mammoths, sure. they died out fairly recently, in geologic terms. never heard of a dinosaur cave painting, however. regardless, why aren't mammoths & dinosaur fossils found side by side? they were at one time quite common and widely distributed, yet somehow they never crossed paths? or take any other pair of once common extinct species, that paleontologists assign to different geological eras. why are the fossils never mixed together, if they coexisted? besides evolution, the only answer i'm aware of is the creationist explanation that Noah's flood produced the fossil record.
Lemme try to help you out a bit here, astounding. Lets start with "theory" - in your mind, the word equates roughly to "guess". That's your first problem; in science, a theory is anything but a guess. A scientific theory is a rigorously tested-and-confirmed, multiply independently and reproducibly verifies statement of a relationship between or among phenomonologicalvariables as determined through observation and/or calculation. A scientific theory is testable, verifiable through factual observation of both forward and regressive predictive accuracy - the correlation of observed results with expected results. For example, the theory of gravity is well enough understood as to permit humankind to develop and deploy the technology required to place articles of human manufacture not only into earth orbit, but to intercept the minor satellites of the furthest planets in our solar system, and indeed even to exit our solar system and enter the reaches of interstellar space. Nobody ever has seen gravity, all we know of gravity is what we have been able to conclude through observation of its effect. The same is true of electromagnetism, and the same is true of evolution - though for evolution there also is enormous cross-corroborating hard evidence - fossils, biology, physiology, archaeology, paleontology, geology ... all in agreement, all cross-corroborating, each confirming and expanding the other - not merely mathematical calculations developed through observation of effect. Evolution is a concretely founded, incontravertible, academically sound scientific finding, fully consistent with observation, subject to no contraindication, and accumulating more and more evidence, greater and greater detail, day by day. That is science.
ID-iocy is not science, does not conform to scientific principles, does not, has not, and cannot propose, conduct, or confirm a single test, and proceeds from an undemonstrated, illicit premise, that faulty premise being the necessity and existence of some directing, causal entity - a designer. No evidence for any such thing, entity, condition, or state of being ever has been produced ... ever. Not in a dozen millenia of effort to that end. None. Zip. Nada. Ninguno. Zilch. As in ain't none. Not one ounce of it. On the other hand, in barely more than a dozen decades, literally millions of pounds of evidence of evolution has been found, identified, catalogued, preserved, studied, and stored.
There may or may not be a God or gods, we simply have no evidence by which to reach a conclusion one way or the other. However, the available evidence permits no conclusion other than that, for whatever ultimate reason, if any, evolution is how life works. Science does not say "There is no God", science says nothing about God or gods pro or con, science does not concern itself with a God or gods, science says neither more nor less than "This is how things are, according to the best available evidence". Some religionists none the less feel it necessary to perpetrate and perpetuate the lie that science attacks God or the gods. No God or gods worthy of the name is in any way addressed, let alone threatened by, science. Only ignorance and uncertain faith permit any such thing as a perception of science as threat to God or gods.
Now, if you wish to undertake a purely logical excercize, demonstrate objectively and in forensically sound, academically valid manner that religious faith be differentiable from superstition.
David Quammen (National Geographic Magazine) on evolution as a theory:
astounding wrote:I simply want to know why you argue so fully, so whole heartedly for a theory?
Overwhelming scientifically demonstrable evidence.
That and no other scientific theory even comes close to fitting this evidence. Please suggest another scientific theory that fits this evidence as well.
astounding wrote:thats right, because these said creatures from so long ago decided to change one day, figuring I suppose, that a hairless body, or a larger brain would benefit them correct? (emphasis added)
You make stupid statements like that, and expect anyone to engage you in serious discussion? Your "sarcasm" is just sour grapes against something which you obviously know little of, and are unwilling to make the effort to understand, given your ideological prejudices. A theory is a series of statements about reality subject to testing, falsification, replication and prediction. If it fails any test, it is modified to provide a more accurate description.
Religion, the bee in your bonnet whether or not you admit it, has a scriptural canon which never changes, which is not questioned, and which, failing to describe the world accurately as it so frequently does, induces delusional resentments in any adherent with sufficient sense to find his or her ass without a wall chart.
Hinge is correct, this **** doesn't belong in Science and Mathematics--it should be hauled off to Spirituality and Religion and dumped with all the other tripe on this subject we get from the resentful and the ignorant among the religious fanatics.
Quote:parados, now...
what variations?
Do you look exactly like everyone else in your family? Are you the same height? Do you all run the same speed? Are you all the same intelligence? Do you all ask stupid questions about what variations exist within a species? Step outside and look at trees or grass or anything else. Every species has variations in size, shape, and color. Once you can recognize the visible variations then we can start to look at the ones that aren't visible.
Quote:take the skeletal remains of the three foot human found on a remote part of indonesia. now, because of one dwarf skeletal remains, you expect the non believers of your theoritical idea of evolution to assume humans can change to these 3 footers? the island where the remains was found was small, mammals grew smaller to create a more comfortable environement because of the lack of food, reptiles grew larger to tackle the smaller mammals, in sense they become the dominant force, and humans, being mammals grow smaller to accomodate for the lack of food and cramped living as well. here is the problem I have....where is the 4'7 human? the gaps in between are not filled. wouldn't it be gradual if evolution was correct? now surely not ALL the remains of every specimen could be found, but what about some of them? surely there would have been thousands of these elephants that gradually went from 16 ft tall to 4 ft tall. why are only the skeletal remains of the shortest and tallest found? are there no in between species?
There are in between species. The question is why don't we find them. The answers are numerous. How do you tell the difference between a 4' high baby elephant and a 4' high full grown elephant if you only have a couple of bones? Most animals and plants that die do not make it into the fossil record. They decay or are eaten by other animals. It is extremely rare to find complete skeletons. Usually it is a few bones. Go look around you at humans. You will find full grown humans that are under 5'. How do you tell if you find the single skeleton of a human that is 4' 5" if it is just an abberation or a transitional form? You are arguing that those forms come with signs declaring what they are. They don't.
Quote:and my last point....the one about the algae was an example. Supposing evolution is true one of the earliest forms of life would be in the form of algae. how did it come to the conclusion to change to a fish? did anyone grasp the sarcasm in the story I posted on the first page?
It didn't come to any conclusion. You haven't even shown that fish came from algae. It may have come from a common ancestor. Single cells creatures move. You do know that, don't you?
Quote:I want you to prove to be your theory, otherwise it is simply that to me....an uneducated example of mans explanation of how we came about.
What the heck is this statement supposed to mean? You want me to prove to be my theory?
I tend to think I am fairly well educated but your statement makes no sense. Go look up the meaning of scientific theory. Others have told you to do the same thing. Lacking understanding of the word, it is you that is uneducated.
Quote:The only thing that is self defeating is your belief in this nonsense. if there was no way of communicating between algae, how did they decide to become ....a rose, or lilly, or tree, or even a mammal or reptile? that was what my "ranting of illusion, delusion, and God" was about.
Why did a rock decide to become a rock? Or why did an iron atom decide to become an iron atom? Your question makes no sense. There was no decision. There was a never ending response to stimuli over a long period of time, billions of years.
Quote:believe me I do understand that alot of you cannot argue a point without namecalling, or trying to tell me what religion I am, or if I believe in a God at all. I simply want to know why you argue so fully, so whole heartedly for a theory?
When did I call you a name? When did I tell you what religion you were? When did I even imply you believe in God. I said your argument was a rant. It made no sense. That is not name calling. It certainly isn't implying you are any religion and nowhere does it say you believe in God.
dancing around the flame so to speak, by still not presenting to me any hard factual evidence, other than stating that obvious evoltuionary ...theories. Nothing anyone has said is a proven fact that can sway me from thinking that the evolutionary theory is no more than that. Everyone has presented nothing but thier thoughts, or others thoughts on how certain beings or species were created. I meant that when I said everyone was dancing around the flame.
Let me state where I stand as of now, since I have yet to do so and apparently I am confusing people as to why I think the way I do.
Evolution to me, seems to present more questions than answers. And usually, with the topics of Atomic Theory, or any of the aforementioned theroies actually answer questions. All but one...Evolutionary Theories. Assuming that I have no religious affiliation and only minumun knowledge of both the creationism view and evolutionary views, what should make me sway towards the evolution sideline compared to the creationism. Do not priests of catholicism do exorcims? (I know I pose alot of questions on different topics, but I consider all my questions linked, I'm sorry if anyone cannot relate but please try to) So since the beginning of catholicism or christians around a thousand years ago, all of their exorcisms and such...how do they so firmly believe in these ideas? Would not proven evolutionary theories void any such thought processes? Would not proven scientific fact relate? Maybe I should be posting in the religous topics, however I want hard, proven scientific evidence and mere religious concepts do not suffice for me, which is why I'm posting in the science and mathematics forums.
I think there are only two ways that modern man could have come about...evolution or creationism. I have alot of friends who try to tell me thier religious beliefs, and alot of them kind of make sense, if you believe in a supernatural being. But what if you don't, and the evoltion theory has too many holes in it to persuade me to jump on the bandwagon? Simply put, prove to me hard, non-conflicting evolutionary FACTS that cannot be disputed. Every idea presented so far has perhaps what some would consider a fact to support it, however all of these ideas such as distribution of species across a continent, can also be explained with creationists ideas. It was stated earlier that evolution was here to stay, but until it is common understanding that this is the way man came to be, creationism will be here to stay as well. Either disprove completly the creationists views, or prove your theory of evolution. Other wise there will always be people like me that will never be swayed to believe in this THEORY.
astounding wrote:ah hinge thank you finally a brilliant remark. very nice. I wish no harm on anyone here, I know what evolution is, but nobody seems to understand what I'm saying. how does one know the monkeys of yesteryear are different from today? If fossil finds are you proof then why not assume a certain species of monkey died off, and the now adays monkeys are all that remains.
If present day monkeys existed then in the same numbers as today then we would have found some evidence of them. The easiest fossils to identify are ones where you can compare to a complete skeleton. Because we have found no such fossils or even partial bones it would be strong evidence of either a very small isolated population back then or non existence. Why would the population be isolated? Monkeys live in a rather large area today. Why would it have been different millions of years ago? If nothing evolved but all creatures existed at the same time and some species died off, why can't we find evidence of present day creatures in the fossil record? There are so many species that cover the globe it would be impossible to not find them as fossils.
Quote: And if a human did "transform" or "evolve" from a 5'9 specimen to a 3' tall specimen I did not mean that that they would be a whole different species, please stop with the minor mistakes I make, and answer the questions I pose.
Except your mistakes aren't minor. They are glaringly ignorant at the same time you are overly arrogant. A combination that creates the responses you are getting.
Quote: okay, so a 4'7 man is not a different species than a 3 foot tall man, who cares. My point was that if evolution is correct, would not that change from 5'9 to 3' take place over millions of years, and in the process wouldn't there be, oh I dunno, 400 thousand years of man being an average height of 4'7? where are these skeletal remains? I'm not asking for you to correct my anthropologic terms that I undoubtable screw up.
already answered. Please don't ignore the answer.
Quote: However, you still present no facts. "GO READ THE THEORY OF EVOLUTION" "4'7 IS NOT A DIFFERENT SPECIES", .....facts people facts, quit dancing around the flame. Eorl, ....facts? if there are so many facts supporting evolution why after all these decades, and over the course of more than a century is it still a theory?
Go look up the meaning of "theory" before you make this statement. Theory is the EXACT thing it should be with decades of supporting evidence. It is what theory means in science.
Quote: the distribution is consistent with their evolutionary history?? thats insane, if anything history supports the complete opposite.
How so? You demand evidence from other but make a statement with no supporting evidence.
Quote: ....do not get upset, I'm not dogging you or trying to put you down as you seem to enjoy doing because you cannot prove a point, I'm just saying here man, how am I the one believeing an uproven fact? such as the earth is flat. how can you sway the people who do believe in a diety that evolution is not a theory? you're telling them and I that all our organs, and senses were created just right over time to fit into this exact moment?
A silly argument. Was a rock created for the express purpose of bashing someone's brains in because it is used for that purpose? You presuppose the purpose was the reason for the creation as opposed to the creation fit a purpose. Why do humans have a gall bladder when we can live just fine without it? Many things evolve that don't interfer but don't have express purposes at the time it evolves. If it interfers then the evolutionary add on won't survive for the very simple reason that creatures with that add on won't survive. If it evolves and DOES have a purpose that supports survival then it will be passed on.
Quote: why I guess if thats correct we wont have to worry about global warming right? people will naturally, through the course of evolution, change to develop thinner skin, or less body hair, or even larger spores right? so why are there people who worry about global change when evolution will run its course and all will be taken care of? right?
Evolution guarantees life will continue to exist. It doesn't gaurantee a given species will continue to exist. Humans are a species. Species have died out from catastrophic events in the past. You don't see any dinosaurs roaming the planet, do you? Your lack of worry shows why species die out. They are unable to cope with a changing environment.
What are these holes in evolution? What's your definition of a "hole?" You're as much in denial as the alcoholic who can't come to grips with the fact (not a fiction) that he has a problem with drinking. You either know that science has come up with overwhelming evidence to support evolution or you believe by a leap-of-faith that, entirely unsupported, the book of Genesis has the facts right. Your meager attempt to try and convince yourself by chatting on a public board instead of actually studying evolutionary science is another example of that bird in Australia. It's impossible to even outline all the scientific facts that support evolution. You need to read, go take some classes and stop getting an education from your friends or anybody on this board.
Start here:
http://nationalacademies.org/evolution/?referrer=google
You obviously can't write very well, so I'm wondering if you can really read that well, but here's a specific link:
http://darwin.nap.edu/books/0309064066/html/
astounding wrote:dancing around the flame so to speak, by still not presenting to me any hard factual evidence, other than stating that obvious evoltuionary ...theories. Nothing anyone has said is a proven fact that can sway me from thinking that the evolutionary theory is no more than that. Everyone has presented nothing but thier thoughts, or others thoughts on how certain beings or species were created. I meant that when I said everyone was dancing around the flame.
The ignorant can only decide to learn. They can't be forced. Build your fire and stare into it. Don't look away.
Some simple facts. Evolution exists because we have observed a species become a new species unable to breed with other descendents of that original species. (google fruit flies and species) There is no question about this. It has been duplicated. This was over a 20 year period. Now consider that the number of organisms in that experiment was about 1/10,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000 of organisms alive in that 20 year period. Now multiply the number of organisms by the length of time the earth has existed. Tell me your answer and how many new species would have been created in that time period.
Quote:Let me state where I stand as of now, since I have yet to do so and apparently I am confusing people as to why I think the way I do.
Evolution to me, seems to present more questions than answers.
That is what science does.
Quote: And usually, with the topics of Atomic Theory, or any of the aforementioned theroies actually answer questions.
Really? So after Newton discovered gravity there were no more questions about it? Your argument is again from ignorance. Answers almost always raise more questions. There is a reason for the few "laws" in science. It is rare to get the entire answer. There are always more questions.
Quote: All but one...Evolutionary Theories.
Then perhaps you can explain how string theory fits into gravitational theory since all the answers are already there. I am sure several physicists would be very grateful for your explanation.
Do the math above and provide the answer to yourself.
It's like the streaker at the Oscar show where David Nevin quipped his marvelous ad-lib, paraphrased:
Just think -- probably the only laugh that man will ever get is for posting drivel about evolution on a public forum and showing his shortcomings.
I visit this website often, I get a kick out of it, but never have I had to post...so as my first post I'd like to say this
WTF?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!
Quote:Either disprove completly the creationists views, or prove your theory of evolution.
The "creationist view" is an appeal to supernaturlism (poofism, more accurately)--it is an extraordinary claim, therefore, and can be dismissed absent proof. No one is obliged to disprove it.
Quote:Other wise there will always be people like me that will never be swayed to believe in this THEORY.
You harp again upon theory, demonstrating again your failure to understand the word, especially in the context of science. Your poofism, your creationism, does not even rise to dignity of a theory, and rests in the lees of knowledge with fairy stories and tales to frighten children. You can be assured the the fact that people like you are not "swayed" to believe in scientific data and the theorems advanced in explanation is a matter of indifference to those who make a sincere effort to understand, and who arm themselves with the knowledge necessary to do so.
I cordially invite you to wallow in your willfully self-delusional poofism, and point out once again that this thread has no place in the Science and Mathematics forum.
creationism does not rise to the level of evolution? are you aware that billions of people across the glove dismiss the idea of evolution because of their creationist views? As you may be aware of, when that many people across the world believe in such ideas they cannot utterly be dismissed. Of course I'm sure you realized that, being the great mind that you appear to be.
galaxy wrote:I visit this website often, I get a kick out of it, but never have I had to post...so as my first post I'd like to say this
WTF?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!
Welcome galaxy...
Keep up the humor and post often. :wink:
You haven't been dismissed, just sent to the corner with a dunce cap.
galaxy wrote:creationism does not rise to the level of evolution? are you aware that billions of people across the glove dismiss the idea of evolution because of their creationist views? As you may be aware of, when that many people across the world believe in such ideas they cannot utterly be dismissed. Of course I'm sure you realized that, being the great mind that you appear to be.
The people can't be dismissed. The idea however can be.
Many people believed the world was flat. Some forward thinkers dismissed the idea based on science. Who was proven right?
Many people believed the sun revolved around the earth. Some forward thinkers figured out the earth revolved around the sun based on science. Who was proven right?
When science is properly applied it wins out in every case.
Already you have gone away from humor. Too bad.
