Archaeopteryx
Wanderer
You haven't shown that they are "making it up." If anything, you've shown that you don't understand what you're talking about.
Upvote
0
Starting today August 7th, 2024, in order to post in the Married Couples, Courting Couples, or Singles forums, you will not be allowed to post if you have your Marital status designated as private. Announcements will be made in the respective forums as well but please note that if yours is currently listed as Private, you will need to submit a ticket in the Support Area to have yours changed.
You haven't shown that they are "making it up." If anything, you've shown that you don't understand what you're talking about.And interestingly,like scientists do as well. Apparently it's human nature.
Multiple independent lines of evidence make it beyond reasonable doubt. But, like all scientific theories, it is open to revision given new evidence, and the details of the evolutionary path from common ancestor to extant primate species, including modern man, are subject to ongoing refinement as new evidence is discovered.Why don't scientists admit that they don't know for sure if we descended from a common ape-like ancestor then?
You haven't shown that they are "making it up." If anything, you've shown that you don't understand what you're talking about.
You continue to fail in demonstrating your claim.
Serious projection.
Oh really? Read the article and watch the video. Are scientists manufacturing their own "evidence" to fill the huge gaps in the fossil record or aren't they?
It's pretty obvious what is happening. Deny it if you want. Your choice.
More projection.
Are scientists manufacturing their own "evidence" to fill the huge gaps in the fossil record or aren't they?
Are scientists manufacturing their own "evidence" to fill the huge gaps in the fossil record or aren't they?
I'm still waiting for the answer to this question.
http://www.cam.ac.uk/research/news/...st-common-ancestor-of-humans-and-neanderthals
You do realize that the paper is them using a program to make a prediction on what these common ancestors would look like, right? It's not them saying that this is definitively what they looked like or that the "fossil" generated is part of the core pieces of evidence in order to show the relationship between Neanderthals and humans.
The paper clearly says they are making predictions based on empirical data. This is common practice in all walks of life - is there some reason you disapprove of scientists doing it?
Abstract
The timing and geographic origin of the common ancestor of modern humans and Neandertals remain controversial. A poor Pleistocene hominin fossil record and the evolutionary complexities introduced by dispersals and regionalisation of lineages have fuelled taxonomic uncertainty, while new ancient genomic data have raised completely new questions. Here, we use maximum likelihood and 3D geometric morphometric methods to predict possible morphologies of the last common ancestor of modern humans and Neandertals from a simplified, fully resolved phylogeny. We describe the fully rendered 3D shapes of the predicted ancestors of humans and Neandertals, and assess their similarity to individual fossils or populations of fossils of Pleistocene age. Our results support models of an Afro-European ancestral population in the Middle Pleistocene (Homo heidelbergensis sensu lato) and further predict an African origin for this ancestral population.
The paper clearly says they are making predictions based on empirical data. This is common practice in all walks of life - is there some reason you disapprove of scientists doing it?
Horrible sometimes, not all the time.
I live in a city that has had a horrible tragedy and I believe in God more than ever. I see the ways that God carries people through struggles and brings them together. I believe in a God that has overcome the world and brings evil out of good. I do not believe in an angry God who loves some and hates others.
Exactly my point. They've admitted their shortcomings, but instead of stopping there and investing in the continued search for actual evidence, they fill the gaps with their computer models, and call THAT evidence.
Computer models are NOT evidence, they are mere conjecture.
No, they call it a scientific model.
They are scientific models, which are more than mere conjecture.
So you can rename something and refer to it with fancy sounding terminology and that makes it more credible?
It is what it is. They can call it a "scientific model" all they want, it doesn't change the fact that they are overreaching.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?