Evolution's Brick Wall

[pitabread]

Except that in his country they also have a political agenda based on the same interpretation of scripture which supports their anti-evolutionary views, and a President who panders to it for their votes.

That's true, but there are also competing forces which (imho) supercede any grass-roots anti-evolution movements. The biggest I believe is the simple fact that evolution is an applied science. When you have something with practical value, it's harder to eliminate it.

What was especially revealing for me was when I researched government funding of biotech firms back in the 90's and 2000's. It was especially interesting to see how governors that pandered to creationists on the one hand were also pumping money into the biotech industry on the other (where evolution is applied).

Creationists also tend to lose every legal challenge they are hit with when it comes to education. And creationist beliefs have been on a downward trend in the US for the past couple decades.

Where I think things are a bit scary are anti-vaxxer movements and climate change denialism. Those have far more of an immediate negative impact on human well being given the consequences at stake.

 

[dgiharris]

Where I think things are a bit scary are anti-vaxxer movements and climate change denialism. Those have far more of an immediate negative impact on human well being given the consequences at stake.

A few months ago I was out with some friends at a restaurant and a group of people next to us were debating vaccination. There were 3 anti-vaxxers against two educated people and it was all I could do to not explode and jump into a conversation I wasn't invited into.

Apparently, vaccinations are a hoax and all your kids need to be healthy is vitamins and exercise... The anti-vaxxers took "pride" in not having any education and yet they employed a monkey's version of clinical trials (i.e. a friend of a friend of a friend's anecdotal evidence) as the basis of why they not only believed in anti-vaxxer stuff but also that vaccinations were actually dangerous. They would site some nutjobs "home trials" as all the proof they needed to ensure the health of their kids.

It was completely lost on them that they were actually employing bad medicine and science but the reason they "believed" in that dribble and anecdotes is because it was what their limited brains could understand.

Irony on top of irony.

They'll believe the "Trials" of a few internet people they've never met while disbelieving hundreds of years of medical history and data...

the argument literally made my head hurt. I think I lost 10 IQ points just listening to them...

 

[Speedwell]

That's true, but there are also competing forces which (imho) supercede any grass-roots anti-evolution movements. The biggest I believe is the simple fact that evolution is an applied science. When you have something with practical value, it's harder to eliminate it.

What was especially revealing for me was when I researched government funding of biotech firms back in the 90's and 2000's. It was especially interesting to see how governors that pandered to creationists on the one hand were also pumping money into the biotech industry on the other (where evolution is applied).

Creationists also tend to lose every legal challenge they are hit with when it comes to education. And creationist beliefs have been on a downward trend in the US for the past couple decades.

Where I think things are a bit scary are anti-vaxxer movements and climate change denialism. Those have far more of an immediate negative impact on human well being given the consequences at stake.

That, and their adamant stance on gun control.

 

[inquiring mind]

That’s all good, but back to the discussion here, why isn’t there a lot of definite fossil evidence for a transition route from ape to man? After all the research & study that’s been done there should be something more than connecting the dots (as AV says). Government and science have based our whole education system on it.

 

[Strathos]

Well, at least you're willing to teach that your number is incorrect. Why not also teach that the theory of evolution is far from 100% correct? Right now it is taught as correct in every public school in this country. Thats wrong.

If it was considered "100% correct" then no new research would ever have to be done. Nothing in science is 'proven 100% correct', it's just the best explanation for something that we have according to all of the available evidence. If you think you have a better explanation that can completely overturn an established scientific theory, then submit your research and get it peer reviewed, you'll become rich and famous.

 

[sfs]

That’s all good, but back to the discussion here, why isn’t there a lot of definite fossil evidence for a transition route from ape to man? After all the research & study that’s been done there should be something more than connecting the dots (as AV says). Government and science have based our whole education system on it.

What exactly do you think is lacking in the fossil evidence for humans? Here's how brain size changed over millions of years. Where do you think humans start?

 

[mark kennedy]

And yet nobody has ever demonstrated such limits...

Of course they have, I'm paraphrasing Gregor Mendle tbere.

 

[mark kennedy]

What exactly do you think is lacking in the fossil evidence for humans? Here's how brain size changed over millions of years. Where do you think humans start?

View attachment 236143

No they didn't and that scattergram just confuses the issues. 2 million years ago no primates were over 600 c.f.. Then with Homo erectus the cranial capacity doubles over night without any viable cause.

 

[mark kennedy]

That’s all good, but back to the discussion here, why isn’t there a lot of definite fossil evidence for a transition route from ape to man? After all the research & study that’s been done there should be something more than connecting the dots (as AV says). Government and science have based our whole education system on it.

The first thing I looked into many years ago were hominid fossils. What you have are Neabderthalls with skulls 20% greater then our own, and chimpanzee ancestors showing a similar patterb but they are passed of as our ancestors. Then between 3 mya and 2 mya the only fossil.evidence is parantropos, who paleontologist agree unaniposly is not in our line, it's an obvious transition to the Moder gorrill. Evolutionist are profoundly misinform as to the evidence, I've yet to see anyone on here make a coherent argument for common descent based of hominid fossil. Its either that pointless scattergram from Pandas Thumb or the Hall of Skulls from.Talk Origins. Does Antony remember when people actually did background reading?

 

[sfs]

Of course they have, I'm paraphrasing Gregor Mendle tbere.

Since Gregor Mendel said nothing remotely like what you said, um, no.

 

[sfs]

No they didn't and that scattergram just confuses the issues.

If your point is confused by a clear presentation of the data, then your point is wrong.

 

[mark kennedy]

If your point is confused by a clear presentation of the data, then your point is wrong.

This I know I'm right about and Im often forthcoming with the data. What's more nothing is ever wrong by default simply because the data is not forthcoming. The chimpanzee and hominid line may well have diverged 5 maya but there wasn't a dimes worth of difference, they are indistiquishable untill 2 mya.

 

[SkyWriting]

How long will it take for academia's and evolutionists to admit that Creation is the likely option if no such route is found, 100 years, 200 years, 500 years, never?

Never. The method for avoiding Faith is to find excuses for everything.
Even for a lack of good excuses.

 

[SkyWriting]

We don't generally talk about proof in science. What we talk about is evidence. We have overwhelming evidence that the Earth is roughly spherical, and we have overwhelming evidence that the Earth is billions of years old. Anyone who tells you otherwise about either point is either deeply confused or lying to you.

Both facts are hyped up largely for very little practical use.
Mostly helpful in making a larger post count.

 

[mark kennedy]

Since Gregor Mendel said nothing remotely like what you said, um, no.

He did conclude limits beyond which things cannot evolve., so yea.

 

[mark kennedy]

And yet nobody has ever demonstrated such limits...

Its the essence of Mendelian genetics, yea actually they have.

 

[pitabread]

Its the essence of Mendelian genetics, yea actually they have.

No.

 

[mark kennedy]

No.

Baloney.

 

[pitabread]

Baloney.

Ham and cheese.

 

[inquiring mind]

I saw somewhere that just the “thought-to-be” or “possibly” ape to Hominid transitional fossils could be put in a shoe box and there’d still be room for the shoes. I don’t have a clue how accurate (if at all) that statement is, but if that’s anywhere close to actuality after all the research & study that has been done... well, where does the refusal of the truth rest? It looks like there are many branches of apes that “appear” to have been progressing toward hominids, but apparently no actual bridge (in the form of fossil remains – evidence) between the two (showing a direct route) has been found. Except for all the connecting the dots, it’s as though man just appeared... like the Bible says.