Who knows about the "Taung child" fossil?

[shunyadragon]

Thanks, you are one of the reasons I realize you not only don't teach, but you really don't know what you are talking about.

Know what you are talking about? You have failed to cite any scientific references to support your assertions,nor have you not demonstrated any knowledge in science concerning evolution. All you have done is propose an ancient religious agenda. You have basically rejected any scientific explanations.

 

[shunyadragon]

I didn't get it from any website.
I'll try to elaborate as time allows.

Most definitely needs elaboration and scientific explanation,ah . . . unless you are relying only on a Biblical explanation.

 

[tas8831]

No, it's not.

Yes, it is.

It's only what you think, and I'm certain you are among others like that. However, again, despite the so-called small percentage of difference of DNA in humans and gorillas, it is simply, absolutely impossible to prove evolution occurred.

Unsupported assertions are lame.
You're just trolling at this point.

 

[YoursTrue]

Know what you are talking about? You have failed to cite any scientific references to support your assertions,nor have you not demonstrated any knowledge in science concerning evolution. All you have done is propose an ancient religious agenda. You have basically rejected any scientific explanations.

Let's see if you can prove evolution. With no discussion of creation or religion. Not even a discussion of soul or anything else like that, just please show (prove, which I know you can't do, no insult intended) that mankind evolved from any form of matter. Thanks. No conjecture. Thanks again.

 

[YoursTrue]

Yes, it is.

Unsupported assertions are lame.
You're just trolling at this point.

The assertions quoting from sources you use are not really substantiated insofar as evolution of an organism is concerned. They may count genes and DNA, but no substantiation to claim evolution occurred in reality. And so again, you keep telling me what you think about me, and I keep saying there is no evidence proving the claim of physical, natural evolution as the source of life and/or the transfers of organized life forms evolving. And then when I answer your assertions you give assailing me, you claim I'm trolling.

 

[YoursTrue]

I've already addressed this claim and how fossils demonstrate a whole lot more than that. Perhaps try referring to that post.

I'm sorry, please give me the number of that post, I can't search through all the posts. Fossils do demonstrate a lot, but not the evolution from vegetation to humans. Ok r from any ranch of the Darwinian concept. I was reading how bananas and humans have much biologic similarity, and I'm sure they do. However, it does not mean or demonstrably prove that all this evolved.

 

[shunyadragon]

Let's see if you can prove evolution. With no discussion of creation or religion. Not even a discussion of soul or anything else like that, just please show (prove, which I know you can't do, no insult intended) that mankind evolved from any form of matter. Thanks. No conjecture. Thanks again.

More nonsense and ignorance of science.Science does not prove anything. Yes, you have an unfortunate ancient religious agenda and not willing to understand science.

You're asking me? I provided a list of more twenty scientific texts on evolution, and you must be illiterate and unable to read and understand them, some at the high school level. I do realize your scientifically illiterate.

 

[shunyadragon]

The assertions quoting from sources you use are not really substantiated insofar as evolution of an organism is concerned. They may count genes and DNA, but no substantiation to claim evolution occurred in reality. And so again, you keep telling me what you think about me, and I keep saying there is no evidence proving the claim of physical, natural evolution as the source of life and/or the transfers of organized life forms evolving. And then when I answer your assertions you give assailing me, you claim I'm trolling.

The list of scientific books on evolution provided do just that and you refused to make the effort to read nor understand the science behind evolution

 

[YoursTrue]

More nonsense and ignorance of science.Science does not prove anything. Yes, you have an unfortunate ancient religious agenda and not willing to understand science.

You're asking me? I provided a list of more twenty scientific texts on evolution, and you must be illiterate and unable to read and understand them, some at the high school level. I do realize your scientifically illiterate.

Once again, and I repeat, even after I managed to read many of the references you all provided, while there are fossils, and much research is done pertaining to gametes and genetics, there is nothing to support the idea that the life we see around us and came about is the result of natural evolutionary processes. But thank you for your (1) continued insulting of me because this only proves you are blustering, and (2) there is nothing to bear up contentions about the real process as surmised via fossil and dna findings that it means these organisms evolved by natural processes. While I can understand why and how you surmise this about these pieces being pushed into the idea that they support the theory of evolution, I no longer go along with the conjecture.

 

[YoursTrue]

The list of scientific books on evolution provided do just that and you refused to make the effort to read nor understand the science behind evolution

Nope, they don't. What they do prove is that some scientists and researchers try hard to push the findings into places they have already manufactured by guesswork..

 

[YoursTrue]

More nonsense and ignorance of science.Science does not prove anything. Yes, you have an unfortunate ancient religious agenda and not willing to understand science.

You're asking me? I provided a list of more twenty scientific texts on evolution, and you must be illiterate and unable to read and understand them, some at the high school level. I do realize your scientifically illiterate.

I have come to realize that even without a belief in God, the question arises in an honest person, and stays unanswered as to how these pieces unearthed prove evolution. And, as you said, there is no proof. I am not answering for anything else right now. I do not deny the counting of dna, the possibilities of mutations. So I leave it there for now.

 

[YoursTrue]

More nonsense and ignorance of science.Science does not prove anything. Yes, you have an unfortunate ancient religious agenda and not willing to understand science.

You're asking me? I provided a list of more twenty scientific texts on evolution, and you must be illiterate and unable to read and understand them, some at the high school level. I do realize your scientifically illiterate.

Texts on evolution do not prove evolution. They can report findings and examine what is perhaps unearthed and then make decisions as to what, when, where, and how. Those decisions do not conclude conclusively (yes, by showing proof) how, what, and when, except by conjecture, but more importantly, they do not really know the 'how' in substance, even if there is a nice discussion of gametes and germ cell modification. Therefore they do not know the transference from what to what regarding a different organism coming from another. in reality. I am not talking of inheriting or mutating blue eyes and blonde hair. I am talking of the possibility of evolution from the beginning on up, down, or sideways on the descent tree.

 

[YoursTrue]

No matter how often you assert this, it is simply and obviously (if you can be bothered to look) false.

What is the evidence for evolution? - Common-questions
The Evidence For Evolution: A Succinct Introduction For Denialists
Evidence for evolution (article) | Khan Academy
Beyond Reasonable Doubt: Evolution from DNA Sequences
Evidence of common descent - Wikipedia

Just to start, I looked at the last one (Evidence of common descent) from Wikipedia. And here's how it starts, so I quote: "Evidence of common descent of living organisms has been discovered by scientists researching in a variety of disciplines over many decades, demonstrating that all life on Earth comes from a single ancestor. This forms an important part of the evidence on which evolutionary theory rests, demonstrates that evolution does occur, and illustrates the processes that created Earth's biodiversity"
So they say, all life on earth comes from a single ancestor. Really? They proved this? Then it says this forms an important part of the evidence on which evolutionary theory rests. (Yes, it --the theory--does rest on the idea that life on earth comes from a "single ancestor.", However -- there is no evidence, no proof, that all life on earth came from a single ancestor.)

 

[ratiocinator]

Just to start, I looked at the last one (Evidence of common descent) from Wikipedia. And here's how it starts, so I quote: "Evidence of common descent of living organisms has been discovered by scientists researching in a variety of disciplines over many decades, demonstrating that all life on Earth comes from a single ancestor. This forms an important part of the evidence on which evolutionary theory rests, demonstrates that evolution does occur, and illustrates the processes that created Earth's biodiversity"
So they say, all life on earth comes from a single ancestor. Really? They proved this?

How many times have you been told science doesn't prove theories? Why do creationists refuse to even learn the simplest of things? What the passage says, and you quoted it, is that there is evidence from many disciplines.

That would be the evidence you said didn't exist.

However -- there is no evidence, no proof, that all life on earth came from a single ancestor.

And there you go again with stating something that is simply false (ignoring the silliness about 'proof' again). There is evidence. The article outlines a lot of said evidence, as do the other four. You just ignored all of it. You can't claim something doesn't exist just because you won't look at it.

Do you want another go? Here is evidence you have said doesn't exist:
What is the evidence for evolution? - Common-questions
The Evidence For Evolution: A Succinct Introduction For Denialists
Evidence for evolution (article) | Khan Academy
Beyond Reasonable Doubt: Evolution from DNA Sequences
Evidence of common descent - Wikipedia

Here is another link from Biologos (actually a Christian site):
Common Descent vs. Common Design: 4 Examples Explained Better by Descent - Articles

And here is a honest creationist:

"Evolution is not a theory in crisis. It is not teetering on the verge of collapse. It has not failed as a scientific explanation. There is evidence for evolution, gobs and gobs of it. It is not just speculation or a faith choice or an assumption or a religion. It is a productive framework for lots of biological research, and it has amazing explanatory power. There is no conspiracy to hide the truth about the failure of evolution. There has really been no failure of evolution as a scientific theory. It works, and it works well.

I say these things not because I'm crazy or because I've "converted" to evolution. I say these things because they are true. I'm motivated this morning by reading yet another clueless, well-meaning person pompously declaring that evolution is a failure. People who say that are either unacquainted with the inner workings of science or unacquainted with the evidence for evolution."

-- The truth about evolution [my underline]​

 

[shunyadragon]

Texts on evolution do not prove evolution. They can report findings and examine what is perhaps unearthed and then make decisions as to what, when, where, and how. Those decisions do not conclude conclusively (yes, by showing proof) how, what, and when, except by conjecture, but more importantly, they do not really know the 'how' in substance, even if there is a nice discussion of gametes and germ cell modification. Therefore they do not know the transference from what to what regarding a different organism coming from another. in reality. I am not talking of inheriting or mutating blue eyes and blonde hair. I am talking of the possibility of evolution from the beginning on up, down, or sideways on the descent tree.

More nonsense and ignorance of science.Science does not prove anything. Yes, you have an unfortunate ancient religious agenda and not willing to understand science.

You're asking me? I provided a list of more twenty scientific texts on evolution, and you must be illiterate and unable to read and understand them, some at the high school level. I do realize your scientifically illiterate.

 

[shunyadragon]

I have come to realize that even without a belief in God, the question arises in an honest person, and stays unanswered as to how these pieces unearthed prove evolution. And, as you said, there is no proof. I am not answering for anything else right now. I do not deny the counting of dna, the possibilities of mutations. So I leave it there for now.

Your questions remain unanswered, because you refuse to educate yourself in science,and read and understand the science.You can lead a horse (you), but you cannot force the horse (you) to drink.

More nonsense and ignorance of science.Science does not prove anything. Yes, you have an unfortunate ancient religious agenda and not willing to understand science.

You're asking me? I provided a list of more twenty scientific texts on evolution, and you must be illiterate and unable to read and understand them, some at the high school level. I do realize your scientifically illiterate.

 

[shunyadragon]

Once again, and I repeat, even after I managed to read many of the references you all provided, while there are fossils, and much research is done pertaining to gametes and genetics, there is nothing to support the idea that the life we see around us and came about is the result of natural evolutionary processes. But thank you for your (1) continued insulting of me because this only proves you are blustering, and (2) there is nothing to bear up contentions about the real process as surmised via fossil and dna findings that it means these organisms evolved by natural processes. While I can understand why and how you surmise this about these pieces being pushed into the idea that they support the theory of evolution, I no longer go along with the conjecture.

Once again . . . I repeat.

More nonsense and ignorance of science.Science does not prove anything. Yes, you have an unfortunate ancient religious agenda and not willing to understand science.

You're asking me? I provided a list of more twenty scientific texts on evolution, and you must be illiterate and unable to read and understand them, some at the high school level. I do realize your scientifically illiterate.

 

[tas8831]

The assertions quoting from sources you use are not really substantiated insofar as evolution of an organism is concerned. They may count genes and DNA, but no substantiation to claim evolution occurred in reality.

I forget now who originally posted these on this forum, but I keep it in my archives because it offers a nice 'linear' progression of testing a methodology and then applying it - I have posted this more than a dozen times for creationists who claim that there is no evidence for evolution:

The tested methodology:

Science 25 October 1991:
Vol. 254. no. 5031, pp. 554 - 558

Gene trees and the origins of inbred strains of mice

WR Atchley and WM Fitch

Extensive data on genetic divergence among 24 inbred strains of mice provide an opportunity to examine the concordance of gene trees and species trees, especially whether structured subsamples of loci give congruent estimates of phylogenetic relationships. Phylogenetic analyses of 144 separate loci reproduce almost exactly the known genealogical relationships among these 24 strains. Partitioning these loci into structured subsets representing loci coding for proteins, the immune system and endogenous viruses give incongruent phylogenetic results. The gene tree based on protein loci provides an accurate picture of the genealogical relationships among strains; however, gene trees based upon immune and viral data show significant deviations from known genealogical affinities.

======================

Science, Vol 255, Issue 5044, 589-592

Experimental phylogenetics: generation of a known phylogeny

DM Hillis, JJ Bull, ME White, MR Badgett, and IJ Molineux
Department of Zoology, University of Texas, Austin 78712.

Although methods of phylogenetic estimation are used routinely in comparative biology, direct tests of these methods are hampered by the lack of known phylogenies. Here a system based on serial propagation of bacteriophage T7 in the presence of a mutagen was used to create the first completely known phylogeny. Restriction-site maps of the terminal lineages were used to infer the evolutionary history of the experimental lines for comparison to the known history and actual ancestors. The five methods used to reconstruct branching pattern all predicted the correct topology but varied in their predictions of branch lengths; one method also predicts ancestral restriction maps and was found to be greater than 98 percent accurate.

==================================

Science, Vol 264, Issue 5159, 671-677

Application and accuracy of molecular phylogenies

DM Hillis, JP Huelsenbeck, and CW Cunningham
Department of Zoology, University of Texas, Austin 78712.

Molecular investigations of evolutionary history are being used to study subjects as diverse as the epidemiology of acquired immune deficiency syndrome and the origin of life. These studies depend on accurate estimates of phylogeny. The performance of methods of phylogenetic analysis can be assessed by numerical simulation studies and by the experimental evolution of organisms in controlled laboratory situations. Both kinds of assessment indicate that existing methods are effective at estimating phylogenies over a wide range of evolutionary conditions, especially if information about substitution bias is used to provide differential weightings for character transformations.


We can hereby CONCLUDE that the results of an application of those methods have merit.


Application of the tested methodology:

Implications of natural selection in shaping 99.4% nonsynonymous DNA identity between humans and chimpanzees: Enlarging genus Homo

"Here we compare ≈90 kb of coding DNA nucleotide sequence from 97 human genes to their sequenced chimpanzee counterparts and to available sequenced gorilla, orangutan, and Old World monkey counterparts, and, on a more limited basis, to mouse. The nonsynonymous changes (functionally important), like synonymous changes (functionally much less important), show chimpanzees and humans to be most closely related, sharing 99.4% identity at nonsynonymous sites and 98.4% at synonymous sites. "



Mitochondrial Insertions into Primate Nuclear Genomes Suggest the Use of numts as a Tool for Phylogeny

"Moreover, numts identified in gorilla Supercontigs were used to test the human–chimp–gorilla trichotomy, yielding a high level of support for the sister relationship of human and chimpanzee."



A Molecular Phylogeny of Living Primates

"Once contentiously debated, the closest human relative of chimpanzee (Pan) within subfamily Homininae (Gorilla, Pan, Homo) is now generally undisputed. The branch forming the Homo andPanlineage apart from Gorilla is relatively short (node 73, 27 steps MP, 0 indels) compared with that of thePan genus (node 72, 91 steps MP, 2 indels) and suggests rapid speciation into the 3 genera occurred early in Homininae evolution. Based on 54 gene regions, Homo-Pan genetic distance range from 6.92 to 7.90×10−3 substitutions/site (P. paniscus and P. troglodytes, respectively), which is less than previous estimates based on large scale sequencing of specific regions such as chromosome 7[50]. "
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

CONCLUSION:

This evidence lays out the results of employing a tested methodology on the question of Primate evolution. The same general criteria/methods have been used on nearly all facets of the evolution of living things.

Feel free to provide evidence for magic creation of a man from dust 6-10,000 years ago.

And so again, you keep telling me what you think about me, and I keep saying there is no evidence proving the claim of physical, natural evolution as the source of life and/or the transfers of organized life forms evolving. And then when I answer your assertions you give assailing me, you claim I'm trolling.

You keep ignoring the evidence you are given and claiming there is none. That is, you are either lying, trolling, just mentally deficient, or....? Or combinations thereof. I think - and it seems most people on here think - that your antics speak for themselves and they do not do your reputation any good.
Stop trolling, ignoring, etc., and maybe you can recover. But like most creationists, it seems you are too brainwashed and fixated on your cause, and are likely beyond recovery.

 

[SkepticThinker]

No, it's not. It's only what you think, and I'm certain you are among others like that. However, again, despite the so-called small percentage of difference of DNA in humans and gorillas, it is simply, absolutely impossible to prove evolution occurred.

And yet it's been demonstrated by trained professionals who know what they're talking about. The same way they can demonstrate your genetic relationship between you and your other family members.

Funny thing, that.

 

[SkepticThinker]

I'm sorry, please give me the number of that post, I can't search through all the posts. Fossils do demonstrate a lot, but not the evolution from vegetation to humans. Ok r from any ranch of the Darwinian concept. I was reading how bananas and humans have much biologic similarity, and I'm sure they do. However, it does not mean or demonstrably prove that all this evolved.

I've given you endless information that you apparently have never read. I know that because I've provided it all more than once.
Try Googling an academic source.