Missing link was a lie

[Omceer]

What I mean is I aspire to become a Nuclear Physicist

And saying we are the most intelligent species is a very high assumption.
We are the most sophisticated species, the most advanced, but there isn't really a way to possibly measure every living species' average intelligence.
But I know what you are saying.

 

[dad]

Why?

They got what they wanted,* didn't they?

* The chance to celebrate; 15 minutes of fame; their names in print; whatever.

 

[dad]

mmm
I believed in evolution for a while...
then I started noticing how often an article would pop up saying "MISSING LINK DISCOVERED!!!" and there'd be a large fuss over it, but it was just something tiny and insignificant, and then I started looking at how LARGE these "links" were, and to follow the path of evolution takes a lot more blind faith than following the path of creation and God.
Longest run-on sentence ever...

Amen. They link to imaginary things. Things that they need to explain away what we see as either created, or evolved from created life.

 

[dad]

They share ninety percent DNA.

They also share many similiar features such as tusks(they're small on the hyrax), padded feet, and jaw structures.

Some believe that sirenians(manatees, dugongs and sea cows) are closer in lineage, however. But this lends to the idea that animals dot need to look entirely like their relatives.

It's all avaliable on wikipedia. You're a big boy; you can look this info up for yourself, and it's actually from credible sources, unlike this dodwell joker.

Well, I suppose there are a few possibilities. If there was some reason for an elephant to evolve real small! ..???.. But it doesn't seem to make a lot of sense. Just having similar DNA, and little tusks doesn 't mean they are brothers. God could make more than one kind of creature with tusks. Heavens...is this supposed to pass as knowledge??

In what way is the DNA similar? Is it the ervs? or...look it up, you are a big boy. It's your silly claim after all!

 

[Split Rock]

Perhaps all of these potential links discovered from "lemurs or other primates" are too questionable to consider evidence at all.

Are you under the impression that the fossil record is the only evidecne for common descent? You would be mistaken.

I mean, the last article I remember reading was about a few bones from a foot or a hand. Exactly how much are you able to tell with that? You can't determine spine curvature, or skull structure, or the intelligence of the species. Sure you might be able to determine how tall it was or its approximate weight.

Tell us then what these authors actually did conclude.

But I think a lot of this evidence is mostly guesswork and followers easily buy into it because there seems to be more logic and possibility in it than creation.

All the physical evidence infers common descent. Whether it is the fossil record, anatomy, biochemistry, genetics, embryology, biogeography, development, etc. Where is "the guesswork?" Also, how is it damning that you admit common descent is more logical and probable than creationism?

 

[Omceer]

Just because you can't see the possibility doesn't make it impossible.
I just don't agree with some of what is said by some of these authors.
Not saying it isn't true, but it really can never be proven to a 100% extent.

And the guesswork is tucked away in the fact that Darwin's Theory of Evolution is, and always will be, a theory. And theories are just a series of unprovable, logical assumptions.

 

[Split Rock]

Just because you can't see the possibility doesn't make it impossible.
I just don't agree with some of what is said by some of these authors.
Not saying it isn't true, but it really can never be proven to a 100% extent.

I love the standard of proof you guys demand... only 100%, huh? Can anything be proven 100%?

And the guesswork is tucked away in the fact that Darwin's Theory of Evolution is, and always will be, a theory. And theories are just a series of unprovable, logical assumptions.

For someone who aspires to be a physicist you have a poor understanding of basic terms used in science. A theory is an explanation for an array of empirical phenomena that intergrates supported hypotheses, laws, and data and that makes testable predictions. Theories are not "assumptions" (you keep using that term) and are not based on "guesswork." There is nothing more informative in science than theories.

 

[Omceer]

I love the standard of proof you guys demand... only 100%, huh? Can anything be proven 100%?

Exactly, which is why debates such as this will always be in existance.

For someone who aspires to be a physicist you have a poor understanding of basic terms used in science. A theory is an explanation for an array of empirical phenomena that intergrates supported hypotheses, laws, and data and that makes testable predictions. Theories are not "assumptions" (you keep using that term) and are not based on "guesswork." There is nothing more informative in science than theories.

Sorry I'm only an ADHD Highschool Senior that only has school for three hours a day.

 

[Orogeny]

Just because you can't see the possibility doesn't make it impossible.
I just don't agree with some of what is said by some of these authors.

Care to provide an example?

Not saying it isn't true, but it really can never be proven to a 100% extent.

Nothing in science can be. If you plan on being a physicist, this is an important concept to grasp, particularly if you are dealing in a field that is as theory heavy as nuclear physics.

And the guesswork is tucked away in the fact that Darwin's Theory of Evolution is, and always will be, a theory. And theories are just a series of unprovable, logical assumptions.

Would you care to provide us with some examples of these unprovable logical assumptions you think science rests upon? Perhaps an example from nuclear physics?

 

[Omceer]

Care to provide an example?

I don't believe that every species living today has evolved from single celled organisms. I don't believe we (every living species) all came from the same original species.

Would you care to provide us with some examples of these unprovable logical assumptions you think science rests upon? Perhaps an example from nuclear physics?

The theory stated above, can not be proven.
The Big Bang is another.
And then simple concepts like Gravity and composition of stars (as far as I know but I see no possible way of getting into the center of the sun to take a sample of it's composition).
Aalso Black holes are a minefield of assumptions and theories.

 

[LifeToTheFullest!]

I do not think theory means what you think it means.

If you are only going to school three hours a day, stop at the local bookstore and pick up a copy of Jerry Coyne's "Why Evolution is True." It will help clear things up a bit.

 

[Omceer]

unemployed = no money = no purchases

 

[sandwiches]

And the guesswork is tucked away in the fact that Darwin's Theory of Evolution is, and always will be, a theory. And theories are just a series of unprovable, logical assumptions.

*facepalm*

You want to be a physicist and you don't even know what a theory is?

 

[Omceer]

Does it really matter?

 

[LifeToTheFullest!]

Does it really matter?

No, no it doesn't...

 

[sandwiches]

Does it really matter?

*sigh*

 

[mpok1519]

If someone is going to be a physicist they should know what a theory is...well if they want to get paid that is...

 

[Omceer]

If someone is going to be a physicist they should know what a theory is...well if they want to get paid that is...

Like I said, I'm not even out of highschool yet, and I am very hesitant on settling on a career now.
I also want to do Freerunning professionally, Military, and Pyrotechnics.
Anyways, ignoring me...

 

[AV1611VET]

<staff edit>
-- I couldn't have said it better, myself.

 

[BananaSlug]

<staff edit>

Because it is important to know what you are talking about before you start running your mouth and begin to look like a fool. Even if you don't accept evolution, if you want to have a decent debate about it you need to understand it.