Fossil Discovery Hailed as Link Between Monkey and Man

[Moai]

I don't have time to address the specifics in all of your arguments and insults' date=' but I have already said my piece on this.[/quote']

 

I wasn't trying to be insulting.

 

Carry on with looking to find fault with my opinion of what evolution is or isn't. It really doesn't matter in the grand scheme of things.

 

You are certainly entitled to any opinion you like, but denying evolution is like denying gravity, or denying a spherical earth, or the germ theory of disease.

 

For Moai, I already said that the info I do have is very old (concerning the finding that turned out to be athritis). Please feel free to look it up for yourself. I came by that information before I actually learned to surf the internet.

 

I was only curious because I consider myself well-versed in the red herrings that have been asserted throughout the history of the study of biology--as well as other sciences--and I hadn't heard of that.

 

In every instance, of course, the hoax is discovered because the claims do not fit our current model. Notice how the discovery of DNA and gene sequencing fits perfectly into the TOE. It really is a great theory, explaining the fact we see.

 

For what its worth (and to give you all more fuel for your inability to disagree without insults), I find it hard to observe adaptation and claim its evolution.

 

That's what evolution is.

 

So when I take a detour due to roadwork or other diversions, I am somehow evolving? I get that organisms developing immunity to drugs is considered evolving, but evolution for having a working immune system? I think not.

 

Why not? There are volumes in your local library on the evolution of the immune system. Just because you aren't aware of it and don't understand it doesn't mean other people don't.

 

Have at it, oh most intolerant of disagreement. LOL.

 

Again, my apologies it you thought I was being insulting, but I would ask that you consider something:

 

Biologists spend their lives trying to understand the processes of Nature, for very little money and even less recognition. All to advance the sum total of human knowledge. They write papers and books, they lecture, they cure disease, they work to protect the environment for all of us. They catalog mountains upon mountains of evidence, assembling it into a story that makes sense, that any can see for themselves if they just take the time to look.

 

And you haven't even bothered to look. You have an opinion, and you are certainly entitled to it, but it is not an informed one. Without even looking, you have invalidated the life's work of hundreds if not thousands of biologists, geneticists, chemists, and geologists. I would say that is pretty insulting.

[Moai]

I bolded the part that I want to address.

 

I never said a creationist debunked anything.

 

That is wise, because they never have, and never will.

 

In fact, I didn't say who proved it wrong at all. I just said that it was proven wrong. Stop putting words into my mouth/post. This is YOUR issue. The minute someone disagrees with evolution being irrefutable fact, they become an instant creationist in your camp.

 

I am not aware of any reason to deny evolution as fact besides religious ones.

 

I certainly appreciate your logic in many things I've seen you post, but you made an assumption here that I never said.

 

Now, I think I'm done (for now).

 

"I stand firmly between both "camps" believing that we were first created and conditions on the planet led us to evolve. So I am not one to say that Evolution (or its Theory) is false. I simply don't think that "accepted as true" is the same thing as "true". KWIM?"

 

And then you posted this. This is what Old Earth creationists assert, as well as ID proponents trying to advance Irreducible Complexity. However they differ, they are Creationists.

 

Perhaps I jumped the gun, but it would seem that my radar is working 5x5.

 

I would also suggest you re-read my posts versus some of the others on this thread vis a vis insults. I think that of all of those who are explaining this basic science to you I have been the nicest (rare, I know!) and haven't insulted you at all.

[dunstable]

Scientists have made similar claims in the past and only ended up announcing that the so-called *link* was yet another "species" by itself.

 

Creationists keep challenging science to find fossils that are intermediate or transitional between species. Yet whenever this is done, Creationists claim that it is just another species.

 

By definition, different species are incapable of interbreeding. Intermediate and transitional fossils are probably separated in geological time such that these creatures never interbred and were probably not capable of doing so even if they coexisted - nevertheless they illustrate the progression of forms as predicted by Darwin's theory.

 

Creationists won't be satisfied until an animal is found that is dog at one end and cat at the other.

[Land Shark]

My great uncle liked to climb trees.

[NoIDidn't]

Perhaps I jumped the gun, but it would seem that my radar is working 5x5.

 

I would also suggest you re-read my posts versus some of the others on this thread vis a vis insults. I think that of all of those who are explaining this basic science to you I have been the nicest (rare, I know!) and haven't insulted you at all.

 

You certainly were the "nicest". LOL.

 

I know that to some "denying" the "truth" of Evolution is like denying the truth about gravity. But I'm a sceptic by nature. Nothing to do with my religious leanings. In fact, I'm told by those that share my religious beliefs that they don't think I'm "pure" enough.

 

I'm sure that biologists actually cleared up the misunderstanding regarding the old man with athritis. I didn't bring it up as a dig against Evolution as in its been proven false, but just as information regarding mistakes being made in the assumptions of what was found (ie, sceptism at certainties).

 

I know how hard the biologists work and for how much pay. My sister studied to be a paleontologist but became a lawyer due to the pay. The pay is the main reason I decided against working as a statistician. That, and I didn't want to work with a bunch of geeks. They weren't paying me enough for that. LOL.

 

The main problem I have with calling adaptability evolution is the fact that, if the adaptation is no longer needed and the organism returned to its previous state (devolved or re-adapted), then it practically doesn't count. My thoughts on the immune systems adaptability just proves that its doing what its supposed to do. I mean, would our immune systems evolving mean that one day we'll be immune to things like HIV without having to take drugs to accomplish it? But still, we die from things like The Plague and its been around for hundreds of years.

 

I admit that my understanding of what qualifies as evolution is limited. I'm guessing here, but it seems that complex organisms like animals evolve more slowly than bacteria and other simple organisms? Could that be the reason that our immune systems haven't eliminated the threat of things like The Plague? IDK. I'm just a mediocre former mathematician.

[dunstable]

How about you take your own advice and shut up.

 

You have just validated what I said. TOE is NOT a fact if it can be proven/shown incorrect.

 

Tomayto, tomato. If it can be shown incorrect, it can be shown correct - thus proven. I've written many proofs when I had to do actual research. So obviously a theory CAN be proven.

 

Don't all proofs depend on axioms? So a proof is only good to the extent that its axioms are valid?

[Trialbyfire]

For all the people who swing from branch to branch, isn't it obvious that man came from monkeys?

[NoIDidn't]

Don't all proofs depend on axioms? So a proof is only good to the extent that its axioms are valid?

 

I am not sure where you are going with this. An axiom is assumed "self-evident" in that their "truth" is usually not debatable. Putting forth this argument would make Evolution an axiom instead of a theory, as it is assumed to be true and its being the basis of biological sciences means its not debatable.

 

I don't know of any self-evident truths in Evolution. Its "truths" are based on observations by non-objective sources (both Evolutionist and Creationist cannot be considered objective when they obviously look at life and the sciences via these filters).

 

When doing a mathematical proof, you can either do so by affirming the truths of the observations or by showing the opposite can not be true.

 

I have yet to see anyone here attempt to prove Evolution is true with a Proof by Contradiction. It seems it is only assumed that its always true and therefore doesn't have any potential contradictions.

[dunstable]

I am not sure where you are going with this. An axiom is assumed "self-evident" in that their "truth" is usually not debatable.

You said that theories can be proven and that you had accomplished many proofs, so I was hoping you would clarify the relationship between axioms and proofs and comment on how we should ascertain the dependability of a proof, taking into account any uncertainty associated with its axioms. Maybe you could put this into concrete terms by reference to intelligent design and theory of evolution?

[Moai]

You certainly were the "nicest". LOL.

 

I know that to some "denying" the "truth" of Evolution is like denying the truth about gravity. But I'm a sceptic by nature. Nothing to do with my religious leanings. In fact, I'm told by those that share my religious beliefs that they don't think I'm "pure" enough.

 

Skepticism is a good thing. There is a point, of course, where skepticism becomes silly.

 

I'm sure that biologists actually cleared up the misunderstanding regarding the old man with athritis. I didn't bring it up as a dig against Evolution as in its been proven false, but just as information regarding mistakes being made in the assumptions of what was found (ie, sceptism at certainties).

 

Human beings make mistakes, certainly. This is why science is peer-reviewed and based on evidence. Mistakes and outright fraud are more readily caught that way. That is why there is no "proof" in science. It is all provisional. At any time a discovery could come along and shake everything to its core. The TOE is so solid and has been scrutinized so brutally for the last 150+ years, that the chances of a major discovery invalidating it are microscopically small.

 

I know how hard the biologists work and for how much pay. My sister studied to be a paleontologist but became a lawyer due to the pay. The pay is the main reason I decided against working as a statistician. That, and I didn't want to work with a bunch of geeks. They weren't paying me enough for that. LOL.

 

You're missing a lot of D&D weekends!

 

The main problem I have with calling adaptability evolution is the fact that, if the adaptation is no longer needed and the organism returned to its previous state (devolved or re-adapted), then it practically doesn't count.

 

I am not aware of this happening. Do you mean organisms like blind cave fish? They could see once, but now don't need eyes, so the ones they have don't work. They haven't "devolved" though.

 

My thoughts on the immune systems adaptability just proves that its doing what its supposed to do. I mean, would our immune systems evolving mean that one day we'll be immune to things like HIV without having to take drugs to accomplish it? But still, we die from things like The Plague and its been around for hundreds of years.

 

Our immune systems don't adapt in quite that way, but our bodies do. If you have a propensity for sickle cell anemia you are resistant to malaria.

 

I admit that my understanding of what qualifies as evolution is limited. I'm guessing here, but it seems that complex organisms like animals evolve more slowly than bacteria and other simple organisms? Could that be the reason that our immune systems haven't eliminated the threat of things like The Plague? IDK. I'm just a mediocre former mathematician.

 

Yes, bacteria evolve faster than higher organisms, for example. Those that survive a biological event have a greater likelihood of passing on that trait to their offspring. In order for such a trait to be universal, all of humanity would have to be exposed to the Plague (for example). However, we beat small pox in just this way--by giving our immune systems a "taste" of small pox, those with the vaccine are immune to it. Pretty cool.

 

Interestingly, there is a link between Plague immunity and HIV immunity. Check it out:

http://www.pbs.org/wnet/secrets/previous_seasons/case_plague/index.html

[Moose]

God created man. Period.

 

He also create primates, and all mammals, birds, and the fish of the sea.

 

They've ADAPTED to changing climates, but MAN did NOT come from PRIMATES. Period.

 

I'm no scientist, and I don't wish to compare brain pans with anyone. Those on this thread who THINK they know it all are in fact simpltons. Especially those who'll answer this post negatively.

 

You people have so much grey matter, (or at least think you do) that it clouds your horse senses.

 

I've known of several people that were born with tails. You heard me, with TAILS....

 

That by no means proves we came from primates, it simply means there were abnormalitys.

 

Who hear can say that, "Ida" was or was not an abnormality? Find another one....in fact, find a dozen.....THEN I'll listen closer to this NONSENSE!

[redfathom]

Aren't "Pinky" and "The Brain" examples of evolution...

[disgracian]

They've ADAPTED to changing climates, but MAN did NOT come from PRIMATES. Period.

 

I'm no scientist...

Then what meaningful conribution can you make to any scientific discussion? What value are your opinions if you do not have any significant education, research or applied knowledge in any scientific discipline, let alone biology, geneology, geology, and so on?

 

Let's reverse the situation, and suppose I (or somebody) said something along the lines of: "Christianity is completely made up and god is pure fiction. Period. Now, I've never read the Bible, but..."

 

How much credibility would you award somebody who tried to denounce your beliefs without the faintest idea what they are. Now, think about where we are right now.

THEN I'll listen closer to this NONSENSE!

You've made it pretty clear that you will never be prepared to listen to anything that will challenge your beliefs. Deep down you know this is true, so why say otherwise?

 

Cheers,

D.

[Moose]

Deep down you know this is true

Deep down I know it IS NOT True.

 

Deep down, I know that it is principalities (Ephesians 6:12) that we are dealing with. ANYTHING to make man believe otherwise, and the "know it alls" are falling for it in huge numbers.

 

And your the ones who lack pure knowledge.

 

Never ASSUME what I feel deep down!

[Trojan John]

God created man. Period.

 

He also create primates, and all mammals, birds, and the fish of the sea.

 

They've ADAPTED to changing climates, but MAN did NOT come from PRIMATES. Period.

 

 

Prove it (empirically, not conjecturally).

[Moose]

Prove it (empirically, not conjecturally).

I would if I could. You want tangible evidence, I can't provide you with that. I've told you what this is all about. Ephesians 6:12;

 

"12.For our struggle is not against flesh and blood, but against the rulers, against the authorities, against the powers of this dark world and against the spiritual forces of evil in the heavenly realms"

 

You believe in gravity, yet you can't touch it. You know evil people, but you can't touch that evil. All you can do is witness the results of gravity and evil, and even measure it.

 

In this case, Principalities and Evil can not be measured by man's (finite) standards.

 

Look, I am one that agrees no one knows how old, (in years) the world exisited. What I do know is that I did not evolve into a man. I was created as a man.

 

I'm closer to understanding the infinite than anyone who holds a masters in anything.

 

The rest of you, (try as you may) lean to your own understanding. That will be your un-doing. Just my .02

[Moose]

Then what meaningful conribution can you make to any scientific discussion? What value are your opinions if you do not have any significant education, research or applied knowledge in any scientific discipline, let alone biology, geneology, geology, and so on?

First off, I wouldn't expect someone of your intellect to understand....see, you think TOO much that you miss out on the simpliest answers to many questions as to the origin of life.

 

Kinda like the show "House", (my favorite BTW I think of you D. when I watch it), a patient with extremely strange symptoms, a team suggesting theorys, (most of them don't work) until House takes enough pain pills, or gets flat out drunk before the answer comes to him.....make sense? That, Sir, is why I can contribute. To bring you genuises back to reality.

 

Disclaimer: I am not on pain killers or drunk.....

[NoIDidn't]

Disclaimer: I am not on pain killers or drunk.....

 

Pity. LOL! That Communion Wine is a doozy! LOL.

[Trojan John]

I would if I could. You want tangible evidence, I can't provide you with that.

 

Which is exactly the point. You want people to believe in something so strongly the way you do, but you can provide no proof besides conjecture as to its existence.

 

You believe in gravity, yet you can't touch it. You know evil people, but you can't touch that evil. All you can do is witness the results of gravity and evil, and even measure it.

Exactly. There is some measure. What is the measure for the existence of a god? How convenient is it to call it a sin for even deining to question a god? I "believe" in gravity because gravity can be and has been tested. I don't know any evil people... at least not "evil" by my assumption of your definition. I think people do dumb, uncaring, selfish or malicious things, but that no person is "evil".

 

Look, I am one that agrees no one knows how old, (in years) the world exisited. What I do know is that I did not evolve into a man. I was created as a man. I'm closer to understanding the infinite than anyone who holds a masters in anything.

Once again, conjecture, and incredibly narcissistic. I also think that it's telling that you're so sure of your belief in the Christian creation myth when that story has been told in in varying degrees by several of the much older, non-christian cultures. Christianity is relatively an adolescent amongst ancients -- so what makes you so right? Because it has more followers worldwide?

[disgracian]

Deep down I know it IS NOT True.

You denounce it as nonsense and have absolute, unconditional faith in the Christian creation myth. You chastise others for leaning on their own understanding, so it's self-evident that no matter what you are presented with you will reject it if it conflicts with your interpretation of scripture.

 

Cheers,

D.

[disgracian]

First off, I wouldn't expect someone of your intellect to understand....see, you think TOO much that you miss out on the simpliest answers to many questions as to the origin of life.

I prefer the accuracy to simplicity. Some things are, whether we like it or not, complicated and it's a cop-out to shrug it off in favour of an answer that we don't have to think about too much.

Kinda like the show "House", (my favorite BTW I think of you D. when I watch it), a patient with extremely strange symptoms, a team suggesting theorys, (most of them don't work) until House takes enough pain pills, or gets flat out drunk before the answer comes to him.....make sense?

Like most of what you say, none whatsoever. Argument by TV drama?

That, Sir, is why I can contribute. To bring you genuises back to reality.

Because you saw an episode of House? You use words like "genius" and "intellectual" as slurs, and insist that somehow the more a person knows the less likely they are to be right. I suppose this is all you can do from your position. The other side is clearly more informed and is getting moreso every day while Creationists instead ignore any data that doesn't agree with their ideology and have an overwhelming track record of deceit and fraud.

 

What else can you do but imply that increasing the sum total of human knowledge by gathering data and rigorously testing it is somehow a bad thing, and all the smart people who do this are completely wrong because of it?

 

Cheers,

D.

[burning 4 revenge]

So we came from monkeys, so what

 

Nothings different really, it all feels the same, exactly the same

 

So who cares, God or monkey king, its all the same, so what?

[Rooster_DAR]

God created man. Period.

 

He also create primates, and all mammals, birds, and the fish of the sea.

 

 

That is your belief, your certainly entitle to your opinion.

 

They've ADAPTED to changing climates, but MAN did NOT come from PRIMATES. Period.

 

Adaptation works hand in hand with Evolution, it's what drives the species to change whether you believe it or not. A strong evidence for this is drug resistant TB, which proves evolution is a fact.

 

I'm no scientist, and I don't wish to compare brain pans with anyone. Those on this thread who THINK they know it all are in fact simpltons. Especially those who'll answer this post negatively.

 

This is why you are not qualified to contribute to any logical dialogue, you are sewn into your beliefs so strong that the blinders are welded to your temple

 

I've known of several people that were born with tails. You heard me, with TAILS....

 

That by no means proves we came from primates, it simply means there were abnormalitys.

 

And you know this for certain how?

 

Who hear can say that, "Ida" was or was not an abnormality? Find another one....in fact, find a dozen.....THEN I'll listen closer to this NONSENSE!

 

We will both be long gone before we will know if they find every transition between, but history always seems to point back to how ignorant past generations have been with their assumptions, especially in matters or divine beliefs.

 

Cheers!

[Moai]

God created man. Period.

 

He also create primates, and all mammals, birds, and the fish of the sea.

 

They've ADAPTED to changing climates, but MAN did NOT come from PRIMATES. Period.

 

I'm no scientist, and I don't wish to compare brain pans with anyone. Those on this thread who THINK they know it all are in fact simpltons. Especially those who'll answer this post negatively.

 

You people have so much grey matter, (or at least think you do) that it clouds your horse senses.

 

I've known of several people that were born with tails. You heard me, with TAILS....

 

That by no means proves we came from primates, it simply means there were abnormalitys.

 

Who hear can say that, "Ida" was or was not an abnormality? Find another one....in fact, find a dozen.....THEN I'll listen closer to this NONSENSE!

 

"Horse sense" is often wrong, and not to be trusted. That is why we look for evidence. Einstein put it well, "Common sense is a collection of prejudices acquired by age eighteen."

 

"Horse sense" used to tell people that there is a such thing as a witch. Common sense suggests that storms and earthquakes are a punishment for bad behavior (where else would this idea come from?). Common sense told people that blacks were naturally inferior to whites.

 

Penicillin is not common sense. "Something good for me growing on mold? No way! Mold is rotten." Yet penicillin has saved billions of lives.

 

Not only that, common sense for one is not common sense for another. To me, for example, I think that listening to people who work in a field and submit peer-reviewed articles and actually assimilate the data should be listened to is common sense. Looking for evidence for the truth instead of jumping to a conclusion is common sense.

 

Walking through the woods and seeing how interlaced different life forms are, all life sharing a common ancestor is common sense.

 

I wouldn't go to a witch doctor if I had a broken femur, I would go to a orthopedic surgeon. Common sense.