1. 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!

Featured Evolution My ToE

Discussion in 'Evolution Vs. Creationism' started by nPeace, Oct 12, 2019.

  1. metis

    metis aged ecumenical anthropologist

    Joined:
    Aug 27, 2013
    Messages:
    34,077
    Ratings:
    +15,993
    Religion:
    ecumenical & naturalistic Catholic
    The transition from tree to ground appears to likely have taken place over a significant amount of time, thus happening very gradually. The catalyst for this appears to have been the change of the weather pattern due to the Rift that caused the horn region of east Africa to go from heavily treed to mostly savanna several million years ago. "Lucy" appears to have some of the characteristics of that change that took place.
     
  2. YoursTrue

    YoursTrue We know gravity by happenstance. (Newton)

    Joined:
    Nov 27, 2017
    Messages:
    6,005
    Ratings:
    +1,000
    Religion:
    Christian
    None of this convinces me of two things: 1, that it is the absolute truth, and 2. that it is beyond conjecture.
    I also have to say that it is almost funny about the so-called gradual change from one area swinging from trees.
     
  3. shunyadragon

    shunyadragon shunyadragon
    Premium Member

    Joined:
    Mar 23, 2017
    Messages:
    16,805
    Ratings:
    +8,015
    Religion:
    Baha'i Faith
    They are not the authors of the original research I cited, which they wrote a layman;s article, and got their information from. I have cited this research article and you have failed to respond to it.

    Still waiting . . . .
     
    • Like Like x 1
  4. shunyadragon

    shunyadragon shunyadragon
    Premium Member

    Joined:
    Mar 23, 2017
    Messages:
    16,805
    Ratings:
    +8,015
    Religion:
    Baha'i Faith
    Nothing in terms of science will convince you, because as you have already admitted is you consider the Bible as the only valid source for the history of humanity. Why are you playing these games with science, since you do not believe in the science of evolution and abiogenesis regardless?
     
    • Like Like x 1
  5. metis

    metis aged ecumenical anthropologist

    Joined:
    Aug 27, 2013
    Messages:
    34,077
    Ratings:
    +15,993
    Religion:
    ecumenical & naturalistic Catholic
    I never referred to it as an "absolute truth".

    It is "evidence", and this is what we look for in science. "Objective evidence" is what we deal with in science, which is not the religious approach that's mainly based on faith and scant evidence.

    It really is hypocritical for one to insist on scientific evidence and yet have no objectively-derived evidence for one's religious faith. For example, maybe give us objectively-derived evidence that there is only one god? I guarantee that you cannot do that, and yet you believe in One God as I do. But faith is based on a set of personal experiences that led to my belief in God, thus not objectively-derived evidence.

    Now, if it goes according to your past practice on this, you will not supply any such evidence but try to "deflect" to the questioning of my own faith. So, please supply this objective evidence, not the subjective evidence that's found in the Bible.

    The anatomical changes that we see in the human fossil record on this is hardly "funny". This process took at least a couple million years, by all indications.

    IOW, we have objective evidence for what we have concluded and/or hypothesized, and you have basically no objective evidence to conclude that there is only the God we both believe in based on faith. Again, please don't use your previous tactics of diversion-- deal with the question.
     
    • Like Like x 2
  6. YoursTrue

    YoursTrue We know gravity by happenstance. (Newton)

    Joined:
    Nov 27, 2017
    Messages:
    6,005
    Ratings:
    +1,000
    Religion:
    Christian
    It cannot be referred to as absolute truth because it has been admitted that no theory can be the bottom line of fact. If I'm wroyabout this, please advise, thank you. Also, since you bring the issue of God, or creation(?) in this discussion, I will again say that I see no evidence that tree hanging and jumping chimpanzees and humans somehow came (let's say evolved) from a common ancestor. They haven't found that last common ancestor yet, have they? Please don't think I think God made the coronavirus. But I do think He put the mechanics of change or mutation in place. I personally cannot explain any further than that right now. But what I am saying and have asked, with no answer, what parts of bones and other fossils have been examined for dating, what process was used, and why could other elements have not been leached into the bones and soils? Frankly, what I do see is lots and lots of conjecture from researchers when they postulate things like with dear old Lucy.
     
    • Like Like x 1
  7. YoursTrue

    YoursTrue We know gravity by happenstance. (Newton)

    Joined:
    Nov 27, 2017
    Messages:
    6,005
    Ratings:
    +1,000
    Religion:
    Christian
    I never said I was quoting from anything other than the referenced article from phys.org., which was commenting on the research article.
     
  8. YoursTrue

    YoursTrue We know gravity by happenstance. (Newton)

    Joined:
    Nov 27, 2017
    Messages:
    6,005
    Ratings:
    +1,000
    Religion:
    Christian
    Metis, you can say you believe in Jesus and God all you want. As well as evolution. Right now that's about it.
     
  9. shunyadragon

    shunyadragon shunyadragon
    Premium Member

    Joined:
    Mar 23, 2017
    Messages:
    16,805
    Ratings:
    +8,015
    Religion:
    Baha'i Faith
    That is the problem, because the research article explained what needed to change concerning the evolution of homosapiens, particularly the evolution of bipedalism. There are actually two research articles that provide the foundation for the layman's article.
     
  10. YoursTrue

    YoursTrue We know gravity by happenstance. (Newton)

    Joined:
    Nov 27, 2017
    Messages:
    6,005
    Ratings:
    +1,000
    Religion:
    Christian
    Uh huh. I quoted from the article in phys.org and didn't make it up.
     
  11. shunyadragon

    shunyadragon shunyadragon
    Premium Member

    Joined:
    Mar 23, 2017
    Messages:
    16,805
    Ratings:
    +8,015
    Religion:
    Baha'i Faith
    I did not say you made anything up. You cited the layman's article, and your questions have been answered in the two technical articles concerning what needed to change and why.mes the time frame of bipedal evolution may take longer than previously thought.

    As far as the question of the common ancestors of primates that has been addressed many many times. but of course you would not consider any scientific explanations, because you consider the Bible to be the ultimate authority as is. There are many intermediates in the development of bipedal evolution.

    This an interesting source that address much of the research into the bipedal evolution. whic leads to common ancestors of today's primates.

    Fossils, feet and the evolution of human bipedal locomotion

    Fossils, feet and the evolution of human bipedal locomotion
    W E H Harcourt-Smith1 and L C Aiello2

    Conclusions
    Recent discoveries of taxa such as Kenyanthropus platyops, Sahelanthropus tchadensis, Orrorin tugenensis and Ardipithecus ramidus kadabba suggest a far wider degree of taxonomic diversity in the African fossil hominin record than had previously been thought (Fig. 1) (Haile-Selassie, 2001; Leakey et al. 2001; Senut et al. 2001; Brunet et al. 2002; Wood, 2002). At present, craniodental remains almost exclusively support the evidence for this diversity. Based on this inferred diversity and supported by the existing evidence for postcranial diversity, it is not unreasonable to assume that there was also a considerable degree of locomotor diversity in the early hominins. As has been shown, the prevailing view in the earlier literature on the evolution of bipedalism has been a particularly linear one, with the usual pattern being a neat series of steps from arboreal quadruped to obligate biped. As more fossil evidence accumulated, some researchers entertained the possibility of locomotor diversity in contemporary early hominins (e.g. Napier, 1964), but this view was far from prevalent. Furthermore, many of the more recent studies, informed by the growing collection of hominin postcranial fossils, have focused on the degree to which particular skeletal elements imply one type of locomotion or another.

    The central point is that contemporary fossil taxa may well have been mosaic in their adaptations, but, critically, may have been mosaic in different ways to each other. This has recently been shown to be the case for the feet of A. afarensis and the new and similarly aged A. africanus specimen ‘Little Foot’ (Harcourt-Smith, 2002). Further analyses of other skeletal elements are needed to reinforce this interpretation. If correct, this would imply that there was more locomotor diversity in the fossil record than has been suggested, and raises questions over whether there was a single origin for bipedalism or not. At the very least, if bipedalism appeared only once in the hominin radiation and is therefore monophyletic, such evidence would suggest that there were multiple evolutionary pathways responding to that selection pressure. It is currently difficult to determine primitive from derived morphologies in the hominins because of the problem of homoplasy and resulting phylogenetic uncertainty. Although perhaps controversial, it is important that when considering such a unique adaptation as bipedalism, we do not allow that uniqueness to imply that there was ever only one successful mode of bipedalism in our hominin ancestry. In light of the richness of recent findings in the hominin fossil record, it is important to ask the question of whether the evolution of bipedalism was a more complex affair than has previously been suggested.
     
    #5471 shunyadragon, May 19, 2020
    Last edited: May 19, 2020
    • Winner Winner x 1
  12. YoursTrue

    YoursTrue We know gravity by happenstance. (Newton)

    Joined:
    Nov 27, 2017
    Messages:
    6,005
    Ratings:
    +1,000
    Religion:
    Christian
    The words you used in reference to me about my nose getting longer were deleted by the moderator. However, for clarity and truth, here is a repeat of the now-moderated post:
    You said, "First, you are not correctly citing your source."
    Yes, I correctly cited the source, which was the comment at phys.org.
    So once again, I quoted from the article in question as written in phys.org.
     
  13. YoursTrue

    YoursTrue We know gravity by happenstance. (Newton)

    Joined:
    Nov 27, 2017
    Messages:
    6,005
    Ratings:
    +1,000
    Religion:
    Christian
    When you used the expression (subsequently deleted by moderator) that my Pinocchio's nose was getting longer, did you mean that I was not making things up? Kindly explain.
    But here's what you are proving to me. I read when a scientist believes in intelligent design rather than evolution, and expresses himself, he is castigated by the majority of scientists. That's what I am learning from you. I repeat -- I did not make things up. I did not lie. I accurately quoted what the article in phys.org stated. Which also said that the findings of the research will force scientists to rethink things. I like that expression the authors of the article used at phys.org -- force scientists. :) that should be interesting.
    P.S. I did not say "I" believe in intelligent design. But I surely don't believe in evolution for all life on earth.
     
    #5473 YoursTrue, May 19, 2020
    Last edited: May 19, 2020
  14. shunyadragon

    shunyadragon shunyadragon
    Premium Member

    Joined:
    Mar 23, 2017
    Messages:
    16,805
    Ratings:
    +8,015
    Religion:
    Baha'i Faith
    Nonetheless you cited the layman's article, I am citing the research articles, and your questions have been answered in the two technical articles concerning what needed to change and why.mes the time frame of bipedal evolution may take longer than previously thought."
     
  15. YoursTrue

    YoursTrue We know gravity by happenstance. (Newton)

    Joined:
    Nov 27, 2017
    Messages:
    6,005
    Ratings:
    +1,000
    Religion:
    Christian
    I cited the article presented in phys.org about the research. Period. I did not misquote or lie. Yet you say, "the time frame ... may take longer than previously thought"? What does that mean? May take longer? Again -- what does that mean?
     
  16. shunyadragon

    shunyadragon shunyadragon
    Premium Member

    Joined:
    Mar 23, 2017
    Messages:
    16,805
    Ratings:
    +8,015
    Religion:
    Baha'i Faith
    That in evaluating the fossil evidence, as per the two technical science articles the time of the beginnings of bipedal posture occurred older than than previously thought.
     
  17. metis

    metis aged ecumenical anthropologist

    Joined:
    Aug 27, 2013
    Messages:
    34,077
    Ratings:
    +15,993
    Religion:
    ecumenical & naturalistic Catholic
    As expected, you simply did not answer my one basic question, instead choosing to deflect.

    As far as the rest of your post is concerned, the many scientists that have studied human evolution are clearly not idiots since most of them have graduate degrees on the subject, so your other points above have been dealt with by them for many decades now.

    Therefore, until you answer my one question as I have answered numerous questions of yours, then you simply have no concern for the Truth. I left my fundamentalist Protestant church decades ago because of its unwillingness to seek the Truth of God's creation and how He did it. God is very much a large part of that Truth because He created it even if my old church and you cannot accept that reality.
     
    • Like Like x 1
  18. YoursTrue

    YoursTrue We know gravity by happenstance. (Newton)

    Joined:
    Nov 27, 2017
    Messages:
    6,005
    Ratings:
    +1,000
    Religion:
    Christian
    That's what I thought it meant.
     
  19. YoursTrue

    YoursTrue We know gravity by happenstance. (Newton)

    Joined:
    Nov 27, 2017
    Messages:
    6,005
    Ratings:
    +1,000
    Religion:
    Christian
    I did not say the scientists who study human evolution are idiots. Far from it. I don't happen to agree with many of their assumptions. Of course, now it is said by some that scientists may have to come to terms with the idea that (as shunydragon said and the articles in question indicated at phys.org) "the beginnings of bipedal posture occurred older than than previously thought.." :) So is it that you think God created truth? Interesting, because Jesus said, He IS the truth.
    As far as the one question you say I am not answering, it's been a while, sorry about that -- can you please repeat that one question so I can consider it? Thank you.
    "I am the way and the truth and the life. No one comes to the Father except through me." John 14:6.
     
    • Like Like x 1
  20. Astrophile

    Astrophile Active Member

    Joined:
    Jan 1, 2018
    Messages:
    364
    Ratings:
    +325
    Religion:
    Atheist
    • Like Like x 1
Loading...