True or not true about evolution...?

[YoursTrue]

What is it with you and this subject? I can determine no validity for your enthusiasm or reasoning here. What is it you think you are saying with this obsession over the artistic rendering?

What's any different between that conjecture and the idea (conjecture) that this skull means an earlier type of dino maybe human type of being? When and why did human types start wearing clothes? Pardon while I prepare for the guesswork. Yeesh and that's science? And I took my vaccination. I am grateful for that type of science. I have decided that evolution is not, and cannot, be proven. I'm not talking about populations with similar inherited characteristics. That is genetics. Not Darwinian type evolution.

 

[YoursTrue]

What is it with you and this subject? I can determine no validity for your enthusiasm or reasoning here. What is it you think you are saying with this obsession over the artistic rendering?

Because it's not science. At all. Not proveable. Not near proveable. And misleading. Yet this rendering has him with pants. Ridiculous. Because...why don't gorillas wear pants? Why don't dogs get to make pants, r I d I c u l o u s. And really, have a good night.

 

[Dan From Smithville]

What's any different between that conjecture and the idea (conjecture) that this skull means an earlier type of dino maybe human type of being? When and why did human types start wearing clothes? Pardon while I prepare for the guesswork. Yeesh and that's science? And I took my vaccination. I am grateful for that type of science. I have decided that evolution is not, and cannot, be proven. I'm not talking about populations with similar inherited characteristics. That is genetics. Not Darwinian type evolution.

You have demonstrated that you have no idea what evolution is, so it is difficult to take your denial of it seriously. You are denying something unreal that is not a description of the theory or described by the theory. None of your objections pertain to anything actually done or stated using science or within science.

Clothing is not something that persists in the environment to leave direct evidence of itself behind. Consider that the original garments would have all been of natural materials with no modern synthetics. So they would likely have been degraded beyond recognition and leave nothing to be found. The oldest known clothing found is about 5,000 years old. Using other evidence, it appears that clothing of some sort may have come into use as long ago as 170,000 years and perhaps as recently as 30,000 years ago.

Still, I have no idea why you belabor this.

 

[Dan From Smithville]

Because it's not science. At all. Not proveable. Not near proveable. And misleading. Yet this rendering has him with pants. Ridiculous. Because...why don't gorillas wear pants? Why don't dogs get to make pants, r I d I c u l o u s. And really, have a good night.

No science is provable. Nada. Zip. None of it. It is not misleading to examine evidence and come to rational conclusions. Besides, what you posted wasn't a science report. It was popular journalism. Another straw man for you. You could make clothing out of all that straw.

 

[Dan From Smithville]

Because it's not science. At all. Not proveable. Not near proveable. And misleading. Yet this rendering has him with pants. Ridiculous. Because...why don't gorillas wear pants? Why don't dogs get to make pants, r I d I c u l o u s. And really, have a good night.

What is it about gorillas that leads you to ask a question about why they do not wear pants. Is there a gorilla textile industry in your area? Are gorillas known to wear clothing where you come from? You seem to desperately be shaking the tree, but still not getting to some actual point.

I know of organisms that construct containers for themselves that allow them to retain mobility. Some caddisflies do this. Some lepidopteran and neuropteran larvae will cover themselves in a vestiture of debris to protect themselves from predators. What is so difficult for you about whether an ancient human relative did or did not wear some sort of covering?

 

[lewisnotmiller]

Came across this little tidbit in the news today. https//www.cnet.com/news/dragon-man-skull-dumbfounds-digs-up-doubts-about-human-evolution/
Doubts? About? Human evolution?? C'mon...not after all these years and, of course, no facts, but...true or what's next? Now dragon-man...

Did you read the article? Which bit, exactly are you suggesting casts doubt on the theory of evolution?

I mean, I can answer for you, if you like...none of it.

 

[Dan From Smithville]

Because it's not science. At all. Not proveable. Not near proveable. And misleading. Yet this rendering has him with pants. Ridiculous. Because...why don't gorillas wear pants? Why don't dogs get to make pants, r I d I c u l o u s. And really, have a good night.

Why don't dogs have wings? Why don't they really play poker? Seems like it would help them pass the time and they could meet up with their buds. Why haven't four-legged animals developed a set of arms? Arguments from ignorance will not avail you.

 

[Valjean]

I wish I could go back in time and tell my teachers Pluto is not a planet and see what they say.

Pluto is exactly what it always was. Pre and post planet descriptions have not changed. Only the label has changed.

 

[Valjean]

I understand it's not 'proof' against the theory of evolution. But shakes up the branch of presumption a bit.

What's "...branch of presumption" mean?
Every new discovery causes excitement, but I don't see anything particularly revolutionary here; nothing like the kerfuffle over the Hobbit. But even the Hobbit didn't cast any doubt over the ToE.

Little things mean a lot.

Sometimes. Other times they're just details.
Are you proposing there's something incompatible with the ToE here?

 

[tas8831]

I wish I could go back in time and tell my teachers Pluto is not a planet and see what they say.

Probably something like "Huh... by what criterion?" Dwarf planet, planetoid, planet.

 

[tas8831]

You could make clothing out of all that straw.

Or perhaps enough bales of straw to feed the elephant kind on the ark!

 

[Dan From Smithville]

Or perhaps enough bales of straw to feed the elephant kind on the ark!

The ark seems like it would be big enough to hold a vast quantity of straw man arguments. That must be how they did it.

 

[thomas loebel]

Came across this little tidbit in the news today. https//www.cnet.com/news/dragon-man-skull-dumbfounds-digs-up-doubts-about-human-evolution/
Doubts? About? Human evolution?? C'mon...not after all these years and, of course, no facts, but...true or what's next? Now dragon-man...

 

[thomas loebel]

Earth is body created to evolve the animal body for the spirit to evolve to love within. "Beast" is as "Be east" to love and god while "created" is sound as "see re ated" for the body to evole greater from deaths to learn from combine sides to reach man body where "created" is now as "see are eated" as man reached that eats its past body. Table is sound as "cross a belly" on both sides then as cord links bodies and wholly [holy] bi-ble is now sound as holy by belly

 

[infrabenji]

Came across this little tidbit in the news today. https//www.cnet.com/news/dragon-man-skull-dumbfounds-digs-up-doubts-about-human-evolution/
Doubts? About? Human evolution?? C'mon...not after all these years and, of course, no facts, but...true or what's next? Now dragon-man...

Someone probably pointed this out already but the title seems to be clickbait as the article didn’t seem to mention anything about doubts as to human evolution but instead as providing additional evidence for human evolution.

 

[YoursTrue]

We don't know every species that has lived. Finding new species doesn't discredit evolution, it adds to our knowledge of evolution.
Technically you evolved from a infant to a adult. That's basically what evolution is, change over time, but more technically change on a species level. You can say age but its basically evolving.
The big difference is species change over time(millions of years). For example at one time there was one feline lineage species ,,,evolution stepped in...then there are many such a lion, tHiiger, cheetah, leopard, down to the little house cats we know today.

I understand what you mean when you equate growing from a baby to adult as evolution. But that's not the theory. The theory, or concept, is that a substantially different form of life that cannot reproduce with another type somehow comes up and stays that way. There are theories and there are theories. Cats stay cats and do not mate with gorillas or lions. The theory is that something happened in the interim to stop the interbreeding. We see cats. We see gorillas.

 

[YoursTrue]

What's "...branch of presumption" mean?
Every new discovery causes excitement, but I don't see anything particularly revolutionary here; nothing like the kerfuffle over the Hobbit. But even the Hobbit didn't cast any doubt over the ToE.
Sometimes. Other times they're just details.
Are you proposing there's something incompatible with the ToE here?

What excitement? Do man's closest relatives get excited and offer conjectures about some fossil find?

 

[Dan From Smithville]

What excitement? Do man's closest relatives get excited and offer conjectures about some fossil find?

Maybe some of them even deny evidence and rational explanations. Who knows.

 

[YoursTrue]

Maybe some of them even deny evidence and rational explanations. Who knows.

Maybe they keep it secret.

 

[YoursTrue]

What's "...branch of presumption" mean?
Every new discovery causes excitement, but I don't see anything particularly revolutionary here; nothing like the kerfuffle over the Hobbit. But even the Hobbit didn't cast any doubt over the ToE.
Sometimes. Other times they're just details.
Are you proposing there's something incompatible with the ToE here?

I'm saying that the "branch" of supposed evolution doesn't add up . The in-between's are not there. They're gone, they're lost. There is no absolute evidence of any organism mutating and eventually moving off until they no longer can interbreed with the ones they supposedly mutated from. If there is, please provide proof (no I mean evidence, no, I mean proof) of that conjecture. And now that I think of it, bones can be unearthed, usually the flesh is gone.