Science vs. Evolution

[laconicstudent]

The way you posted that; Someone would think it was me who wrote that. Do the right thing and correct it as it is very rude to falsely quote a poster.

Actually, it counts as goading under the flaming rule, and the mods will deal with it.

 

[Cabal]

Id like to explore this further especially focussing on the"established layers of descent"

1.We have established you cant read intelligence from fragments,so why are you still claiming theres an established line of descent from monkeys to man.You havent taken in what ive been saying.

.2.You keep repeating that fossils are supporting,yet im saying the method used is faulty.How can they be supporting if what ive said is true?

.3.Over millions of years you say?Firstly you need to realise 1 million years of primates evolving,breeding and getting more intelligent,there would be conclusive evidence.Why was there a need for piltdown man?

No, I wouldn't really prefer to explore these points* as they are a diversion from the point I was trying to make about your assertions, thank you very much.

Now, you said: "My issue is that it seems mutated individuals are being attributed characteristics that may or may not be true.Theres a very real possibility(something you are resisting,yet i find valid)that these individual specimens arent actually a true representation of the population."

Now, if you wouldn't mind answering the question - how is this likely to be the case for multiple key fossils used to claim descent? In other words - isn't it the tiniest bit unlikely that we always seem to end up digging up the mutants? You could make the case for one or two being mutants, perhaps - but all of them? No.


*That said, I really have to point out that there was never any "need" for Piltdown Man, as it was never accepted as part of any lineage and was then shown to be a forgery. It wasn't a necessary fossil for evolution, in fact the fact its shape was OUT OF PLACE was what tipped scientists off to investigating it further. Please, stop getting all your information from creationist sources, many of them are just fractally wrong.

 

[Archaeopteryx]

You cannot.Im going to test that by getting pictures of skulls and fragments.You can tell me how they fit in relation to each other.Lets see if thats true what you claim.
If you cant read and tell me more about what im going to present.I think its only fair and a demonstration of your integrity that you should leave.
Because you and others have argued for how long? that skull and fragment reading is possible.
I have to see this.
Agree to this deal,you get it right ill leave,you cant .you leave.

You want to see it? You want to see Scientists using data from cranial volume, mean group size, and other sources of data to establish inferences on the relative cognitive capacities of our early hominid ancestors (despite the noted lack of access to their soft cerebral tissue)??

Start here:

Blumenberg, B. (1983). The evolution of the advanced hominid brain. Current Anthropology 24:5.

Barton, R.A. (1993). Independent contrasts analysis of neocortical size and socioecology in primates. Behavioral and Brain Sciences 16:04, 694.

Dunbar, R.I.M. (1993). Coevolution of neocortical size, group size and language in humans. Behavioral and Brain Sciences 16:04, 681.

Hyland, M.E. (1993). Size of human groups during the Paleolithic and the evolutionary significance of increased group size. Behavioral and Brain Sciences 16:04, 709.

Henneberg, M. (1987). Hominid cranial capacity change through time: a Darwinian process. Human Evolution 2:3, 213-220.

Janson, C.H. (1993). Primate group size, brains and communication: A New World perspective. Behavioral and Brain Sciences 16:04, 711.

Leigh, S.R. (1992). Cranial capacity evolution in Homo erectus and early Homo sapiens. American Journal of Physical Anthropology 87:1, 1-13.

McPherron, S.P. (2000). Handaxes as a measure of the mental capabilities of early hominids. Journal of Archaeological Science.

Stanyon, R., Consigliere, S., & Morescalchi, M.A. (1993). Cranial capacity in hominid evolution. Human Evolution 8:3, 205-216.

Wynn, T. (1981). The intelligence of Oldowan humans. Journal of Human Evolution.

Wynn, T. (1985). Piaget, stone tools and the evolution of human intelligence. World Archaeology.

This list is only a small selection of articles that use information on cranial capacity, known tool use, calculations of neocortical volume, and numerous other sources of data to make inferences about the cognitive capacities of our ancestors, including their relative intelligence.

 

[Frumious Bandersnatch]

Who says they even used the Bible to support a flat earth?

They did, Johnson at least relied on the Bible
The Flat-out Truth


The sun and moon, in the Johnson version, are only about 32 miles in diameter. They circle above the earth in the vicinity of the equator, and their apparent rising and setting are tricks of perspective, like railroad tracks that appear to meet in the distance. The moon shines by its own light and is not eclipsed by the earth. Rather, lunar eclipses are caused by an unseen dark body occasionally passing in front of the moon.


Johnson's beliefs are firmly grounded in the Bible. Many verses of the Old Testament imply that the earth is flat, but there's more to it than that. According to the New Testament, Jesus ascended up into heaven.

"The whole point of the Copernican theory is to get rid of Jesus by saying there is no up and no down," declares Johnson. "The spinning ball thing just makes the whole Bible a big joke."

He was basically telling science to Take a Hike

 

[tanzanos]

You want to see it? You want to see Scientists using data from cranial volume, mean group size, and other sources of data to establish inferences on the relative cognitive capacities of our early hominid ancestors (despite the noted lack of access to their soft cerebral tissue)??

Start here:

Blumenberg, B. (1983). The evolution of the advanced hominid brain. Current Anthropology 24:5.

Barton, R.A. (1993). Independent contrasts analysis of neocortical size and socioecology in primates. Behavioral and Brain Sciences 16:04, 694.

Dunbar, R.I.M. (1993). Coevolution of neocortical size, group size and language in humans. Behavioral and Brain Sciences 16:04, 681.

Hyland, M.E. (1993). Size of human groups during the Paleolithic and the evolutionary significance of increased group size. Behavioral and Brain Sciences 16:04, 709.

Henneberg, M. (1987). Hominid cranial capacity change through time: a Darwinian process. Human Evolution 2:3, 213-220.

Janson, C.H. (1993). Primate group size, brains and communication: A New World perspective. Behavioral and Brain Sciences 16:04, 711.

Leigh, S.R. (1992). Cranial capacity evolution in Homo erectus and early Homo sapiens. American Journal of Physical Anthropology 87:1, 1-13.

McPherron, S.P. (2000). Handaxes as a measure of the mental capabilities of early hominids. Journal of Archaeological Science.

Stanyon, R., Consigliere, S., & Morescalchi, M.A. (1993). Cranial capacity in hominid evolution. Human Evolution 8:3, 205-216.

Wynn, T. (1981). The intelligence of Oldowan humans. Journal of Human Evolution.

Wynn, T. (1985). Piaget, stone tools and the evolution of human intelligence. World Archaeology.

This list is only a small selection of articles that use information on cranial capacity, known tool use, calculations of neocortical volume, and numerous other sources of data to make inferences about the cognitive capacities of our ancestors, including their relative intelligence.

Are you trying to teach a blind man photography?

 

[AV1611VET]

They did, Johnson at least relied on the Bible

Johnson didn't live back then.

 

[interested in life]

No, I wouldn't really prefer to explore these points* as they are a diversion from the point I was trying to make about your assertions, thank you very much.

Now, you said: "My issue is that it seems mutated individuals are being attributed characteristics that may or may not be true.Theres a very real possibility(something you are resisting,yet i find valid)that these individual specimens arent actually a true representation of the population."
Now, if you wouldn't mind answering the question - how is this likely to be the case for multiple key fossils used to claim descent?

Depends on what particular "group of fossils" we are talking about.Im getting confused here.One of you says the reason why there isnt many fossils is because of environmental issues.I buy this.I understand that.I realise the older the fossils are,the less likely to find.This directly contradicts your assertion there are "many" possible links.For the many millions of years of so called man evolution,theres surprisingly few possible links.One doesnt have to be an expert in reproductive capabilitites of primates to figure that over a few million years there should be UNDENIABLE evidence.I guess they kept pretty quiet until a few thousand years ago.

In other words - isn't it the tiniest bit unlikely that we always seem to end up digging up the mutants? You could make the case for one or two being mutants, perhaps - but all of them? No.

You make it sound like its raining monkey men.Early man,yes plenty of evidence.Monkey men.much less so.Also digging up fossils of people who suffered from ricketts means a part of the population suffered from ricketts,not that they were evolved super monkeys.Its almost like instead of going for the obvious solution theres a need to go for the low % option.I wonder why.

*That said, I really have to point out that there was never any "need" for Piltdown Man, as it was never accepted as part of any lineage and was then shown to be a forgery. It wasn't a necessary fossil for evolution, in fact the fact its shape was OUT OF PLACE was what tipped scientists off to investigating it further. Please, stop getting all your information from creationist sources, many of them are just fractally wrong.

Correct there was no need for piltdown man.Absolutely agree.Could probably extrapolate that to include most of the fragments,misread skulls and mythical super monkey bones as well.

 

[interested in life]

You want to see it? You want to see Scientists using data from cranial volume, mean group size, and other sources of data to establish inferences on the relative cognitive capacities of our early hominid ancestors (despite the noted lack of access to their soft cerebral tissue)??

Start here:

Blumenberg, B. (1983). The evolution of the advanced hominid brain.

Now you are saying stone tools in the area of fossils is an indication of intelligence .I swear i discussed this earlier.Pretty much all the info you have thrown at me has been discussed.Its like i havent typed a thing.Completely wasted my time.Group mean intelligence can only be measured by using something living as a reference.also when the number of fossils is less than 10 or in fragments the method is faulty.You cant look at a enlarged monkey head and correctly deduce that its smarter than its predecessors.Thats impossible!

 

[AV1611VET]

I swear i discussed this earlier.Pretty much all the info you have thrown at me has been discussed.Its like i havent typed a thing.Completely wasted my time.

Get used to that, bro -- their penchants for laughing and ridicule after you make a good point comes back on them in the form of a mental block that won't allow the point to sink in; and even if they should happen to understand it, they have their own vocabulary they use to insure their understanding is kept out of focus.

 

[interested in life]

As i said your patience is astonishing.Probably God given.Keep striving brother.I had enough.

 

[Archaeopteryx]

Now you are saying stone tools in the area of fossils is an indication of intelligence .I swear i discussed this earlier.Pretty much all the info you have thrown at me has been discussed.Its like i havent typed a thing.Completely wasted my time.Group mean intelligence can only be measured by using something living as a reference.also when the number of fossils is less than 10 or in fragments the method is faulty.You cant look at a enlarged monkey head and correctly deduce that its smarter than its predecessors.Thats impossible!

From your response it is quite apparent that you haven't read a single article on the topic. Firstly, you are claiming what scientists have already achieved is 'impossible', after the fact of them having demonstrably achieved it. This amounts to flat-out denying the findings of the research. Second, it is not true that mean group size can only be measured using a living specimen. Otherwise, Dunbar's research, and that of his colleagues, is completely invalidated. Are you suggesting that they wasted their time even though their studies have been both fruitful and significant, indeed milestones in the field?

 

[Cabal]

Depends on what particular "group of fossils" we are talking about.Im getting confused here.One of you says the reason why there isnt many fossils is because of environmental issues.I buy this.I understand that.I realise the older the fossils are,the less likely to find.This directly contradicts your assertion there are "many" possible links.For the many millions of years of so called man evolution,theres surprisingly few possible links.

I don't recall using the word "many", but it is hardly a precise term, so arguing over one's idea of what an imprecise term mean is hardly significant of anything.

One doesnt have to be an expert in reproductive capabilitites of primates to figure that over a few million years there should be UNDENIABLE evidence.I guess they kept pretty quiet until a few thousand years ago.

There is a very good level of evidence. What standards of evidence people will actually accept, however, is quite varied (as has been made quite obvious by certain people's inconsistency to accept inference in one scenario but not another).

You make it sound like its raining monkey men.Early man,yes plenty of evidence.Monkey men.much less so.Also digging up fossils of people who suffered from ricketts means a part of the population suffered from ricketts,not that they were evolved super monkeys.Its almost like instead of going for the obvious solution theres a need to go for the low % option.I wonder why.

The point is, always digging up mutants and little to nothing else is the outcome with lower odds. It's a lot more likely that what is found is representative of the normal population, to establish an entire chain of descent would be a lot harder to do if all we were digging up are the mutants.

Correct there was no need for piltdown man.Absolutely agree.Could probably extrapolate that to include most of the fragments,misread skulls and mythical super monkey bones as well.

No, because one was a fake and the others weren't. Not that this appears to matter to you, but then given your approach here so far that's hardly surprising.

 

[Cabal]

Get used to that, bro -- their penchants for laughing and ridicule after you make a good point comes back on them in the form of a mental block that won't allow the point to sink in; and even if they should happen to understand it, they have their own vocabulary they use to insure their understanding is kept out of focus.

Whatever you need to tell yourself, AV. I'd imagine I'd have to do the same if I came up with such a continuous string of poor arguments.

 

[SithDoughnut]

If we are talking about the internet community of 'flat earth' believers, then most, if not all are atheists. Modern flat earthers on the internet preach an extreme form of solipsism, strongly tied to atheism with a dose of parody. Most know Daniel Shenton doesn't himself actually believe the earth is flat, he's just using it as a front for solipsism.

So prove it.

Shenton and the whole modern Flat Earth Society is atheist. You can easily check this out by checking the FES forum, check the posts.

A quick scan of the forums showed me a few people who looked honest, a lot of trolls and people who are obviously not serious about it, and a pretty even split between Christians and atheists.

So I checked it, and you appear to be wrong.

The modern internet based flat-earthism is, it's a parody movement based though with a deeper objective of solipsism. However i know for a fact there are real genuine flat earth believers not tied to Shenton's parody still in existence. You won't find these real flat earth believers on the internet though, since they are extreme traditionalist neo-luddites (technophobes) who even reject to use electricity. Charles K. Johnson the original leader of the FES, had no electricity or running water in his home.

Yet you've proven nothing. Repetition is not proof of anything other than the possibility that parrots may have learned how to type.

 

[Cabal]

Yet you've proven nothing. Repetition is not proof of anything other than the possibility that parrots may have learned how to type.

Agreed. I'm quite curious how a parody website (emphasis on, um, PARODY) is meant to show that flat-earthers are largely atheists.

 

[tanzanos]

If we are talking about the internet community of 'flat earth' believers, then most, if not all are atheists. Modern flat earthers on the internet preach an extreme form of solipsism, strongly tied to atheism with a dose of parody. Most know Daniel Shenton doesn't himself actually believe the earth is flat, he's just using it as a front for solipsism.



Shenton and the whole modern Flat Earth Society is atheist. You can easily check this out by checking the FES forum, check the posts.



The modern internet based flat-earthism is, it's a parody movement based though with a deeper objective of solipsism. However i know for a fact there are real genuine flat earth believers not tied to Shenton's parody still in existence. You won't find these real flat earth believers on the internet though, since they are extreme traditionalist neo-luddites (technophobes) who even reject to use electricity. Charles K. Johnson the original leader of the FES, had no electricity or running water in his home.

Who cares what the flat earthers believe in. The bible clearly states that the earth is a motionless DISC! A disc is not a sphere by any definition!
So in conclusion if you believe in YEC then you also believe in a flat earth that is motionless. Otherwise you are guilty of the sin of disobeying the Bible in its entirety.

 

[Frumious Bandersnatch]

Johnson didn't live back then.

I am just pointing out that the flat-earther Johnson's attitude to science and religion

[AV]"God did it: Case Closed" Science can take a hike. [/AV]

was exactly the same as yours even if he didn't use your exact words.

 

[tanzanos]

Get used to that, bro -- their penchants for laughing and ridicule after you make a good point comes back on them in the form of a mental block that won't allow the point to sink in; and even if they should happen to understand it, they have their own vocabulary they use to insure their understanding is kept out of focus.

The Big Bang did it ---- Case Closed!

 

[Cassiterides]

Check the Bible and see for yourself!

You keep repeating this, but nowhere does the Bible specifically say ''the earth is flat'' or the ''earth is round''. So i think the topic is completely irrelevant, atheists only cling to it since they think it discredits the Bible (yet it's doesn't).

 

[Cassiterides]

Yet you've proven nothing. Repetition is not proof of anything other than the possibility that parrots may have learned how to type.

Funny, since you guys have failed to prove evolution for over 90 pages, and yet you call me a parrot.