Watch and Consider II

[DogmaHunter]

I am sure you would not...most atheists do not allow for alternate views

Sounds like Trump's "alternative facts".
Yeah, I'm not interested in that kind of "alternatives".

I would say at least half or more of the facts presented are real and beg an answer

If what the people in the vid have to say has any merrit, it would be in the scientific journals and they wouldn't require youtube to spread their stuff.

"SO though I doubt you listened to much (a closed mind is typical of many atheists so hopefully not you)

Typical.

That's not what being "closed minded" means.
An open minds means to be willing to change your mind if it is shown that you are wrong.
Closedminded means that one adhere's to a dogma, no matter what.

One isn't "closed minded" if one is not prepared to consider any crackpot's idea.
If a geographer doesn't wish to waste time to consider the ideas of a flat earther, then that geographer isn't being "closed minded".

To quote professor Dawkins: "We SHOULD have an open mind. But not SO open, that our brains are falling out...."

, I would love you to address specific content, reasoning, or facts brought out in the series.

Sorry, but I'm not about to waste a gigantic amount of time listening to the nonsense about biology coming from a creationist muslim who has a degree in interior design, of all things.

BTW: the dude is also an exposed liar. There this one famous example of a picture he used in one of his propaganda books of a fly which supposedly is the same as a creature trapped in amber and which supposedly "proved" that no evolution occured. As it turns out... that "creature" was a plastic fishing lure. The hook is even still on it. This picture can be found in his propaganda book "The Atlas of Creation". Here it is:

The Fishing Lures of Faith

I guess that's one of the "facts" of the "false half" ey?

Sorry, but no, I'm not going to waste time on such dishonest nonsense.

 

[Jimmy D]

Sounds like Trump's "alternative facts".
Yeah, I'm not interested in that kind of "alternatives".



If what the people in the vid have to say has any merrit, it would be in the scientific journals and they wouldn't require youtube to spread their stuff.



Typical.

That's not what being "closed minded" means.
An open minds means to be willing to change your mind if it is shown that you are wrong.
Closedminded means that one adhere's to a dogma, no matter what.

One isn't "closed minded" if one is not prepared to consider any crackpot's idea.
If a geographer doesn't wish to waste time to consider the ideas of a flat earther, then that geographer isn't being "closed minded".

To quote professor Dawkins: "We SHOULD have an open mind. But not SO open, that our brains are falling out...."



Sorry, but I'm not about to waste a gigantic amount of time listening to the nonsense about biology coming from a creationist muslim who has a degree in interior design, of all things.

BTW: the dude is also an exposed liar. There this one famous example of a picture he used in one of his propaganda books of a fly which supposedly is the same as a creature trapped in amber and which supposedly "proved" that no evolution occured. As it turns out... that "creature" was a plastic fishing lure. The hook is even still on it. This picture can be found in his propaganda book "The Atlas of Creation". Here it is:

View attachment 199668

The Fishing Lures of Faith

I guess that's one of the "facts" of the "false half" ey?

Sorry, but no, I'm not going to waste time on such dishonest nonsense.

That post should really end this nonsense.

Sadly I doubt it will though, it's fascinating how intelligent people would rather pin their hopes on liars like this than admit to themselves that they could be wrong.

 

[USincognito]

Of course it isn't...though I have read 1000s of studies and experiments...worked in labs for decades...read many "books on Evolution" (in fact, for fun I have been reading a Bio-Chemistry text from when I went back to college in 2006 for an update)

But nonetheless I would say at least half or more of the facts presented are real and beg an answer.

Well I don't "do" YouTube videos, but I've got it up and I'll give it a quick scan (sans audio).

SO though I doubt you listened to much...

What makes you think I'm not already familiar with Haha's claims or the myriad Creationist PRATTs I've been seeing, hearing and reading for the last 25 years? I

(a closed mind is typical of many atheists so hopefully not you) I would love you to address specific content, reasoning, or facts brought out in the series.

Can you do that or will you default to one of the two typical responses of "I wouldn't waste my time" or the pseudo ad hominem attack?

It is a waste of time. Thankfully Monday nights at work are usually pretty uneventful and I have some time to waste.

 

[USincognito]

Like what specifically?

:55 - We know from the fossil record that our ancestors were bipedal even though they retained numerous "ape like" characteristics such as prognathism and grasping hands and feet. In Australopithicines, we find bipedal pelvis and knee in AL-288-1 (aka Lucy) and a bipedal foramen magnum in Taung 1 (aka Taung Child).

1:55 Obligate bipedalism is an advantage for a hand possessing lineage, especially if you want to be able to run. There's a lot of evidence that we evolved along with a hunting style that involved outdistancing our prey, in many cases running them to death. We see that still in Khoisan people.
https://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v432/n7015/full/nature03052.html

2:20 Humans only move very slowly across the ground? Has Haha never seen a 10,000m track and field race?

2:55 Mentions 1996 computer simulation by Robin Crompton. That study does not appear on Crompton's CV page.
Robin Crompton | University of Liverpool - Academia.edu
I did find this 2005 paper which uses simulations to show that AL-288-1 would have had a gait consistent with the Laetoli footprints and would have been fully bipedal.
Stride lengths, speed and energy costs in walking of Australopithecus afarensis: using evolutionary robotics to predict locomotion of early human ancestors | Journal of The Royal Society Interface

3:30 Elaine Morgan was a writer, not a scientist. And Aquatic Ape Hypothesis is interesting, but there's not a lot of support for it. And her four questions have all been answered. Bipedalism evolved (we have evidence, see Lucy and Taung) so we could run (see Persistence hunting above) and we lost our body hair to help with heat regulation (and possibly to resist lice - What is the latest theory of why humans lost their body hair? Why are we the only hairless primate? ) As far as brains go, we now now that changes in jaw size allowed jaw muscles to anchor lower on the skull allowing for a larger cranium combined with mutations to the SRGAP2C and ARHGAP11B genes (and others) facilitated our larger brains.

I think I'm going to skip the last minute and a half.

 

[Bungle_Bear]

Understanding that many did not have Netflix I have found an equivalent on You Tube

Type in "Is the evolution theory true or false.? (1) and watch the whole series

Atheists should especially pay attention to the separation of fact and fiction

I had a quick look at the series and here's what I found:

1. Bipedalism. That's been dealt with nicely in this thread.
2. The Coelocanth. Scientists have changed their interpretation of coelocanth's place in the evolution of tetrapods, therefore all claims they have ever made are false and evolution is false.
3. Reconstructions. Soft tissue does not leave traces so we can't be sure what extinct species actually looked like. Therefore all reconstructions in museums are made up nonsense and evolution is false.
4. Oto Benga. In early 20th century a pygmy male was captured in Africa, exhibited in zoos in the US as an example of a missing link and treated like an animal. Therefore all evolutionists are immoral devilspawn and evolution is false.
5. Neanderthal Man. Neanderthals have been shown to be a separate species and not ancestral to homo sapiens as once thought. Same as coelocanth - change of interpretation means all scientific claims are false and evolution is false.
6. Ichthyosaurus. A specimen displayed in a museum in Wales for 100 years was found to be a fake (made from 2 separate ichthyosaur specimens). Therefore all specimens are fake and evolution is false.
7. Archeoraptor. A new specimen supposedly showing how birds are descended from therapod dinosaurs was faked from 2 different specimens. As above - all specimens are fake and evolution is false.
8. Fake dating. A scientist in Germany faked radiometric dates on some fossils. Therefore all dates are wrong and evolution is false.
9. Piltdown Man. Piltdown Man was a hoax, therefore all specimens are fake and evolution is false.
10. Nebraska Man. Yawn.

I really can't bring myself to skim through any more. It's PRATTs, ad hominems and utter drivel.

 

[AV1611VET]

From a sample of 6 claims in 75 seconds, all of them were wrong.

But were they considered right at one time?

Evolutionism in my time taught stuff you never hear anymore.

That's because creationists began challenging them on their turf and forced them to reassess what they were saying.

They lost debate after debate until they finally got all the bugs ironed out of their philosophy and honed it into a convincing theory.

 

[Jimmy D]

That's because creationists began challenging them on their turf and forced them to reassess what they were saying.

Can you give an example?

They lost debate after debate until they finally got all the bugs ironed out of their philosophy and honed it into a convincing theory.

Can you give an example?

 

[Gene2memE]

But were they considered right at one time?

Of those six claims, only the knuckle walking to upright gait could probably have been considered a reasonable hypothesis at the time. Even then its stretching it to say any of those claims were ever "right" - the quadruped to biped evidence was far from clear.

Evolutionism in my time taught stuff you never hear anymore.

While that's most likely true, from your posting I also suspect that what you were actually taught, and what you remember being taught are separated by a gulf that could create oceans.

That's because creationists began challenging them on their turf and forced them to reassess what they were saying.

That, frankly, is one of the biggest loads of rubbish I've read this year. To quote Princess Leia: "I don't know where you get your delusions".

Science is based on evaluation of available evidence. As researchers get more and better evidence, their answers get better.

Crediting creationists with forcing changes to what scientists are saying is like crediting a single bad krill with changing how a whale eats. It just didn't happen.

I now creationists like to think they're important - but the only time they actually matter to anyone in a scientific discipline is when they try to force their beliefs where is doesn't belong, like a science classroom. Or get their aspidistras handed to them in court.

Public educators and science communicators have gotten better at debating and embarassing creationists in public, this is true. But, its like batting at softball - the more practice you get swinging at the soft squishy thing, the better you get at hitting it.

 

[dmmesdale]

Science is based on evaluation of available evidence.

Life from nonlife has zero evidence or precedent. That means it is based on blind faith, absent evidence.

As researchers get more and better evidence, their answers get better.

Get better at telling fish stories. Historical science is far from exact. Lets not amalgamate the hard sciences with the voodoo types. Besides, their paradigm changes all the time. How many errors are they allowed to make? Quote.

'Although it is stated that science is self-correcting, which it is, it is also evident that the theory of evolution, almost exclusively among theories, is massively tarnished by both fraud and mistakes. It isn't wise to present students with confusing information that is quite likely inaccurate or is liable to be so readily overturned by further research.'

'the discovery of the “Ida” fossil, hailed as a direct human ancestor, as Dr. Jorn Hurum stated: "This specimen is like finding the Lost Ark.....it is the scientific equivalent of the Holy Grail. This fossil will probably be the one that will be pictured in all textbooks for the next 100 years."2 It later turned out, however, that the lemur-like Ida, “Darwinius masillae”, cannot be regarded as ancestral to the human lineage as claimed. Likewise, “Ramapithecus” was taught in the school textbooks for nearly five decades as a direct ancestor of humans when this was never the case – it may instead be related to orang-utans.'

Crediting creationists with forcing changes to what scientists are saying is like crediting a single bad krill with changing how a whale eats. It just didn't happen.

What they have is long on story and short on facts. Who cares about your inbuilt bias of Creationists. It is not a useful argument nor is it convincing.

Public educators and science communicators have gotten better at debating and embarrasing creationists in public, this is true.

Garbage. In the first place, they do not spend a lot of actual class time on it. It is hit on in two grades, and many ignore it because it is controversial. Other districts are enacting equal time and including criticisms in the curriculum. Things are slowly changing. Students find the subject matter boring and useless. It does not take much to sway these kids.

 

[VirOptimus]

Of course it isn't...though I have read 1000s of studies and experiments...worked in labs for decades...read many "books on Evolution" (in fact, for fun I have been reading a Bio-Chemistry text from when I went back to college in 2006 for an update)

But nonetheless I would say at least half or more of the facts presented are real and beg an answer. SO though I doubt you listened to much (a closed mind is typical of many atheists so hopefully not you) I would love you to address specific content, reasoning, or facts brought out in the series.

Can you do that or will you default to one of the two typical responses of "I wouldn't waste my time" or the pseudo ad hominem attack?

Then it will of course be trivial for you to write a paper for peer-review showing that you are correct.

If you cant, well, then I guess its all hot air.

 

[sfs]

'Although it is stated that science is self-correcting, which it is, it is also evident that the theory of evolution, almost exclusively among theories, is massively tarnished by both fraud and mistakes...'

This statement would be more impressive if it were, you know, true.

 

[Jimmy D]

Life from nonlife has zero evidence or precedent. That means it is based on blind faith, absent evidence.

Yet.

'Although it is stated that science is self-correcting, which it is, it is also evident that the theory of evolution, almost exclusively among theories, is massively tarnished by both fraud and mistakes. It isn't wise to present students with confusing information that is quite likely inaccurate or is liable to be so readily overturned by further research.'

'the discovery of the “Ida” fossil, hailed as a direct human ancestor, as Dr. Jorn Hurum stated: "This specimen is like finding the Lost Ark.....it is the scientific equivalent of the Holy Grail. This fossil will probably be the one that will be pictured in all textbooks for the next 100 years."2 It later turned out, however, that the lemur-like Ida, “Darwinius masillae”, cannot be regarded as ancestral to the human lineage as claimed. Likewise, “Ramapithecus” was taught in the school textbooks for nearly five decades as a direct ancestor of humans when this was never the case – it may instead be related to orang-utans.'

Wow, a petition written by creationists (to get the TOE kicked out of schools) says derogatory things against the TOE, who'd a thunk it!

Reading through that petition actually made me feel a bit sick, that seemingly intelligent people in this day and age should try and foist such ignorance onto our children is disgusting, absolutely disgusting. If I lived over there I'd be genuinely worried about this garbage.

On a lighter note, it's only got 349 signatures and they include Sheldon Cooper, Ben Dover, Donald J Putin, Hugh Jidiot and my favourite - Buff Gibbons.

BTW...

“Ramapithecus” was taught in the school textbooks for nearly five decades as a direct ancestor of humans

I doubt that is true, it was an idea that was proposed in the early 60's, questioned in the late 60s and rejected in the early 70s with the discovery of more fossils. Exactly what text books was it taught in for five decades?

 

[pshun2404]

:55 - We know from the fossil record that our ancestors were bipedal even though they retained numerous "ape like" characteristics such as prognathism and grasping hands and feet. In Australopithicines, we find bipedal pelvis and knee in AL-288-1 (aka Lucy) and a bipedal foramen magnum in Taung 1 (aka Taung Child).

1:55 Obligate bipedalism is an advantage for a hand possessing lineage, especially if you want to be able to run. There's a lot of evidence that we evolved along with a hunting style that involved outdistancing our prey, in many cases running them to death. We see that still in Khoisan people.
https://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v432/n7015/full/nature03052.html

2:20 Humans only move very slowly across the ground? Has Haha never seen a 10,000m track and field race?

2:55 Mentions 1996 computer simulation by Robin Crompton. That study does not appear on Crompton's CV page.
Robin Crompton | University of Liverpool - Academia.edu
I did find this 2005 paper which uses simulations to show that AL-288-1 would have had a gait consistent with the Laetoli footprints and would have been fully bipedal.
Stride lengths, speed and energy costs in walking of Australopithecus afarensis: using evolutionary robotics to predict locomotion of early human ancestors | Journal of The Royal Society Interface

3:30 Elaine Morgan was a writer, not a scientist. And Aquatic Ape Hypothesis is interesting, but there's not a lot of support for it. And her four questions have all been answered. Bipedalism evolved (we have evidence, see Lucy and Taung) so we could run (see Persistence hunting above) and we lost our body hair to help with heat regulation (and possibly to resist lice - What is the latest theory of why humans lost their body hair? Why are we the only hairless primate? ) As far as brains go, we now now that changes in jaw size allowed jaw muscles to anchor lower on the skull allowing for a larger cranium combined with mutations to the SRGAP2C and ARHGAP11B genes (and others) facilitated our larger brains.

I think I'm going to skip the last minute and a half.

All good explanations (not necessarily true but good nonetheless) which I have heard many times over the past 25 years (believed them solidly and even used some for 20 before that). Lucy is just an evolved variation of ape that due to loss of their aboreal advantage died out and went extinct.

You do know that most do not really believe Australopithicus evolved into humans don;t you?

Though Johanson originally insisted that A. afarensis was the direct ancestor of man. In fact, the phrase “the dramatic discovery of our oldest human ancestor” can be found emblazoned on the cover of his 1981 book, Lucy: The Beginnings of Humankind.

Numerous evolutionists, however, strongly disagreed. Lord Zuckerman, the famous British anatomist, published his views on the australopithecines in his book, Beyond the Ivory Tower. He studied these creatures for more than fifteen years, and came to the conclusion…that if man did in fact descend from an apelike ancestor, he did so without leaving a single visible trace in the fossil record (1970, p. 64). Some might complain, “But Lord Zuckerman’s work was done before Lucy was even discovered.” That may be true, but it misses the point.

Zuckerman’s research—which established conclusively that the australopithecines were nothing but knuckle-walking apes who probably could also walk on two legs.The odd thing is that his work was performed on fossils younger than Lucy (i.e., even closer to man), showing no such evolution in the many, many Australopithicene fossils he examined! Even Ernst Mayr later in the 90's still expressed there were too many unexplainable gaps between A.A. and Erectus)...

But how could this mistaken assessment about Lucy have happened? In his own words Johanson admitted “I was trying to jam evidence of dates into a pattern that would support conclusions about fossils which, on closer inspection, the fossils themselves would not sustain” (Lucy: The Beginnings of Humankind, Johanson and Edey, 1981, Penguin Publishers, London).

If he could admit it why can't you? Interpreting the evidence to fit the hypothesis is precisely the problem. It's backward science...

 

[Warden_of_the_Storm]

All good explanations (not necessarily true but good nonetheless) which I have heard many times over the past 25 years (believed them solidly and even used some for 20 before that). Lucy is just an evolved variation of ape that due to loss of their aboreal advantage died out and went extinct.

You do know that most do not really believe Australopithicus evolved into humans don;t you?

Though Johanson originally insisted that A. afarensis was the direct ancestor of man. In fact, the phrase “the dramatic discovery of our oldest human ancestor” can be found emblazoned on the cover of his 1981 book, Lucy: The Beginnings of Humankind.


Numerous evolutionists, however, strongly disagreed. Lord Zuckerman, the famous British anatomist, published his views on the australopithecines in his book, Beyond the Ivory Tower. He studied these creatures for more than fifteen years, and came to the conclusion…that if man did in fact descend from an apelike ancestor, he did so without leaving a single visible trace in the fossil record (1970, p. 64). Some might complain, “But Lord Zuckerman’s work was done before Lucy was even discovered.” That may be true, but it misses the point.


Zuckerman’s research—which established conclusively that the australopithecines were nothing but knuckle-walking apes—was performed on fossils younger than Lucy (i.e., even closer to man), showing no such evolution in the many, many fossils he examined! But how could this mistaken assessment about Lucy have happened? “I was trying to jam evidence of dates into a pattern that would support conclusions about fossils which, on closer inspection, the fossils themselves would not sustain” (Lucy: The Beginnings of Humankind, Johanson and Edey, 1981, Penguin Publishers, London).

I have a very sneaking suspicion that you have left out the rest of that quote from The Beginnings of Humankind, and I think that you did that with all intents to do that.
Why don't you actually quote the part in full next time.

And I have also noticed that you have not actually responded to any of USingonito's points. You just basically went "... *shrug* So?"

 

[pshun2404]

I doubt that is true, it was an idea that was proposed in the early 60's, questioned in the late 60s and rejected in the early 70s with the discovery of more fossils. Exactly what text books was it taught in for five decades?

Rampithicus was discovered in 1932 and began appearing in articles and texts, billied as a true human ancestor, as early as 1935, but was thoroughly debunked around 1973. That was still far too long for brainwashing to effect many students thinking.

 

[pshun2404]

I have a very sneaking suspicion that you have left out the rest of that quote from The Beginnings of Humankind, and I think that you did that with all intents to do that.
Why don't you actually quote the part in full next time.

And I have also noticed that you have not actually responded to any of USingonito's points. You just basically went "... *shrug* So?"

Okay..I will respond to what I think are important, but first the only real significant implication comes from her pelvis so I will start with that here. As you know there is usually a difference between the real and what we see when we look for examples (which are reconstructions often with a confirmation bias). In this case there were two such "reconstructions" both done by the alleged "experts" only guess what (shhh!!! No one is supposed to know!) they disagreed (shudder! no way!).

As for the two pelvic reconstructions on the Lucy fossils, one with a broad Iliac flare and a definite anterior wrap, and the other with a small Iliac flare and practically no anterior wrap.

Both were considered plausible reflections of the reality (which of course no one really knows), but the pedagogues favored the former (it fit the hypothesis), so the other was necessarily discredited.

This simply confirms what I have been saying...the hypothesis interprets the evidence (and they are not above shaving bone, adding plaster, even using power sanders) to make it appear as "expected"...IMO this is bad science...

 

[Warden_of_the_Storm]

Okay..I will respond to what I think are important, but first the only real significant implication comes from her pelvis so I will start with that here. As you know there is usually a difference between the real and what we see when we look for examples (which are reconstructions often with a confirmation bias). In this case there were two such "reconstructions" both done by the alleged "experts" only guess what (shhh!!! No one is supposed to know!) they disagreed (shudder! no way!).

As for the two pelvic reconstructions on the Lucy fossils, one with a broad Iliac flare and a definite anterior wrap, and the other with a small Iliac flare and practically no anterior wrap.

Both were considered plausible reflections of the reality (which of course no one really knows), but the pedagogues favored the former (it fit the hypothesis), so the other was necessarily discredited.

This simply confirms what I have been saying...the hypothesis interprets the evidence (and they are not above shaving bone, adding plaster, even using power sanders) to make it appear as "expected"...IMO this is bad science...

So... are you going to quote the rest of that quote from The Beginnings of Humankind or not?

 

[pshun2404]

Stern and Susman (American Journal of Physical Anthropology, Vol. 60, Issue 3, March 1983) remarked: “It is demonstrated that A. afarensis possessed anatomic characteristics that indicate a significant adaptation for movement in the trees” (1983, pg. 280). They went on to comment: “The AL 333-91 [designation for a specific A. afarensis fossil—BH/BT] pisiform [bone of the hand—BH/BT] is ‘elongate and rod shaped’ and thus resembles the long, projecting pisiform of apes and monkeys”.


Stern and Susman’s research detailed the fact that the hands and feet of A. afarensis are devoid of the normal human qualities assigned to hands and feet. Instead, their research demonstrated that these creatures had long, curved fingers and toes typical of arboreal primates.

 

[pshun2404]

So... are you going to quote the rest of that quote from The Beginnings of Humankind or not?

You told me to address US's points did you not? So no not at this time but feel free to read on for yourself...but don't hold his honesty against him, he still believes she is an ancestor. Realizing one's assumptions is comendable.

 

[Warden_of_the_Storm]

You told me to address US's points did you not? So no not at this time but feel free to read on for yourself...but don't hold his honesty against him, he still believes she is an ancestor. Realizing one's assumptions is comendable.

And I also asked you to quote the quote from The Beginnings of Humankind you quoted in full first.
And your points are really nothing of substance. You don't actually explain how they refute any of USincognito's points, like, at all.