Actually that is fact, some creationists use science to diss science... The height of hypocrisy.
Difference is your belief is faith based my knowledge is based on the laws of science, no god magic required
-
Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:- Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
- Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
- Access to private conversations with other members.
We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!
This thread is dedicated to first going over the basics of science and working up to evolution.
- Thread starter Subduction Zone
- Start date
Actually that is fact, some creationists use science to diss science... The height of hypocrisy.
Difference is your belief is faith based my knowledge is based on the laws of science, no god magic required
CLee421
Bible believing-Face painting-Musical Momma
I can't exactly explain that in DETAIL - neither could you - however the animal we see is still an armadillo. Not a different species.
The design of a body part is an example of genetic information being rearranged. Perhaps deleted, depending on what the result of that would be on the rest of the body.
You see only adaptations. Not changes from one kind of animal to another.
Transitional fossil claims are still fossils of fully functioning creatures. Not transitions. Speculation makes people see them as something they are not.
Astrophile
Active Member
I have used this argument before, but it seems that I must use it again. All living things are at the end of an unbroken chain of ancestors extending indefinitely far back into the past. All of us humans have parents, grandparents, great-grandparents, great-great-grandparents, etc. We must have had ancestors who lived during the Pliocene, Miocene, Oligocene, etc. epochs, but we don't find fossils of Homo sapiens in the rocks deposited during these epochs. It therefore follows that we are descended from Pliocene, etc. ancestors that did not belong to the species Homo sapiens. The Pliocene fossils that are most like Homo are those of Australopithecus; therefore, on the present evidence, it is reasonable to suppose that we are descended from the australopithecines. What other explanation can you propose that fits the observed facts?
Subduction Zone
Veteran Member
Umm, no. It is a different species. Armadillos consists of two families. There are quite a few different species of armadillos:
Armadillo - Wikipedia
Here is a way that you may be able to relate, you are a Great Ape, just as chimpanzees and bonobos are. Different species in the same family.
Hominidae - Wikipedia
I have to stop you here. There is no "change of kind"in evolution. That is a creationist strawman. You merely have different traits than your close relatives.
Of course they are fully functioning. What do you expect?
You should not be jumping ahead. Let's get back to the scientific method.
InChrist
Free4ever
Are you referring to universal common descent?
Subduction Zone
Veteran Member
Yes, he is. Do you remember our discussion on Lucy. You could not bring yourself to admit that it was scientific evidence for human evolution.
Let's go over the definition of scientific evidence again. Scientific evidence is merely evidence that supports or opposes a scientific theory or hypothesis. Does Lucy support the hypothesis of humans sharing a common ancestor with other apes? There is a right answer and you know it.
Astrophile
Active Member
Peripherally, but the main purpose of the post was to say that we must have had ancestors that lived during the Pliocene and earlier epochs, and that some of the non-human fossils from these epochs probably represent those ancestors (not as individual animals but as the genera or species that we are descended from).
InChrist
Free4ever
I'm sorry to disappoint you guys, but I honestly do not think Lucy supports the hypothesis of humans sharing a common ancestor with other apes. Or maybe it does support that hypothesis, but I believe the hypothesis to be in error in the first place. And why must we have had ancestors that lived during the Pliocene and earlier epochs?
But since according to your perspective evolution is fact and evolution involves both the theory of universal common descent or ancestry and the mechanisms by which change occurs over time, can you explain the mechanisms and chemical changes needed to change body plans along the descent pathway between the australopithecus brain and the present human brain ? Can present-day biology provide a chemical proposal for body plan changes or a data-substantiated chemical mechanism?
But since according to your perspective evolution is fact and evolution involves both the theory of universal common descent or ancestry and the mechanisms by which change occurs over time, can you explain the mechanisms and chemical changes needed to change body plans along the descent pathway between the australopithecus brain and the present human brain ? Can present-day biology provide a chemical proposal for body plan changes or a data-substantiated chemical mechanism?
Subduction Zone
Veteran Member
Of course she does.
She is fits perfectly into what is predicted that we would find if we shared a common ancestor with other apes.
You either do not understand the nature of evidence or you are not being honest at this point.
Perhaps if we broke this down a bit you could understand. When judging whether something is evidence or not you need to have at least consider what one would expect to see if the theory or hypothesis was correct.
Tell me, what do you think we would expect to see if the theory or hypothesis was correct?
Adaptations occur due to random gene mutation throwing up different genetic combinations with types non-suitable to the environment being weeded out by natural selection.
Here is another article discussing adaptations in snakes, showing that snakes once had legs and some still have remaining claws Why Snakes Don't Have Legs (For Now)
How would you explain a four legged snake other than as a different species to the modern snake? If adaptations are allowable isn’t it just common sense that minor changes could add up to major changes over time?
A test is any new observation whose properties are predicted accurately by the theory (compared to its rivals) during the course of a field observation, or an experiment. Thus , for example a weather theory is tested when it predicts a certain type of weather (say a tornado hitting florida) and it happens at the predicted time and with the predicted intensity.
An important prediction of evolutionary theory is that one would be able to unearth remains of ancient organisms whose features are in-between the features of currently widely divergent groups. This prediction has successfully come true over the last century and a half.
Another prediction of the theory of evolution is the more ancient the fossil deposit, the more simpler the organism and eventually we will find only very simple forms of life. This too has been borne out by the fossil discoveries.
A third prediction of evolutionary theory was earth must be at least hundreds of thousands of million years old. This too has been confirmed by geological dating.
There are many others, but these are easiest to understand.
OMG -- this is classic!
Atheism has nothing to do with the science of evolution. For example, majority of atheists of 20th century, being Communists, rejected evolution as it clashed with their ideology. Evolutionary biology, like all sciences, shows Nature to behave in a certain manner. The problem only comes if an ideology has assumed the Nature behaving in some other fashion, and hence reject what has been discovered through scientific investigation.
Kangaroo Feathers
Yea, it is written in the Book of Cyril...
I deny that life or the natural world has any connection to a designer, but I'm not an atheist. So what evolution do I use? Atheistic or some other kind?
Kangaroo Feathers
Yea, it is written in the Book of Cyril...
Can you explain the mechanics of how you believe creation happened to the same standard you are asking of evolutionary theory? (The fact you refer to a "pathway" suggests you don't have a great handle on evolution, btw)
You are aware the there are many scientists who specialize in understanding how bones fit together. For example you have a head. Your head is heavy. If you try to keep your head perpendicular (like a dog) rather than upright, very soon your neck will hurt. That is because your spine enters your skull in such a fashion that the weight of the head is best balanced in top of spine when you are upright. On the other hand the spine of a dog enters its head in such a way that its head is best balanced when it's body is parallel to the ground. Chimps, who knuckle walk, also have a spinal opening such that the head is best balanced when it is on all fours.
But for Lucy, the spinal entry is like that of an upright walking human. Similarly, the hip joint structure makes it best suited to bipedal walking. So on and so forth. These are the kind of things anatomists are experts in. Further we can create casts of the bone and see for ourselves, in what position they would interact most smoothly with each other, where the stress and strains are, etc. These experiments tell us how the skeleton was organized and hence makes scientific reconstruction an outcome of the scientific method.
SkepticThinker
Veteran Member
There is no "atheist evolutionary model." There's just evolution and the Theory of Evolution. Many people that believe in God(s) also accept the reality of evolution.
Subduction Zone
Veteran Member
You are talking out of both sides of your mouth here. You first claim that Lucy does not support the hypothesis of human evolution and then you admit that she does. You need to keep your personal feelings out of this. That leads to dishonesty. By admitting that Lucy does support the hypothesis you have admitted that she is scientific evidence for that hypothesis. Do I need to go over the definition again?
Not just according to our perspective. According to all of the scientific evidence. Though the concept may be simple, observe, made a testable hypothesis, test that hypothesis, creationists do not have a scientific hypothesis that explains the evidence. In case you did not know they do not have to explain how God did it. They merely need to explain the observable evidence with a model of their choice. That is why creationism is not a scientific idea. The few times that they have tried their ideas have been shot down in flames. You see having a testable hypothesis means that there must be a way that it can fail that test. There are several tests that could show the theory of evolution to be false. Creationists are afraid to come up with such tests because deep down inside they know that they would fail. In answer to your question there may be unanswered questions in evolution. There will always be unanswered questions in the sciences. That never shows a theory to be wrong, they are merely questions to be answered when we can.
There are plenty of unanswered questions in the theory of gravity. A big one is how does gravity work on the quantum level? Yet it would be extremely foolish to deny gravity because there are unanswered questions and walk off of a cliff. You are doing that when it comes to evolution. You are rejecting an idea that is supported by mountains of scientific evidence and following an idea that has none.
SkepticThinker
Veteran Member
This is inaccurate. There are over 300 individual Australopithecus afarensis specimens ("Lucy's") currently in existence.
"Australopithecus afarensis is one of the longest-lived and best-known early human species—paleoanthropologists have uncovered remains from more than 300 individuals! Found between 3.85 and 2.95 million years ago in Eastern Africa (Ethiopia, Kenya, Tanzania), this species survived for more than 900,000 years, which is over four times as long as our own species has been around. It is best known from the sites of Hadar, Ethiopia (‘Lucy’, AL 288-1 and the 'First Family', AL 333); Dikika, Ethiopia (Dikika ‘child’ skeleton); and Laetoli (fossils of this species plus the oldest documented bipedal footprint trails)."
Australopithecus afarensis
Now that you know that, perhaps you are able to make a more informed assessment of "Lucy."