Science vs. Evolution

[Blayz]

Noted,so is it safe to say that really when a naturalist wants to defend his position,the fossil record actually doesnt back him?I find it interesting despite the multitudes of fossils discovered,you would say 0.01%

Well it's a number I pulled out of my hat. But let me put it another way. If there were no fossils at all of anything, there would not be much impact on the ToE. This is largely because like any decent piece of science, the utility is in its predictive power. Looking backwards, having an argument about whether say Australopithecus was a direct descendant of homo sapiens or not, is all very interesting but it's just filling in holes for academic sake, and as you have implied there is only so much information to be had from a pile of old bones.

As for a naturalist defending his position, it would depend on what position he is defending. The state of the ancestral human lineage is important to some people, for me it is like ballet, opera, and modern art. Something that marks a civilised advanced society and is thus worthwhile, despite the fact I personally would never go to the ballet, opera, or a modern art museum.

Right understood,so what if there only happens to be fragments or only 2 or 3 specimens found,would it be safe to say that they are an anomaly rather than the rule?

Regardless of my opinion of paleontology it is in fact a science, and follows scientific methodology. The point here being that evidence is not considered in quote mined isolation, it has to be taken as a part of as large a picture as you can take. Whether a particular fossil find is a rule or an anomaly or "we don't know yet" is going to depend as much on what came before as what was found now.

If you read a scientific paper the opening section (beyond the abstract) is always an introduction, the intent of which is to place the current research in the context of previous research.

You didnt quite answer the question either,if there are no other skulls or fragments in the area,how can you tell whether the specimen has reproduced?

Hopefully I have kind of answered it now. Like much of science, it is an inference. Some inferences are stronger that others.

 

[interested in life]

Well it's a number I pulled out of my hat. But let me put it another way. If there were no fossils at all of anything, there would not be much impact on the ToE. This is largely because like any decent piece of science, the utility is in its predictive power. Looking backwards, having an argument about whether say Australopithecus was a direct descendant of homo sapiens or not, is all very interesting but it's just filling in holes for academic sake, and as you have implied there is only so much information to be had from a pile of old bones.

I appreciate your honesty, let me just state that you are agreeing with my position thus far.I would go further and say there only a tiny amount we can glean from fossils unless we have a large number of specimens.

As for a naturalist defending his position, it would depend on what position he is defending. The state of the ancestral human lineage is important to some people,

Its very important.Maybe not to you as you have stated,its not your field.

for me it is like ballet, opera, and modern art. Something that marks a civilised advanced society and is thus worthwhile, despite the fact I personally would never go to the ballet, opera, or a modern art museum.

i see what you are saying but finding the truth of our origins compared to the opera?dont agree.

Regardless of my opinion of paleontology it is in fact a science, and follows scientific methodology. The point here being that evidence is not considered in quote mined isolation, it has to be taken as a part of as large a picture as you can take.

Precisely what im saying.You cannot take rare fossils or sometimes even tiny fragments and say they are the rule.It makes no sense.

Whether a particular fossil find is a rule or an anomaly or "we don't know yet" is going to depend as much on what came before as what was found now.

or just these fossils found have no descendants therefore making them invalid.They could of been diseased specimens,hence a different appearance.

If you read a scientific paper the opening section (beyond the abstract) is always an introduction, the intent of which is to place the current research in the context of previous research.

What if the starting premise is wrong to begin with?

Hopefully I have kind of answered it now. Like much of science, it is an inference. Some inferences are stronger that others.

Thank you for your time.

 

[Blayz]

I appreciate your honesty, let me just state that you are agreeing with my position thus far.I would go further and say there only a tiny amount we can glean from fossils unless we have a large number of specimens.

Whereas I, not being a paleontologist, would never make such a gross generalisation. Whatever can be gleaned is going to depend on a host of factors, far more than just the number of specimens.

Its very important.Maybe not to you as you have stated,its not your field.

Why is it important to you? Is it your field? I am guessing from your posts that it isn't.

i see what you are saying but finding the truth of our origins compared to the opera?dont agree.

Yeah, you are coming from an absolutist position which doesn't have much place in science, though clearly it does in an theology.

I don't see how the "absolute truth" of the position of fossil X with regards to hominid evolution is of any real importance. Much more interesting to look at the chimp human genome comparisons.

Precisely what im saying.You cannot take rare fossils or sometimes even tiny fragments and say they are the rule.It makes no sense.

Again, I didn't say that. I said the strength of the inference drawn is going to depend on what inference is being drawn, what the evidence was and how it fits into the rest of the available data.

You have to get out of this black/white true/false absolutist mindset if you are going to understand this kind of science. If you do decide to bone up on genetics, I heartily recommend a side trip into statistics.

or just these fossils found have no descendants therefore making them invalid.They could of been diseased specimens,hence a different appearance.

What if the starting premise is wrong to begin with?

Thank you for your time.

Science may involve some premises, but any particular experiment is usually designed to support or disprove an hypothesis. The question is not "What if the premise is wrong to begin with" the question is "how much does the evidence support the hypothesis?" Moreover, said support probably comes with a pvalue. Once again, it's induction and inference. Proof is left for maths and alcohol.

Is there a particular study you have a problem with? have you got a link to it? I tried going back through this thread, but there is to much noise.

 

[Gracchus]

Reputation.

If they can get some attention for it, then it's a "discovery".

If not, then I'm wondering if they don't just put it back.

This from someone who obviously went to some trouble to jack his reputation on this forum up to nine quintillion?

 

[Nathan Poe]

This from someone who obviously went to some trouble to jack his reputation on this forum up to nine quintillion?

As well as jacking up his post count to 1.2 million with insipid counting threads.

 

[USincognito]

Frog ----> PRINCE = Fairytale

Frog ----> + 300 million years ----> = Prince = Science?

Your beliefs are a fairytale.

Straw + clothes = Straw man.

 

[interested in life]

Whereas I, not being a paleontologist, would never make such a gross generalisation. Whatever can be gleaned is going to depend on a host of factors, far more than just the number of specimens.

name those host of factors please.Surely the number of specimens would be important.

Why is it important to you? Is it your field? I am guessing from your posts that it isn't.

I think the truth is important.If it isnt to you,you may step out of the thread.

Yeah, you are coming from an absolutist position which doesn't have much place in science, though clearly it does in an theology.

im merely searching for what is true and what is false.We either evolved from monkeys or we didnt.You may call that an "absolutist" position i call it accuracy.

I don't see how the "absolute truth" of the position of fossil X with regards to hominid evolution is of any real importance.

Oh but it is.The more i look at the processes involved in how scientists justify monkey to man evolution,the more curious i get.

Much more interesting to look at the chimp human genome comparisons.

plenty of threads on the topic.Im not focussing on that.

Again, I didn't say that. I said the strength of the inference drawn is going to depend on what inference is being drawn,

Im quite happily falsifying.

what the evidence was and how it fits into the rest of the available data.

You said so yourself that the fossil record doesnt really support monkey to man evolution,and that there are other fields that provide stronger evidence.I accept that,but beforehand i was under the impression that fossils firmly supported monkey to man.I am merely questioning how somebody can read and draw all sorts of evidence from so little info.

Science may involve some premises, but any particular experiment is usually designed to support or disprove an hypothesis. The question is not "What if the premise is wrong to begin with" the question is "how much does the evidence support the hypothesis?"

You said a miniscule number. remember?0.01% or around that figure.Unless i read wrong your initial post said that fossils only provide a tiny % of support for evolution.Most of it comes from studies of genetics.I agree with your statement.

 

[interested in life]

Right understood,so what if there only happens to be fragments or only 2 or 3 specimens found,would it be safe to say that they are an anomaly rather than the rule?.You didnt quite answer the question either,if there are no other skulls or fragments in the area,how can you tell whether the specimen has reproduced?

 

[tanzanos]

Thank you very much

You should be ashamed for your insults on Darwin. Modern medicine would not be possible without the ToE. Shame on you. Your conduct is most unbecoming of a Christian.

 

[tanzanos]

Wow want to simplify your posts there boss?One point at a time,you know its difficult to clear anything up when you are throwing multiple points of discussion.whats the biggest thing that bothers you?
I like discussing human evolution especially the fossil record.

That's the thing about science; You have to go through the trouble to actually use your brain to learn before you speak!

 

[USincognito]

I accept the theory of evolution as the best explanation for the diversity of life on earth and the clear and obivous evidence for common descent from comparative genetics, comparative anatomy and the fossil record.
29+ Evidences for Macroevolution: the Scientific Case for Common Descent

Didn't I post the 29 Evidences for Cass last week or so and the response was "I looked at two and they're all weak". I then asked if Cass would share which two so we could discuss them further and it's been Gish Gallop Derby ever since.

You pretend to have a bad leg or was it your back? (and change the dates of when you had the accident). You claim this so you seem 'neutral' on the whole evolution vs creation issue i.e your just wasting some time on this issue debating it to kill some time. However in truth it just seems you have a hidden agenda as a typical militant atheist to attack creationists or anyone who doesn't believe in the fairytale of evolution.

I found your user on evolutionfairytale.com making a post in 2009 talking of your accident, now it's almost a year later and you still claim the same thing...

More warm reading huh? Is that supposed to do anything other than seem a bit creepy?

I like discussing human evolution especially the fossil record.

Sounds good, we can also include the genetic evidence as well, but we'll throw that in while discussing the fossils.

 

[interested in life]

Didn't I post the 29 Evidences for Cass last week or so and the response was "I looked at two and they're all weak". I then asked if Cass would share which two so we could discuss them further and it's been Gish Gallop Derby ever since.



More warm reading huh? Is that supposed to do anything other than seem a bit creepy?



Sounds good, we can also include the genetic evidence as well, but we'll throw that in while discussing the fossils.

Seems my questions in my posts have the plague.

 

[tanzanos]

can you leave? you arent adding anything.

And you are? The only thing you have added here is insults, lies and downright dishonest remarks. I and other fellow posters have tried to reason with you and the only thing you do is insult and lie.

You have been presented with evidences that you dismiss with derogatory remarks.

You are constantly baiting and trolling.

If you take insult at this reply then you should reconsider and decide to stick to forum rules. Show some courtesy and stop insulting Atheists, and Darwin.

Judge not lest you be judged in return!

 

[laconicstudent]

There is no irony more delicious then that of the newly registered poster without any information in his profile, and certainly not his age, condescending to the long-time member on the basis of age.

 

[interested in life]

lets get back to the topic shall we?please review my posts and look at the questions posed.

 

[interested in life]

There is no irony more delicious then that of the newly registered poster without any information in his profile, and certainly not his age, condescending to the long-time member on the basis of age.

oh another 1.byeeee.Please stick to the topic or i shall be forced to just skim and ignore.And im older than justin bieber.teehee.

 

[tanzanos]

lol you look 13.I think i got underwear older than you.Sorry kid im ignoring you not because im a bad person,but because you dont seem to be able to stop insulting people.I diagnose tourettes.ciao.

You betray the classic "wolf in sheep's clothes" attitude in this forum. You pretend to ask questions because as you say you are interested to learn, when in actual fact you are baiting.

If you were actually interested in learning you would not reply to the one who presented you with the evidence you seek with remarks such as: "Wow want to simplify your posts there boss?One point at a time,you know its difficult to clear anything up when you are throwing multiple points of discussion.whats the biggest thing that bothers you?"

If you have underwear older than me then you better buy new ones because 52 years is a very long time to keep underwear!

 

[tanzanos]

There is no irony more delicious then that of the newly registered poster without any information in his profile, and certainly not his age, condescending to the long-time member on the basis of age.

That is a strong indication of a SOCK PUPPET! They use such accounts to insult, flame etc. without risking having their original account banned.

 

[tanzanos]

oh another 1.byeeee.Please stick to the topic or i shall be forced to just skim and ignore.And im older than justin bieber.teehee.

 

[laconicstudent]

That is a strong indication of a SOCK PUPPET! They use such accounts to insult, flame etc. without risking having their original account banned.

Interesting, isn't it?

My goodness you have been on this forum how long,have seen many creationists come and go,some far more qualified than you are,probably thousands of posts on the subject,and still you cry no evidence!You simply arent taking the information in,hence me saying you are blind.Unless you want direct revelation.Sorry boss neither me nor you are that special.