God and Evolution

[TagliatelliMonster]

Didn't one accept one's father and mother based on faith or hearsay, please?

Regards

So you're defending irrational reasoning by adults by pointing at the "accept whatever the perceived authority says"-stage humans find themselves in psychologically when still a baby or infant?

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

I don't see the evidence produced so far that is proving the theory

And you won't in the future either, because evidence supports ideas, it doesn't prove them.

And scientific theories, by definition, can not be proven only supported. This, too, has been explained to you countless times already, yet you still continue to repeat that falsehood as if it is a proper objection.


The evidence you have been given supports evolution theory very well.

Now if you want to say that there is a theory, and evidence of the theory, frankly speaking, I don't see any evidence of whatever (not proof?) of the theory.

Which can only be by lack of looking. As you have been given several pieces of very good evidence in this very discussion. I know, because I was one of them. Among others, I gave you the example of how Tiktaalik was predicted and discovered, matching the prediction. Your state of denial is getting tiresome.

Or theories. Of evolution. Evidence (such as a fossilized skull) may seem to fit into the theory, but since the theory basically works on micro and macro changes (i.e., evolution), I don't see the evidence of that.

Tiktaalik was predicted from a mega-macro evolutionary perspective, as it is a transition from sea-life to land crawlers.

First, there was only life in the sea. Then, there were animals on land. The theory therefor predicts transitional sea/land animals that must have lived in between those two era's. Researchers then estimated what that period was exactly - and they based their estimation on everything we know from dating fossils and evolutionary history. Then they looked on a geological map for rocks of that age, which would have been in proximity of water and coast in that period. They predicted the kind of fossil (in terms of what traits it would have to have, being transitional from sea to land) they should be able to find there.

They went, searched and found Tiktaalik, confirming the prediction.

It doesn't get much more macro then a transitional from "fish" to land animal.

Something isn't right with the theory.

No, the theory seems perfectly fine.
After all....It succesfully predicts locations and traits of previously unknown fossils from species that lived hundreds of millions of years ago.

If the theory is wrong, how come it is able to make such predictions succesfully?

Here's why: since there is no micro or macro evidence of the theory in material substance meaning fossils showing these distinct absolute changes in progress

What do you mean exactly with "fossils showing these distinct absolute changes in progress"?
Please describe the properties a fossil would have to have to say about it that it is "showing changes in progress"?

I have a feeling that it is based on fundamental misunderstanding of how evolution works.

and since you say that the theories don't deal in proof, only evidence, it's like me seeing a dog and its theoretical predecessor (apparently they say dogs came from wolves), and then saying, well that's evidence that the dog evolved from wolves, is that something on the phylogenetic tree. (See? I remembered the term...maybe because I think the tree is kind of cute, even if I think it's not true.)

You are making absolutely no sense.
That dogs evolved from wolves, is not some assertion by some guy who thinks thaty they "look alike".
It is a conclusion from data.

The same kind of conclusion as when we conclude that you are descendent of your grandfather based on DNA. If you give 200 anonymous DNA samples to a lab, 1 of which is your grandfather, they'll have no problem picking your grandfather's DNA. Because geneticists understand how DNA works and they can tell how various DNA molecules are related to one another.

This is how they can pick your grandfather's DNA from a pool of anonymous sampls.
This is how they can determine that what you think is your cousin, isn't actually your cousin.
This is how they can distinguish close relatives from distant relatives.

It is also how they can determine that extant dogs and wolves, have a common ancestor.

If you continue to refuse to educate yourself on how geneticists, biologists and paleontologists come to their conclusions, you're going to continue repeating such errors, continue missing the point and continue being wrong about this.

Now realizing that you don't like my uneducated terminology, and also realizing I am not majoring in the theory and fitting any supposed evidence of the theory in place as some do, I still hope you understand my point, even if you don't agree with it.

I understand your point alright. Frankly, at the end of the day, it's the same point as all other creationists.

"I have my religion and nothing you can say or show me, will convince me otherwise. If science doesn't agree with my a priori, dogmatic, faith based beliefs, then I'll just assume the science is wrong."


That's it in a nutshell.
I'm sorry, but I have no other explanation for your continued reluctance to understand and learn what you are actually talking about, or your reluctance to acknowledge the impressive feat of succesfully predicting the discovery of the previously unknown fossil known as Tiktaalik and instead continueing to claim "there is no evidence".

Clearly, you are in a state of denial.
Clearly, there's nothing we can say or do to pull you out of that.

If you know about how Tiktaalik (just one example of many, btw) was discovered and then you still maintain that "there is no evidence", then really what is there left to talk about....


Only you can break down that defensive wall you have build around yourself.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

P.S. In reference to mankind's written history, I find it interesting that there are no historical records (written) before about 5,000 years ago. Why is that interesting? Because mankind, according to evolutionists, has been around for about 200,000 years in its present homo sapien form. But only in the past 5,000 or so years has writing been around. Odd, very odd. No evidence of writing before that. Amazing. So in all those few hundreds of thousands of years mankind supposedly existed, about let's see -- 194,000 years passed with no writing. That's something. What's the theory about that?

There are cave drawings as old as 40.000 years.
It's not writing, but I do think it's a precursor.

As for the explanatory model as to why writing was developed at the time that it was (it's likely older - 3700 BC is just the oldest we know of and written language was probably not invented overnight)...

The most plausible explanation, is that as humans settled down in settlements and abbandonned nomadic life, some things came up that weren't issues before that.

For example, "property" became more relevant. As a nomad, you need to carry all that you have around all the time. So "your stuff" is limited in space and weight. When people settled down, for the first time in history they could posess more then they could carry. It became more important to keep track of your stuff.

As settlements grew, they became more complex. "governmental" bodies arose. Stocks / rations of food saw the light of day etc. Then trade between settlements started as well.

At every step "forward", there's more stuff to keep track off.

So very likely, writing was initially developed to facilitate such things.

It's a plausible explanation... in a nutshell: more complex societies arise and shortly after, writing follows.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

So did humans (do you think/imagine/surmise?) not have the ability or need o write in order to communicate all those approximately 200,000 years they supposedly have been around? One might really have to think (believe) they must have been kind of dumb for all those many, many years to not have invented writing. Have any intermediary life forms, particular in the way of apes, developed writing? By the way, writing has to be taught by another, insofar as I know. Maybe there's evidence of feral children or adults figuring out how to write, that you know of?
G'nite.

Why would small nomadic tribes require writing systems?

 

[Subduction Zone]

So did humans (do you think/imagine/surmise?) not have the ability or need o write in order to communicate all those approximately 200,000 years they supposedly have been around? One might really have to think (believe) they must have been kind of dumb for all those many, many years to not have invented writing. Have any intermediary life forms, particular in the way of apes, developed writing? By the way, writing has to be taught by another, insofar as I know. Maybe there's evidence of feral children or adults figuring out how to write, that you know of?
G'nite.

That seems to be a very strange belief in your part.

it is not a matter of being dumb. It is a matter of being able to record and save knowledge.

 

[YoursTrue]

And you won't in the future either, because evidence supports ideas, it doesn't prove them.

And scientific theories, by definition, can not be proven only supported. This, too, has been explained to you countless times already, yet you still continue to repeat that falsehood as if it is a proper objection.

I imagine you are figuring evolution to be that of all living matter having evolved by 'natural selection' (I dare not say mindlessly, so I'll say 'natural selection') from one form of matter (whatever that was) to all the different branches of life, i.e., that of plants, fishes, and animals. Is that more or less right?

 

[YoursTrue]

That seems to be a very strange belief in your part.

it is not a matter of being dumb. It is a matter of being able to record and save knowledge.

So suddenly writing (not cave art) came out of the blue, is that right? Further, what is the proof that cave art is how many years old did the experts say? When I took history of art in college, she first spoke of art in caves like 10,000 years ago. Things have been discovered since then.
They say something about uranium type dating method -- but really, there are some problems with that, aren't there? And who's to say the pigment didn't have minerals leach onto the pictures? Yes, I have other questions, too, supposedly you have the answers, is that right, being you are so convinced of this. Of course you wouldn't be leaning of those who tell you what's up regarding this. By that I mean you understand and can explain how they did the radiometric dating process. Even if they scraped off pigments from cave walls, what's to say what the date is of the drawings, I mean by that would you know exactly how they figured them. Don't give me names, explain the process, please. (If you can.) No websites, no links, you explain in your own words.

 

[YoursTrue]

Why would small nomadic tribes require writing systems?

Why would larger nomadic tribes require writing systems and how did these writing systems develop, oddly enough, within only the past 5,000 years or so. Not the literally hundreds of thousands of years before while these small tribes you say were wandering around. Small tribes now it gets to? Um, exactly now many nomadic travelers were there prior to 5-6,000 years ago?

 

[Subduction Zone]

So suddenly writing (not cave art) came out of the blue, is that right? Further, what is the proof that cave art is how many years old did the experts say? When I took history of art in college, she first spoke of art in caves like 10,000 years ago. Things have been discovered since then.
They say something about uranium type dating method -- but really, there are some problems with that, aren't there? And who's to say the pigment didn't have minerals leach onto the pictures? Yes, I have other questions, too, supposedly you have the answers, is that right, being you are so convinced of this. Of course you wouldn't be leaning of those who tell you what's up regarding this. By that I mean you understand and can explain how they did the radiometric dating process. Even if they scraped off pigments from cave walls, what's to say what the date is of the drawings, I mean by that would you know exactly how they figured them. Don't give me names, explain the process, please. (If you can.) No websites, no links, you explain in your own words.

it was an emergent consequence of civilization.

As to dating cave art it is rather simple if they showed charcoal for black colors. I will give you a,chance to figure that out for yourself.

And why don't you like links and websites?

 

[YoursTrue]

it was an emergent consequence of civilization.

It was? After virtually hundreds of thousands of years? Took them all that time to get together (advance) to so-called civilization and figure out how to communicate with writing instead of making cave wall art?

Subduction Zone: "As to dating cave art it is rather simple if they showed charcoal for black colors. I will give you a,chance to figure that out for yourself."

Ah -- you will -- I suspect it's because you don't know the answer as to the dating process. But thanks anyway. As for you merely going to someone else's website as explanation, again -- I can only guess it's because you really can't explain it and don't know how radiometric dating really works. Particular on cave art. But have a good night.

 

[YoursTrue]

it was an emergent consequence of civilization.

As to dating cave art it is rather simple if they showed charcoal for black colors. I will give you a,chance to figure that out for yourself.

And why don't you like links and websites?

I have another question. There are plants and there are animals. Can you explain by means of the evolution theory, how it is that plants and animals emerged as different types of living things?

 

[Subduction Zone]

It was? After virtually hundreds of thousands of years? Took them all that time to get together (advance) to so-called civilization and figure out how to communicate with writing instead of making cave wall art?

Subduction Zone: "As to dating cave art it is rather simple if they showed charcoal for black colors. I will give you a,chance to figure that out for yourself."

Ah -- you will -- I suspect it's because you don't know the answer as to the dating process. But thanks anyway. As for you merely going to someone else's website as explanation, again -- I can only guess it's because you really can't explain it and don't know how radiometric dating really works. Particular on cave art. But have a good night.

Yes. Why would you think that it had to happen instantly? Reality does not match your mythical beliefs.

And please, do not make false statements about others and in such a rude fashion to boot. That is counterproductive to the discussion. It should have been obvious that I knew how it was dated and that should have allowed you to figure it out for yourself. Apologize and we can move on.

 

[Subduction Zone]

I have another question. There are plants and there are animals. Can you explain by means of the evolution theory, how it is that plants and animals emerged as different types of living things?

A combination of specialization and changing environments. I could give you some of the details, but there are biologists here that know far more about it than I do. Why do you ask? You are right now attempting to run when you cannot even walk yet.

 

[YoursTrue]

And you won't in the future either, because evidence supports ideas, it doesn't prove them.

And scientific theories, by definition, can not be proven only supported. This, too, has been explained to you countless times already, yet you still continue to repeat that falsehood as if it is a proper objection.


The evidence you have been given supports evolution theory very well.

...As you have been given several pieces of very good evidence in this very discussion. I know, because I was one of them. Among others, I gave you the example of how Tiktaalik was predicted and discovered, matching the prediction. Your state of denial is getting tiresome.

Tiktaalik was predicted from a mega-macro evolutionary perspective, as it is a transition from sea-life to land crawlers.

First, there was only life in the sea. Then, there were animals on land. The theory therefor predicts transitional sea/land animals that must have lived in between those two era's. Researchers then estimated what that period was exactly - and they based their estimation on everything we know from dating fossils and evolutionary history. Then they looked on a geological map for rocks of that age, which would have been in proximity of water and coast in that period. They predicted the kind of fossil (in terms of what traits it would have to have, being transitional from sea to land) they should be able to find there.

They went, searched and found Tiktaalik, confirming the prediction.

It doesn't get much more macro then a transitional from "fish" to land animal.

Tiktaalik is considered by some to be a transitional form. Macro? Very macro I suppose, from fish to land entirely. Very macro.
Let me get off the exact subject, although related, to an extent for a moment. Do you believe perhaps that humans also are in a state of transition? As you might also think the same about lions and alligators. Yet in the 5,000 or so years of written history or documentation, I don't suppose there is any evidence of transitions observable. That is not my point though.
***At the present time, scientists are predicting that unless the atmosphere is turned about (from the pollution), life will be virtually extinct for humans on the earth. But then, life became extinct for tiktaaliks in the past, didn't it. And while tiktaaliks supposedly did not have resources to sustain their species, scientists are saying mankind is in big trouble due to its polluting the resources.

From "The Guardian," -- An article explained that earth's population will be forced to colonize other planets within 50 years if resources continue to be exploited as they are currently. A study by the WWF warned that humans are plundering the planet at a pace that outstrips its capacity to support life.
Earth 'will expire by 2050'

 

[YoursTrue]

Yes. Why would you think that it had to happen instantly? Reality does not match your mythical beliefs.

And please, do not make false statements about others and in such a rude fashion to boot. That is counterproductive to the discussion. It should have been obvious that I knew how it was dated and that should have allowed you to figure it out for yourself. Apologize and we can move on.

Nothing to show emerging transitional fins, legs, or whatever, unless those fossils were thoroughly disintegrated. I could find out from websites 'how' it was dated. Want to explain to process when I present the words to you?

 

[Subduction Zone]

Tiktaalik is considered by some to be a transitional form. Macro? Very macro I suppose, from fish to land entirely. Very macro.
Let me get off the exact subject, although related, to an extent for a moment. Do you believe perhaps that humans also are in a state of transition? As you might also think the same about lions and alligators. Yet in the 5,000 or so years of written history or documentation, I don't suppose there is any evidence of transitions observable. That is not my point though.
***At the present time, scientists are predicting that unless the atmosphere is turned about (from the pollution), life will be virtually extinct for humans on the earth. But then, life became extinct for tiktaaliks in the past, didn't it. And while tiktaaliks supposedly did not have resources to sustain their species, scientists are saying mankind is in big trouble due to its polluting the resources.

From "The Guardian," -- An article explained that earth's population will be forced to colonize other planets within 50 years if resources continue to be exploited as they are currently. A study by the WWF warned that humans are plundering the planet at a pace that outstrips its capacity to support life.
Earth 'will expire by 2050'

Okay, first don't take tales of Doom and Gloom to seriously if you have not checked them out. Yes AGW is a very very serious problem. But it will not wipe out all life.

Second all life is "transitional" at least until it goes extinct. But since evolution is a reaction to environment the exact form of new life is very hard to predict.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Nothing to show emerging transitional fins, legs, or whatever, unless those fossils were thoroughly disintegrated. I could find out from websites 'how' it was dated. Want to explain to process when I present the words to you?

What are you talking about Tiktaalik's fins are transitional.

Perhaps you should learn what transitional means. A transitional fossil has some traits from an older preexisting form and some of the traits of a younger form. That is all. Being transitional is not absolute proof of relationship (remember science does not prove things) but it is evidence that there is some degree of relatedness.

 

[Subduction Zone]

That is the fin of Tiktaalik, but you can see the very crude bones that became our hands.

 

[YoursTrue]

Okay, first don't take tales of Doom and Gloom to seriously if you have not checked them out. Yes AGW is a very very serious problem. But it will not wipe out all life.

Second all life is "transitional" at least until it goes extinct. But since evolution is a reaction to environment the exact form of new life is very hard to predict.

According to one estimate, and it makes a certain amount of sense to me, larger mammals (like humans) will become extinct because the earth's warming atmosphere will make continuing life impossible for humans. Quoting one source, (bold is mine) "Some people say we can adapt due to technology, but that’s a belief system, it’s not based on fact. There is no convincing evidence that a large mammal, with a core body temperature of 37 degrees C, will be able to evolve that quickly. Insects can, but humans can’t and that’s a problem.”
So you can say good-bye to human population because imagine this: human life on another planet within the next 50 years (?) is virtually impossible.
Life on Earth now officially at risk, scientists say

 

[YoursTrue]

That is the fin of Tiktaalik, but you can see the very crude bones that became our hands.

Thank you, and I understand that. It had legs or something like that, didn't it? (Yes, it did from the pictures.) You don't know that from the Tiktaalik came human (or ape) hands. That's like saying, as one scientist did, and I paraphrase, "Oh, good! That fits the theory," when they discovered the Tiktaalik. I'm even beginning to remember its name. Tiktaalik. And that's like saying that because fossils of feathers on a dinosaur means that birds came from dinosaurs. Meantime, there are lots of different birds. Parrots. Sparrows. Ostriches. I happen to like birds, they are fantastic and can be beautiful. I like looking at birds, not particularly having them as pets.