We decended from apes and monkeys...FACT?

[nerdgirl 0]

Quote

But, I will never agree that lack of evidence invalidates any theory.

Concur.

From your posts, it sound like you may be arguing from the perspective of formal (or classical) logic/logos or mathematical logic?

Formal logic is heavily tied to inferences (inductive reasoning) rather than deductive processes. Inductive processes are part of the (formal) scientific method, whereas many (most?) mathematical theories are deductive.

The problem -- perhaps semantics or precision versus vernacular usage -- is that until you have lots of publicly available, independently repeatable physical *evidence* supporting casuality, what one has is hypothesis (at best), notional speculation, or bad rumors (at worse) not scientific theory.

VR/Marg

Act as if everything you do matters, while laughing at yourself for thinking anything you do matters.
Tibetan Buddhist saying

[Skyrad 0]

Quote

Nope.

Modern humans (H. sapiens sapiens) did not descend from apes (or monkeys or chimpanzees or bonobos; the latter two are the closest genetically). Modern humans descended from Australopithecus spp.

The evolutionary lines of chimpanzees and humans split 5-7 million years ago.

VR/Marg

You are so cool.

When an author is too meticulous about his style, you may presume that his mind is frivolous and his content flimsy.
Lucius Annaeus Seneca

[Skyrad 0]

Quote

Perhaps you " descendents" of monkeys should take up another sport....like swinging from tree to tree.

Your evolution is a load of absolute CRAP.

Its hard to imagine so little intelligence in your minds. Who said all mean were created equal????

I respect your right to believe so but do you have any evidence to back you up Bill?

When an author is too meticulous about his style, you may presume that his mind is frivolous and his content flimsy.
Lucius Annaeus Seneca

[Skyrad 0]

Quote

TOTAL CRAP.

I'd love to hear your argument Bill.

When an author is too meticulous about his style, you may presume that his mind is frivolous and his content flimsy.
Lucius Annaeus Seneca

[JackC 0]

Quote

Quote

TOTAL CRAP.

I'd love to hear your argument Bill.

I think that was his argument.

[kallend 1,635]

Quote

Quote

Quote

It's not a fact, it's a theory.

From your link:
3: the general or abstract principles of a body of fact, a science, or an art

What is your point? Evolution is not a fact, it is a theory (which is based on a body of facts). I didn't think I had to explain this to you ...

My point is that "Theory" has multiple definitions, so your statement is quite meaningless unless you tell us which definition you are using..

...

The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.

[Butters 0]

Quote

Quote

Quote

Quote

It's not a fact, it's a theory.

From your link:
3: the general or abstract principles of a body of fact, a science, or an art

What is your point? Evolution is not a fact, it is a theory (which is based on a body of facts). I didn't think I had to explain this to you ...

My point is that "Theory" has multiple definitions, so your statement is quite meaningless.

Just because you lack the ability to distinguish between a fact and a theory based on a body of facts does not make my statement meaningless (or have the wrong meaning). It does however make your statements have the wrong meaning ...

"That looks dangerous." Leopold Stotch

[beowulf 1]

Quote

I am going to need evidence of implication in the quoted statements.

With respect to

Quote

If no one has in thousands of years found any evidence to support it then it can be considered bullshit.

The heliocentric model of the solar system was debated without evidence for over two thousand years before our mathematical modeling caught up to prove it. I agree time and lack of evidence can hinder acceptance of a theory. But, I will never agree that lack of evidence invalidates any theory.

I wouldn't say that they debated the solar system model with out any evidence at all. They did have visual evidence that some believed suggested that the sun did not revolve around the earth. That is more then creationism has show for it.

I don't think that a lack of evidence automatically invalidates any theory. What I do think is that creationism after thousands of years has no evidence, so if in all that time they can't come up with anything to support it then it must be wrong or at least be unreasonable to believe in.

I didn't put all of that in the statements that you quoted, but I would think it would be easy to tell from reading all my posts.

[Skyrad 0]

Quote

TOTAL CRAP.

Yes, I suppose 'that would be an ecumenical matter'

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=b66SlBA948o

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zg-10vF5Xhs&feature=related

When an author is too meticulous about his style, you may presume that his mind is frivolous and his content flimsy.
Lucius Annaeus Seneca

[jakee 1,257]

Quote

Quote

Quote

It's not a fact, it's a theory.

From your link:
3: the general or abstract principles of a body of fact, a science, or an art

What is your point? Evolution is not a fact, it is a theory (which is based on a body of facts). I didn't think I had to explain this to you ...

Sorry, you're wrong. Evolution is both a fact and a theory.

Do you want to have an ideagasm?

[jcd11235 0]

Quote

The heliocentric model of the solar system was debated without evidence for over two thousand years before our mathematical modeling caught up to prove it.

Not true. There was visual evidence, even if the average person was unable to understand the implications of what they saw. Advanced science is not generally understood by the average person.

Math tutoring available. Only $6! per hour! First lesson: Factorials!

[jakee 1,257]

Quote

in which they take Darwins theory of evolution as fact. Do you feel that this piece should have been less biased towards evolution and mentioned the other side of the story with equal regard? Should evolution be the one and only accepted theory? Is it time to consign Creationism to the history books?

Saying this piece is biased towards evolution is like saying that skydiving instructors are biased towards gravity. Giving equal regard to 'the other side of the story' (I assume you mean religious explantions) would be unjustifiable and unforgivable for a serious broadcaster. Unless and until another theory can challenge evolution on a scientific level (I very much doubt that will ever happen) then evoution is the only accepted theory. The 'competitors' are nothing more than baseless propoganda tools.


(And that newsreader really isn't helping with the 'apes and monkeys' bit. FFS)

Do you want to have an ideagasm?

[MiataMan 0]

Quote

I wouldn't say that they debated the solar system model with out any evidence at all. They did have visual evidence that some believed suggested that the sun did not revolve around the earth. That is more then creationism has show for it.

The only evidence they had at the time was what they saw and their interpretation. If you state that this is proper evidence for a theory then creationism has evidence. However, I do not believe you think that interpretations of what people see can be call evidence. You need as Marg said

Quote

The problem -- perhaps semantics or precision versus vernacular usage -- is that until you have lots of publicly available, independently repeatable physical *evidence* supporting casuality, what one has is hypothesis (at best), notional speculation, or bad rumors (at worse) not scientific theory.

Quote

I don't think that a lack of evidence automatically invalidates any theory.

I am glad we can agree.

A man without a mustache is like a hamburger without a bun, Un-American.

[Butters 0]

Quote

Quote

Quote

Quote

It's not a fact, it's a theory.

From your link:
3: the general or abstract principles of a body of fact, a science, or an art

What is your point? Evolution is not a fact, it is a theory (which is based on a body of facts). I didn't think I had to explain this to you ...

Sorry, you're wrong. Evolution is both a fact and a theory.

Evolution on a micro scale is a fact. Evolution on a macro scale is a theory. The context of this thread is the macro.

"That looks dangerous." Leopold Stotch

[jcd11235 0]

Quote

Evolution on a micro scale is a fact. Evolution on a macro scale is a theory. The context of this thread is the macro.

They are the same thing. The only difference is the interval on which observation is made.

Math tutoring available. Only $6! per hour! First lesson: Factorials!

[Butters 0]

Quote

Quote

Evolution on a micro scale is a fact. Evolution on a macro scale is a theory. The context of this thread is the macro.

They are the same thing. The only difference is the interval on which observation is made.

They are not the same thing currently.

"That looks dangerous." Leopold Stotch

[jakee 1,257]

Quote

Evolution on a micro scale is a fact. Evolution on a macro scale is a theory. The context of this thread is the macro.

Very wrong, in several ways. You also seem to be under the impression that fact and theory are steps on the same hierarchy of truth/proof. They are not. If you don't believe me ask a professional.

Do you want to have an ideagasm?

[jcd11235 0]

Quote

Quote

Quote

Evolution on a micro scale is a fact. Evolution on a macro scale is a theory. The context of this thread is the macro.

They are the same thing. The only difference is the interval on which observation is made.

They are not the same thing currently.

Please, enlighten us. What's the difference?

sits back to enjoy the entertaining, yet almost certainly incorrect explanation >

Math tutoring available. Only $6! per hour! First lesson: Factorials!

[billvon 2,406]

>They are not the same thing currently.

They are exactly the same thing. Just as erosion produces gullies in your front yard over the course of a spring, and also produces the Grand Canyon over the course of millions. It would be silly to claim one is "micro erosion" and is valid but the other is "macro erosion" and isn't.

[jakee 1,257]

Quote

>They are not the same thing currently.

They are exactly the same thing. Just as erosion produces gullies in your front yard over the course of a spring, and also produces the Grand Canyon over the course of millions. It would be silly to claim one is "micro erosion" and is valid but the other is "macro erosion" and isn't.

I'm confused about the 'currently' bit. Does that imply that they were the same thing, say last week maybe, but the way evolution works has just changed, and they're now different?

Do you want to have an ideagasm?

[Butters 0]

Quote

Quote

>They are not the same thing currently.

They are exactly the same thing. Just as erosion produces gullies in your front yard over the course of a spring, and also produces the Grand Canyon over the course of millions. It would be silly to claim one is "micro erosion" and is valid but the other is "macro erosion" and isn't.

I'm confused about the 'currently' bit. Does that imply that they were the same thing, say last week maybe, but the way evolution works has just changed, and they're now different?

No, it implies that they may become the same thing.

"That looks dangerous." Leopold Stotch

[Butters 0]

Quote

Quote

Evolution on a micro scale is a fact. Evolution on a macro scale is a theory. The context of this thread is the macro.

Very wrong, in several ways. You also seem to be under the impression that fact and theory are steps on the same hierarchy of truth/proof. They are not. If you don't believe me ask a professional.

Are you even reading what I'm writing? I doubt it because I'm not the one confusing fact and theory and their relationship.

"That looks dangerous." Leopold Stotch

[riddler 0]

A graph may help explain why we didn't decend from apes, but we are cousins.

Another picture may explain Christianity. I'm not sure why it's always judeo-christian dogma that is opposed to evolution. Seems like every major religion has it's own story of the creation of man. I never see "Daoists against Darwin" or "Hindus aren't Hominids" or "Buddists, not Baboons".

Maybe other beliefs are not so black and white, us-vs-them, if you're not with us, you're against us. Maybe Christians can learn something from that ...

Trapped on the surface of a sphere. XKCD

[rhys 0]

Quote

We now face a similar issue with evolutionary biology. There is simply no question that we share a common ancestor with other animals - but for most people, the evidence is over their head. It's hard to simplify the science any further, although several people (Gould, Dawkins) have made good attempts at it.

So will there be "evidence they can understand?" I'm not sure what it could be. A fossil showing an intermediate stage? We have hundreds; people explain them away as fakes or errors. Biology that shows us how similar we are to other animals? Got that, but some people don't buy it. Geology that lets us date when those fossils lived? Got that too, but some people delight in making up reasons why all dating methods are wrong, and thus can't show life existing that long ago.

In other words, we don't have a glossy picture to show them of the earth rising over the moon. And that's what some people need.

Although creationists will argue against, some of the birds of New Zealand are good examples of evolution in progress.

Background;

New Zealand separated from the Gondwana continent during the Jurassic period, the flora and fauna stayed relatively the same for millions of years.

Mammals and birds came to be at a later date, and birds found their way to the remote Islands in the southern pacific.

No land based mammals other than bats were present until the arrival of the Maori people circa 1000 years ago.

So birds found their way there by flying, but once there, over millions of years, some lost the ability to fly?

Why?

All the predators were birds other than a few small reptiles, arachnids and insects so the safest place was in the undergrowth.

The Kakapo (a parrot) still has wings but cannot fly, the Kiwi has remains of wings similar to human tail bones, so essentially they do not have wings as we don't have tails. There are other examples; most of them are now extinct.

There were many 1000's of different birds in New Zealand including the largest known feathered bird in world history (the Haast eagle) many became extinct over a relatively short period of time (300 or so years) due the introduction of predatory mammals (Humans, stoats, ferrets, weasels and possums).

In conclusion; birds found their way to NZ via flying as the Bats did, but over many years some lost the ability to fly and in some cases where the wings became a hindrance their wings almost disappeared completely.

Is that not evolution?

"When the power of love overcomes the love of power, then the world will see peace." - 'Jimi' Hendrix

[JackC 0]

Quote

Quote

I'm confused about the 'currently' bit. Does that imply that they were the same thing, say last week maybe, but the way evolution works has just changed, and they're now different?

No, it implies that they may become the same thing.

What do you mean by "may become the same thing"?