The 'Macro-Micro' thing....again..

[USincognito]

thats not proof, thats guesswork. An Artistic rendition. How do you know that that animal was not defective?

Because there's a difference between approaching an issue scientifically and willy nilly dismissal of anything that doesn't fit your preconceptions. Without a good reason, there's no impetus to suspect that a properly formed body part on one side should be "defective" (whatever that means) and that we were unlucky enough to only have the "defective" side.

AKA parismony.

AKA Occam's Razor.

 

[USincognito]

look up chemical evolution and tell me how it's not evolution.

(chemical evolution is abiogenesis btw)

Chemical evolution more properly describes neucleosynthesis and has nothing to do with abiogenesis.

When Biochemistry departments use the phrase in reference to abiogenesis, they are using the words similarly - the evolution of chemicals.
Research | Hud Lab

Biological evolution doesn't start until life as we know it exists.

 

[USincognito]

thank you for the comment, but it looks like fake renditions, they are too clean to be originals. Photoshop maybe?

How would you know? Your degree in paleontology and years of study in the field? Here's the original article.
Author Summary

 

[lasthero]

but given todays political climate if you take a stand for evolution your job may be lost due to "sudden government cutbacks."

Ignoring for a moment that this is not the way it works and you are making completely unfounded assertions, and ignoring that many scientists work for many 'states' - what does the government have to gain in all this by firing such people?

And what's your excuse when the government is run by people who, for the most part, don't believe in evolution? Because I'm pretty sure George W. Bush isn't an evolutionist and neither are most Republicans, but when they get in power, it's not like all the sudden a bunch of scientists pop up in support of creationism.

 

[createdtoworship]

Chemical evolution more properly describes neucleosynthesis and has nothing to do with abiogenesis.

When Biochemistry departments use the phrase in reference to abiogenesis, they are using the words similarly - the evolution of chemicals.
Research | Hud Lab

Biological evolution doesn't start until life as we know it exists.

google scholar disagrees,

chemical evolution abiogenesis - Google Scholar

 

[createdtoworship]

How would you know? Your degree in paleontology and years of study in the field? Here's the original article.
Author Summary

more like how would YOU KNOW?

I said they look fake, too clean to be originals was my exact wording,


now prove your point

 

[USincognito]

more like how would YOU KNOW?

Because I've seen numerous photos of H. sapiens, Au. afarensis and P. troglodytes pelvises in comparisons such as these. Even if they were models of the original bones, how does that effect the measurements?

I said they look fake, too clean to be originals was my exact wording,

Why would they have to put photos of the originals in a paper when models of the originals will do just fine? The only people who have a problem with that is Creationists who don't know an iota of paleontology using it as an excuse to handwave.

now prove your point

Sorry, the onus is on the skeptic in this instance.

 

[USincognito]

google scholar disagrees,

chemical evolution abiogenesis - Google Scholar

My results are bigger.

chemial evolution nucleosynthesis

Three times bigger.

 

[Dizredux]

thats not proof, thats guesswork. An Artistic rendition. How do you know that that animal was not defective?

First the creationists ask what use is half a wing, now we have how can Lucy walk with half a hip.

Dizredux

 

[Dizredux]

okay take care, just one thing...

remember that who is paying these scientists and teachers and professors who are stating this?

the state most likely. (not all scientists are payed for by the state),

but given todays political climate if you take a stand for evolution your job may be lost due to "sudden government cutbacks." So go ahead and believe the consensus. But that is actually just an appeal to authority, and secondly an appeal to the populus (which are logical informal fallacies.)

take care.

Again, there are many thousands of biological scientists from many countries and many faiths and non faiths who do not that do not have their prime purpose as fighting Christian or Islamic fundamentalist's denial of evolution.

The old creationist saw about scientists being afraid of challenging evolution is a rather aged strawman.

This has it pretty accurate. Provide good verifiable evidence and you can find an audience but also keep in mind that extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence and to falsify evolution would take some *very* convincing evidence considering the huge amount of evidence supporting it.

This pretty much has it right.

To be a contrarian is how to get ahead in science. Running with the heard and accepting the consensus view does little to advance one's career. It's the discovery of new information which is added to the body of knowledge that earns someone a doctorate's degree. It's revolutionary discoveries that get published, become book deals, secure tenure, and sometimes win Nobel Prizes. Scientists are always looking for opportunities to become contrarians.

However, they cannot simply buck the system because they choose to. They first need evidence that challenges the established paradigm.

Debate between scientists over details of evolution becomes heated - Technology - Catholic Online

Note the use of the term "evidence". Just disagreeing with evolution has no impact.

Using a form of epistemological nihilism where evidence is simply denied makes a good dorm room discussion but is not very productive when the subject is science.

Dizredux

 

[Strathos]

Try my Daisy Chain Challenge.

Give me photos of all of your ancestors back to Adam and Eve or else I won't believe you were ever born

 

[createdtoworship]

Again, there are many thousands of biological scientists from many countries and many faiths and non faiths who do not that do not have their prime purpose as fighting Christian or Islamic fundamentalist's denial of evolution.

thank you for the comment, but it is your argument that has no substance. As of yet it is composed entirely of appeals to authority (logical fallacy), shifting the burden of proof , and appeals to the populous.

The old creationist saw about scientists being afraid of challenging evolution is a rather aged strawman.

what evidence did you offer that I should be afraid of? I didn't see any, just word salad.

This has it pretty accurate. Provide good verifiable evidence and you can find an audience but also keep in mind that extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence and to falsify evolution would take some *very* convincing evidence considering the huge amount of evidence supporting it.

I don't need an audience, do you? Sounds like you want one.

This pretty much has it right.Debate between scientists over details of evolution becomes heated - Technology - Catholic Online

Your link says this:" Although theories are generally matured to the point they are hardly subject to debate (for example, neither scientist argues that evolution did not occur, the consensus on that is quite firm) they do debate on the details. "

it is at that point that it was no longer useful reading. Due to the fact that they both accept blindly that macro evolution is actually even a theory to begin with, which I do not. See there are no observations, and no hypothesis and no theory in fact to macro evolution (evolution between genus).

Note the use of the term "evidence". Just disagreeing with evolution has no impact.

I am unsure of how long you have been in this thread but I suggest reading some of it, go back a few weeks. There are several positive statements of evolution that we have analyzed and if you have more to offer please feel free.

 

[createdtoworship]

First the creationists ask what use is half a wing, now we have how can Lucy walk with half a hip.

Dizredux

lucy didn't in fact walk. Lucy was what we call a knuckle walker.

 

[createdtoworship]

Give me photos of all of your ancestors back to Adam and Eve or else I won't believe you were ever born

in our discussion we were just asking for one evidence of macro evolution be it a piece of fossil, a scientific test being done etc that would prove evolution to be plausible. Can you provide a picture or a piece of evidence?

 

[createdtoworship]

My results are bigger.

chemial evolution nucleosynthesis

Three times bigger.

but yours just speaks of stellar evolution. Chemical evolution is anything involving chemicals and evolution (abiogenesis)

to prove my point here are some searches on google scholar:

hydrothermal vents and chemical evolution:
http://link.springer.com/chapter/10.1007/978-94-011-2741-7_1

peptides and chemical evolution:
" ... assumed that peptides and proteins had been produced by chemical evolution"
from
http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0196978199001631

 

[AV1611VET]

Give me photos of all of your ancestors back to Adam and Eve or else I won't believe you were ever born

Adam & Eve?

I said back to cyanobacteria.

And for the record, I don't want photographs.

I want physical evidence that is on display somewhere.

For example, if I said: "357,185 BC"

You would have to be able to take me to a specific address and show me a fossil that existed in 357,185 BC.

 

[Atheos canadensis]

more like how would YOU KNOW?

I said they look fake, too clean to be originals was my exact wording,


now prove your point

According to the figure caption, those images are cleaned up CT scans of the original fossils. They have smoothed the surfaces but the shape of the structures are the same. While the cracks in the original specimens have been smoothed out, this does not diminish the ability of the resulting model to show that the orientation of australopithecine and chimpanzee ilia are not the same.

 

[Dizredux]

thank you for the comment, but it is your argument that has no substance. As of yet it is composed entirely of appeals to authority (logical fallacy), shifting the burden of proof , and appeals to the populous.

No because I am not doing "proof" or "truth" I am just saying that that evolution is currently regarded by scientists as the best explanation for the diversity of life on earth and there is no scientific controversy and realizing that the acceptance of the consensus opinion is always provisional.

It is possible, I guess that apples could start rising from the ground tomorrow challenging the consensus opinion of gravity but the idea has no place being taught in physics class.

I think when considering that

A 2009 poll by Pew Research Center found that "Nearly all scientists (97%) say humans and other living things have evolved over time

accepting evolution is the safe way to bet if you want to keep your money but still keeping in mind that apples could start to rise tomorrow.

what evidence did you offer that I should be afraid of? I didn't see any, just word salad.

This is what I said:

The old creationist saw about scientists being afraid of challenging evolution is a rather aged strawman.

Do you even read what people write or do you simply skim and respond.

I don't need an audience, do you? Sounds like you want one.

This is what I said:

This has it pretty accurate. Provide good verifiable evidence and you can find an audience but also keep in mind that extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence and to falsify evolution would take some *very* convincing evidence considering the huge amount of evidence supporting it.

I do not know if you don't read what is written or do you have a reading comprehension problem?

Your link says this:" Although theories are generally matured to the point they are hardly subject to debate (for example, neither scientist argues that evolution did not occur, the consensus on that is quite firm) they do debate on the details. "

it is at that point that it was no longer useful reading. Due to the fact that they both accept blindly that macro evolution is actually even a theory to begin with, which I do not. See there are no observations, and no hypothesis and no theory in fact to macro evolution (evolution between genus).

Epistemological Nihilism at its best.

I am unsure of how long you have been in this thread but I suggest reading some of it, go back a few weeks. There are several positive statements of evolution that we have analyzed and if you have more to offer please feel free.

No, from the ones I have seen, others propose and you reject by simple denial. You have been doing this for a long time and it can get a bit tiresome but you seem to enjoy it so have at it. It is an open forum within the rules.

Dizredux

 

[createdtoworship]

Because I've seen numerous photos of H. sapiens, Au. afarensis and P. troglodytes pelvises in comparisons such as these. Even if they were models of the original bones, how does that effect the measurements?



Why would they have to put photos of the originals in a paper when models of the originals will do just fine? The only people who have a problem with that is Creationists who don't know an iota of paleontology using it as an excuse to handwave.



Sorry, the onus is on the skeptic in this instance.

actually the burden of proof lies in the one making digital copies of even replicas. If there were in fact replicas to use, why wouldn't they just use them, to avoid criticism. It's like they blindly think people will assume all their digitography is anatomically accurate. Sorry but the positive proof lies with you so don't try to reverse the burden as I am not falling for it.

 

[createdtoworship]

No because I am not doing "proof" or "truth" I am just saying that that evolution is currently regarded by scientists as the best explanation for the diversity of life on earth and there is no scientific controversy and realizing that the acceptance of the consensus opinion is always provisional.

the rest of your post is just repeats, and no additional evidence, but I will reply to this part of your post. It is apparently an appeal to the populus, do you know what that means?

"an argumentum ad populum (Latin for "appeal to the people") is a fallacious argument that concludes a proposition to be true because many or most people believe it. In other words, the basic idea of the argument is: "If many believe so, it is so."
This type of argument is known by several names,[1] including appeal to the masses, appeal to belief, appeal to the majority, appeal to democracy, appeal to popularity, argument by consensus, consensus fallacy, authority of the many, and bandwagon fallacy, and in Latin as argumentum ad numerum ("appeal to the number"), and consensus gentium ("agreement of the clans"). It is also the basis of a number of social phenomena, including communal reinforcement and the bandwagon effect. The Chinese proverb "three men make a tiger" concerns the same idea."

wikipedia

now, that you have been informed of your error. Can we all expect some change in your thought patterns for the future?