Do you believe in evolution?

[1journeyman]

Originally Posted by DeltaBlack22
Pastor, freedom fighter... Its all gods work.

Semper Fi...
That's how I see it, but others would disagree

 

[jerthunter]

Originally Posted by Clown Boy
Alright, here it goes... I'll do one at a time, starting with:
Sorry, I had to edit out the article for space...
See Clownboy's above post if anyone is interested.
Ok, I read it, now I will attempt to respond.
1. First you said Homo habalis and Homo erectus where proven falsehoods, however this article only makes an attempt to discredit one skull found that was supposed to belong to Homo halalis
2. Skull 1470 is only one fossil, it is not the only fossil so even if one fossil was mislabeled or misrepresented this in no way makes an entire species 'a proven falsehood'
3. There are constant advances in science so I do not understand what the difficulty is in adjusting the procedure for radiometric dating. It started with Potassium-Argon dating, however this procedure requires the use of two different samples and has a high margin of error. Than advances were made and Argon-Argon testing came about. This testing used the same theory as before but required only one sample per test making the margin of error lower. Next we have SCLF, again using the same principles but this time the sample needed was even smaller and has the smallest margin of error. So it only makes sense that over time, as tests get better and more accurate that we will get better and better results. Again, these 3 tests I mentioned are all based on the same principle, how much Potassium-40 is left in the rock (potassium-40 is radioactive, has a known half-life and decays into Argon-40)
4. A 'cheap shot' was taken at an artist's rendering of what a Homo habalis might look like, of course it is just the artists imagination, what else would it be? I see drawing of dinosaurs all the time and they are just artistic representations. Unfortunately camera were not invented by Homo habalis
5. (my last point for now, unless I missed something) The article quotes a book where the author claims that "Homo habilis is flawed taxon, or category, because it is a mixture of fossils that are definitely not human." however that is just a matter of opinion. In the end the names we give anything are just made up by humans, the taxons we define are made up by humans, and there is no true 'form taxon' (unless you are Plato perhaps) so it merely becomes opinion what to name something.

 

[clown boy]

Homo erectus is too. I just haven't had time yet... but I will.

 

[clown boy]

Originally Posted by Jerthunter
2. Skull 1470 is only one fossil, it is not the only fossil so even if one fossil was mislabeled or misrepresented this in no way makes an entire species 'a proven falsehood'
Perhaps, but it was off of this one that the whole species was based...

 

[jerthunter]

Originally Posted by Clown Boy
Perhaps, but it was off of this one that the whole species was based...
I can see why you might be skeptical. I mean I would be skeptical if I believed there was only one, however this is not even close to true.

 

[clown boy]

Actually, all of the others fall into the same pit... evolutionists are trying to make fossils fit the theory instead of fitting the theory to the fossils.

 

[jerthunter]

Originally Posted by Clown Boy
Actually, all of the others fall into the same pit... evolutionists are trying to make fossils fit the theory instead of fitting the theory to the fossils.
That is a horrible generalization by saying 'all of the others'. It does not sound like you are aware of the others. Beyond that fact there was nothing in the article you quoted did not manage to prove anything, the most it did was bring to light that fact that over the last 30 or so years there have been advances in science and technology that allow for more accurate testing.
Also, people who study fossils are called paleontologists or paleoanthropologists not evolutionists.
Concerning your statment about "making fossils fit the theory instead of fitting the theory to the fossils" it sure seems like that is what you are trying to do. It really appears that you are trying your best to interpret what is found to fit your theory. On the other hand most scientists would love the chance to find something that would turn scientific upside down.

 

[jerthunter]

Originally Posted by 1journeyman
Well, yes and no.
Darwin's book was titled "Origin of the Species"...
Yes, it was called the Origin of the Species not The Origin of Life. Darwin did not write that everything came from nothing, he wrote about the differences and similarities he noticed in animals from different areas.

 

[geridoc]

In his thoroughly researched book, Bones of Contention, author Marvin Lubenow brings to light that the facial bones were not clearly connected enough to know for sure if the face should be flat like a human or with jaw extended like an ape. As he further pointed out, "Homo habilis is flawed taxon, or category, because it is a mixture of fossils that are definitely not human."
Unfortunately, Lubenow is very alone in his belief that habilis is a flawed taxon. In a discussion that may be too esoteric for this thread, habilis is considered to be a true taxon, although its exact position in the evolution of sapiens remains under discussion. That is the beauty of science - ideas are examined, accepted or discarded in response to new data. In this case, the continued accumulation of new fossils secures the validity of habilis in the hominid chain of evolution.

 

[clown boy]

Originally Posted by Jerthunter
Concerning your statment about "making fossils fit the theory instead of fitting the theory to the fossils" it sure seems like that is what you are trying to do. It really appears that you are trying your best to interpret what is found to fit your theory. On the other hand most scientists would love the chance to find something that would turn scientific upside down.
Not at all. Did you know that Neanderthals was derived from the tooth of an extinct pig? With this being the only fossil, the scientists interpreted posture, facial features, and skin color.
Than there's the first Homo erectus fossil, of which all that was found was the dome of a skull. It was found by Eugene Dubios, who was going to be paid a lot of money if he found ape-man evidence.
Sounds pretty desperate to me...

 

[clown boy]

Originally Posted by Jerthunter
Also, people who study fossils are called paleontologists or paleoanthropologists not evolutionists.
I know, but not all paleontologists are evolutionists.

 

[jerthunter]

Originally Posted by Clown Boy
Not at all. Did you know that Neanderthals was derived from the tooth of an extinct pig? With this being the only fossil, the scientists interpreted posture, facial features, and skin color.
Than there's the first Homo erectus fossil, of which all that was found was the dome of a skull. It was found by Eugene Dubios, who was going to be paid a lot of money if he found ape-man evidence.
Sounds pretty desperate to me...
Just for a point of reference Eugene Dubois made his discovery more than 100 years ago. (1887 I believe)
Also, you mention the fact that he had money to gain, you could say the saem about creationists who make a ton of money going to churches and private christian school and teaching about creationism.
Also, concerning Nebraska man, who I assume you are refering to when you mention the tooth found in the 1900's, and fossils of Neanderthals had been found back in the late 1800's so that would make your claim that the species was dervied from this tooth false.
The first Neanderthal fossil was found way back in 1829-30.

 

[deltablack22]

Originally Posted by Clown Boy
evolutionists are trying to make fossils fit the theory instead of fitting the theory to the fossils.
This is very true...

 

[deltablack22]

Originally Posted by Jerthunter
Also, people who study fossils are called paleontologists or paleoanthropologists not evolutionists.
If I work as a garbage man and practice satanism, am I not still a satanist?

 

[deltablack22]

Originally Posted by Jerthunter
4. A 'cheap shot' was taken at an artist's rendering of what a Homo habalis might look like, of course it is just the artists imagination, what else would it be? I see drawing of dinosaurs all the time and they are just artistic representations. Unfortunately camera were not invented by Homo habalis
5. (my last point for now, unless I missed something) The article quotes a book where the author claims that "Homo habilis is flawed taxon, or category, because it is a mixture of fossils that are definitely not human." however that is just a matter of opinion. In the end the names we give anything are just made up by humans, the taxons we define are made up by humans, and there is no true 'form taxon' (unless you are Plato perhaps) so it merely becomes opinion what to name something.
4. First off, with a skull you can get a general idea of what someone looked like. But that in no way can tell you where fat deposits were, hair follicles are located, etc... Come on, look at that picture and tell me it doesnt look like one of those Conan O'Brian bits where they morph two pictures together... Modern man and ape...

Go figure, thats exactly what a scientist looking for a missing link would want him to look like. This is very common and ape like or human like features tend to be exaggerated to their likings.
5. How is the "species" a bone belongs to a matter of opinion? I'm not tracking this in the slightest.
This looks like a shaved chimp with a butch haircut:

 

[jerthunter]

Originally Posted by DeltaBlack22
4. First off, with a skull you can get a general idea of what someone looked like. But that in no way can tell you where fat deposits were, hair follicles are located, etc... Come on, look at that picture and tell me it doesnt look like one of those Conan O'Brian bits where they morph two pictures together... Modern man and ape...

Go figure, thats exactly what a scientist looking for a missing link would want him to look like. This is very common and ape like or human like features tend to be exaggerated to their likings.
5. How is the "species" a bone belongs to a matter of opinion? I'm not tracking this in the slightest.
This looks like a shaved chimp with a butch haircut:

It seems that you are not getting the point I was trying to convey with the statement of mine that you quoted. My point was simply this, any drawing will come atleast partly from imagination, there is no benefit in mentioning that. I would imagine that people are smart enough to realize that it is just a drawing. What does the fact the someone draw a picture prove? That people are interested in imagining what MAY have been?
As for how is a species a matter of opinion. Species is a word, there are several ways to define a species like the Biological species concept, evolutionary species concept, phylogentic species concept.. etc. In the end, species is just a word, defined by humans and it is often a matter of debate between people how a species should be defined.

 

[jerthunter]

Originally Posted by DeltaBlack22
If I work as a garbage man and practice satanism, am I not still a satanist?
But when you came to pick up my trash I probably would say, the garbage man is here, not the satanist is here..

 

[rbaldino]

Man, I'm sorry I missed 10 pages of this.
I've said it before and I'll probably say it again. I don't see how anyone can be involved in this hobby and not believe in evolution. The evidence is right there in your tank, if you bothered to look and make certain conclusions.

 

[deltablack22]

Originally Posted by Jerthunter
But when you came to pick up my trash I probably would say, the garbage man is here, not the satanist is here..
Even if I drew a giant pentagram in your driveway with all your trash?

 

[jerthunter]

Originally Posted by DeltaBlack22
Even if I drew a giant pentagram in your driveway with all your trash?

No, then I'd call your boss or the cops since your job would be to pick up my trash not place it on my driveway... Although this doesn't seem to have any bearing on the discussion.