God and Evolution

[Audie]

Hundreds of them - fragments of the skeletons of more than 300 different individuals of just the species australopithecus afarensis have been found.

Probably - the reasons for believing this are based on the shape and articulation of the pelvis and femur which for australopitecus afarensis are similar to humans AND on the probability that the Laetoli footprints were made by a member of this species - even if that is a bit tentative, it is pretty certain that the footprints were made by a bipedal hominin at the time (about 3.7 million years ago) that austalopithecus afarensis was around. However, later evidence suggests that there were bipedal hominins even before that...but anyways, it seems very likely that Lucy walked upright on two legs.

I'm not sure what you are getting here...but...I know that in recent discoveries of ancient homonins in the Phillipines (for example) tools were found in the same layers of sediments as the fossilized remains of the hominins and also with the bones of animals that showed signs of having been butchered...given that these sediments were laid down 60,000+ years ago, who else do you suppose might have left the tools there?

Lucy was not found with tools...but fairly recently some evidence has emerged that suggests that australopithecus afarensis might have used tools. Again, this comes from the discovery of bones of animals that show signs of having been butchered - but in this case - and we are now talking about 3.5 million years ago or thereabouts - the evidence is not conclusive...so this one, we just don't know yet...maybe we never will.

Hope the answers help.

Chimps and crows use tools.

 

[siti]

Chimps and crows use tools.

Yes they do - dolphins too apparently - but we don't know if their evolutionary ancestors 3.5 million years ago did. And although it seems a bit more likely based on relatively recent finds, that they might have done so, we don't really know for sure that australopithecus did. I reckon its probable that tool use is more widespread and much more ancient in evolution than we will ever know - but that's conjecture - that tool use was common among our own evolutionary ancestors and cousins tens to hundreds of thousands of years ago - and certainly long before the Bible claims we were created - is 100% undeniable.

 

[shunyadragon]

LOL !!, great dodge ! You weaseled out of answering answering a few questions, that you can´t answer.

The emperor has new clothes.

That is your problem. You have only resorted to personal attacks from the beginning.

Find your clothes and get an education. Science was proved valid in a court of Law in Dover, Delaware.

An 'argument form ignorance' and personal insults without any fundamental knowledge of the subject is not a rational nor logical argument.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Subduction Zone recently posted...

Such a pity that @shmogie has me on ignore. Such is the price of refuting him too often. He has only demonstrated that he is totally ignorant of the endless evidence for the theory of evolution. Perhaps a link and quote that sets out what evidence in the first place would help:

Scientific evidence - Wikipedia

"Scientific evidence is evidence which serves to either support or counter a scientific theory or hypothesis. Such evidence is expected to be empirical evidence and interpretation in accordance with scientific method. Standards for scientific evidence vary according to the field of inquiry, but the strength of scientific evidence is generally based on the results of statistical analysis and the strength of scientific controls."

That definition exists partially because scientists are human too and have been known to incorrectly claim "that is not evidence" themselves. This tells one whether or not an idea is evidence. It only needs to pass to basic tests. First is the idea being tested a scientific theory or hypothesis? That is a question whether the concept is falsifiable and the theory of evolution is falsifiable. The second question would be does the observation support the theory or hypothesis? In other words does the observation fit in with the predictions that that theory makes? If the answer to both of those questions is yes then there is endless evidence for the theory of evolution and no evidence at all that I know of for other concepts.


Meanwhile he cannot name a valid "flaw" or "gap". He seems to think that the only evidence for the theory of evolution is fossil evidence when that is only a small part of the evidence for the theory of evolution.​

I thought it was so interesting that I chose to repost it.

SD, I hope that's OK.

You could have corrected my grammatical error . But otherwise yes, thank you very much. The only problem is that he may have recently added you to his ignore list. Or was that another member that refuted him one time too many?

 

[Skreeper]

So, can you answer them ? Go for it. Your post implies you have the information right at your fingertips.

I knew the answers when I posited the questions, it is surprising how many evolutionists apparently don´t.

Same old evolutionist response when pinned down, ¨you are too stupid and ignorant for me to waste my time and my gloriously educated brain¨

A pure BS blitz, because you are ignorant of what you believe.

Not my first rodeo with your kind, sonny.

Please...Stop pretending as if you are here to learn about evidence for evolution. You are here because you like to argue just like the rest of us.

If you wanted to learn you would have gone to the experts who could teach you everything you wanted to know, but you ended up in a religious discussion board.

If I wanted to get my car fixed I also wouldn't go to my dentist and expect him to tell me how to do it.

 

[Subduction Zone]

If I wanted to get my car fixed I also wouldn't go to my dentist and expect him how to do it.

Of course not. That is what chiropractors are for.

 

[Cooky]

People with any sense know your dichotomy isnt
so. Of course not all christians are anti science.

No need to set up your argument with an S-man.

The bible does NOT say "stardust". It says
"dust". It might be vaguely impressive if it
said "star", but that would just be poesy,
not deep wisdom.

And what is "dust"? Powdered aluminum?
Dust curls from under bed? May as well
call it "stuff". That would be better, coz it at least
could include water, our main ingredient!

Lots of native myths have the great spirit make
people from clay. It is false anyway, people
were not just "made".

MOREOVER, "science proves" is ignorant
nonsense. Science never proves anything,
you've a most fundamental
misunderstanding there!

"Everything sience has discovered...is verifiable
in the koran".

This claim in its many forms is about too
silly for words.

One thing you would eventually have to
learn if you were to succeed in a study
of science is the concept / practice of
objectivity.

The easiest person to fool is yourself,
and you have sure succeeded.

You are seeing the same thing in your
koran that astrologers see in the stars
or fans of Nostradamus see in his
"prophecy". Namely, they take the
thinnest thread of imaginary connections
and force-fit meanings to get the conclusion
they want.

Perhaps you mean "convert" rather than
"revert"?

No worries on that. As for the rest of your
post-

Try again with something a little more
intellectualer?

I think that there are only two ingredients we regularly ingest for survival that were never alive; water and Salt. This, to me, indicates that life began in salty, ocean water.

...But I also think that time, as we know it, is based on our lifespans. but the perception of time from another perspective, might look more like we instantly popped out of the ocean -which is probably how God views it.

I don’t know that you can read this though, but if you could, I'm sure it would have been at least slightly interesting. Or not.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

No, I am not unaware of it. It is my point. A whole lot of assumptions are made based on a very small sampling.

Dude......

First of all, hundreds of specimen, is not exactly what I would call a "small sampling".
Secondly, even if we didn't have a single fossil, evolution would still be as solid as ever based on the genetic evidence alone.

You seem to be making the classic mistake of thinking that fossils are smoking gun evidence for evolution. They aren't. While fossils are interesting, they are just consistent with the theory. As in, we don't find fossils in places where they shouldn't be. We don't find rabbits in pre-cambrian strata.

The fossils we find, make perfect sense in context of an evolutionary history.

What you also need to comprehend, is that using the fossil record to try and reconstruct historical human evolution for example, then the attempt is just to reconstruct historical lineage. That's about evolutionary history primarily, not so much the process of evolution itself.

The vast majority of species that ever lived, have never left behind any fossils - remember that.

it is alleged to be a rare process, yet dinosaurs, theoretically much much earlier in the time line, seem to be found everywhere,

Are they, really? So when's the last time you found a dino fossil in your backyard?

Also, did you forget that dino's roamed the earth for some 200 million years?
Seems rather logical that here will be more fossils of a family of species that roamed the earth during 200 million years, then there are fossils of say Homo Erectus, which roamed the earth perhaps 2 million years at best.

Think, will ya?

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

No, there are relatively few fossils of the alleged precursor, and intermediary species of humans.

False. And also indicative of your intellectual lazyness... It took me exactly 3 seconds to find this link. All it took was googling "list of human fossils".

List of human evolution fossils - Wikipedia

Second sentence of the article:
As there are thousands of fossils, mostly fragmentary, often consisting of single bones or isolated teeth with complete skulls and skeletons rare, this overview is not complete

We share genes with other species, so what ?

You sharing genetics with your siblings, demonstrates that you and your siblings share biological ancestors. That's what.

We share a great variety of things with other species

Exactly. And the more genetics shared, the closer related.
This is how we can differentiate your biological sibling from your biological cousin.

Sharing genes is not the same as sharing genes in a process of one species becoming another. That is speculation.

It's not speculation. DNA mutates and is inherited in that mutated form. Fact.
This means that sharing DNA equals sharing ancestry.

DNA is likely the stake through the heart of the start whole process. Or more specifically, the information contained in DNA, which operates the machinery of a cell via RNA to a whole host of proteins.

Where did the information come from for the first precursor organisms of the whole evolutionary process ?

The origins of life is a different area of study.
Evolution address the origins of diversity.

Anyway, a different discussion for a different time.

Indeed, because this is about evolution - not about the abiogenesis.

 

[siti]

No, I am not unaware of it. It is my point. A whole lot of assumptions are made based on a very small sampling.


it is alleged to be a rare process, yet dinosaurs, theoretically much much earlier in the time line, seem to be found everywhere,

No - I mean that's a completely meaningless comparison...

First, dinosaurs are an enormously diverse group of reptiles whose biological history is spread over about 175 million years (or 240 million if you include the feathered varieities which are their currently surviving versions) and came in a range of possibly thousands of different species (over 1000 non-avian species have so far been identified - and there are about 10,000 species of birds) - hominins only appeared about 6 million years ago and only a few dozen different species have yet been discovered in the fossil record - so there has been a very much shorter time for a smaller number of species to have been incorporated into the fossil record.

In any case, I'm not absolutely certain but I doubt that there are many, if any, particular dinosaur species that are better represented in the fossil record than australopithecus is. There are, for example, only about 50 specimens of T-rex and most of them are very incomplete - the best is about 85% complete, compared to the 90% complete fossil of "Little Foot" - the most complete australopithecus skeleton found so far.

So no, I don't think the various dinosaur species (if we take them individually) are better attested in the fossil record than the various hominin species at all.

 

[Subduction Zone]

False. And also indicative of your intellectual lazyness... It took me exactly 3 seconds to find this link. All it took was googling "list of human fossils".

List of human evolution fossils - Wikipedia

Second sentence of the article:
As there are thousands of fossils, mostly fragmentary, often consisting of single bones or isolated teeth with complete skulls and skeletons rare, this overview is not complete



You sharing genetics with your siblings, demonstrates that you and your siblings share biological ancestors. That's what.




Exactly. And the more genetics shared, the closer related.
This is how we can differentiate your biological sibling from your biological cousin.




It's not speculation. DNA mutates and is inherited in that mutated form. Fact.
This means that sharing DNA equals sharing ancestry.



The origins of life is a different area of study.
Evolution address the origins of diversity.



Indeed, because this is about evolution - not about the abiogenesis.

One fact that a lot of creationists ignore or do not know is that Darwin did not base his theory on fossils. During his time the fossil record was very sparse. He based it more on homology and phylogeny than anything else. He said that his theory should be supported by future fossil finds and could be in trouble if that did not happen. The theory could be tested by fossils, but as you pointed out they are not the major source of evidence. I also remember that before DNA was sequenced that creationists were certain that it would refute evolution when that task was done. Instead we found absolute rock solid evidence for the theory.

And as a former lawman @shmogie is probably aware of a trial in my sleepy town that concluded just a couple of weeks ago. A man was found and convicted based upon his DNA. They found him through data from sources from Ancestry And Me and other DNA analysis companies. He never supplied DNA to them. Nor did his immediate relatives. The information came from two second cousins from different branches of his family tree. That and other info made him the primary suspect. He was followed until he bought and tossed a coffee cup. That was tested and matched. He was then arrested and tested again. Bingo!

It was the first trial using this sort of application of DNA evidence in the country:

Washington cold case solved using DNA and genetic genealogy results in landmark verdict

The same sort of evidence tells us that we are related to all other life. I wonder where he draws the line and why.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

One fact that a lot of creationists ignore or do not know is that Darwin did not base his theory on fossils. During his time the fossil record was very sparse. He based it more on homology and phylogeny than anything else. He said that his theory should be supported by future fossil finds and could be in trouble if that did not happen. The theory could be tested by fossils, but as you pointed out they are not the major source of evidence. I also remember that before DNA was sequenced that creationists were certain that it would refute evolution when that task was done. Instead we found absolute rock solid evidence for the theory.

And as a former lawman @shmogie is probably aware of a trial in my sleepy town that concluded just a couple of weeks ago. A man was found and convicted based upon his DNA. They found him through data from sources from Ancestry And Me and other DNA analysis companies. He never supplied DNA to them. Nor did his immediate relatives. The information came from two second cousins from different branches of his family tree. That and other info made him the primary suspect. He was followed until he bought and tossed a coffee cup. That was tested and matched. He was then arrested and tested again. Bingo!

It was the first trial using this sort of application of DNA evidence in the country:

Washington cold case solved using DNA and genetic genealogy results in landmark verdict

The same sort of evidence tells us that we are related to all other life. I wonder where he draws the line and why.

Interesting!
Wasn't aware that forensics used DNA to this extent...

That's awesome.

 

[exchemist]

It seems to be a popular trend that people who believe in God do not believe in evolution. And people who believe in evolution do not believe in God.

Obviously, there's exceptions because I am one. I believe in God and evolution. As a Muslim who believes the Quran to be true there are several scripture to support this.

It also says we come from the clay of the Earth just as Christians and Jews believe.

So if science proves we are made up of stardust and God says the same thing why do so many think otherwise?

Everything science has discovered about existence dating back to the big bang is also verifiable in the Quran.

I'm not trying to revert everyone to Islam here.. Just want to know if you believe in one and not the other then just your reason behind it.

Most of mainstream western Christianity has no trouble reconciling the bible with science. I am delighted to see from your post that the same applies in Islam, just as I had always suspected.

It just depends on how one interprets these ancient scriptures for the modern age. They were not intended to be science textbooks. The message they convey is about something else entirely.

 

[shunyadragon]

No it does not. The belief or premises that God exists is independent of science, and it is best kept that way.

It is major problem when the belief in God is in contradiction with science.

 

[Audie]

Yes they do - dolphins too apparently - but we don't know if their evolutionary ancestors 3.5 million years ago did. And although it seems a bit more likely based on relatively recent finds, that they might have done so, we don't really know for sure that australopithecus did. I reckon its probable that tool use is more widespread and much more ancient in evolution than we will ever know - but that's conjecture - that tool use was common among our own evolutionary ancestors and cousins tens to hundreds of thousands of years ago - and certainly long before the Bible claims we were created - is 100% undeniable.

Here area couple of reasons I think our ancestors
got into tool use very early.

Imagine a band of basically defenseless apes.
out on the African plain. That is a very rough
neighborhood!

Leopards still like to eat people. I dont think
our ancestors could possibly have survived
except in sizable groups that were constantly
alert. Any predator would then be met with
a hail of rocks.

I learned as a child, a big mean dog will run
if you even stoop to pick up a rock that may
not even be there.

Another is, we dont have snouts and claws
such as would help dig for roots etc. You
need a digging stick. We dont have teeth
etc to crack nuts or open an ostrich egg.

 

[Audie]

Most of mainstream western Christianity has no trouble reconciling the bible with science. I am delighted to see from your post that the same applies in Islam, just as I had always suspected.

It just depends on how one interprets these ancient scriptures for the modern age. They were not intended to be science textbooks. The message they convey is about something else entirely.

Of course not science;there was no "science" then.

Intent?
Not to tell a straight forward story of what
actually happened?
The story could be told honestly, and
better convey the, uh, message, whatever
that might be... could it not?
Better for sure, if some say the thing
is bs since the story is so obvoiusly made up.

 

[Cooky]

Here area couple of reasons I think our ancestors
got into tool use very early.

Imagine a band of basically defenseless apes.
out on the African plain. That is a very rough
neighborhood!

Leopards still like to eat people. I dont think
our ancestors could possibly have survived
except in sizable groups that were constantly
alert. Any predator would then be met with
a hail of rocks.

I learned as a child, a big mean dog will run
if you even stoop to pick up a rock that may
not even be there.

Another is, we dont have snouts and claws
such as would help dig for roots etc. You
need a digging stick. We dont have teeth
etc to crack nuts or open an ostrich egg.

Absolutely. But it's funny how we "randomly" mutated the ability to recognize our need for this.

...Randomness is insufficient

Maybe someone else will respond since you have me, and half the site on ignore.

 

[Evangelicalhumanist]

Apparently you think you have credentials to explain evolution, since you explained antibiotic resistant bacteria as an example of evolution, it isn´t evolution.

What are your credentials ?

If it isn't evolution, would you be so kind as to inform UCLA Berkeley of that "fact?"
Superbug, super-fast evolution

The site linked was created by the University of California Museum of Paleontology with support provided by the National Science Foundation (grant no. 0096613) and the Howard Hughes Medical Institute (grant no. 51003439). I believe there might be a credential or 2 among them.

 

[Audie]

No - I mean that's a completely meaningless comparison...

First, dinosaurs are an enormously diverse group of reptiles whose biological history is spread over about 175 million years (or 240 million if you include the feathered varieities which are their currently surviving versions) and came in a range of possibly thousands of different species (over 1000 non-avian species have so far been identified - and there are about 10,000 species of birds) - hominins only appeared about 6 million years ago and only a few dozen different species have yet been discovered in the fossil record - so there has been a very much shorter time for a smaller number of species to have been incorporated into the fossil record.

In any case, I'm not absolutely certain but I doubt that there are many, if any, particular dinosaur species that are better represented in the fossil record than australopithecus is. There are, for example, only about 50 specimens of T-rex and most of them are very incomplete - the best is about 85% complete, compared to the 90% complete fossil of "Little Foot" - the most complete australopithecus skeleton found so far.

So no, I don't think the various dinosaur species (if we take them individually) are better attested in the fossil record than the various hominin species at all.

Just in the news is a newly discovered dinosaur,
whose existence was previously only indicated
by footprints that matched no known dinosaur.

 

[Audie]

Dude......

First of all, hundreds of specimen, is not exactly what I would call a "small sampling".
Secondly, even if we didn't have a single fossil, evolution would still be as solid as ever based on the genetic evidence alone.

You seem to be making the classic mistake of thinking that fossils are smoking gun evidence for evolution. They aren't. While fossils are interesting, they are just consistent with the theory. As in, we don't find fossils in places where they shouldn't be. We don't find rabbits in pre-cambrian strata.

The fossils we find, make perfect sense in context of an evolutionary history.

What you also need to comprehend, is that using the fossil record to try and reconstruct historical human evolution for example, then the attempt is just to reconstruct historical lineage. That's about evolutionary history primarily, not so much the process of evolution itself.

The vast majority of species that ever lived, have never left behind any fossils - remember that.



Are they, really? So when's the last time you found a dino fossil in your backyard?

Also, did you forget that dino's roamed the earth for some 200 million years?
Seems rather logical that here will be more fossils of a family of species that roamed the earth during 200 million years, then there are fossils of say Homo Erectus, which roamed the earth perhaps 2 million years at best.

Think, will ya?

Shmog is not dumb, and if he will think
about what you said here, it should
clear some fog. Hope it works.