Yesterday's Evolution was Wrong

[GoPackGo]

Originally posted by: dmcowen674

Originally posted by: Hacp
Evolution is wrong! The earth was created in 6 days, and its only 6 thousand years old.

Don't forget it is flat too.

In comparison to what? The universe? Then yes it is.

 

[GoPackGo]

Originally posted by: jpeyton

Originally posted by: GoPackGo

Originally posted by: jpeyton
What evolutionary theory does the OP subscribe to?

Earth is one big alien zoo

And the zoo-keeper is JC and the family?

who knows?

 

[dmcowen674]

Originally posted by: GoPackGo

Originally posted by: dmcowen674

Originally posted by: GoPackGo
Link

New findings have thrown a kink into the evolutionary fairytale.

Despite that the scientists expect you to still believe in it.

Do you believe the Kentucky version of Jesus riding a Dinosaur like a horse?

Jesus on a Dinosaur ?

My bad, I was going from memory, it was Adam & Eve and Noah hanging out with the dinosaurs:

8-8-2007 Kentucky Museum shows dinosaurs co-existing with Adam and Eve in the Garden of Eden and also riding aboard Noah?s Ark.

Creationists have an absolute trust in the science they interpret from the Bible, even though through history, Biblical interpretations on things like the shape of the Earth (flat) and it?s position in our solar system (the center) have been proven wrong.

 

[Screech]

I rarely post here, but the OP has shown such a complete lack of understanding of the theory of (human) evolution that I feel inclined to point out a few niceties....

The "stright-line" theory of human evolution, where 1 species evolved directly into another, which then died out and evolved directly into another, is, indeed, a fairy tale. We have known for years that multiple species of the homo genus have existed within the same time period. There are some areas in Africa where fossils of multiple species have been found around lakes and so forth.

This does not disprove the case for human evolution from primates; it actually strengthens it. A common ancestor to modern homo sapiens would not have evolved only and directly into, say, homo habilis; there are many other branches that, at the time, may have possessed traits that gave these other species some kind of advantage in its specialized climate or environment. As an example, even a very introductory course to human evolution should explain that homo was not the only genus descended from Australopithecus; there was also the Paranthropus genus, which included P. Robustus. Does this disprove human evolution, or evolution in general? Absolutely not. P. Robustus had enormous, powerful jawbones and jaw muscles, which would give it a rather obvious advantage in an environment where its diet consisted of many kinds of seeds/nuts that needed to be cracked open. However, P. Robustus had a much smaller brain than other species, which would eventually be a distinct disadvantage.

Another example: according to 'straight-line' evolution, we would have descended from the neanderthals, but this is quite clearly incorrect, given the numerous anatomical differences between homo sapiens and homo neanderthalensis (the large bulge at the back of the head, the large brow ridge, the larger brain case (largest of all homonid species)), which make it clear that instead of evolving directly from neanderthals, homo sapiens have a common ancestor with them (likely homo antecessor or heidelbergnsies). Neanderthals and homo sapiens both existed in Europe at the same time period, but this quite obviously does not disprove evolution. The Neanderthal had a shorter stature than homo sapiens and could therefore survive better in colder climates, ie, especially during an ice age. Homo sapiens, on the other hand, are taller and better suited to 'modern' temperatures.

 

[GoPackGo]

Originally posted by: screech
I rarely post here, but the OP has shown such a complete lack of understanding of the theory of (human) evolution that I feel inclined to point out a few niceties....

The "stright-line" theory of human evolution, where 1 species evolved directly into another, which then died out and evolved directly into another, is, indeed, a fairy tale. We have known for years that multiple species of the homo genus have existed within the same time period. There are some areas in Africa where fossils of multiple species have been found around lakes and so forth.

This does not disprove the case for human evolution from primates; it actually strengthens it. A common ancestor to modern homo sapiens would not have evolved only and directly into, say, homo habilis; there are many other branches that, at the time, may have possessed traits that gave these other species some kind of advantage in its specialized climate or environment. As an example, even a very introductory course to human evolution should explain that homo was not the only genus descended from Australopithecus; there was also the Paranthropus genus, which included P. Robustus. Does this disprove human evolution, or evolution in general? Absolutely not. P. Robustus had enormous, powerful jawbones and jaw muscles, which would give it a rather obvious advantage in an environment where its diet consisted of many kinds of seeds/nuts that needed to be cracked open. However, P. Robustus had a much smaller brain than other species, which would eventually be a distinct disadvantage.

Another example: according to 'straight-line' evolution, we would have descended from the neanderthals, but this is quite clearly incorrect, given the numerous anatomical differences between homo sapiens and homo neanderthalensis (the large bulge at the back of the head, the large brow ridge, the larger brain case (largest of all homonid species)), which make it clear that instead of evolving directly from neanderthals, homo sapiens have a common ancestor with them (likely homo antecessor or heidelbergnsies). Neanderthals and homo sapiens both existed in Europe at the same time period, but this quite obviously does not disprove evolution. The Neanderthal had a shorter stature than homo sapiens and could therefore survive better in colder climates, ie, especially during an ice age. Homo sapiens, on the other hand, are taller and better suited to 'modern' temperatures.

So what you are saying is they make it up as they go along . . .

Super!

 

[JEDIYoda]

Originally posted by: ericlp
The force is strong with this one....

yeah,,,,stubborn too....

 

[JEDIYoda]

Originally posted by: dmcowen674

Originally posted by: GoPackGo

Originally posted by: dmcowen674

Originally posted by: GoPackGo
Link

New findings have thrown a kink into the evolutionary fairytale.

Despite that the scientists expect you to still believe in it.

Do you believe the Kentucky version of Jesus riding a Dinosaur like a horse?

Jesus on a Dinosaur ?

My bad, I was going from memory, it was Adam & Eve and Noah hanging out with the dinosaurs:

8-8-2007 Kentucky Museum shows dinosaurs co-existing with Adam and Eve in the Garden of Eden and also riding aboard Noah?s Ark.

Creationists have an absolute trust in the science they interpret from the Bible, even though through history, Biblical interpretations on things like the shape of the Earth (flat) and it?s position in our solar system (the center) have been proven wrong.

you think??

hmmm...nogocy said blieveing in Gad or for that matter having faith would be easy....
So your a Bible scholar now too huh??

 

[JEDIYoda]

Originally posted by: GoPackGo

Originally posted by: screech
I rarely post here, but the OP has shown such a complete lack of understanding of the theory of (human) evolution that I feel inclined to point out a few niceties....

The "stright-line" theory of human evolution, where 1 species evolved directly into another, which then died out and evolved directly into another, is, indeed, a fairy tale. We have known for years that multiple species of the homo genus have existed within the same time period. There are some areas in Africa where fossils of multiple species have been found around lakes and so forth.

This does not disprove the case for human evolution from primates; it actually strengthens it. A common ancestor to modern homo sapiens would not have evolved only and directly into, say, homo habilis; there are many other branches that, at the time, may have possessed traits that gave these other species some kind of advantage in its specialized climate or environment. As an example, even a very introductory course to human evolution should explain that homo was not the only genus descended from Australopithecus; there was also the Paranthropus genus, which included P. Robustus. Does this disprove human evolution, or evolution in general? Absolutely not. P. Robustus had enormous, powerful jawbones and jaw muscles, which would give it a rather obvious advantage in an environment where its diet consisted of many kinds of seeds/nuts that needed to be cracked open. However, P. Robustus had a much smaller brain than other species, which would eventually be a distinct disadvantage.

Another example: according to 'straight-line' evolution, we would have descended from the neanderthals, but this is quite clearly incorrect, given the numerous anatomical differences between homo sapiens and homo neanderthalensis (the large bulge at the back of the head, the large brow ridge, the larger brain case (largest of all homonid species)), which make it clear that instead of evolving directly from neanderthals, homo sapiens have a common ancestor with them (likely homo antecessor or heidelbergnsies). Neanderthals and homo sapiens both existed in Europe at the same time period, but this quite obviously does not disprove evolution. The Neanderthal had a shorter stature than homo sapiens and could therefore survive better in colder climates, ie, especially during an ice age. Homo sapiens, on the other hand, are taller and better suited to 'modern' temperatures.

So what you are saying is they make it up as they go along . . .

Super!

Now we get to the cruz of the OP`s post....
He cannot logically defend his assertion so he stoops to little sayings rathet than discuss the issue...hmmm

 

[Moonbeam]

What we have here is new news on the story of human evolution showing we didn't evolve like we previously thought we did. We evolved in some other way. But we evolved none the less. The theory still stands. The particulars of our own evolution need to be modified in some minor detail.

Science does not expect you to believe in the old disproved particulars. That's why science is science. It changes what it believes based on evidence.

The literalistic Fundy says the Bible is always the same and always right because it says it is.

 

[Screech]

Originally posted by: GoPackGo

Originally posted by: screech
I rarely post here, but the OP has shown such a complete lack of understanding of the theory of (human) evolution that I feel inclined to point out a few niceties....

The "stright-line" theory of human evolution, where 1 species evolved directly into another, which then died out and evolved directly into another, is, indeed, a fairy tale. We have known for years that multiple species of the homo genus have existed within the same time period. There are some areas in Africa where fossils of multiple species have been found around lakes and so forth.

This does not disprove the case for human evolution from primates; it actually strengthens it. A common ancestor to modern homo sapiens would not have evolved only and directly into, say, homo habilis; there are many other branches that, at the time, may have possessed traits that gave these other species some kind of advantage in its specialized climate or environment. As an example, even a very introductory course to human evolution should explain that homo was not the only genus descended from Australopithecus; there was also the Paranthropus genus, which included P. Robustus. Does this disprove human evolution, or evolution in general? Absolutely not. P. Robustus had enormous, powerful jawbones and jaw muscles, which would give it a rather obvious advantage in an environment where its diet consisted of many kinds of seeds/nuts that needed to be cracked open. However, P. Robustus had a much smaller brain than other species, which would eventually be a distinct disadvantage.

Another example: according to 'straight-line' evolution, we would have descended from the neanderthals, but this is quite clearly incorrect, given the numerous anatomical differences between homo sapiens and homo neanderthalensis (the large bulge at the back of the head, the large brow ridge, the larger brain case (largest of all homonid species)), which make it clear that instead of evolving directly from neanderthals, homo sapiens have a common ancestor with them (likely homo antecessor or heidelbergnsies). Neanderthals and homo sapiens both existed in Europe at the same time period, but this quite obviously does not disprove evolution. The Neanderthal had a shorter stature than homo sapiens and could therefore survive better in colder climates, ie, especially during an ice age. Homo sapiens, on the other hand, are taller and better suited to 'modern' temperatures.

So what you are saying is they make it up as they go along . . .

Super!

I'll respond to this by directing you to Moonbeam's post:

What we have here is new news on the story of human evolution showing we didn't evolve like we previously thought we did. We evolved in some other way. But we evolved none the less. The theory still stands. The particulars of our own evolution need to be modified in some minor detail.

Science does not expect you to believe in the old disproved particulars. That's why science is science. It changes what it believes based on evidence.

 

[dmcowen674]

Originally posted by: JEDIYoda

Originally posted by: dmcowen674

Originally posted by: GoPackGo

Originally posted by: dmcowen674

Originally posted by: GoPackGo
Link

New findings have thrown a kink into the evolutionary fairytale.

Despite that the scientists expect you to still believe in it.

Do you believe the Kentucky version of Jesus riding a Dinosaur like a horse?

Jesus on a Dinosaur ?

My bad, I was going from memory, it was Adam & Eve and Noah hanging out with the dinosaurs:

8-8-2007 Kentucky Museum shows dinosaurs co-existing with Adam and Eve in the Garden of Eden and also riding aboard Noah?s Ark.

Creationists have an absolute trust in the science they interpret from the Bible, even though through history, Biblical interpretations on things like the shape of the Earth (flat) and it?s position in our solar system (the center) have been proven wrong.

you think??

hmmm...nogocy said blieveing in Gad or for that matter having faith would be easy....

So your a Bible scholar now too huh??

Apparently so.

I used to teach Sunday Bible School back in New York.

It's pretty clear my teachings are required again as so many have strayed from the truth.

I never taught Adam and Eve eating side by side with dinosaurs like they were pets.

 

[jackschmittusa]

The OP's assertion seems to be that finding new evidence that leads to refining scientific thought somehow invalidates science.

IMHO, this represents a complete lack of understanding of science and the scientific method, and therefore, precludes him from any serious consideration in even the most mundane discourse on the subject.

 

[WHAMPOM]

Originally posted by: GoPackGo
Link

New findings have thrown a kink into the evolutionary fairytale.

Despite that the scientists expect you to still believe in it.

One did not evolve from the other, but were coexisting species. Big hoo-ha! Now go and check the monkey in the mirror. Modern apes and man evolved from a common ancestor, not from each other. Is that news too?

 

[blackllotus]

Originally posted by: GoPackGo
Since science has but only the smallest picture of the past, there is a huge requirement that you have to believe them.

Not really. The fossil record shows a fairly clear progression from early life forms to modern life forms and is actually strongest, or close to strongest, in the area of human evolution. The fact that we don't know every stage of human evolution does not invalidate the theory as a whole.

 

[dmcowen674]

Originally posted by: jackschmittusa
The OP's assertion seems to be that finding new evidence that leads to refining scientific thought somehow invalidates science.

IMHO, this represents a complete lack of understanding of science and the scientific method, and therefore, precludes him from any serious consideration in even the most mundane discourse on the subject.

:laugh: :thumbsup:

Too bad that can't be extended to voting.

 

[jonks]

Originally posted by: screech
I rarely post here, but the OP has shown such a complete lack of understanding of the theory of (human) evolution that I feel inclined to point out a few niceties....

The "stright-line" theory of human evolution, where 1 species evolved directly into another, which then died out and evolved directly into another, is, indeed, a fairy tale. We have known for years that multiple species of the homo genus have existed within the same time period. There are some areas in Africa where fossils of multiple species have been found around lakes and so forth.

This does not disprove the case for human evolution from primates; it actually strengthens it. A common ancestor to modern homo sapiens would not have evolved only and directly into, say, homo habilis; there are many other branches that, at the time, may have possessed traits that gave these other species some kind of advantage in its specialized climate or environment. As an example, even a very introductory course to human evolution should explain that homo was not the only genus descended from Australopithecus; there was also the Paranthropus genus, which included P. Robustus. Does this disprove human evolution, or evolution in general? Absolutely not. P. Robustus had enormous, powerful jawbones and jaw muscles, which would give it a rather obvious advantage in an environment where its diet consisted of many kinds of seeds/nuts that needed to be cracked open. However, P. Robustus had a much smaller brain than other species, which would eventually be a distinct disadvantage.

Another example: according to 'straight-line' evolution, we would have descended from the neanderthals, but this is quite clearly incorrect, given the numerous anatomical differences between homo sapiens and homo neanderthalensis (the large bulge at the back of the head, the large brow ridge, the larger brain case (largest of all homonid species)), which make it clear that instead of evolving directly from neanderthals, homo sapiens have a common ancestor with them (likely homo antecessor or heidelbergnsies). Neanderthals and homo sapiens both existed in Europe at the same time period, but this quite obviously does not disprove evolution. The Neanderthal had a shorter stature than homo sapiens and could therefore survive better in colder climates, ie, especially during an ice age. Homo sapiens, on the other hand, are taller and better suited to 'modern' temperatures.

This appears to be a logical and scientifically accurate post and as such has no place on this board This might be the 4th evolution thread I've seen in the past few months and not one of the fundies has crossed the aisle, nor do I expect them to. You can't bring logic and science into a battle where the opposition isn't using any. This apparently makes us elitists.

Somehow even the pope has figured out that acknowledging evolution and believing in god are not incompatible, but the remainder of his flock don't seem to have gotten the memo.

 

[JohnOfSheffield]

Originally posted by: GoPackGo
Link

New findings have thrown a kink into the evolutionary fairytale.

Despite that the scientists expect you to still believe in it.

Do you know what happens when a scientific theory is disproven, it changes to fist the new evidence.

It doesn't have the goals set and dismisses everything that doesn't fit the goeals like creationism or ID, it's science.

So you failed with your flame bait, and you should get banned for it like others have been.

 

[JohnOfSheffield]

I've just read through the article and i retract my previous statement.

This is just horseshit.

Stupid as can be will surely run with this horseshit and think it's the next coming.

But in the end, it's just horseshit.

 

[Darwin333]

Originally posted by: sirjonk

Somehow even the pope has figured out that acknowledging evolution and believing in god are not incompatible, but the remainder of his flock don't seem to have gotten the memo.

God will get around to telling them as soon as he is darn well ready!

 

[GoPackGo]

Originally posted by: Moonbeam
What we have here is new news on the story of human evolution showing we didn't evolve like we previously thought we did. We evolved in some other way. But we evolved none the less. The theory still stands. The particulars of our own evolution need to be modified in some minor detail.

Science does not expect you to believe in the old disproved particulars. That's why science is science. It changes what it believes based on evidence.

The literalistic Fundy says the Bible is always the same and always right because it says it is.

Its not a minor detail...its a major detail...

 

[JohnOfSheffield]

Originally posted by: Darwin333

Originally posted by: sirjonk

Somehow even the pope has figured out that acknowledging evolution and believing in god are not incompatible, but the remainder of his flock don't seem to have gotten the memo.

God will get around to telling them as soon as he is darn well ready!

You posted an entire thead based on what you knew is flame bait, then you fan the flames with your responses?

Not that i don't appreciate your effort though.

 

[GoPackGo]

Originally posted by: dmcowen674

Originally posted by: jackschmittusa
The OP's assertion seems to be that finding new evidence that leads to refining scientific thought somehow invalidates science.

IMHO, this represents a complete lack of understanding of science and the scientific method, and therefore, precludes him from any serious consideration in even the most mundane discourse on the subject.

:laugh: :thumbsup:

Too bad that can't be extended to voting.

It doesn't invalidate science...it just proves scientists and their followers are bunch of pompous asses.

 

[GoPackGo]

Originally posted by: JohnOfSheffield
I've just read through the article and i retract my previous statement.

This is just horseshit.

Stupid as can be will surely run with this horseshit and think it's the next coming.

But in the end, it's just horseshit.

To me the evolution drama reminds me of eggs and butter.

One minute "scientists" tell you that they are the worst thing on earth for you...then they say they aren't so bad. Then we find that due to transfats butter is actually better for you than margarine.

There are so many studies and each one seems to have a different result depending on their test group / test methods....

Science is not pure and wholesome and its definately not infallable.

Thats really the point I am trying to make.

 

[DangerAardvark]

"Surprising fossils dug up in Africa are creating messy kinks in the iconic straight line of human evolution with its knuckle-dragging ape and briefcase-carrying man."

This is the problem. People who understand nothing about Evolution try to produce meaningful commentary on it.

Read a fuckin' book.

 

[GoPackGo]

Originally posted by: DangerAardvark
"Surprising fossils dug up in Africa are creating messy kinks in the iconic straight line of human evolution with its knuckle-dragging ape and briefcase-carrying man."

This is the problem. People who understand nothing about Evolution try to produce meaningful commentary on it.

Read a fuckin' book.

So if it was published in a book you would be more apt to believe it?