Gawdzilla Sama
121.92-meter mutant fire-breathing lizard-thingy
But she wasn't our only female ancestor, just a highly common link in our ancestry.
But she wasn't our only female ancestor, just a highly common link in our ancestry.
justintime
Banned
- Joined
- Dec 3, 2012
- Messages
- 1,260
Good question.
In the grand scheme of things when you view the complexities of the Universe and the natural and physical laws that govern it. All our cumulative knowledge has barely scratched the surface.
Explanation offered for what humans perceive as anomalies such as the extended long neck or giraffes and the laryngeal nerve are not necessarily anomalies when seen in context of their full function rather than taken in isolation.
It was discovered the laryngeal nerve serves a multi-function role and there is purpose for its anomalous pathway. The lost of scientists to explain everything in the context of evolution does not preclude alternate explanation that are available or viable. Evolutionists have box themselves in by accepting too readily over simplified theories of evolution and now forced to force fit new data to accommodate outdated concepts.
Attribution?
Slowvehicle
Membership Drive , Co-Ordinator,, Russell's Antin
Unresponsive, as usual.
Upon what do you base the claim that Kenyon (a creationist) is a "world leading evolutionary biologist"?
I'm a paleontologist, and I taught evolution. I even taught it at a university! I suppose that makes me a leading authority on the topic?
A gross misunderstanding of what is being argued. A mitochondrial Eve is a statistical inevitability--there necessarily must be some last common ancestor for all humans. That DOES NOT mean, however, that she was the ONLY female at the time. It doesn't even mean she was particularly special. She was likely just some random woman; if you saw her at the time she lived you'd never have picked her out among the other women as particularly important. And mitochondrial Eve ISN'T particularly important, in terms of evolutionary biology. It's an interesting question with some implications for human evolution, but the actual woman will never be known and it's not necessary that she be known. Whether she lived 10ka or 100ka or 8ka is the important question.
This is a colorful turn of phrase used to discuss an interesting biological question. You have yet again demonstrated your complete and utter failure to comprehend basic science.
Only by people with no understanding of evolution. I also note that you only addressed HUMAN transitional forms.
The second link you provided is irrelevant. The argument is "Because science changes with new data, it therefore doesn't work and we can dismiss it". You basically demand omniscience, then claim that we've failed when you say that it's impossible.
Slowvehicle
Membership Drive , Co-Ordinator,, Russell's Antin
Provide evidence for the highlighted claim, or retract it.
godless dave
Great Dalmuti
- Joined
- Jul 25, 2007
- Messages
- 8,266
Justintime, are you going to just ignore all the examples of transitional fossils that people posted?
turingtest
Mistral, mistral wind...
Justintime, straight question for you- can you define "missing link"? What do you expect to see in a transitional fossil?
turingtest
Mistral, mistral wind...
Then why didn't you answer it? The rest of your response to a request for your theory just amounts to "science doesn't know everything!"- the petulant cry of a child demanding that science must have what his religion can only claim, when "goddidit!" isn't even "scratching the surface," it's pretending the surface is all there is.
Last edited:
Wowbagger
The Infinitely Prolonged
We found sooooo many fossils of species between humans and other apes, I don't think finding any "missing link" is important, anymore.
This hasn't been an issue, I think, since the early 70s, when the old mentality of simple linear evolutionary pathways started fading; and the bumpier, more realistic nested-tree pathways really started to dominate the field.
(ETA: The above refers more to popular communications about science, rather than the inside knowledge of science, which probably moved its thinking lot sooner.)
I guess the problem is that there are too many people still stuck with that old mentality, or something.
Last edited:
aggle-rithm
Ardent Formulist
Please, educate us. Who discovered this?
Sideroxylon
Featherless biped
The Discovery Institute.
Of course not. Cdesign proponentsists have contributed nothing to human knowledge.one of my old professors once compiled a list of Creationist interpretations of fossils. Creationists insist that any hominid fossils are either 100% ape or 100% human, no transitions. What he found interesting was the fact that they don't agree, and the disagreement follows a pattern. Everyone agrees on the end points, but the further you get from ape and human (ie, the transitional forms) the more disagreement there is. His conclusion was that this demonstrated the arbitrary nature of these divisions, and that the transition was in fact smooth, as evolution predicts.
Longer than that. The fossil record is FAR richer than anyone outside of paleontology realizes. The issue in earlier times wasn't "There are no transitional forms", but rather "Where do we look for transitional forms?" Everyone sane realized they should exist, but there was some disagreement about precisely where we should find them. Southern Asia was a major candidate.
justintime
Banned
- Joined
- Dec 3, 2012
- Messages
- 1,260
People don't take any of this fossil stuff seriously or what paleontologist have to say because it is irrelevant to their survival or has any practical value.
Here is a few quotes from a paleontologist.
http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=9764571&postcount=948
Last edited:
Clearly you haven't othewise you'd stop posting uniformed opinion.
And those of others.
godless dave
Great Dalmuti
- Joined
- Jul 25, 2007
- Messages
- 8,266
That doesn't answer the question. You claimed every "missing link" has been discredited. People posted several examples of "missing links". Are you going to admit you were wrong or not?
This is not true. Even if it was, it would be irrelevant--the question is truth, not acceptance.justintime said:
Also, for the record, justintime is ripping a quote from me out of context. That quote was specifically discussing the practice of paleontology, and the utility of paleontology as a testing ground for epistemology. IN THAT SENSE, the fact that paleontology isn't critical for survival is a very good thing--we can test sampling procedures, epistemological concepts, and other types of ideas in a setting where error results in nothing more serious than "Huh, guess that doesn't work." This was specifically compared to enginering, where errors result in death toles in the thousands. The context makes this clear.
This is yet another demonstration of justintime's dishonesty. My statement IN NO WAY supports his argument. My statement said NOTHING about people taking it seriously. My statement HAS NO IMPACT on the validity of paleontology's findings. justintime is a liar.
I also want to point out that the part where I discussed the scientific method was diriectly attacking justintime's mistaken concept that there is some rigid methodological framework that scientists must operate within. And the highlighted part actually refutes justintime's attempt to distort my statement. People with no formal education in science CAN become leading experts. I've seen it. I've discussed xanthid predation on ammonites with a fireman, for example, and have a copy of his paper floating around somewhere. This pretty much destroys the idea that people don't take paleontology seriously.
justintime, do not quote me as supporting your idiotic notions. I do not. I consider you a troll, and my statements, when viewed in their proper context, demosntrate that.
turingtest
Mistral, mistral wind...
Riiight...the only practical value in what a paleontologist might say is in being able to quote-mine it so you can say that what paleontologists say is irrelevant. Justinitime, you're a hoot.
Sideroxylon
Featherless biped
I take what they, including our mate Dinwar, say seriously because I am a curious personality. The classic big questions like where we came from are interesting and provide me with wider context that leads to self understanding.
I don't take seriously people like creationists because they are willfully ignorant and dishonest.
aggle-rithm
Ardent Formulist
I have put literally minutes of thought into it, and I am now ready to present my alternative theory to evolution, one which explains all the sub-optimal anomalies we see in nature.
The theory posits that God created the Universe, but put most of his efforts into some planet other than Earth, say, Rigel VII. The life on that planet is AWESOME. Efficient, highly homeostatic, and with sleek, eye-popping design. God put a lot of thought into that planet's biosphere, and it shows. (Not to us, though. We'll never see it.)
Meanwhile, God delegated the work of creating life on backwater worlds such as Earth to a team of elves, or something. These elves were definitely not the "A" team of bio-designers. One of them screwed up and created an eye that inverted the image. Rather than fix this problem (it was nearly five o'clock), they threw together a quick kludge whereby extra processing power from the brain turns the image right-side up. It works OK, and as long as no one looks at their work too closely, no one will be the wiser.
Another elf routed the esophagus of the giant squid through its freaking BRAIN. "What were you thinking here!?" the head elf asked him. "If he takes too big a bite, it will kill him!"
"Relax," said the underling. "It's a SQUID. Who gives a crap?"
It was nearly time for happy hour, so they came to a compromise whereby the squid would live so far underwater that it would take thousands of years for anyone to detect the mistake. By then, both elves would have moved on to other jobs.
I'm a software developer, and believe me...I have seen this sort of thing many, MANY times. People throw stuff together without thinking it through. When bugs are found (which they always are), they throw together a fix that works around the problem. Eventually, the code becomes a tangled mess of counter-productive instructions as well as huge sections of completely inert stuff that represents many thousands of man-hours of wasted time. But, it works, and it's too much trouble to fix it.
This type of organically designed code is strangely similar to DNA.
The theory posits that God created the Universe, but put most of his efforts into some planet other than Earth, say, Rigel VII. The life on that planet is AWESOME. Efficient, highly homeostatic, and with sleek, eye-popping design. God put a lot of thought into that planet's biosphere, and it shows. (Not to us, though. We'll never see it.)
Meanwhile, God delegated the work of creating life on backwater worlds such as Earth to a team of elves, or something. These elves were definitely not the "A" team of bio-designers. One of them screwed up and created an eye that inverted the image. Rather than fix this problem (it was nearly five o'clock), they threw together a quick kludge whereby extra processing power from the brain turns the image right-side up. It works OK, and as long as no one looks at their work too closely, no one will be the wiser.
Another elf routed the esophagus of the giant squid through its freaking BRAIN. "What were you thinking here!?" the head elf asked him. "If he takes too big a bite, it will kill him!"
"Relax," said the underling. "It's a SQUID. Who gives a crap?"
It was nearly time for happy hour, so they came to a compromise whereby the squid would live so far underwater that it would take thousands of years for anyone to detect the mistake. By then, both elves would have moved on to other jobs.
I'm a software developer, and believe me...I have seen this sort of thing many, MANY times. People throw stuff together without thinking it through. When bugs are found (which they always are), they throw together a fix that works around the problem. Eventually, the code becomes a tangled mess of counter-productive instructions as well as huge sections of completely inert stuff that represents many thousands of man-hours of wasted time. But, it works, and it's too much trouble to fix it.
This type of organically designed code is strangely similar to DNA.