Evolve

[shunyadragon]

Don't get me wrong I've always known about this list

1 common ancestor aka the new missing link
2. Monkey man
3 erectus
4 Neanderthal
5. Me

I just find it odd that we can't find the missing link yet when we have all the other skulls
View attachment 41738

You need to update your knowledge of Paleontology. because we have found many missing links. In fact there are no missing liks.

 

[Astrophile]

Oh no doubt it's awesome stuff what we have it's just weird that we don't have the common ancestor. When we do find it we should name it Homo whereubeen

How do we know that we haven't found the common ancestor? Perhaps it is something like Orrorin, Sahelanthropus, Ouranopithecus or Kenyapithecus and we just haven't recognised it.

 

[Astrophile]

According to Wikipedia scientist don't know which species is ancestral to homo so that's what makes me find evolution hard to believe. Is this irrational?

This is rather like saying that because we don't know which man is the father of an unmarried woman's child, it is hard to believe that the woman became pregnant as a result of having sexual intercourse. Yes, of course this is irrational.

 

[shunyadragon]

How do we know that we haven't found the common ancestor? Perhaps it is something like Orrorin, Sahelanthropus, Ouranopithecus or Kenyapithecus and we just haven't recognised it.

The concept of common ancestor has changed in recent years as more and more species, subspecies and and varieties of hominins are found, and the ancestry of humanity is in populations of different subspecies, and varieties of hominins. The many species, subspecies, varieties of Australpithecines is probably the most important link between later hominins that closely resemble humans. We can go further back and have the same diversity in species, subspecies and varieties of populations of hominins that lead to Australpithecines.

I do not think most people realize the emmence varieties of fossils of our ancestors available today and more are found all the time. Combine this with the genetic evidence available, and yes today there is no such thing as missing links in evolution of human ancestry. All our ancestors are common ancestors.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

The Theory of Evolution have been tested, not proven. And therefore remains a theory, and theories by definition, are the unproven hypothesis, suppositions, and opinions of those scientists.

You should update your dictionary. That is not at all what theories "by scientific definition" are.

You might want to read this webpage.
It's only a couple paragraphes.

Your mistake is so classic that there's even a webpage dedicated to correcting it.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

Once a theory is proven to be factual, it ceases to be a theory.

In sience a theory is the graduation stage of any idea. Theories are never considered "proven".
A theory, stays a theory. Always.

So then gnostic, please reveal which model of the THEORY of evolution has proven to be factual?

No theory in science is ever considered "proven". Only supported by evidence.

BTW, knowing that Black Holes devour any thing with which it comes in contact, you believe that there is no dark matter in Black Holes? Hmmm, Interesting. PROVE IT?

I think it would be wise to ignore any advise you give to anyone.

I think it would be wise for you to learn some basic scientific jargon and at least scratch the surface of how the scientific method works, before being all smug and condescending while arguing from absolute ignorance.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

So, you believe that no past theory has ever been proven to be a fact, and has now ceased to be a theory, do you?

Yes.

Please reveal why you still refer to the theory of evolution and not the fact of evolution?

The theory of evolution, explains the facts of evolution.
A fact of evolution is for example that humans and chimps share ancestry. This is a genetic fact.

The theory of evolution explains the process of how a single ancestral species can turn into two distinct species like humans and chimps.

Evolution by bescent with modification + selection = the theory of evolution
All the great apes sharing ancestors = genetic facts of evolution, explained by the theory.

There may be many facts in the THEORY of evolution, But that theory remains the unproven hypothesis, suppositions, and opinions of those scientists.

It seems you think a hypothesis is higher in standing then a theory.

You are wrong.
A theory, is a well-tested and well-established hypothesis. It's a "graduated hypothesis", if you wish.

And the theory of evolution without Intelligent design, will be proven to be non factual, when more data is discovered within the boundless cosmos. Which I believe will be found through the work of our Quantum physicists.

Don't hold your breath.

 

[Astrophile]

Are you honestly going to sit there and tell everyone that no theory has ever been proven to be factual, or abandoned completely when new data becomes available, as will happen with the theory of evolution of life from a plasma like explosion of mindless electromagnetic energy that has neither Beginning or end.?

Of course theories have been abandoned when new data became available, for example Ptolemy's geocentric theory of the planets, the phlogiston theory of combustion, the caloric theory of heat, Lamarck's theory of evolution, the volcanic theory of lunar craters, and the Steady State (or continuous creation) theory of cosmology. However, it might be more accurate to say that scientific theories are abandoned when they are superseded by other theories that give a better explanation of the observed facts.

If you have a theory that provides a better explanation than evolution of the facts of biology (e.g. anatomy, genetics, taxonomy, biogeography and palaeontology), you ought to put it into publishable form and submit it to a scientific journal, and then wait to receive your Nobel prize. At present, creationists say only that the theory of evolution won't work or that 'evolution is only a theory', therefore God did it and the first chapters of the book of Genesis are historically accurate; they do not even attempt to show how these assertions explain the observed facts better than evolution or to use them to predict new observations.
.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

Of course theories have been abandoned when new data became available, for example Ptolemy's geocentric theory of the planets, the phlogiston theory of combustion, the caloric theory of heat, Lamarck's theory of evolution, the volcanic theory of lunar craters, and the Steady State (or continuous creation) theory of cosmology. However, it might be more accurate to say that scientific theories are abandoned when they are superseded by other theories that give a better explanation of the observed facts.

@The Anointed it should also be noted that a "complete abandonment" of a theory (as in: turning a scientific field upside down and proving all peers and predecessors wrong) actually doesn't happen that often. More likely, existing theories are just expanded / adjusted to accommodate for new evidence.

Take for example Newtonian physics. It got "updated" by Einstein with the addition of relativity.
Was Newton "completely wrong" about gravity? No... not "completely". In fact, his approach to gravity is so useful that it is still used for pretty much every calculation of things concerning movement at medium speeds in the presence of medium gravity.

When calculating for example what the trajectory will be of a rock being flung from a catapult, you COULD use Einsteinian physics, but it would only overcomplicate things. It's not like the result of the calculation is going to be affected by relativistic effects, unless the rock is flung at the speed of light or into a black hole. Here on earth? No. Newtonian physics will do just fine.

 

[Hockeycowboy]

According to Wikipedia scientist don't know which species is ancestral to homo so that's what makes me find evolution hard to believe. Is this irrational?

Not at all

 

[Valjean]

Power Stone said: ↑
According to Wikipedia scientist don't know which species is ancestral to homo so that's what makes me find evolution hard to believe. Is this irrational?

Yes, it's irrational. We don't yet know the exact sequence in a particular animal's taxonomy, so there's been no biological change ever? We have entire libraries of observations and evidence for evolution, and a single unknown in a single species negates all of biology?

News flash: there's a lot we don't know in every field, so is all human knowledge false?

 

[Tiberius]

According to Wikipedia scientist don't know which species is ancestral to homo so that's what makes me find evolution hard to believe. Is this irrational?

It's certainly not a rational position to have. There were millions of people alive in the year 1400. You almost certainly don't know which of them lie on your family tree as direct ancestors, but that doesn't mean it's hard to believe that SOME of them must have been.

 

[paarsurrey]

How can one accept evolution when it's based on chance?

I agree with one that Chance cannot be a factor as described among the mechanism of natural selection of evolution. Right, please?
Either it could be chance or selection, I understand. Right, please?

Regards

 

[paarsurrey]

It's certainly not a rational position to have. There were millions of people alive in the year 1400. You almost certainly don't know which of them lie on your family tree as direct ancestors, but that doesn't mean it's hard to believe that SOME of them must have been.

Does one have any methodology of one's own of knowing reality, please?
I understand that Atheism don't have any collective one, please. Right, please?

Regards

 

[Subduction Zone]

I agree with one that Chance cannot be a factor as described among the mechanism of natural selection of evolution. Right, please?
Either it could be chance or selection, I understand. Right, please?

Regards

You are conflating natural selection and variation.

 

[paarsurrey]

You are conflating natural selection and variation.

Which one of the two "selection and variation" is under chance and which one is not under chance and why, please? Right, please?

Regards

 

[Subduction Zone]

Which one of the two "selection and variation" is under chance and which one is not under chance and why, please? Right, please?

Regards

Variation is affected by chance. Natural selection minimizes chance.

 

[Valjean]

I agree with one that Chance cannot be a factor as described among the mechanism of natural selection of evolution. Right, please?
Either it could be chance or selection, I understand. Right, please?

Regards

There's chance involved in the environmental changes that drive natural selection. There's chance in the mutations and the sexual variations that provide the variety evolution selects from.
You should be able to answer these questions yourself, Paarsurrey. Do some reading about the mechanisms of evolution, this is basic information everyone should have learned in high school.

 

[Tiberius]

Does one have any methodology of one's own of knowing reality, please?
I understand that Atheism don't have any collective one, please. Right, please?

Regards

I like to use science. It has an in-built error correcting mechanism.

 

[paarsurrey]

paarsurrey said: ↑
Does one have any methodology of one's own of knowing reality, please?
I understand that Atheism don't have any collective one, please. Right, please?

I like to use science. It has an in-built error correcting mechanism.

Is it an acknowledgment that one doesn't have any methodology of one's own of knowing reality, please?
Further, did one use this in-built correcting mechanism of science to test reality of Atheism , please? Right, please?

Regards