Afraid to debate, so you denigrate...Great tactic...but it never works...

pic - Give it up man. You are being roasted by someone who knows his stuff. To funny

I would be plssed off if I woke up one day and found out that what I busted my ash to get a PhD in was found to be a pile of horseshlt.

Though I have done some work on fossils, my speciality is skeletal/dental variation in modern humans.


Afraid to debate, so you denigrate

Just pointing out that you shouldn't be surprised that your understanding of evolution is not up to snuff if you continue to insist on consulting people who are either untrained (including those that bought their degree like Hovind), or trained in a completely different field (such as Jobe Martin, with his background in dentistry/theology/business).

If you had a genuine interest in learning on a topic, you should seek out sources who are the most knowledgeable on that topic. Instead, many creationists will only listen to those that will tell them what they want to hear. If I wanted to learn more about the bible I wouldn't seek out my dentist, so why would you do it for something like evolutionary theory?

I also have a problem with people using their PhD as a badge of authority for topics on which they are uneducated.
Saying "Dr. Jobe Martin has been fascinating his students as he lectures on these remarkable animals that cannot be explained by traditional evolution." implies that he is an authority on evolution and has a teaching position. But that is not the case.
The well-known creationist Kent Hovind is a bit worse since he bought his PhD in Christian Education (see your thread on DNA and Evolution), lied about his "dissertation", and calls himself Dr. Dino. The implication, of course, is that he earned a doctorate in paleontology.
Both examples are pretty disingenuous if not downright dishonest. When did that become a Christian value?

quote:

---

Actually you should know that He has a PhD in Ecology and Evolutionary Biology and is a published scientist

---

Perhaps you could point me to his published works? I would enjoy reading them if for anything else to gain a greater understanding into evolution.

On a lighter note another person was published a few thousand years ago and his works are the most read in all of human history. His father says he created the Heavens and the Earth and I believe him. Maybe evolution did occur and maybe it didn't. The fact of the matter is we may never really know because time is a concealer of the truth. Time has a nasty habit of removing physical evidence thus making it very difficult to ever know the full story. There are some credible findings that certainly do appear to point to macro-evolution but they are still at best inconclusive. What I mean by that is while they appear to be accurate on the outside there are still many gaps missing that must be filled in before it can make the transition from theory to indisputable fact.

It is becoming clear to me as well as others I am sure that this argument cannot be won by either side because neither side is willing to admit they are wrong. With that being said I hope that you find the answers you are looking for and I hope they bring you happiness, peace or whatever else you seek. I equally hope that if you have not accepted GOD that you do so before your days on this Earth come to a conclusion. Time may be eternal buy our lives are not and there is no do-over. Peace be with you and have a safe and happy holiday weekend. With that being said GET BACK TO WORK YOU SLACKERS!!! (-;

[This message has been edited by TAMU@EDS (edited 5/27/2005 8:11a).]

TAMU

quote:

---

Maybe evolution did occur and maybe it didn't. The fact of the matter is we may never really know because time is a concealer of the truth. ....

It is becoming clear to me as well as others I am sure that this argument cannot be won by either side because neither side is willing to admit they are wrong.

---

Well...this issue was won by science a long time ago. Time has been generous to us, providing a plethera of evedence for decent with modification in the fossil record - the fossil record of course is only one of many avenues of evidence for evolution.

It is pretty obvious that you and others on this board don't believe in evolution for the sole reason that you somehow (and quite strangely) find it at odds with your religious faith. That is your only reason...not becuase you have fairly evaluated the scientific evidence for evolutionary theory based on its own merits.

quote:

---

I equally hope that if you have not accepted GOD that you do so before your days on this Earth come to a conclusion.

---

Well...I accepted God a long time ago and that in no way contradicts my apreciation of the obvious truth of evolution

[This message has been edited by schizmann (edited 5/27/2005 12:07p).]

[This message has been edited by schizmann (edited 5/27/2005 12:11p).]

Why do those opposed to evolution/ToE automatically assume that those who support it are nonreligious?

Heck, the RCC supports the ToE as their official doctrine...There's a billion who are religious - and if they follow their church's teachings - should support the ToE...

Eric '90

A good spanking helps to settle a child's nerves

I guess I should clarify my position. It's not that I don't believe that any evolution occurs it's just that I don't believe humans evolved from any lesser being than we are right now. I believe that we were created in GOD's image and unless you are saying that GOD has also evolved from a lessor being then I take the Word of GOD literally. BTW good job on being turds here. I try to compromise and take the high road and I get the typical response that I should have come to expect by now.

[This message has been edited by TAMU@EDS (edited 5/27/2005 2:52p).]

Are we talking about the evolution of physical bodies and minds, or the soul?


If not the soul, then I'm not sure what this thread is doing on a religion and philosophy BB...


Gloria Patri, et Filio, et Spiritui Sancto. Sicut erat in principio, et nunc, et semper, et in saecula saeculorum. Amen.

AgwithKids:

quote:

---

What I love is non-scientists getting information from non-scientific sources

---

Which of my quotes were from non-scientific sources? Maybe a couple of the Behe quotes, but nearly all were from mainstream sources. You, on the other hand, have provided nothing other than drivel and insult; a keen mind indeed.


hetero

quote:

---

You are being roasted by someone who knows his stuff. To funny

---

If you’re talking about fletch, I’m waiting for him to show something. All he has demonstrated thusfar is a tendency for a lot of hot air and insult. He has not responded to reasonable challenges from his very own scientific community. Sad for you, is that you’ve bought it all. I think your cheerleading outfit is a bit too tight.


fletch: Despite your insults and derogatory remarks, I don’t think your argument is with me. What I sense is your frustration in your inability to address the concerns and issues on human evolution as brought forth from your very own scientific community. And don’t try to fool the readers of these posts with the old “dishonest, out of context” crap, when you yourself have shown nothing to prove they were out of context.

Thus far, you have been dodging, weaving and unwilling to answer my challenges:

1) Show how the comments from mainstream scientists, some of which I have posted above and below, are out of context. And there are dozens more!

2) Why has every so-called “discovery” of a human transitional form been proven to be wrong or a hoax? I have provided you a sample list (and there are more) and you have not addressed these.


Commonly, apologists for evolution such as yourself, put up a bold front and try to deny that the tree of evolution is full of holes. It is illustrative to say the least, whenever an article or quote appears that is written by evolutionists who candidly acknowledge the major discontinuities in (alleged) evolutionary sequences. And these references are many!

quote:

---

You must be thinking of bcausey since Piccodillo has relied on dishonest out of context quotes.

---

*yawn* Same tired old argument. This is french for "I don't have an answer".

Evolutionists typically poke fun at creationists by accusing them of not having any “peer reviewed” literature or research. Well, in this case, when it’s provided, all of a sudden, it too, is invalid!

I've provided you DOZENS of valid quotes, from scientists, in peer reviewed literature, and you have been unable to explain.

quote:

---

The problem with Piccodillo is he doesn't even understand the issue he is talking about

---

quote:

---

My biggest beef with you is your insistence on debating something you know nothing about, and particularly your dishonest employment of quotes you don't understand from sources you haven't read. Honestly, I'm a bit surprised that you keep coming back to establish your ignorance in this area.

---

Typical evolutionist drivel. Again, it is not my opinion that matters, so much as the opinion of many mainstream scientists. If you're so smart, you'd answer my challenges. Admit it; both you and science have no answer; none!

If you were able to prove the existence of a transitional human form, I'd be the first to admit I'm wrong. But you've been dodging and weaving behind a cloak of self-proclaimed intellectual superiority, complaining and whining about the dozens of quotes I've beat you up with. ALL of them taken out of context? Hardly. You are being intellectually dishonest.



Here are some additional examples of evolutionist folly:

The 'Lucy' fossil actually had no significant skull with it. Richard Leakey derided reconstructions of it as being mostly imagination and plaster of Paris. And how do you address the fact that australopithecines cannot qualify as 'transitional' anyway, being further from both apes and humans than these are from each other, as noted by well-known evolutionist Professor Charles Oxnard. Hmm?

Evolutionists do not feel compelled to prove their claim that similarity necessarily means common evolutionary ancestry – they assume it. Indeed, evolutionists never question or investigate whether evolution is true or not, rather they ask which animal evolved into which, and their answer is generally based on similarity!

quote:

---

”…perhaps generations of students of human evolution, including myself, have been flailing about in the dark; that our data base is too sparse, too slippery, for it to be able to mold our theories. Rather the theories are more statements about us and ideology than about the past. Paleoanthropology reveals more about how humans view themselves than it does about how humans came about. But that is heresy." (American Scientist, Vol. 66, p. 379, May/June 1978).

---

Creationists have long called attention to the evolutionists’ old error of portraying Neandertal man as apelike and stooped-over. Wood and Collard also acknowledge this past misrepresentation of Neandertal man, and stress the fact that the posture, foot structure, and limb and muscle function were essentially the same as that of modern man. This can be found at: Wood, B. and Collard, M., The human genus, Science p. 69

Get real, fletch….Common appearance does not prove common origin.


Want to talk about deception and dishonesty in evolution? The similarity between apes and humans is evidently one of you favorite arguments for common descent based on common appearance, isn’t it? As another example of this folly, a PBS series on evolution gives a definitive ‘yes’ in answer to the question, ‘Have humans evolved from ape-like creatures?’ and the first episode showed a number of fossils of alleged apemen for cumulative effect. But this was very deceptive—some of the alleged apemen it showed are not even accepted by evolutionists as genuine intermediates anymore. For example, it showed an old photograph of Louis Leakey with Zinjanthropus (now Paranthropus) boisei or ‘Nutcracker Man,’ sometimes called a robust australopithecine. But this was long ago relegated to a side branch on man’s alleged evolutionary tree! Why do evolutionist continue to foist such misrepresentations?


In addition, a recent TIME magazine review article and others have highlighted the confusion reigning in the field of 'human evolution'. 'How Man Began', TIME (Australia), March 14, 1994. Unfortunately, it still features Lucy and other australopithecines as human ancestors, in spite of the fact that a growing number of evolutionary anatomists who have done objective studies on the bones have concluded that these creatures are not on the human line, are not intermediate between man and ape, and did not walk upright in the human manner. Some of this work can be found in: Charles Oxnard, Fossils, Teeth and Sex — New Perspectives on Human Evolution, University of Washington Press, Seattle and London, 1987, p. 227.



So, fletch; your threads indicated you are:
- Out of touch with mainstream science
- Unable to answer my two challenges as posted above


So...please don't cop out again and say you can't argue with someone who doesn't "know" science as well as you do. I am not a bible thumper, which is what you are probably used to on this forum. My comments come from legitimate mainstream scientific sources, .... and you can't seem to handle that.















[This message has been edited by Piccadillo (edited 5/28/2005 5:37p).]

quote:

---

Heck, the RCC supports the ToE as their official doctrine...

---

If by support you mean that the ToE is tolerated, you'd be right.

"He has not responded to reasonable challenges from his very own scientific community."

Somehow, you still fail to see that these are not challenges from my community. Aside from Behe, none of the sources you quote suggest that evolution didn't occur. The authors you cite are quibbling about minor issues (mechanisms, timing, models), and NONE have any doubt that evolution occurred. You would know that if you actually read their papers.

"Evolutionists typically poke fun at creationists by accusing them of not having any “peer reviewed” literature or research. Well, in this case, when it’s provided, all of a sudden, it too, is invalid!"

Again, you haven't done any research. Your quotes are only invalid because you assume them to mean something that they do not. Honestly, you think people like Darwin, Wood, Dobzhansky actually don't believe in evolution? Those three are the founder of the theory, a specialist in human evolution & fossil hominids, and a researcher who actually documented macroevolution in fruitflies.

Honestly, this is not a hard thing to grasp. Imagine me taking any sentence (or sentence fragment) out of the bible, and trying to argue some ridiculous position even though it contradicts what the rest of the bible says. That is exactly what you are doing.

"2) Why has every so-called “discovery” of a human transitional form been proven to be wrong or a hoax?"

This is nothing but pure creationist drivel. There has been one hoax, Piltdown man, and that was almost 100 years ago. Find me a single scientific source that suggests that every other fossil hominid has been proven "wrong". You can't because it doesn't exist. Even your discussion of australopithecines is wrong. Australopithecus is a genus that is considered an intermediate stage between chimps [I use chimp here instead of your misuse of the term apes] and humans. Some australopithecines species ARE on a sidebranch, but even those still exhibit features shared by chimps AND humans, as well as some unique features we do not have.

Why do you think that you are more familiar with my fields (biological anthropology & archaeology) and colleagues than I am? You undoubtedly know more about your field/job than I do. Why is it so hard to admit that experienced scientists like hetero and I understand our own fields better than you? If you had any integrity you would stop pretending that my colleagues disagree with evolution.

The idea that "The wheels are falling off of evolution and you cannot see it" is one of your most ridiculous unfounded assertions, and one that is contrary to published surveys of scientists. Of course, pseudoscientists never let data stand in the way of a good story.

Creationist claims like yours are strikingly reminescent of the Iraqi Information Minister spouting absurd comments during the beginning of the current war. I never realized the similarity until I saw this site http://members.cox.net/creationscience/, but it is dead on. From that site

Mohammed Saeed al-Sahaf has made a statement:

Evolutionists say the virtually all scientists accept evolution as the central concept of biology -- don't believe them. There is no evolutionist within 50 miles of any biological research. Our glorious creation scientists are winning Nobel Prizes and making all important scientific discoveries. We will drive those evolutionists from the schools and slaughter their inflated egos. They should surrender to creation science or withdraw from the schools.

[This message has been edited by flechenbones (edited 5/28/2005 7:52p).]

Pic - Just to add a little something to your undressing by flech.

quote:

---

If you’re talking about fletch, I’m waiting for him to show something. ....He has not responded to reasonable challenges from his very own scientific community.

---

pic - you have not submitted any challenges by his own scientific comunity. Read the quotes that you posted and then go back and read the entire papers from which these quotes were lifted. You will be humiliated. I pointed out just one of these to you several days ago and you did not respond - I wonder why??

hetero: I've read them, thank you. To their credit, these scientists had the integrity to admit the shortcomings of evolution, hence the quotes that neither you or fletch can deal with.

quote:

---

none of the sources you quote suggest that evolution didn't occur.

---

I fully agree! What you continue to NOT understand is they at least admit the areas of shortcomings of the theory when it comes to the lack of physical proof in human evolution. To suggest that science has proven our origin, and have proven the discovery of the missing link(s), is quackery on your part!

quote:

---

The authors you cite are quibbling about minor issues

---

perhaps generations of students of human evolution, including myself, have been flailing about in the dark; that our data base is too sparse, too slippery, for it to be able to mold our theories.
This is “minor quibbling”? I can show you so many others, but what good would it do to a closed mind such as yours.

quote:

---

Honestly, you think people like Darwin, Wood, Dobzhansky actually don't believe in evolution?

---

No I don’t, but they do have enough integrity to recognize the shortcomings of the science that you most evidently lack.

quote:

---

Imagine me taking any sentence (or sentence fragment) out of the bible, and trying to argue some ridiculous position even though it contradicts what the rest of the bible says.

---

Not to worry; I would never use the bible to defend my position. It’s the sources from scientific literature that apparently you cannot handle.

quote:

---

Find me a single scientific source that suggests that every other fossil hominid has been proven "wrong". You can't because it doesn't exist.

---

All too easy here…..

Australopithecus The most well known australopithecine is ‘Lucy’, a 40% complete skeleton found by Donald Johanson in Ethiopia in 1974 and called Australopithecus afarensis. However, the original Lucy fossil did not include the upper jaw, nor most of the skull, nor hand and foot bones! The evolutionists Matt Cartmill (Duke University), David Pilbeam (Harvard University) and the late Glynn Isaac (Harvard University) are quoted

quote:

---

‘The australopithecines are rapidly sinking back to the status of peculiarly specialized apes … . Ref. 3, p. 167, which quotes Cartmill, M., Pilbeam, D. and Isaac, G., One hundred years of paleoanthropology, American Scientist 74:419, July–August 1986.

---

Homo habilis The most well known, comprising a fossil skull and leg bones was found by Richard Leakey in Kenya in 1972. CAT scans of the inner ear (conducted by Spoor, below) of a Homo habilis skull show that it walked more like a baboon than a human. Today most researchers regard Homo habilis as ‘a waste-bin of various species’, including bits and pieces from Australopithecus and Homo erectus, and not as a valid category. In other words, it never existed as such, and so cannot be the supposed link between australopithecine apes and true man. Spoor, F., et al., Implications of early hominid labyrinthine morphology for evolution of human bipedal locomotion, Nature 369(6482):645–648, 23 June 1994. Spoor is Professor of Evolutionary Anatomy at University College London, UK, and joint editor of the Journal of Human Evolution.


Homo erectus Spoor’s CAT scans of their inner ear architecture show that their posture was just like ours. Even some evolutionists concede that they should be put in the same species as modern man, i.e. Homo sapiens. See Early man underestimated (again), Creation 21(1):9, 1998, based on Thwaites, T., Ancient mariners: Early humans much smarter than we expected, New Scientist 157(2125):6, 14 March 1998.


Neandertal Man The researchers who first reconstructed these fossils gave them a bent-over (i.e. ape-like) appearance. However, the early reconstructions suffered from a heavy dose of evolutionary bias, along with the fact that some specimens suffered from bony diseases such as rickets, which is caused by vitamin D deficiency from childhood and can result in bowing of the skeleton. Modern reconstructions of Neandertals are consistent with the contention that they are fully human.


So....how about these, fletch??? You asked that I name one....Are you saying this is completely sound science? You may be a scientist, but evidently not very well read.

quote:

---

Why is it so hard to admit that experienced scientists like hetero and I understand our own fields better than you?

---

I’m not saying you do not understand your field. What I am saying is your evolutionary bias has shown that you lack the integrity on this issue.…both of you, to admit that even your own field is wrestling with the issues I have raised.












[This message has been edited by Piccadillo (edited 5/28/2005 9:30p).]

Pic - evolutionary bias? Do I have a geological bias becuase I believe that the grand canyon was carved out by erosion over millions of years.

Do I have a gravitational theory bias becuase I believe that Newton's theory works pretty well.

Do I have an atomic bias because I believe that electrons and protons exist?

Geesh!

they at least admit the areas of shortcomings of the theory when it comes to the lack of physical proof in human evolution. To suggest that science has proven our origin, and have proven the discovery of the missing link(s), is quackery on your part!

Science has established our origins through the convergence of multiple independent scientific fields. Of course the fossil evidence is imperfect! But it is getting better every year as we find earlier and earlier ancestors. Your depiction of the "missing link" is incorrect, but a common misconception among those untrained in the field, creationist and non-creationist alike. There are thousands of intermediate fossils between us and chimps, but I don't claim that we have the final branches on the tree written in permanent ink. Of course, other scientists don't either, has can be seen in several of those quotes. Evolution occurred and none of your sources argue with that. Scientists are still improving our understanding of the when, how, and where.

What is really sad is that you think you are well-read in my field based solely on your reading of a creationst website. That would be like me claiming to understand the bible better than you based on my perusal of an atheist website.

Much of your text is lifted directly from Creation magazine, probably through the link to it at the Answers in Genesis website. Given your pervasive lack of knowledge on the topic (even basics theory and definitions) makes it highly improbable that you have read the literature you have quoted, despite your recent claim otherwise. Maybe you would like to further qualify your statement? When you said "hetero: I've read them, thank you.", you are assuredly referring to the quotes, right? You are not actually going to imply that you have read all of the primary sources that seem to be cited in Creationist magazine, particularly since you can't even get the basics down.

What I am saying is your evolutionary bias has shown that you lack the integrity on this issue.

LOL!! Trained, experienced scientists in this field lack integrity in their own field, whereas creationists somehow aren't biased and understand our literature better! That is too funny.

both of you, to admit that even your own field is wrestling with the issues I have raised..

Again there ARE issues in the field of paleoanthropology, as there are in ALL scientific fields. Some of your quotes point to valid issues and some do not. My point all along is that NONE support your unfounded assertion that science has not established that evolution occurred. Even if we had no fossils, (instead of thousands), you are ignoring all of the data in other independent scientific fields, including molecular genetics and developmental biology. Death by a thousand paper cuts won't work here.

You can continue to hold your scientifically untenable positions, but you must do it on faith alone. The scientific data is conclusive that evolution occurred, and that is why scientific and educational organizations (along with many religious and civil liberties groups) support the teaching of evolution and not creationism.http://www.ncseweb.org/article.asp?category=2. You won't find a single scientific organization that supports your unfounded support of creationism.

[This message has been edited by flechenbones (edited 5/29/2005 9:14a).]

More venom and ire from an evolutionist; hardly surprising, but I will ignore it once again to refocus this argument.

quote:

---

My point all along is that NONE support your unfounded assertion that science has not established that evolution occurred.

---

A broad brush statement; I have never said that science has not established that evolution has occcured; those are your words. What science has failed to conclusively prove is in the area of macroevolution, and in particular that of human evolution, that we and the apes had a common ancestor, or that we came from apes.

You asked for examples of mistaken transitional forms, I have given several to you, and I noticed that you have conveniently side-stepped them.

I ask you again, are the examples shown in my post above what you consider to be sound science?????

It is you who confidently said NO EXAMPLES EXIST.

quote:

---

Find me a single scientific source that suggests that every other fossil hominid has been proven "wrong". You can't because it doesn't exist.

---

Checkmate...and game, set, match.

For someone who so profoundly views himself as intellectually superior, I find it amusing that you have been unable to stay on point, and it is further amusing to see your continued inability to provide proof, and, rather, your vain attempts to try to refocus the argument back to the theory of evolution in general. Ain't gonna work.

quote:

---

Do I have an atomic bias because I believe that electrons and protons exist?

---

To take the controversy over evolution and apply the same to the existence of electrons and protons, is indeed a leap in logic. But taking "leaps of logic" appears to be par for the course for you.



[This message has been edited by Piccadillo (edited 5/29/2005 11:43a).]

pic-

quote:

---

To take the controversy over evolution and apply the same to the existence of electrons and protons, is indeed a leap in logic. But taking "leaps of logic" appears to be par for the course for you.

---

It is exactly the same issue.

Can you prove that electrons exist? Have you seen one? Has anyone ever seen one?

What science has failed to conclusively prove is in the area of macroevolution, and in particular that of human evolution, that we and the apes had a common ancestor, or that we came from apes.

Our debate has been about macroevolution all along, since you established that focus early on back when you tried to pretend you weren't a creationist. My comments referred to macroevolution. Your statement above is exactly where you are wrong. It doesn't matter if you want to look at fossils, DNA, development, are any other set of data. You are out of the loop and will be as long as you try to use creationist propoganda to try to understand scientific fields. It is pretty funny that a creationist is trying to claim to be more objective than a scientist. The former, a pseudoscience known for talking an answer and trying to make the data fit their pre-drawn conclusion, while science is a field characterized by critical evaluation of their own hypotheses & data. It is no wonder that you don't understand any of the basic concepts or definitions related to evolution, or even primate/human variation.

Checkmate...and game, set, match.

LOL. You really are delusional. I've already stated that you don't understand the issue of transitional fossils. Those fossils you talked about are all species that are exhibit transitional characteristics between chimps and humans. Some are in our direct line of ancestry and some are side branches. That doesn't mean they aren't transitional forms.

I will spell it out for you since, as I noted before, non-specialists misunderstand the idea of a missing link - an idea that is overblown by the public and media. In the approximately 7-8 million years since chimps and humans last shared a common ancestory - what are the intermediate characteristics that would be found in THE "missing link"? Despite the fact that chimps are our nearest living ancestor, there are many features that are changed over the last 7-8 million years. Which ones would THE missing link have?

I'm guessing you don't have an answer, but it is not only because you don't know anything about evolution or fossils, it is because there is no correct answer. There aren't any set characteristics. More recent fossils have less primitive features and features more like us. Older fossils have more primitive features. There are many intermediate species or fossil "missing links" that have occurred over the last 7-8 million years, but there is no definitive ONE missing link, just many fossils gradually becoming more like us as time goes on. That is exactly what evolutionary theory predicts and the data matches.

We have found many that were bipedal but had smaller brains. Later we find some with bigger brains, and eventually some like ours, but other skeletal or dental features that are not as derived as ours. There is no SINGLE missing link when you look at many morphological features that change over 7-8 million years in multiple genera and species. And there you have it - once again, you lack the essential information to even comprehend what you are discussing.

[This message has been edited by flechenbones (edited 5/29/2005 6:13p).]

You really are a glutton for punishment, aren’t you?

quote:

---

You are out of the loop and will be as long as you try to use creationist propoganda to try to understand scientific fields.

---

We’ve been through this. A creationist website may have hosted the information, but the information is nonetheless from scientific, peer reviewed literature, so get over it. Mainstream scientists express doubt about certain aspects of what we know of human evolution, but that fact is apparently too painful for you to read. Please also be aware you have provided no information to counter; instead, you attack the website hosting the information. Further indication that your posts are vapid.

quote:

---

There is no SINGLE missing link when you look at many morphological features that change over 7-8 million years in multiple genera and species

---

I am not looking for a SINGLE missing link. You asked for examples of mistaken transitional forms. I’ve shown them to you in spades, so yes, it is fair game for me to claim that you’ve been trumped. You have bought into these falsehoods as sound science. I have established that fact. All I am asking for is the integrity and honesty for you to admit that these findings, once pronounced to the world as conclusive evidence, were bogus.

Once again, your responses about apes are of no surprise and are par for the course. “Bobbing and weaving” I call it. Evolutionists such as yourself do not feel compelled to prove their claim that similarity necessarily means common evolutionary ancestry – you assume it. Indeed, evolutionists never question or investigate whether evolution is true or not, rather they ask which animal evolved into which, and their answer is generally based on similarity!

We've established that Homo Habilis is a "waste bin" of various species. Homo erectus was actually a Homo sapien. Neanderthal's early reconstructions were
bogus. By failing to address these, I am assuming you must think these were sound science.

And yet, you claim:

quote:

---

Find me a single scientific source that suggests that every other fossil hominid has been proven "wrong".

---

Sounds like game, set, match, to me!

quote:

---

Which of my quotes were from non-scientific sources? Maybe a couple of the Behe quotes, but nearly all were from mainstream sources.

---

Creationist web sites are non-scientific sources.

quote:

---

You, on the other hand, have provided nothing other than drivel and insult; a keen mind indeed.

---

What drivel and insult? I've provided the definitions of evolution and scientific theory so that everyone can discuss the actual thing that needs to be discussed and provided links so that evidence for my position can be seen.

quote:

---

The authors you cite are quibbling about minor issues (mechanisms, timing, models), and NONE have any doubt that evolution occurred. You would know that if you actually read their papers.

---

And scientists are ALWAYS quibbling over details...

quote:

---

Not to worry; I would never use the bible to defend my position.

---

He's talking about arguing against Bible positions by misusing quotes from the Bible - not arguing against evolution using quotes from the Bible...

quote:

---

What science has failed to conclusively prove is in the area of macroevolution

---

The only distinction between these two is the scale of the evolution that occurred and some of the mechanisms...nothing more...evolution is the change in gene frequencies over time...more time...more change...more evolution...

quote:

---

Can you prove that electrons exist? Have you seen one? Has anyone ever seen one?

---

I'll answer for him....NOPE!!! These elementary particles are inferred...That doesn't mean we don't know they exist...

quote:

---

A creationist website may have hosted the information, but the information is nonetheless from scientific, peer reviewed literature, so get over it.

---

Does the site contain a link to the ENTIRE article? Or, just the part of the article it is using, without context, to support it's position?

Would you consider a link to here http://www.infidels.org/library/modern/jim_meritt/bible-contradictions.html#good_to_all to be an objective discussion of the Bible? I mean, all of those quotes come directly from the Bible, so, by your reasoning, they must be right?

quote:

---

Homo erectus was actually a Homo sapien.

---

From http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/homs/a_erectus.html:

quote:

---

Are erectus and sapiens the same species?
Lubenow (1992) and Mehlert (1994) have argued that Homo erectus is similar enough to H. sapiens that it should be merged into it. For example, Lubenow quotes Wolpoff et al. (1984):
"In our view, there are two alternatives. We should either admit that the Homo erectus/Homo sapiens boundary is arbitrary and use nonmorphological (i.e. temporal) criteria for determining it, or Homo erectus should be sunk [into H. sapiens]."

Wolpoff and his colleagues support what is known as the multiregional theory, which holds that populations of H. erectus throughout the world evolved together towards H. sapiens (as opposed to the "out of Africa" theory, which holds that one population of H. erectus gave rise to all modern humans).

Wolpoff et al. are not saying that H. erectus cannot be distinguished from modern humans; in fact they point out that it "on the average shows clear morphological distinctions from Homo sapiens". Nor do they dispute that H. sapiens evolved from H. erectus. Wolpoff and his colleagues explain clearly why they propose that H. erectus should not be a separate species:

We regard the species distinction between Homo erectus and Homo sapiens as being problematic. The issue we address stems from the difficult in clearly distinguishing an actual boundary between Homo erectus and Homo sapiens. ... From a purely cladistic outlook, Homo erectus should be sunk, since species originating through anagenesis (ie, without branching) are not recognized as separate species according to the criteria of phylogenetic systematics. (Wolpoff et al. 1984)

In other words, they propose sinking H. erectus into H. sapiens only because there are so many intermediate fossils that it is difficult to define a boundary between them, and because there are theoretical reasons for calling them the same species (no matter how much anatomical difference there is) if, as the multiregionalists believe, H. sapiens did not branch off from a subset of the H. erectus population. Wolpoff and his colleagues are not saying that the two species should be merged because there is insufficient difference between them, and Wolpoff has confirmed to me (in an email) that the amount of difference is not the issue.

Most scientists disagree with the idea of sinking H. erectus into H. sapiens, believing that the differences are clearly enough to merit a species distinction. A growing number would go further, and argue that there is room for another species between them, Homo heidelbergensis, which would contain many of the fossils often called "archaic" Homo sapiens (Tattersall 1995). It is also far from certain that the multiregional theory is correct, in which case even the theoretical reasons for sinking H. erectus would disappear.

Scientists who propose sinking H. erectus therefore provide no comfort for creationists, since their reasons totally contradict creationists who would claim that the H. erectus morphology is caused by diseases of, or racial variation in, H. sapiens.

One occasionally sees creationists claiming that many scientists now believe that H. erectus is no longer a valid species. This was never true. Shipman (2003) discusses a conference in 1991 at which a proposal by Wolpoff, Thorne and their colleagues to abandon H. erectus as a species was a contentious topic. Even then, the proposal did not get far and since then it has faded away. As Shipman says, "The move to eliminate Homo erectus is largely defunct...".

---

Eric '90

A good spanking helps to settle a child's nerves

quote:

---

Creationist web sites are non-scientific sources.

---

Deal with the quotes themselves, for they are from recognized scientific sources. You clowns always criticize creationists for not arguing with scientific information, so along comes someone with such data, and you can't seem do deal with it!

I don't see you addressing any of these quotes, either, so join the crowd.



My sources,as quoted, are from American Scientist, Science, the text New Perspectives on Human Evolution, etc., to name a few. As is typical, you have proven that you do not, or cannot retain, information.

quote:

---

I mean, all of those quotes come directly from the Bible, so, by your reasoning, they must be right?

---

I've not brought the Bible into this discussion; that's your move.

quote:

---

One occasionally sees creationists claiming that many scientists now believe that H. erectus is no longer a valid species. This was never true. Shipman (2003) discusses a conference in 1991...

---

This was never true?Again, a bogus claim; here's one example; from a more contemporary source:

quote:

---

"If these dates are right," said Philip Rightmire, an anthropologist at the State University of New York at Binghamton, "the multiregionalists will have to do some fast thinking."...The new findings also challenge the rival Out of Africa theory. That view holds that modern humans emerged in Africa as recently as 150,000 years ago and spread around the globe, driving Homo erectus into extinction---well before the era pointed to by the new finding.(Maclean's, science section,"The origins of man", Dec. 23, 1996 p. 69)

---

Your claims will join the trash heap of Neanderthal, Lucy, Habilis and others; the track record is hardly sterling. One failed claim after another;yet it is what you choose to believe.


Again, my challenge is laid out...disprove the quotes I've provided you from your own scientific community, or shut up, and secondly, show us where science has conclusively agreed and proven that legitimate transitional forms have been discovered. Or, let me ask it another way. Has science produced a transitional form? Or is it assumed it exists? These should both be yes or no answers.





[This message has been edited by Piccadillo (edited 5/30/2005 5:17p).]

pic

quote:

---

I don't see you addressing any of these quotes, either, so join the crowd.

---

Just the other day on this very same thread I nailed you on one of your cherry-picked quotes after reading the entire PNAS paper from which it was lifted - I illustrated to you quite clearly how just stating a quote out of context conveys a distorted picture of the entire research article.

My point has never been that the quotes are not from scientific sources. My point is that you don't understand the quotes and that they are out of context.

My point in the last post was that you don't even understand the issues of the debate. That is because you have learned the basics of evolutionary theory and definitions either from a faulty educational system, or more likely, from a creationist website. You can't even judge the reliability of the fossil record because you don't understand evolutionary theory, what a species is, how they are defined, how they originate (speciation), primate relationships, or any other matter in this thread.
Only in your mind can you win a debate on your topic in which you have demonstrated complete ignorance. Aside from quibbling quotes about minor issues, you have only shown to not understand the debate or the fossils. Despite your lack of understanding of transitional fossils, you seem to be sure that somehow they have all been discounted, yet ask any scientist, read any journal, go to any conference, and you will see that you have come to an incredibly erroneous conclusion. Unless of course, you believe in worldwide conspiracy theories involving thousands of scientists (many whom are religious) in many different fields. Which is exactly what you claim. Frankly, your claims are laughable for anybody with an open mind who has seen the evidence.

My point still stands, with your complete lack of any credible knowledge on a single topic on this thread, it is impossible for you to judge any evidence, particularly when you try to learn about science from a pseudoscientific website.

Accepting evolution is not a sign of bias as hetero pointed out. We are not biased towards gravity. We accept it because, like macroevolution, it is an established fact. That is rational thought in action. Only the uninformed or the religiously biased cannot see it. You are obviously firmly in both camps, and cannot legitimately argue the first thing about macroevolution. You have made this painfully obvious throughout the thread since the first page.

Once again, I will ignore the petty insults; the sign of one who cannot stay on point and argue on merit.

quote:

---

Accepting evolution is not a sign of bias as hetero pointed out. We are not biased towards gravity. We accept it because, like macroevolution, it is an established fact. That is rational thought in action. Only the uninformed or the religiously biased cannot see it.

---

So fletch...please excuse this unwashed person....how are these "facts" established....are you saying there are no assumptions involved whatsoever?



And hetero; no; if you've "nailed" anyone on this board it would be a historic first. I've remained on this thread not because of you or anyone else, but that I find fletch an interesting and invigorating opponent;despite his tendency for childish insult and ad hominems. I agree with what you said about the paper; but the quote I posted attests to the difficulties that scientists have in this particular approach to determining precise transitional forms. Approaches thusfar have not been infallibe. I suppose you conventiently chose to ignore this part; be rational, man.





[This message has been edited by Piccadillo (edited 5/31/2005 8:12a).]

[This message has been edited by Piccadillo (edited 5/31/2005 7:32p).]

The community of faith believe that God created all of the universe. Now, whether God is an inter-gallactic traveller and life on earth is his or her's on-going terrarium experiment or whether God is the white-bearded, throne-seated omnipotent Creator who created the materials for the "big bang" and then created everything else through his divine ways...we believe in God. That fact should not be so intimidating to men and women of science even though scientists by their very nature must seek concrete proof and faith can play no part in their processes. However, scientists can, I believe, be more open to other theories, scientific or spiritual, simply because of the history of science which demonstrates that more often than not: long established scientific theories accepted as fact were eventually revealed to be incorrect. My point is that I think a little humility by all of us would go a long way in our discourse. As St. Paul said in his letter to the church in Corinth, "...now we see through a glass darkly, but then we shall see face to face."

As a matter of faith and of reason, I find it difficult to accept this: that the mind-boggling diversity of life now present on our planet came from the few species that survived the catastrophe of 65 million ago that destoyed most life on earth, according to the fossil records. However, I will remain open to the possibility of one day seeing the proof of it and I will, on that day, still marvel at the greatness and goodness of God, for I am, after all, a person of faith.

quote:

---

Deal with the quotes themselves, for they are from recognized scientific sources.

---

quote:

---

I've not brought the Bible into this discussion; that's your move.

---

My point is that, if taken out of context, you can make things sound different than they really are...

That's how your quotes are being used...

quote:

---

This was never true?Again, a bogus claim; here's one example; from a more contemporary source:

---

The quote was:

quote:

---

One occasionally sees creationists claiming that many scientists now believe that H. erectus is no longer a valid species.

---

I didn't realize that ONE person was now equal to MANY....

And to Bear Ag...

you don't believe that God could have created life the way evolution describes it? Why? Would it be too difficult a task???

BTW, how could God have described how He created life to people 6000 years ago? These people weren't as sophisticated enough to even think there were four elements - fire, air, water, and earth - like later people thought...


Eric '90

A good spanking helps to settle a child's nerves

Eric, I didn't say that I didn't believe God created lifeforms through evolution. I said I was open to believing it when it is proven. The morphing needed to produce the extravagance of life today from the surviving species from the mass-extinction of most lifeforms 65 million years ago is not possible,IMHO, given the very slow and incredibly tiny changes seen in the fossil records, where morphing has actually been observed. Perhaps you could honor my doubt since science, through the centuries, has been re-working almost every theory ever proposed as new and conflicting information becomes available.

[This message has been edited by Bear Ag (edited 5/31/2005 2:18p).]

Actually, the morphing of scientific thought changed with the development of the scientific method. Since then, things don't change as much, but new things are added as we learn more.

And THEORIES change only in some parts of their details...not the overall premise...

What I find confusing, though, is how some people - perhaps not you - find it more believable that whole creatures appeared from nothing than that those same creatures developed over a LONG time to the form they are now, through lots of little changes...

Eric '90

A good spanking helps to settle a child's nerves

Well, perhaps it is easier for me to see a Creator designing an elephant than believing a mouse-like mammal would morph in 65 million years into an elephant and a blue whale and a human being.

You don't think God could do that?

Eric '90

A good spanking helps to settle a child's nerves

Do you believe in UFOs, Ag w/ Kids?

Picco-

Since you love scientific quotes so much, please consider this one by Dobzansky, ironically one of the same individuals you quoted out of context earlier. It sums up the state of evolutionary theory in science, as well as the tactic creationists employ.

"Any competent biologist is aware of a multitude of problems yet unresolved and of questions yet unanswered. After all, biologic research shows no sign of approaching completion; quite the opposite is true. Disagreements and clashes of opinion are rife among biologists, as they should be in a living and growing science. Antievolutionists mistake, or pretend to mistake, these disagreements as indications of dubiousness of the entire doctrine of evolution. Their favorite sport is stringing together quotations, carefully and sometimes expertly taken out of context, to show that nothing is really established or agreed upon among evolutionists. Some of my colleagues and myself have been amused and amazed to read ourselves quoted in a way showing that we are really antievolutionists under the skin.

Let me try to make crystal clear what is established beyond reasonable doubt, and what needs further study, about evolution. Evolution as a process that has always gone on in the history of the earth can be doubted only by those who are ignorant of the evidence or are resistant to evidence, owing to emotional blocks or to plain bigotry. By contrast, the mechanisms that bring evolution about certainly need study and clarification. There are no alternatives to evolution as history that can withstand critical examination. Yet we are constantly learning new and important facts about evolutionary mechanisms." --Theodosius Dobzhansky "Nothing in Biology Makes Sense Except in the Light of Evolution", American Biology Teacher vol. 35 (March 1973). http://www.2think.org/dobzhansky.shtml

You and I must agree to disagree. You see I believe that someone who doesn't understand the definitions, ramifications, or evidence used in evolutionary sciences cannot make up for their lack of knowledge with out of context quotes provided by a biased source. You apparently disagree.

Open-minded skepticism is important, but that is not what is exhibited when you dismiss the consensus of millions ofscientific experts worldwide that evolution is a fact, particularly when the consensus is arrived at through multiple independent data sets from many distinct fields (paleontology, paleoanthropology, molecular genetics, comparative anatomy, developmental biology, biochemistry, and depending on your brand of creationism, geology, astronomy, and physics as well). That, my friend, is irrational behavior.

That doesn't necessarily take God out of the equation, because the supernatural is poorly addressed by a field characterized by methodological naturalism - an approach which you require & demand in almost every other aspect of your life to ensure the efficacy of medicine, the safety of your car and microwave, and that your child's pajamas are fire-retardant.
That is why many who are familiar with the overwhelming data supporting evolution, including a great number of scientists, can mesh science and faith through belief in theistic evolution.

[This message has been edited by flechenbones (edited 5/31/2005 8:35p).]

[This message has been edited by flechenbones (edited 5/31/2005 9:09p).]

fletch:

We will indeed agree to disagree. Mr. Dobzansky's quotes are an honest admission of the gaps, shortcomings and disagreements he sees in the processes he studies and I commend him for his integrity. Of course I do not expect him to refute evolution.

To remind you, I have never attacked the entire doctrine of evolution, as he accuses creationists of doing in his remarks. Despite what you've have accused me of, I do not fit the mold of the typical creationist.

That said, he is saying the same thing that I have pointed out, that there are questions; there are disagreements; and these tell us that the science is indeed not infallible. It takes a lot of personal integrity to admit "we just don't know yet".

You, on the other hand, seem to promote science as infallible. That is being intellectually dishonest.

To fill these gaps and questions, it is reasonable that evolutionists must make assumptions. However, as I've also said, I feel evidence is lacking in the discovery of a known human transitional form, and that is a fair and accurate statement, with which most reasoned scientists would agree. That does not mean that these same scientists are discrediting the entire theory of evolution.

Not one to avoid poking a finger in your eye, the analogy here is that strict adherence to the belief of evolution takes a great deal of faith, as there are many assumptions that must be made, as even you yourself have shown on this thread.

quote:

---

Open-minded skepticism is important, but that is not what is exhibited when you dismiss the consensus of millions ofscientific experts worldwide that evolution is a fact

---

Show me where I've dismissed evolution please, as I do believe microevolution does occur. I've poked holes in speciation, particulary pertaining to humans. To posit that there are proven human transitional forms, as you have, remains a dishonest practice. I hope you are not a teacher. There are some discoveries that may come "close enough" to make some assumptions, but that's all you have. With this in mind, I'm wondering how you define "fact". It would lend more credibility to use the term "assumption".

quote:

---

You and I must agree to disagree. You see I believe that someone who doesn't understand the definitions, ramifications, or evidence used in evolutionary sciences cannot make up for their lack of knowledge with out of context quotes provided by a biased source.

---

Once again, an elitist answer, but I'll deal with it anyway. The sources are from scientific materials. There may have been a creationist website hosting it, but the quotes come from scientific, peer reviewed materials and speak for themselves. You are the one who is misinterpreting, as you have proven above. These men are not seeking to disprove evolution; they are speaking their minds about the gaps and inconsistencies they see. That is what I call intellectual integrity.

You say I lack knowledge. I say you lack integrity. And I think that is the crux of our disagreement.







[This message has been edited by Piccadillo (edited 5/31/2005 9:42p).]

Despite what you've have accused me of, I do not fit the mold of the typical creationist.

Actually you do. Creationism has evolved just like most movements. Most, including you, accept microevolution because many in the creationist movement have realized the futility of trying to deny biological change within species. Most creationists today have drawn the line at macroevolution, and wrongly insist, as you do, that the evidence is poor. The creation "science" movement also developed because creationists realized that they would never get evolution out of the science curriculum employing a fire and brimstone approach. Intelligent Design is the latest form to attempt to appear scientific, which it of course, is not.

Show me where I've dismissed evolution please, as I do believe microevolution does occur.

Again, I used it in reference to macroevolution, which has also been the focus of our differences.

I've poked holes in speciation, particulary pertaining to humans.

Did you forget that you don't know how to define a species and in fact, how speciation occurs? All you have established is that you are unfit to judge the evidence. Furthermore, as I pointed out many times earlier, you are ignoring the evidence of many other scientific fields that indicates shared ancestry between humans and other apes.

To posit that there are proven human transitional forms, as you have, remains a dishonest practice..

Again, what would your transitional ape-human look like? You misunderstand "the missing link" idea. Every fossil with a mixture of human and non-human ape characteristics, of which we have many, you say is clearly lumped with one or the other. However, you have no idea what characteristics would be used to support your erroneous categorization of the fossil record, or where the line should be drawn between humans and other apes.
Where I agree with you (as opposed to your characterization of my opinion above), is that it is extremely difficult to establish with certainty, which are in our direct lineage. But then again, scientists don't claim that we have. Science is a self-correcting critical pursuit of knowledge. That is why, when explaining Leakey's quote earlier in this thread, I said
Many fossils cause us to rework some of the branches on the evolutionary tree. That is why Leakey said "scientists will never be able to prove a particular scenario". She recognizes that evolution has already been established beyond a reasonable doubt, but that the nitty-gritty details are still being refined, and will continue to be as long as we are finding fossils". Hardly the lack of integrity you portray. I can admit the shortcomings of the field very readily, and I would certainly never agree to the statement that science is infalliable - that WOULD be intellectually dishonest, which I am not. However, the shortcomings that you have touched on are minor quibbles common to most scientific disciplines, and as Dobzansky and many others have pointed out, they do not imply that "the wheels are coming off evolution" as creationists would like to think. Should we throw out Christianity because Protestants and Catholics can't agree on a number of issues? Of course not. That is a weak comparison, of course, because you are trying to throw out evolutionary theory because of minor squabbling on only one particular data set (the fossils), while ignoring multiple data sets in many independent fields.

I am sorry that my answers seemed (or were) elitist. It was an unfortunate result of debating a topic with someone who has little understanding of the topic, and certainly no place on insisting that his tactic of taking out of context quotes is somehow a valid approach. The tactic is well-known as Dobzhansky spelled out decades ago. As Mayer described it 23 years ago in the Journal of College Science Teaching (Vol 11, p. 274) "Creationist literature is largely based on misreading and deliberate or inadvertent misrepresentation of the papers of reputable scientists". Your insistence on them implies that it is not inadvertent. It is a horribly inappropriate approach. I can find many places in the bible where it says "there is no god". Should I use these biblical quotes to claim that belief in a higher power is unfounded? Of course not, since all of the sentences have words and/or sentences before and after that phrase that are necessary to understanding what is meant. Had I insisted on that tactic in a debate on religion, I'm sure you would have called me dishonest and ignorant on the bible, and you would have been right to do so.

That macroevolution occurred is what is accepted as scientific fact, the mechanisms, rates, etc. are still debated. I never said any of the many transitional fossils in the hominid fossil record have been "proven" to be in our direct lineage. In fact, because of how science works, we can really only establish with certainty which ones are NOT. Some that are currently thought to be our earliest ancestors, will certainly be established as side branches in the future as we find older ancestors.