And yet you still have no proof of it...touchingcloth wrote:To deny that evolution is a "fact" (beyond nit-picking the definition of the word) after seeing and understanding the weight of evidence is to dunk your head firmly in the sand.
![Confused :?](./images/smilies/icon_confused.gif)
And yet you still have no proof of it...touchingcloth wrote:To deny that evolution is a "fact" (beyond nit-picking the definition of the word) after seeing and understanding the weight of evidence is to dunk your head firmly in the sand.
Well I don't have a copy of it to hand, but I will look out for it at my local library at the weekend.ageofknowledge wrote:Absolutely yes! Read the book.
Bravo!Gman wrote:And yet you still have no proof of it...touchingcloth wrote:To deny that evolution is a "fact" (beyond nit-picking the definition of the word) after seeing and understanding the weight of evidence is to dunk your head firmly in the sand.
No... It's not ABC, Discovery, NG, Time or the media's fault. They were simply reporting what the scientists told them...limerick wrote:They didn't retract, and you are making a rather big thing out of something small. Tim White has never said it is our direct ancestor, all he siad was that it "is the closest we've ever come to that ancestor along our own line", you see he says "closest" not direct.
I fail to see what you are saying.. He said, "Ardi is on our side of the family tree, not the chimpanzee side.'' A "human" descendant.. Are you implying that Tim White was referencing the Neanderthal side? Well he could be one, that is a possibility..limerick wrote:The Neanderthal was also not on the chimpanzee side, but Homo Sapien and the neanderthal both have a common ancestor, really I fail to see your point here.
Not true... Even Kent State University's C. Owen Lovejoy says Ardi shows OUR ancestors were more like us and less like chimps.limerick wrote:ABC and National Geograohic were a bit premature, not much need for a retraction, it's a storm in a teacup basically, as no scientist involved in this project is claiming that Ardi is a direct ancestor. As I explained earlier NG printed their story the day before the official release, and ABC is not a science institution.
Again, we have been over this many times.. You have no evidence and you have no proof. If you do please show it...touchingcloth wrote:Bravo!
We have plenty of evidence, though. Do you understand the difference between proof and evidence, with particular respect to the fact that nothing can be proved outside of the formal sciences (i.e. maths, logic, etc.)?
I've never claimed to have proof. The fact that evolutionary theory has produced theories ahead of time that have gone on to be validated is very strong evidence that the theory is doing something right - it is congruent with the observed facts to the extent of being able to predict unknown things.Gman wrote:Again, we have been over this many times.. You have no evidence and you have no proof. If you do please show it...touchingcloth wrote:Bravo!
We have plenty of evidence, though. Do you understand the difference between proof and evidence, with particular respect to the fact that nothing can be proved outside of the formal sciences (i.e. maths, logic, etc.)?
No scientist would be reckless enough to suggest that a given set of remains of that age is a direct ancestor. A. ramidus could have been born of a parent that also gave birth to an animal that was a direct human ancestor. Without DNA evidence it's too tough to make a call as specific as that.Gman wrote: Ardi is the latest flop and limerick is stating that no scientist involved in this project is claiming that Ardi is a direct ancestor of humans.
Sorry...
Again... What strong evidence?? Where is it ?? I'll take anything...touchingcloth wrote:I've never claimed to have proof. The fact that evolutionary theory has produced theories ahead of time that have gone on to be validated is very strong evidence that the theory is doing something right - it is congruent with the observed facts to the extent of being able to predict unknown things.
Good... That means they have no evidence.. The media is wrong, the assertion is false.... Thank you.touchingcloth wrote:No scientist would be reckless enough to suggest that a given set of remains of that age is a direct ancestor. A. ramidus could have been born of a parent that also gave birth to an animal that was a direct human ancestor. Without DNA evidence it's too tough to make a call as specific as that.
Now we are talking philosophy.. Well sure, it is a "possibly"... It "might" have happened.. It "could" be our ancestor, but nothing is concrete here as you have clearly stated. We have to use our imaginations, which get's back to faith... You have to take it on faith..touchingcloth wrote:What is true, however, is that Ardi is of the right age and shares traits necessary to the kind of creature that had to have existed at some point between A. afarensis and the human-chimp most recent common ancestor. If Ardi was older than that common ancestor, or much more recent that A. afarensis then that would be hard to explain in evolutionary terms, but that is not the case.
It's new so probably won't be in your local library. You'll need to order it. It's worth it. You'll have a much better understanding of why this trend away from pure Darwinian theory in scientific circles, even at the very top, has been gaining significant growth among scientists as of late.touchingcloth wrote:Well I don't have a copy of it to hand, but I will look out for it at my local library at the weekend.ageofknowledge wrote:Absolutely yes! Read the book.
I'd love to hear of any that you know about though.
For one example take what happened when the genomes of humans and the other living apes had been carefully examined; it was found humans have one fewer pair of chromosomes than the apes. In evolutionary terms that demanded that either the other apes had all separately gained an extra chromosome pair, or humans would have a chromosome that was formed out of 2 ape chromosomes. A pretty darn specific prediction, I'm sure you'll agree - and lo and behold it turned out to be correct.Gman wrote:Again... What strong evidence?? Where is it ?? I'll take anything...touchingcloth wrote:I've never claimed to have proof. The fact that evolutionary theory has produced theories ahead of time that have gone on to be validated is very strong evidence that the theory is doing something right - it is congruent with the observed facts to the extent of being able to predict unknown things.
Ardi definitely did happen. If you want to make an assertion that there is a human, living or dead, that can trace it's ancestry to Ardi directly then yes, on the weight of the current evidence that would take faith. That is not my assertion though.Gman wrote:Now we are talking philosophy.. Well sure, it is a "possibly"... It "might" have happened.. It "could" have happened, but nothing is concrete here as you have clearly stated. We have to use our imaginations, which get's back to faith... You have to take it on faith..touchingcloth wrote:What is true, however, is that Ardi is of the right age and shares traits necessary to the kind of creature that had to have existed at some point between A. afarensis and the human-chimp most recent common ancestor. If Ardi was older than that common ancestor, or much more recent that A. afarensis then that would be hard to explain in evolutionary terms, but that is not the case.
Thanks for proving my point once again...
Cool, any examples of predictions made by creationist theory that you can quickly cite so I can go and do some research in the time being?ageofknowledge wrote:It's new so probably won't be in your local library. You'll need to order it. It's worth it. You'll have a much better understanding of why this trend away from pure Darwinian theory in scientific circles, even at the very top, has been gaining significant growth among scientists as of late.touchingcloth wrote:Well I don't have a copy of it to hand, but I will look out for it at my local library at the weekend.ageofknowledge wrote:Absolutely yes! Read the book.
I'd love to hear of any that you know about though.
Not exactly... There are some similarities which also could be explained by a common designer, but there are also differences...touchingcloth wrote:For one example take what happened when the genomes of humans and the other living apes had been carefully examined; it was found humans have one fewer pair of chromosomes than the apes. In evolutionary terms that demanded that either the other apes had all separately gained an extra chromosome pair, or humans would have a chromosome that was formed out of 2 ape chromosomes. A pretty darn specific prediction, I'm sure you'll agree - and lo and behold it turned out to be correct.
Obviously.. The question is does it relate to humans.. Scientists don't really know as you have clearly stated.touchingcloth wrote:Ardi definitely did happen.
Again, no one is denying that there were pre-historic animals before humans. Even the Bible states that in the timeframe... The question is did these pre-historic animals evolve into humans. That is where you have to take it on faith..touchingcloth wrote:If you want to make an assertion that there is a human, living or dead, that can trace it's ancestry to Ardi directly then yes, on the weight of the current evidence that would take faith. That is not my assertion though.
The timeframe of and characteristics of A. ramidus make sense in terms of (or rather don't contradict) the theory of evolution in general, and the supposed lineage between A. afarensis and earlier human ancestors in particular. Could other theories be proposed that are congruent with what we know so far about Ardi? Without question. Are there any theories that could have predicted the characteristics of a creature of Ardi's age as well as the theory of evolution? Well, none that I know of.
I mean speciation (e.g. the evolutionary process by which new biological species arise). red and green algae into dinosaurs... whales into humans... etc...touchingcloth wrote:Cool, any examples of predictions made by creationist theory that you can quickly cite so I can go and do some research in the time being?ageofknowledge wrote:It's new so probably won't be in your local library. You'll need to order it. It's worth it. You'll have a much better understanding of why this trend away from pure Darwinian theory in scientific circles, even at the very top, has been gaining significant growth among scientists as of late.touchingcloth wrote:Well I don't have a copy of it to hand, but I will look out for it at my local library at the weekend.ageofknowledge wrote:Absolutely yes! Read the book.
I'd love to hear of any that you know about though.
What do you mean when you say "pure" Darwinian theory? Who are the scientists that are moving away, and what are they tending to move towards (if anything)?
Age, since I'm a Ross fan I just put an order in myself... Thanks for the insight..ageofknowledge wrote: Scientists across scientific disciplines are criticizing evolutionary theory as never before. The more prominent among them are publishing books and journal articles. I've already given you a very good resource to begin with. Why don't you just go buy it tomorrow.