Who knows about the "Taung child" fossil?

[YoursTrue]

Maybe. I have no idea. You keep your eyes open and stay watching.

Watching for what? More fossils proving the theory? There is no proof that these beings in a kind happened by mutations or that they happened ever so gradually.

 

[shunyadragon]

Try reading your posts.

They addressed specifically the subject of the thread "Taung child" fossil?"

Yours did not.

 

[shunyadragon]

Watching for what? More fossils proving the theory? There is no proof that these beings in a kind happened by mutations or that they happened ever so gradually.

Again, scientists do not deal with proof. The objective verifiable evidence of fossils and genetics demonstrate beyond any doubt that life evolved and changed slowly over millions of years.

 

[YoursTrue]

Nothing in the article reflects what you claim.

The article does confirm as referenced that the Australopithecus Group is separate evolutionary group in the hominin evolutionary tree. No it says noting about the skull being an immature cimp nor gorilla.

Obviously we come to different conclusions from the same source.

 

[YoursTrue]

Again, scientists do not deal with proof. The objective verifiable evidence of fossils and genetics demonstrate beyond any doubt that life evolved and changed slowly over millions of years.

They don't deal with proof? You're kidding, of course. Why bother with genetics if there's no proof? Anyway, what about genetics shows (of course I can't use the word proves as far as your view and your estimate of science goes, so I use the word shows) that the theory is true? Please explain in your words and understanding. Thank you.

 

[YoursTrue]

OMG!

"controversy among... scientists"? ​

Please - tell me it isn't so.​

It is? O boy you have it! It is or it isn't, whatever you say is true for YOU! Maybe.

 

[shunyadragon]

Obviously we come to different conclusions from the same source.

Obvious. I cite literally the source states in the English language. I also cited the original research article that the layman's article is from, and you failed to respond.

You have failed to justify your assertions by citing the source as the source states.

 

[Wildswanderer]

They don't deal with proof? You're kidding, of course. Why bother with genetics if there's no proof? Anyway, what about genetics shows (of course I can't use the word proves as far as your view and your estimate of science goes, so I use the word shows) that the theory is true? Please explain in your words and understanding. Thank you.

They will say there's no proof in science while at the same time tell you you can't argue with their evidence. I don't think they even see the contradiction.

 

[shunyadragon]

They don't deal with proof? You're kidding, of course. Why bother with genetics if there's no proof? Anyway, what about genetics shows (of course I can't use the word proves as far as your view and your estimate of science goes, so I use the word shows) that the theory is true? Please explain in your words and understanding. Thank you.

Science by definition deals with the falsification of theories and hypothesis with scientific methods. Look up Philosophical Naturalism.

Proof is for logic and math and not science.

 

[YoursTrue]

They addressed specifically the subject of the thread "Taung child" fossil?"

Yours did not.

Reading nPeace's, comment, perhaps you missed this one... ?
He addressed this: Citing deficiencies in how the Taung fossil material has been recently assessed..."
"The authors also debate the previously offered theoretical basis for this adaptation..."
And commented, "That's very interesting." Perhaps you should reread it again. So which tree or branch would you surmise and believe the Taung child came from in its path to humankind? And do you think that the human womb engenders that path from concepts through Taung child to human?

 

[YoursTrue]

There's nothing of the sort outside of some questions many decades ago, Taung child | fossil

Taung child, the first discovered fossil of Australopithecus africanus.

So it was categorized.

 

[YoursTrue]

Science by definition deals with the falsification of theories and hypothesis with scientific methods. Look up Philosophical Naturalism.

Proof is for logic and math and not science.

So the theory of evolution is not by logic? No??

 

[YoursTrue]

OMG!

"controversy among... scientists"? ​

Please - tell me it isn't so.​

It isn't so, or it is. Which do you want to hear? Either or??

 

[YoursTrue]

Science by definition deals with the falsification of theories and hypothesis with scientific methods. Look up Philosophical Naturalism.

Proof is for logic and math and not science.

Please answer these questions.
1. What is your definition of evolution?
2. What do you believe about it?
3. How does the Taung child fit into the theory you believe?

 

[SkepticThinker]

It seems you all equate science with the Darwinian theory of evolution. Surely you don't think all science means evolution, do you? There is no doubt prejudice or lack of discernment among many here who uphold the theory of evolution. "Science" makes mistakes. For instance, not all vaccines, while tried, work. But I àppreciate the effort of those researchers to find a good vaccine, the test is in the efficacy. Trial and error. That you equate science with evolution as if they're in the same category entirely is sad indeed. No proof, no nothing but yes, conjecture of a Hollywood type sort. Sad indeed.

As I've pointed out to you at least three times now, evolutionary study encompasses a wide field of sciences spanning across multiple disciplines. And not only that, but all evidence provided to date has only reinforced and confirmed the theory of evolution rather than detracting from it or falsifying it.

Just a few of the fields of science that have contributed to the vast body of evidence in favour of evolution include biology, marine biology, geology, paleontology, botany, genetics, medicine, microbiology, molecular biology, zoology, physiology, comparative anatomy, bioecology, immunology, and many more.

So yeah, you are rejecting very large swaths of science when you reject evolution.

 

[Jose Fly]

As I've pointed out to you at least three times now..

And you (or others) will probably do it at least three more times.

 

[Dan From Smithville]

Watching for what? More fossils proving the theory? There is no proof that these beings in a kind happened by mutations or that they happened ever so gradually.

Sure. Why not? You prove that theory when all of science says it is not done that way.

Of course. All that evidence means nothing. You can wish it to the cornfield.

Since you use this "kind" as a limiting factor, all that one has to do is expand the range of the organisms that the word encompasses and you're all good. Since there are no specifics to what "kind" defines.

 

[Dan From Smithville]

Obviously we come to different conclusions from the same source.

I feel very confident that you arrived at your opinion long before you ever heard of the Taung Child. Posting about evidence and then waving it away with a series of denials is not really consideration of the evidence.

 

[Dan From Smithville]

So the theory of evolution is not by logic? No??

Logic is applied in the theory. However, proofs are not.

You know this. Stop playing this game. It is not helping you.

 

[Dan From Smithville]

They addressed specifically the subject of the thread "Taung child" fossil?"

Yours did not.

In my opinion @nPeace purposefully makes his posts incomprehensible in style to increase the difficulty in reading and understanding them. The multi-colors, randomly changing fonts, bolding etc. make it difficult to read. Kudos for getting anything out of that apparent obfuscation.