Human Evolution

[anyathesword]

Is 'lizard' a kind?

I do not know..

 

[anyathesword]

A lot of the stuff you post is, in fact, a lie.

The stuff you posted about Lucy's knee joint is a lie.

The stuff you posted about Neanderthal Man being a guy with arthritis is a lie.

What you said about Piltdown Man and Nebraska Man and Archeoraptor being a lynchpin or 'very important' to evolutionary theory is a lie.

Maybe you don't realize they're lies, but they are. They're simply not true. When you refuse to even deal with these lies, it gives the impression that, despite your claims, you don't care what's true or not.

And it's rather irritating that you refuse to admit it, then turn around and accuse others of believing lies.

You are not convinced that what I posted about this things is a lie, so why would I be convinced what you say is not a lie (I mean your sources)?

 

[lasthero]

I do not know..

Then why do you think it's relevant to say that 'they're still lizards'?

And we were talking about salamanders, as I recall, which aren't lizards at all. They're amphibians.

 

[anyathesword]

Speciation is by definition at a species level. We would not expect an incipient species to differ greatly from its progenitor. You're setting up a straw man. I'm glad you acknowledge that speciation occurs (PS this is macroevolution :] ).

Edit: did you not read the paper I posted on mosquitoes? This would seem to indicate that you are not actually interested in learning. Is that also a lie?

I do not have time to read every paper and link. DO YOU look at all my links and read them?

If I am on to something I stick with that, if there is a topic I understand the best, I stick to that, etc.

 

[lasthero]

You are not convinced that what I posted about this things is a lie, so why would I be convinced what you say is not a lie (I mean your sources)?

Because my sources are actually backed up by the facts.

You can read Johanson's work and see for yourself that the knee joint was a separate find. This has even been pointed out to creationists who made the claim, and some of them have retracted it. The link I provided clearly showed this. The knee joint and Lucy are both clearly documented.

You will not find a single, reputable source that says Neanderthal Man was a guy with arthritis.

And, really, both of these are moot points - even if they were true, they would do nothing to erase the fact that we've found other 'Lucys' and neanderthals. Are they all hoaxes, too?

 

[Jro]

No it's not!! And I already debated this point here or in another thread, I don't remember.

It is from the Berkley Evolution 101 site.

Macroevolution is ABOVE a species level and can only happen 'if given enough time', etc.

Depends upon who you talk to. The line is fuzzy. Most folks I've worked with set it up as follows - microevolution occurs within populations, macroevolution occurs when gene pools become separated by, for example, speciation.

 

[lasthero]

DO YOU look at all my links and read them?

I assume you post links because you want us to read them. Wouldn't it be nice to return the favor?

Heck, remember that two-hour long documentary about aliens that you posted? You expected people to watch that, but you can't be bothered to take five minutes to read something?

 

[Jro]

I do not have time to read every paper and link. DO YOU look at all my links and read them?

If I am on to something I stick with that, if there is a topic I understand the best, I stick to that, etc.

The question is simple - are you interested in learning about evolution, as you've professed, or not? If you are interested, why aren't you reading?

 

[PsychoSarah]

The question is simple - are you interested in learning about evolution, as you've professed, or not? If you are interested, why aren't you reading?

I wonder if Anya has trouble with some of the terminology. She is from France, so English might not be her first language (though, she is very adept with it if that is the case) so some of those terms might be hard to read, after all, lots of studies share the trait of being overly verbose and using so many big, technical words it can feel like a vocabulary test.

 

[Dizredux]

If I am on to something I stick with that, if there is a topic I understand the best, I stick to that, etc.

As do we all but most do not stick with something right or wrong, no matter what. The opening must be there to change one's mind if learning is to be involved.

Dizredux

 

[Queller]

EVIDENCE OF EVOLUTION—If evolution was a fact, we should find in present events and past records abundant evidence of one species changing into another species. But, throughout all past history and in present observations, no one has ever seen this happen. Prior to written history, we only have fossil evidence. Scientists all over the world have been collecting and studying fossils for over a hundred years. Literally millions have been collected!

In all their research, this is what they discovered: (1) There is no evidence of one species having changed into another one. (2) Our modern species are what we find there, plus some extinct ones. (3) There are no transitional or halfway forms between species.

Yes, there are extinct creatures among the fossils. These are plants and animals which no longer live on the earth. But even scientists agree that extinct species would not be an evidence of evolution.

Yet evolutionists parade dinosaur bones as a grand proof of evolution—when they are no proof at all! Extinction is not evolution!
Evolution Handbook 3

I've asked this a couple of times and you ignore it each time.

What do you believe a transitional fossil is and what do you think one would look like?

ETA: please give the explanation in YOUR words, not some other site (scientific or creationist).

 

[Shemjaza]

Why don't you explain to me this photo and tell me how this is supposed to be proof of evolution.

It puts a lie to the "no transitional between humans and other apes" statement we see thrown around a lot.

The first critter is a normal chimp and the last critter is a normal human... the rest show that there is no dividing line between us and the rest of the apes. And shows that we have found quite a variety of transitional human fossils.

 

[driewerf]

Probably not. She's getting this annoying habit of just moving on from topic to topic and dumping more and more from her favorite websites, then moving on without addressing the rebuttals. I'm starting to find it quite annoying.

Indeed. I have written two rather extensive rebuttals myself. To which she relpyed with just one sentence.

 

[biggles53]

Anya, one of your frequent whines is that people aren't treating your arguments even-handedly...that we present our evidence which demonstrates support for evolutionary processes, while dismissing your creationist claims as being fanciful, fantastic or false...

And you demand to know why this is...?

The simplest reason I can think of, the thing which separates your approach to forming a world view most clearly is this....

Tomorrow, if evidence could be brought forward which clearly disproves evolutionary theory, I would drop it like a hot stone...! So, I am confident, would most others who have contributed to this thread. And that evidence could take one of many, many forms...there are clearly a myriad of evidence which could falsify evolution....some which spring to mind are the investigation of a dolphin's genome and finding it more closely resembles that of a fish than other mammals, that a chimp's was closer to a bear's than a human, finding a mammalian fossil in Devonian strata, discovering that the environment doesn't select for the most advantageous traits.....and so on, and so on.... If any of these evidences were shown to be valid, I would cease to be a supporter of evolutionary theory immediately...

But, can you say the same thing...?

Can you even admit that you might be wrong in your creationist view of the world...? Can you allow that there might be mistakes in what you have been taught..? Is it even possible that you have been misled...?

I'm betting that the answer will be a firm 'no'....

Because, you start with a preconceived conclusion about the world, don't you...? EVERYTHING MUST AGREE with what you have been taught via your religion......NOTHING can be permitted to hold against that view, even if it is evidence from the real world....

That, then, is the difference......there are many of us who will openly state that we might be wrong........and then there are an arrogant few who claim that they cannot be wrong......

 

[anyathesword]

I've asked this a couple of times and you ignore it each time.

What do you believe a transitional fossil is and what do you think one would look like?

ETA: please give the explanation in YOUR words, not some other site (scientific or creationist).

Half and Half animal. I try to imagine in my head, if it takes millions of years, like 10 million or more for something to evolve, eventually it will get to the half Evolved form. Add up the mutations and changes in the body, and you WILL get a half and half animal.

(I wanted to answer your question, but yet again got side tracked with people analyzing me again, so I forgot)

My quotes I posted, says that we have millions of fossils preserved in muséums. It should be more than enough evidence to find half and half animals, but we dont.

 

[anyathesword]

Indeed. I have written two rather extensive rebuttals myself. To which she relpyed with just one sentence.

I replied with more than one sentence to your post, and you are still complaining?

 

[anyathesword]

Anya, one of your frequent whines is that people aren't treating your arguments even-handedly...that we present our evidence which demonstrates support for evolutionary processes, while dismissing your creationist claims as being fanciful, fantastic or false...

And you demand to know why this is...?

The simplest reason I can think of, the thing which separates your approach to forming a world view most clearly is this....

Tomorrow, if evidence could be brought forward which clearly disproves evolutionary theory, I would drop it like a hot stone...! So, I am confident, would most others who have contributed to this thread. And that evidence could take one of many, many forms...there are clearly a myriad of evidence which could falsify evolution....some which spring to mind are the investigation of a dolphin's genome and finding it more closely resembles that of a fish than other mammals, that a chimp's was closer to a bear's than a human, finding a mammalian fossil in Devonian strata, discovering that the environment doesn't select for the most advantageous traits.....and so on, and so on.... If any of these evidences were shown to be valid, I would cease to be a supporter of evolutionary theory immediately...

But, can you say the same thing...?

Can you even admit that you might be wrong in your creationist view of the world...? Can you allow that there might be mistakes in what you have been taught..? Is it even possible that you have been misled...?

I'm betting that the answer will be a firm 'no'....

Because, you start with a preconceived conclusion about the world, don't you...? EVERYTHING MUST AGREE with what you have been taught via your religion......NOTHING can be permitted to hold against that view, even if it is evidence from the real world....

That, then, is the difference......there are many of us who will openly state that we might be wrong........and then there are an arrogant few who claim that they cannot be wrong......

It's funny because I have only been taught the evolution Theory in school. I never "learned" about Creationism. I just new the first Chapter in Genesis and what it says.

Now why wouldn't the evidence on this earth support Creationism? Why not?
It is all in the way we look at the evidence that's it.

What do you think is the Creationist view on the fossil record and strata?

When a teacher teaches, does that mean the teacher is always right and correct on what they teach? Do they have pressure into teaching children what is required by the Board or whatever?

Have you ever caught your teacher or proffessor teach something wrong?

Think about this.

There is evidence right in front of your faces.

Can you explain to me the Cambrian Explosion?

I'm tired to focus on how I respond to threads or what I believe. I am trying to learn here and the truth is when I first started I had no idea what microevolution and macroevolution was. Believe it or not I learn and I am not perfect.

So anyway just keep debating that's all there is to it.

 

[biggles53]

Half and Half animal. I try to imagine in my head, if it takes millions of years, like 10 million or more for something to evolve, eventually it will get to the half Evolved form. Add up the mutations and changes in the body, and you WILL get a half and half animal.

(I wanted to answer your question, but yet again got side tracked with people analyzing me again, so I forgot)

My quotes I posted, says that we have millions of fossils preserved in muséums. It should be more than enough evidence to find half and half animals, but we dont.

What do you mean exactly by "half and half"...?

 

[biggles53]

It's funny because I have only been taught the evolution Theory in school. I never "learned" about Creationism. I just new the first Chapter in Genesis and what it says.

Now why wouldn't the evidence on this earth support Creationism? Why not?
It is all in the way we look at the evidence that's it.

What do you think is the Creationist view on the fossil record and strata?

When a teacher teaches, does that mean the teacher is always right and correct on what they teach? Do they have pressure into teaching children what is required by the Board or whatever?

Have you ever caught your teacher or proffessor teach something wrong?

Think about this.

There is evidence right in front of your faces.

Can you explain to me the Cambrian Explosion?

I'm tired to focus on how I respond to threads or what I believe. I am trying to learn here and the truth is when I first started I had no idea what microevolution and macroevolution was. Believe it or not I learn and I am not perfect.

So anyway just keep debating that's all there is to it.

You didn't answer one word of my question....

I asked if you could admit that you might be wrong in your view...?

Is it at all possible that you might have it all wrong....?

 

[46AND2]

It's funny because I have only been taught the evolution Theory in school. I never "learned" about Creationism. I just new the first Chapter in Genesis and what it says.

Now why wouldn't the evidence on this earth support Creationism? Why not?
It is all in the way we look at the evidence that's it.

What do you think is the Creationist view on the fossil record and strata?

When a teacher teaches, does that mean the teacher is always right and correct on what they teach? Do they have pressure into teaching children what is required by the Board or whatever?

Have you ever caught your teacher or proffessor teach something wrong?

Think about this.

There is evidence right in front of your faces.

Can you explain to me the Cambrian Explosion?

I'm tired to focus on how I respond to threads or what I believe. I am trying to learn here and the truth is when I first started I had no idea what microevolution and macroevolution was. Believe it or not I learn and I am not perfect.

So anyway just keep debating that's all there is to it.

You STILL don't know what micro and macroevolution are.