i totally have lost all signs of evolution

[TagliatelliMonster]

Ok so you can't explain it. And brush it off. Ok

I didn't brush it off. There's nothing there to explain.
I just told you that you're citing a media outlet, not a scientific source.

I even gave you an analogous example with "survival of the fittest", which is a nice catchphrase for media, but which is scientifically inadequate.

The fact is that if you find a "missing link" B between A and C, strictly speaking now you just created 2 new "missing links": 1 between A and B and another between B and C.

This is why it has no scientific value.

Try to stick to the actual science if you wish to discuss the science.

Thanks, now I understand. Because I see you don't want to cope with the findings.

The findings are reported in scientific papers, not in BBC articles.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

Then again, you say there is no missing link, is that right, or is it you don't want to talk about it with me?

It depends what is being meant by it.

So I suggest you explain what exactly you mean by it first.

 

[YoursTrue]

I didn't brush it off. There's nothing there to explain.
I just told you that you're citing a media outlet, not a scientific source.

I even gave you an analogous example with "survival of the fittest", which is a nice catchphrase for media, but which is scientifically inadequate.

The fact is that if you find a "missing link" B between A and C, strictly speaking now you just created 2 new "missing links": 1 between A and B and another between B and C.

This is why it has no scientific value.

Try to stick to the actual science if you wish to discuss the science.




The findings are reported in scientific papers, not in BBC articles.

Look, about survival of the fittest, do you think that whatever is said to have evolved into a lion is not survival of the fittest? Perhaps you don't understand my question: let me see if I can explain it a bit further. Lions are unique. I hope you will not argue with that. There are no half-lions or part lions that I know of, yeah maybe ligers but that's not working into a full and continuing population of ligers, is it? If, whatever evolved into the organism called lion did a quick or slow job of evolution, it wasn't a worse mutation, was it? Was it equal? Worse? Better? Maybe that explains it better re: "survival of the fittest." And who cares about survival of the fittest? Do you? If you disagree with that idea of survival of the fittest (not that I believe it), perhaps you can say why you don't believe in "survival of the fittest."

 

[YoursTrue]

It depends what is being meant by it.

So I suggest you explain what exactly you mean by it first.

I tried. However, here is one way of approaching the idea of missing link regarding human evolution:
Starting out with a description of the "unscientific term" of "missing link":
"The missing link is an unscientific term for transitional fossils. It is often used in popular science and in the media for any new transitional form. The term originated to describe the hypothetical intermediate form in the evolutionary series of anthropoid ancestors to anatomically modern humans (hominization)."
It has an interesting point therein -- what is the hypothetical (hypothetical?, not verifiable evidence?) intermediate form in evolution for anthropoid ancestors to anatomically modern humans?
Transitional fossils -- that's interesting -- nothing alive except currently living bobobos or chimpanzees in that supposed (hypothetical) lineage. Yeah, transitional fossils. Later for that.

 

[YoursTrue]

I didn't brush it off. There's nothing there to explain.
I just told you that you're citing a media outlet, not a scientific source.

I even gave you an analogous example with "survival of the fittest", which is a nice catchphrase for media, but which is scientifically inadequate.

The fact is that if you find a "missing link" B between A and C, strictly speaking now you just created 2 new "missing links": 1 between A and B and another between B and C.

This is why it has no scientific value.

Try to stick to the actual science if you wish to discuss the science.




The findings are reported in scientific papers, not in BBC articles.

The fact is that the article presented truths about these things. And there's more. But naturally you don't want to read something that would disturb or overturn or convolute your thinking. I understand.

 

[YoursTrue]

I didn't brush it off. There's nothing there to explain.
I just told you that you're citing a media outlet, not a scientific source.

I even gave you an analogous example with "survival of the fittest", which is a nice catchphrase for media, but which is scientifically inadequate.

The fact is that if you find a "missing link" B between A and C, strictly speaking now you just created 2 new "missing links": 1 between A and B and another between B and C.

This is why it has no scientific value.

Try to stick to the actual science if you wish to discuss the science.




The findings are reported in scientific papers, not in BBC articles.

So BBC doesn't know what it's talking about, is that what you think? How about Scientific American, do the writers know what they are talking about? Which scientific papers do you read, by the way?

 

[Audie]

So BBC doesn't know what it's talking about, is that what you think? How about Scientific American, do the writers know what they are talking about? Which scientific papers do you read, by the way?

If you know what you are talking about,
why do you keep asking questions?

With bible, all the universe and naural law, the
angels and god himself backing you, why dont
you just give one of what must innumrrable facts
that disprove evolution?

Cut to the chase already, and give us a fact!

 

[SkepticThinker]

Thank you. Would you mind telling me why it is said that birds evolved from dinosaurs?

How Birds Evolved From Dinosaurs | Quanta Magazine
Dinosaurs' Living Descendants | Science | Smithsonian Magazine
From dinosaurs to birds: a tail of evolution
Origin of birds - Wikipedia

 

[SkepticThinker]

So do you know why scientists say there is a missing link?

Who?

 

[SkepticThinker]

So where is the evidence that non-humans gradually evolved to humans? But that famous picture of monkeys and apes in successive states gradually standing taller and then becoming humans, do you think they left out a missing link? More importantly, how do they know that apes or monkeys evolved to what is known as homo sapiens? Even if you think that homo sapiens are apes, how do they know that bonobos or another type of ape eventually became (evolved into) humans?

As pointed out numerous times, the fossil record, nested hierarchies/cladistics, comparative/functional morphology, comparative genomics, to name a few. All of which point to the veractiy of evolution.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

Look, about survival of the fittest, do you think that whatever is said to have evolved into a lion is not survival of the fittest?

In general, and with the understanding that "fit" means "best adapted / best equipped for the habitat" and not "stronger, faster, more intelligent", then sure.

The technical truth however, is a lot more nuanced. There's lots of factors.

Perhaps you don't understand my question: let me see if I can explain it a bit further. Lions are unique. I hope you will not argue with that. There are no half-lions or part lions that I know of, yeah maybe ligers but that's not working into a full and continuing population of ligers, is it?

Hmmm.
I'ld rather say that lions have some unique traits, which makes them lions as distinct from other species.
But the bulk of its anatomy and psychology, is shared with just about all other mammals.
Even more is shared with felines.

If, whatever evolved into the organism called lion did a quick or slow job of evolution, it wasn't a worse mutation, was it? Was it equal? Worse? Better? Maybe that explains it better re: "survival of the fittest." And who cares about survival of the fittest? Do you? If you disagree with that idea of survival of the fittest (not that I believe it), perhaps you can say why you don't believe in "survival of the fittest."

To survive is just one aspect. Obviously an important one, to an extent at least, but not the only one. There's also finding a mate and actually breeding.

You'll find that science reports won't be using that catchphrase.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

I tried. However, here is one way of approaching the idea of missing link regarding human evolution:
Starting out with a description of the "unscientific term" of "missing link":
"The missing link is an unscientific term for transitional fossils. It is often used in popular science and in the media for any new transitional form. The term originated to describe the hypothetical intermediate form in the evolutionary series of anthropoid ancestors to anatomically modern humans (hominization)."
It has an interesting point therein -- what is the hypothetical (hypothetical?, not verifiable evidence?) intermediate form in evolution for anthropoid ancestors to anatomically modern humans?
Transitional fossils -- that's interesting -- nothing alive except currently living bobobos or chimpanzees in that supposed (hypothetical) lineage. Yeah, transitional fossils. Later for that.

You mean like how Danuvius Guggenmosi is a "missing link" between Proconsul Africanus and Sahelanthropus?

Or how Sahelanthropus is a "missing link" between Danuvius Guggenmosi and Australopithecus?

Or how Australopithecus is a "missing link" between Sahelanthropus and Homo Erectus?

Or how Homo Erectus is a "missing link" between Australopethicus and Homo Sapiens?

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

The fact is that the article presented truths about these things. And there's more. But naturally you don't want to read something that would disturb or overturn or convolute your thinking. I understand.

I don't need to read it to realise that no BBC article is going to be turning over Evolution theory.
I know, because if it was, it wouldn't just be one article on a BBC site.

Instead, it would be front page news on every newspaper and every magazine around the world.

 

[Audie]

Who?

Haha like you would get an answer

 

[Audie]

I don't need to read it to realise that no BBC article is going to be turning over Evolution theory.
I know, because if it was, it wouldn't just be one article on a BBC site.

Instead, it would be front page news on every newspaper and every magazine around the world.

Only the greatest discovery of all time.
Most theory in all the hard sciences overthrown,
and of course, proof of god.

And only a few creationists noticed.

 

[Audie]

You mean like how Danuvius Guggenmosi is a "missing link" between Proconsul Africanus and Sahelanthropus?

Or how Sahelanthropus is a "missing link" between Danuvius Guggenmosi and Australopithecus?

Or how Australopithecus is a "missing link" between Sahelanthropus and Homo Erectus?

Or how Homo Erectus is a "missing link" between Australopethicus and Homo Sapiens?

Species names are not capitalized.

 

[YoursTrue]

As pointed out numerous times, the fossil record, nested hierarchies/cladistics, comparative/functional morphology, comparative genomics, to name a few. All of which point to the veractiy of evolution.

I'm beginning to think this is insane.
As explained by Wikipedia, "The chimpanzee–human last common ancestor, or CHLCA, is the last common ancestor shared by the extant Homo (human) and Pan (chimpanzee and bonobo) genera of Hominini. Due to complex hybrid speciation, it is not possible to give a precise estimate on the age of this ancestral population. While "original divergence" between populations may have occurred as early as 13 million years ago (Miocene), hybridization may have been ongoing until as recently as 4 million years ago (Pliocene)." Now if you want to go over this piece by piece, I may be willing to do it. That is if you understand it. Meantime, I'm still comparing chromosomes in animals and wondering just how many of the same chromosomes do humans have from the chimpanzee.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

Now if you want to go over this piece by piece, I may be willing to do it. That is if you understand it.

"if you understand it". That's hilarious.

Meantime, I'm still comparing chromosomes in animals and wondering just how many of the same chromosomes do humans have from the chimpanzee.

YOU are comparing chromosomes ha?
I bet you can't even explain in your own words what chromosomes actually are.

 

[SkepticThinker]

I'm beginning to think this is insane.
As explained by Wikipedia, "The chimpanzee–human last common ancestor, or CHLCA, is the last common ancestor shared by the extant Homo (human) and Pan (chimpanzee and bonobo) genera of Hominini. Due to complex hybrid speciation, it is not possible to give a precise estimate on the age of this ancestral population. While "original divergence" between populations may have occurred as early as 13 million years ago (Miocene), hybridization may have been ongoing until as recently as 4 million years ago (Pliocene)." Now if you want to go over this piece by piece, I may be willing to do it. That is if you understand it. Meantime, I'm still comparing chromosomes in animals and wondering just how many of the same chromosomes do humans have from the chimpanzee.

Why did you post this? Can you explain your point?

What's insane and why?

As to your comment on chromosomes ....
Understanding Genetics

 

[Audie]

Why did you post this? Can you explain your point?

What's insane and why?

As to your comment on chromosomes ....
Understanding Genetics

I keep hoping that some day a creationist will try
to present a fact contrary to ToE.

Or even stick to one topic long enough
to get to the bottom of it. As it is, it seems
always to be constant topic drift, or,
"chasing a squirrel through the treetops".