Evolution - Spin Off from the School Vouchers Thread - Page 4
+ Reply to Thread
Page 4 of 16 FirstFirst 1234567814 ... LastLast
Results 31 to 40 of 152
Like Tree11Likes

Thread: Evolution - Spin Off from the School Vouchers Thread

  1. #31
    Community Host Alissa_Sal's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2006
    Location
    Debating Away on the Debate Board!
    Posts
    11,771

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by GloriaInTX View Post
    Don't see any proof there, just an article about how there are some similar body parts between humans and apes. Funny that he cites Haeckel's drawings as proof that were proved a fraud 100 years ago.
    I put that first because it talks about the different kinds of evidence they look at when they are looking for evidence of evolution. I thought it gave a good overview of the different types of methodology they use.
    -Alissa, mom to Tristan (5) and Reid (the baby!)

    Got an opinion? We've got a board! Come join us for some lively debate on the Face Off! Debate Arena board.

  2. #32
    Community Host Alissa_Sal's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2006
    Location
    Debating Away on the Debate Board!
    Posts
    11,771

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by GloriaInTX View Post
    So you really think I have time to go through that whole list in 10 minutes? I am actually at work so I can't read at depth each article. I can skim through though and see if there is any real proof in there, which there wasn't.
    No, you didn't have to respond within 10 minutes. I'm just saying, if you ask for evidence and then dismiss it without even reading it, I have to conclude that you're not really looking for evidence.

    Let me ask you this: Apparently, all of the different types of evidence that they have to support evolution (fossils, genetics, biochemistry, the way that geology neatly dovetails with the fossil record, et cetera) none of that is anything you would consider "evidence." Since that is the case, what would you agree DOES constitute as evidence? Like, what type of evidence could scientists provide (if any) that you would find compelling?
    -Alissa, mom to Tristan (5) and Reid (the baby!)

    Got an opinion? We've got a board! Come join us for some lively debate on the Face Off! Debate Arena board.

  3. #33
    Posting Addict ClairesMommy's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2006
    Location
    Canada
    Posts
    12,517

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by GloriaInTX View Post
    Can you cite some? Because I haven't seen any.
    29+ Evidences for Macroevolution: Part 1

    And if you back out one page from this page, you'll find about a thousand more links you can follow.

  4. #34
    Posting Addict GloriaInTX's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2008
    Location
    Dallas, TX
    Posts
    7,606

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Claire'sMommy View Post
    29+ Evidences for Macroevolution: Part 1

    And if you back out one page from this page, you'll find about a thousand more links you can follow.
    Those skulls aren't such great proof. Here is the story of one of them.

    Dr. Johanson named his find Australopithecus afarensis—the southern ape from the Afar depression of northeastern Ethiopia (Johanson, et al., 1978, 28:. The creature quickly earned the nickname “Lucy,” after the Beatles’ song, “Lucy in the Sky with Diamonds,” which was said to be playing all through the celebratory night back at Johanson’s camp. The fossil, officially designated as AL 288-1, consisted of skull fragments, a lower jaw, ribs, an arm bone, a portion of a pelvis, a thighbone, and fragments of shinbones. It was said to be an adult, and was dated at 3.5 million years. [Johanson also found at Hadar the remains of some 34 adults and 10 infants, all of which he dated at 3.5 million years.] In their assessment of exactly where this new species fit in, Johanson and colleague Tim White took pride in noting: “These new hominid fossils, recovered since 1973, constitute the earliest definitive evidence of the family Hominidae” (1979, 203:321). Not only was this fossil find unusually complete, but it also was believed to have been from an animal that walked in an upright fashion, as well as being the oldest human ancestor—the equivalent of a grand slam in baseball.

    Having collected the fossils, Johanson and White were responsible for publishing their descriptions, as well as giving their interpretation of exactly how they fit into the hominid family tree. Not wanting to waste valuable space on the description of A. afarensis in one of the major science journals, they ultimately decided to publish it in Kirtlandia, a relatively obscure publication of the Cleveland Museum of Natural History. Then, in what was either an extremely na?ve (albeit zealous) move, or a calculated and ambitious one, Johanson and White decided to bump the Leakey’s prized Australopithecus africanus off the main hominid tree and replace it with A. afarensis (for their full assessment, see Johanson and White, 1979). Leakey’s A. africanus was relegated to a tangential side branch that went—literally—nowhere. This decision eventually would weigh heavily on Lucy as she fell under attack from scientists who felt she was nothing more than another example of A. africanus—or worse, an animal with numerous chimp-like qualities.

    One of the ironic discoveries regarding Lucy had to do with the size of her skull. Prior to her discovery, evolutionists had assumed that these ape-like species had evolved larger brains, which then allowed them to crawl down out of the trees and begin foraging for food on the ground. According to evolutionary timelines, the creatures adopted bipedalism as their primary form of transportation, and once on the ground, began to use tools. Lucy, as it happened, took this nice, neat little story and turned it upside down. Her brain case was not enlarged. In fact, from all appearances, it was comparable in size to the common chimpanzee. And yet, Johanson and White steadfastly defended the position that this creature walked uprightly like man. They noted:

    Bipedalism appears to have been the dominant form of terrestrial locomotion employed by the Hadar and Laetoli [in Tanzania—BH/BT] hominids. Morphological features associated with this locomotor mode are clearly manifested in these hominids, and for this reason the Laetoli and Hadar hominid remains are unequivocally assigned to the family Hominidae (Johanson and White, 1979, 203:325, emp. added).

    Dr. Johanson insisted that A. afarensis was the direct ancestor of man (see Johanson and Edey, 1981). In fact, the phrase “the dramatic discovery of our oldest human ancestor” can be found emblazoned on the cover of his 1981 book, Lucy: The Beginnings of Humankind. Numerous evolutionists, however, strongly disagree. Lord Solly Zuckerman, the famous British anatomist, published his views on the australopithecines in his book, Beyond the Ivory Tower. He studied these creatures for more than fifteen years, and came to the conclusion that if man did, in fact, descend from an apelike ancestor, he did so without leaving a single visible trace in the fossil record (1970, p. 64). Some might complain, “But Lord Zuckerman’s work was done before Lucy was even discovered.” True, but that misses the point. Zuckerman’s research—which established conclusively that the australopithecines were nothing but knuckle-walking apes—was performed on fossils younger (i.e., closer to man) than Lucy!
    Apologetics Press - Lucy Dethroned
    Mom to Lee, Jake, Brandon, Rocco
    Stepmom to Ryan, Regan, Braden, Baley
    Granddaughters Kylie 10/18/2010 & Aleya 4/22/2013


    I never consider a difference of opinion in politics, in religion, in philosopy, as a cause for withdrawing from a friend. --Thomas Jefferson

  5. #35
    Posting Addict GloriaInTX's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2008
    Location
    Dallas, TX
    Posts
    7,606

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Alissa_Sal View Post
    No, you didn't have to respond within 10 minutes. I'm just saying, if you ask for evidence and then dismiss it without even reading it, I have to conclude that you're not really looking for evidence.

    Let me ask you this: Apparently, all of the different types of evidence that they have to support evolution (fossils, genetics, biochemistry, the way that geology neatly dovetails with the fossil record, et cetera) none of that is anything you would consider "evidence." Since that is the case, what would you agree DOES constitute as evidence? Like, what type of evidence could scientists provide (if any) that you would find compelling?
    If evolution were true, there would actually be the REAMS of evidence you speak of. But there isn't. A few skulls which in many cases aren't even complete with no evidence of where they even really fit other than conjecture isn't proof.

    The anatomical peculiarities of the Neanderthal men are known to exist within the normal boundaries of human variation potential. In other words, the Neanderthals were just regular humans who looked a little different than you and I do today (similar to how Australian aborigines look significantly different than Native American Indians and yet they are all human).

    The Neanderthals were known to bury their dead (whose bodies they covered in flowers), they used tools, worked with animal hides, took care of each other and generally acted like humans act. There is no indication that they were the brutish beasts they are seen as by many today. Their brain cavity was actually much larger than the average brain today.

    It appears that many of the Neanderthals suffered from a Vitamin D deficiency. This caused their bones to grow soft and deformed. This has contributed the popular hunched-over ape-man misconception. The Vitamin D deficiency may simply be indicative of the era in which they lived. Vitamin D comes from fish oils and dairy products and is produced in the body when the skin is exposed to the sun. The Neanderthals obviously had a very poor diet. In addition to this, they appear to have spent much of their time taking shelter in caves. It is believed by many scholars that the Neanderthals lived during an Ice Age. This would explain their poor diets and lack of exposure to the sun. So, while the ape-man perspective has been shown to be false, Neanderthal man was certainly a caveman in the true sense of the word.
    Neanderthal Man
    Mom to Lee, Jake, Brandon, Rocco
    Stepmom to Ryan, Regan, Braden, Baley
    Granddaughters Kylie 10/18/2010 & Aleya 4/22/2013


    I never consider a difference of opinion in politics, in religion, in philosopy, as a cause for withdrawing from a friend. --Thomas Jefferson

  6. #36
    Posting Addict ClairesMommy's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2006
    Location
    Canada
    Posts
    12,517

    Default

    It's my belief that even in the face of irrefutable data some people will hold steadfast to the theory they believe to be true. That is why it's called faith - belief in the absence of proof. I have to weigh what I believe to be truer - evolution or creationism. One is at least plausible because there is scientific data to back it, even if some creationists say there is no concrete 'proof'. I find it ironic that creationists discount macro-evolution because there is no proof, but neither is there proof of creationism. So, why is it acceptable to expect that burden of science but not creationism?

  7. #37
    Posting Addict ClairesMommy's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2006
    Location
    Canada
    Posts
    12,517

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by GloriaInTX View Post
    Those skulls aren't such great proof. Here is the story of one of them.



    Apologetics Press - Lucy Dethroned
    Well, I didn't realize any of the skulls in my link were Lucy. Oh right. None of them are. Are you ignoring the transitional skulls that are growing in size to that of a modern human? Or are you just saying that something 4 million years old with the brain the size of a chimp's isn't a human? Because with that I WILL agree.

  8. #38
    Posting Addict GloriaInTX's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2008
    Location
    Dallas, TX
    Posts
    7,606

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Claire'sMommy View Post
    It's my belief that even in the face of irrefutable data some people will hold steadfast to the theory they believe to be true. That is why it's called faith - belief in the absence of proof. I have to weigh what I believe to be truer - evolution or creationism. One is at least plausible because there is scientific data to back it, even if some creationists say there is no concrete 'proof'. I find it ironic that creationists discount macro-evolution because there is no proof, but neither is there proof of creationism. So, why is it acceptable to expect that burden of science but not creationism?

    But if the theory of intelligent design is not creationism, what is it? Intelligent design is an evidence-based scientific theory about life's origins that challenges strictly materialistic views of evolution. According to Darwinian biologists such as Oxford's Richard Dawkins (1986: 1), livings systems “give the appearance of having been designed for a purpose.” But, for modern Darwinists, that appearance of design is entirely illusory. Why? According to neo-Darwinism, wholly undirected processes such as natural selection and random mutations are fully capable of producing the intricate designed-like structures in living systems. In their view, natural selection can mimic the powers of a designing intelligence without itself being directed by an intelligence of any kind.

    In contrast, the theory of intelligent design holds that there are tell-tale features of living systems and the universe - for example, the information-bearing properties of DNA, the miniature circuits and machines in cells and the fine tuning of the laws and constants of physics - that are best explained by an intelligent cause rather than an undirected material process. The theory does not challenge the idea of “evolution” defined as either change over time or common ancestry, but it does dispute Darwin's idea that the cause of biological change is wholly blind and undirected. Either life arose as the result of purely undirected material processes or a guiding intelligence played a role. Design theorists affirm the latter option and argue that living organisms look designed because they really were designed.

    CSC - A Scientific History and Philosophical Defense of the Theory of Intelligent Design


    CSC - Peer-Reviewed & Peer-Edited Scientific Publications Supporting the Theory of Intelligent Design (Annotated)
    Mom to Lee, Jake, Brandon, Rocco
    Stepmom to Ryan, Regan, Braden, Baley
    Granddaughters Kylie 10/18/2010 & Aleya 4/22/2013


    I never consider a difference of opinion in politics, in religion, in philosopy, as a cause for withdrawing from a friend. --Thomas Jefferson

  9. #39
    Posting Addict GloriaInTX's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2008
    Location
    Dallas, TX
    Posts
    7,606

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Claire'sMommy View Post
    Well, I didn't realize any of the skulls in my link were Lucy. Oh right. None of them are. Are you ignoring the transitional skulls that are growing in size to that of a modern human? Or are you just saying that something 4 million years old with the brain the size of a chimp's isn't a human? Because with that I WILL agree.
    So you mean neanderthals then? Yes they were human.

    Top 10 Misconceptions About?Neanderthals
    Mom to Lee, Jake, Brandon, Rocco
    Stepmom to Ryan, Regan, Braden, Baley
    Granddaughters Kylie 10/18/2010 & Aleya 4/22/2013


    I never consider a difference of opinion in politics, in religion, in philosopy, as a cause for withdrawing from a friend. --Thomas Jefferson

  10. #40
    Posting Addict KimPossible's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2002
    Posts
    20,156

    Default

    Intelligent design is not scientific. You can't point to scientific stuff and then say "its best attributed to an intelligent cause" and call that science LOL

    At most it could be considered philosophical....at best it could be called religous faith. You can't test it, there is no possible way to try to prove its false. Its not science.

    Its speculation

+ Reply to Thread
Page 4 of 16 FirstFirst 1234567814 ... LastLast

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
v -->

About Us | Contact Us | Privacy Policy | Sitemap | Terms & Conditions