

[Critias]

It's also completely wrong. Those conclusions came from the observations Darwin made. He didn't just set out saying "LOL LETS FIND A WAY TO SAY HUMANS CAME FROM MONKEYS!" Current evidence is "retrofitted" into the theory, but that's because the conclusions already exist from previous observations, and these new pieces of evidence help further justify that conclusion.

Never said that, but good job on the semi-distortion.

Of course there are no scientist ANYWHERE, from ANY view point, that would EVER try PROVE their arguments. Absurd!! There is no such thing as corruption or bias in science - any science.

That'd be like saying sin tainted the men and women in science (any science). Nonsense I tell you.

 

[Mallon]

 

[Critias]

 

[sfs]

Well, that was not meant as a personal attack. However, some scientists (and I should have said some originally, so I apologize) do try and PROVE their work.

Yes, as you have discovered, a difficulty with attacking an entire group is that groups turn out to be composed of individual persons, and persons often take attacks personally.

Woah. My comment on the fact that there are scientists who have biases and try to prove their work has nothing to do with what my life origin view points are.

BOTH (evolution/creation) sides of the debate, I believe, are guilty of that.

Your comments were pretty clear: you think those who study human evolution are substantially more guilty of this than other scientists. That's the point I wish to challenge you on.

What type of support do you desire? Do you want just a statement, a hand written note from a scientists, dental records that show imprints of lies?

Scientists, who are creationsists, are often (not always) guilty of creating a theory and trying to prove this. Corruption knows no bounds of religious beliefs or lack thereof.

All snarking aside . . .

Scientists are just as human as anyone else, and have their share of biases and vices; nonetheless, they really are usually willing to give up even their most cherished ideas in the face of data.

But we're not talking about scientists in general here; we're talking about evolution (or human evolution) in particular. Your original comments suggest that you view that branch of science as particularly corrupted and prone to preconceptions. I'm genuinely curious about where you get that idea. I have pretty broad experience in science, and I don't see that at all. My work is only involved tangentially in questions of common ancestry, but I think it is one of the better established conclusions in any science, and that the science being done in that area is no different in kind than you will find in any field.

Now I understand if you don't want to get into a debate about this, but could you at least explain how you come by your view?

(By the way, all scientists try to prove (for loose meanings of "prove") their ideas. That's where much of the motivation for doing science comes from: come up with an idea about the world and show that it's true. The key is a willingness to drop the idea and move on to another one when the evidence goes against you. )

I bet you didn't expect me to speak against (gasp!) creationists.

Isn't it a bit [what's the word I'm looking for here . . . oh yes] presumptuous to assume what my reaction would be? Actually, I'm not surprised. You don't come across as a typical creationist, and I hadn't drawn any conclusions about your beliefs in the matter.

 

[juvenissun]

The first is evidence that humans and chimpanzees differ, not that they are not related. The second is mostly evidence that there are many more humans than chimpanzees. Chimpanzees do go to war and kill each other with considerable frequency. There just aren't enough chimps around for there to be tens of thousands of casualties.

Com'n, you can argue better than that. First, it is a scale problem. Second, even human population is the same as chimp population, they will still kill each other many more in numbers than chimps do. Is that what people said how did the Neanderthals extinct?

 

[sfs]

Com'n, you can argue better than that. First, it is a scale problem. Second, even human population is the same as chimp population, they will still kill each other many more in numbers than chimps do. Is that what people said how did the Neanderthals extinct?

Evidence, please? I have never seen a comparison between typical rates for chimpanzees and for humans killing each other, so I can't make any statement about which is larger. All I know is that both murder and war can be readily seen by observing small groups of chimpanzees, which suggests that the rate is nontrivial. You obviously have better information, so tell us what you know, and how you know it.

 

[philadiddle]

Com'n, you can argue better than that. First, it is a scale problem. Second, even human population is the same as chimp population, they will still kill each other many more in numbers than chimps do. Is that what people said how did the Neanderthals extinct?

In reference to the red text, maybe you could give a quick proof read of your short posts to make sure the sentences, if not proper, are at least coherent. Of course people use improper grammar online, but at least make it make sense.

I haven't chatted with you in a while but it seems that you've run away from genetic, morphological, phylogenetic, and geological arguments and now you are desperately trying to cling to anything you can. Are we getting through to you? Are you grasping at the last staws of what you know is a false view of our origins? I've been there. It's OK to let it go, it doesn't mean that you have to stop being a Christian. I've been there, check out the following threads and notice the original dates:

me arguing evolution as a theory
http://www.christianforums.com/t2216136/

trying to make sense of my YEC view
http://www.christianforums.com/t2066329/

with these 2 i was actually trying to understand
http://www.christianforums.com/t2123890/
http://www.christianforums.com/t2072977/

It was the last link, the one about the grand canyon that helped lead me to accept the age of the earth.

Anyways Juvy, I think you'll get even more out of your faith when you see God's creation for what it is.

 

[Critias]

Yes, as you have discovered, a difficulty with attacking an entire group is that groups turn out to be composed of individual persons, and persons often take attacks personally.

Yup, I have discovered that if you state something against a belief, people will take that very personally.

Your comments were pretty clear: you think those who study human evolution are substantially more guilty of this than other scientists. That's the point I wish to challenge you on.

Actually you're not quite right about that. While I do think those who study human evolution are looking at it with existing presuppositions that support the "belief", I don't think they are the only ones to do so.

Everyone does. It's not that those presuppositions cannot change, but some people are just too stubborn to be swayed.

If you want to challenge me on that, then that's fine.

All snarking aside . . .

Scientists are just as human as anyone else, and have their share of biases and vices; nonetheless, they really are usually willing to give up even their most cherished ideas in the face of data.

But we're not talking about scientists in general here; we're talking about evolution (or human evolution) in particular. Your original comments suggest that you view that branch of science as particularly corrupted and prone to preconceptions. I'm genuinely curious about where you get that idea. I have pretty broad experience in science, and I don't see that at all. My work is only involved tangentially in questions of common ancestry, but I think it is one of the better established conclusions in any science, and that the science being done in that area is no different in kind than you will find in any field.

Now I understand if you don't want to get into a debate about this, but could you at least explain how you come by your view?

(By the way, all scientists try to prove (for loose meanings of "prove") their ideas. That's where much of the motivation for doing science comes from: come up with an idea about the world and show that it's true. The key is a willingness to drop the idea and move on to another one when the evidence goes against you. )

Again, it's not human evolution but human nature.

To speak to the "proving" of ideas. Coming from an engineering background, the best way to "prove" something is to try and disprove something - break it.

I'm sure you are aware that when you are thinking about getting a new car (or whatever it might be) you start seeing that car everywhere. In actuality, nothing changed but the fact that you are now looking for it everywhere. It's not that hard to convince one's self about the truth of something - castles made in sand.

I don't believe all scientists or even most, are like that: building up something refusing to see the weak points. There are some (Dawkins - again I'm not speaking to a specific area of science), who are well known that seem to have an agenda to push their belief system over the science in which they practice.

Isn't it a bit [what's the word I'm looking for here . . . oh yes] presumptuous to assume what my reaction would be? Actually, I'm not surprised. You don't come across as a typical creationist, and I hadn't drawn any conclusions about your beliefs in the matter.

Good throw! Guess I lost the bet.

 

[laconicstudent]

Saying that the science of "Evolution makes the assumption that man evolved from an ape-like ancestor and then pieces 'evidence' it finds to support that assumption" is insulting for those of us who actually practice the science, regardless of whether you meant to be insulting or not. It's an insult not only to the individual, but to the field as a whole. You don't slap someone in the face and then tell them it wasn't meant to hurt.

Emphasis mine. This is WHY Christians often have such a bad rep in the scientific community. It isn't, as some suggest, because scientists are rabid atheists who hate God or some tripe like that.

Its because there is a small, vocal segment of Christianity that claims to be able to disprove their work, despite the difference in education, credentials, knowledge and area of specialty.

They try and argue it, and their points are usually either complete misrepresentations of the science, simply ignorant, or on issues that are explained in undergraduate General Biology classes.

 

[philadiddle]

Actually you're not quite right about that. While I do think those who study human evolution are looking at it with existing presuppositions that support the "belief", I don't think they are the only ones to do so.

Sorry to be the first to tell you this, but evolution isn't a presupposed belief, it is a conclusion based on multiple lines of independent evidence.

Out of curiosity, what are your specific views about human origins?

 

[juvenissun]

In reference to the red text, maybe you could give a quick proof read of your short posts to make sure the sentences, if not proper, are at least coherent. Of course people use improper grammar online, but at least make it make sense.

I haven't chatted with you in a while but it seems that you've run away from genetic, morphological, phylogenetic, and geological arguments and now you are desperately trying to cling to anything you can. Are we getting through to you? Are you grasping at the last staws of what you know is a false view of our origins? I've been there. It's OK to let it go, it doesn't mean that you have to stop being a Christian. I've been there, check out the following threads and notice the original dates:

me arguing evolution as a theory
http://www.christianforums.com/t2216136/

trying to make sense of my YEC view
http://www.christianforums.com/t2066329/

with these 2 i was actually trying to understand
http://www.christianforums.com/t2123890/
[COLOR="Red"]http://www.christianforums.com/t2072977/[/COLOR]

It was the last link, the one about the grand canyon that helped lead me to accept the age of the earth.

Anyways Juvy, I think you'll get even more out of your faith when you see God's creation for what it is.

People argued in that thread at geology 101 level. That is why they thought the incised meander is a feature represent long time.

 

[juvenissun]

Evidence, please? I have never seen a comparison between typical rates for chimpanzees and for humans killing each other, so I can't make any statement about which is larger. All I know is that both murder and war can be readily seen by observing small groups of chimpanzees, which suggests that the rate is nontrivial. You obviously have better information, so tell us what you know, and how you know it.

I don't. All I have is that I have never heard that chimp kills each other by hundreds or even by tens. In their "wars", I guess one or two casualties would be the highest. So, their war should not be called war, but, may be fight. Only human wars. Again, I don't have data. What I have is that I did not hear any report said otherwise.

 

[philadiddle]

People argued in that thread at geology 101 level. That is why they thought the incised meander is a feature represent long time.

Please tell me how the meandering represents a global flood.

 

[sfs]

I don't. All I have is that I have never heard that chimp kills each other by hundreds or even by tens. In their "wars", I guess one or two casualties would be the highest. So, their war should not be called war, but, may be fight. Only human wars. Again, I don't have data. What I have is that I did not hear any report said otherwise.

Chimpanzees do not have the technology to cause mass casualties at one time, but communities do carry out campaigns of sustained violence against other communities, which can result in the complete annihilation of the targeted community. That sure sounds like war to me.

From what I have seen online, it looks like the total death rate from acts of violence is if anything higher in chimps than in humans. The sporadic murder rate seems to be around 0.5% per year. Then there are wars, like the first one observed in Gombe, in which the larger community wiped out a small, splinter community over a period of four years, and the ones that seem to have broken out in Gabon in response to logging, which were blamed for killing 80% of the chimp population in some areas.

 

[juvenissun]

Chimpanzees do not have the technology to cause mass casualties at one time, but communities do carry out campaigns of sustained violence against other communities, which can result in the complete annihilation of the targeted community. That sure sounds like war to me.

From what I have seen online, it looks like the total death rate from acts of violence is if anything higher in chimps than in humans. The sporadic murder rate seems to be around 0.5% per year. Then there are wars, like the first one observed in Gombe, in which the larger community wiped out a small, splinter community over a period of four years, and the ones that seem to have broken out in Gabon in response to logging, which were blamed for killing 80% of the chimp population in some areas.

Is the annihilation or the wipe out you said the actual killing? Or were they just driven away? It is hard to imaging that chimp or any animal will "defend" their territory to the death of the last one. They are not Japanese chimps.

A side question: do they ever surrender? (I don't think so. There is no need to do that. Just run away will be good).

 

[juvenissun]

Please tell me how the meandering represents a global flood.

Your question is wrong. A meander does not "represent" anything.

If meandering made you run away from the Global Flood, ha ha ..., you are a really scared ckn.