Jump to content
House Price Crash Forum

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

judas

Another Blow For The Creationists

Recommended Posts

Well, all apart from the reality that Ardi bears an uncanny resemblance to the bipeds I have seen walking around the centres of Luton, Croydon, Harlow and Basildon in recent years, I'm really looking forward to enjoying a conversation, even though a tad monosyllabic, with an ape.................

Hang on??

That takes me directly back to Luton, Croydon, Basildon and Harlow!

:D

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

One of our ancestors has been found.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/sci/tech/8285180.stm

And there they were thinking man arrived on the planet as a white male with a fig leaf over his knob.

:lol: Ironic really, one minute you say "creationists" the next minute you're thinking creationists believe in "white male with fig leaf" which you've clearly lifted from an ancestor to a Christian Italian painting. You seem to think in boxes and not very many of them.

That's the real reason for the joy at these discoveries and the rush to accept the wildly drawn conclusions; "Christianity is wrong!" Well no shit Sherlock. But there are more than 2 options. It's not necessary to be a Christian to think there is good reason to doubt that there is more than randomness at work in the universe.

I thought this part was interesting, in that they just brushed it aside

That she lived in what would have been a wooded area 4.4 million years ago is somewhat challenging, says the team. It had been thought that early human evolution was driven, if only in part, by the disappearance of trees - encouraging our ancestors to walk on the ground. "These creatures were living and dying in a woodland habitat, not an open savannah," said Professor White. [with a shrug]

Well is that it then? Instead of this massive blow to the accepted story of human evolution causing a rethink it just gets put aside "oh must be some explanation we can weasel it away with".

Hey ho. Needs must i suppose.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

More nonsense from the neodarwinists. All of these human 'ancestors' are eiter apes or humans. Im not creationist, but this isnt science. Darwkins and his followers are getting desparate.

And putting up a link to the BBC news propaganda service showing a research press release is hardly proving you know anything about the subject to comment on the validity of the argument (scientists say thier discovery is an important piece of science shocker).

After the coelacanth debacle, darwinists* will need some substantial evidence to demonstrate true transition fossil, rather than relying on massaged data to fit their 'theory**'

*pigeon breeders

**anecdotal story

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

But it's funny to see how excited the darwinistas get at the slightest new "evidence", protesting too much me thinks. If their theory was as rock solid and "proved" as they claim why the excitement? Surely it's all been proved beyond doubt already? Why is this a blow if all doubt had already been blown away.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

But it's funny to see how excited the darwinistas get at the slightest new "evidence", protesting too much me thinks. If their theory was as rock solid and "proved" as they claim why the excitement? Surely it's all been proved beyond doubt already? Why is this a blow if all doubt had already been blown away.

You're on the wrong track entirely. No one is saying that this proves the theory of evolution.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

You're on the wrong track entirely. No one is saying that this proves the theory of evolution.

Its not a theory because its not testable in any way.

Its an anecdote. And an pretty unbelievable one at that.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

You're on the wrong track entirely. No one is saying that this proves the theory of evolution.

"Supports the theory"? Which is seen to add proof to the theory? Bit of a pedantic point really, i don't think i'm on the wrong track entirely to be honest. Look at the title of this thread, another nail in the coffin of the wacky idea that this er, creation, might have a creator. Seems very logical to me.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Its not a theory because its not testable in any way.

Its an anecdote. And an pretty unbelievable one at that.

It is a theory because it is falsifiable.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

More nonsense from the neodarwinists. All of these human 'ancestors' are eiter apes or humans. Im not creationist, but this isnt science. Darwkins and his followers are getting desparate.

And putting up a link to the BBC news propaganda service showing a research press release is hardly proving you know anything about the subject to comment on the validity of the argument (scientists say thier discovery is an important piece of science shocker).

After the coelacanth debacle, darwinists* will need some substantial evidence to demonstrate true transition fossil, rather than relying on massaged data to fit their 'theory**'

*pigeon breeders

**anecdotal story

Darwin does not necessarily have all the answers and he understood that himself. Being a well balanced individual and good scientist he openly stated his own perceived possible problems with his own theories and realised that discoveries in the future would either support or contradict his ideas. Whats incredible is how he has largely been proven right which shows what a great thinker he was on the subject - One of his main allies of course is DNA as it actually reinforces his tree of life depiction of how species have evolved. We know that humans share a common ancestry with chimps, benobos, gorillas and orang utans. Also we know that Whales and Hippos have a common ancester etc, etc, etc..

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

"Supports the theory"? Which is seen to add proof to the theory? Bit of a pedantic point really, i don't think i'm on the wrong track entirely to be honest. Look at the title of this thread, another nail in the coffin of the wacky idea that this er, creation, might have a creator. Seems very logical to me.

Look at it another way. If the universe did start with a big bang, who made the bomb?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Its not a theory because its not testable in any way.

Its an anecdote. And an pretty unbelievable one at that.

Presumably you can test a lot of the theory on bacteria which multiply very fast.

So lets say you give a culture of bacteria everything it needs. And then very slowly turn the temperature up. So if they multiply every 20 minuses and you increase the temperature by say 1 degree a month.

Would these evolve to become a version that was able to live at much higher temperatures? That shows adaptation to the environment and small steps of evolution.

You may even find that at certain critical points they completely change, say at 100 centigrade the water in them would boil so if any survive past that then it would likely be markedly different from the original cells?

Not my field but evolution seems logical enough to be feasible.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Look at it another way. If the universe did start with a big bang, who made the bomb?

That's a question in cosmology and physics, and has minimal significance re the mechanism of evolution by natural selection.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The greatest prediction of evolutionary theory was that some mechanism must exist in living creatures to imperfectly transmit inherited characteristics. DNA was discovered many years later, which pretty much clinched it. Everything since then has just been about tiding up the edges.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Any eccentrics interested in the sodding fossil itself and the interesting things it might show us, rather than the traditional dialogue of the daft these things provoke might be interested to observe John Hawks having a bit of a palaeoanthropological sex-wee over it here.

Is he ever jealous! But in a healthy way :lol: Trying to "falsify" already, as is his duty to science. It's taken 15 years to get to print.

Nerves of f┬Ácking steel, those guys, hoping nobody blew the gaff before it was cooked. :o

Definite twelve-pinter, though ...

Big hands. :ph34r:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Look at it another way. If the universe did start with a big bang, who made the bomb?

To imagine the universe either came from nothing, or has been in existence in some form or another for eternity certainly seems to me to be ludicrous. I cannot begin to comprehend either scenario. To then think we can satisfy such ludicrous ideas by explaining the existence of the universe as a piece of intelligent design or supernatural creation only adds an extra layer of ludicrous and unnecessary crap to the original problem. It seems to somehow tell us what we want to really hear but nothing more.

I do think that conventional science will only ever explain so much. Computers will take us to the next level of understanding and I suspect could rewrite much of what we think we know, apart from evolution that is :P

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Look at it another way. If the universe did start with a big bang, who made the bomb?

..And what made who made the bomb?

And these are too big and too unknowable questions to contemplate so we have by necessity to cling to a simpler answer that the knowable physical world is all there is. If the theory of evolution didn't exist it would be necessary to invent it :lol:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Darwin does not necessarily have all the answers and he understood that himself. Being a well balanced individual and good scientist he openly stated his own perceived possible problems with his own theories and realised that discoveries in the future would either support or contradict his ideas. Whats incredible is how he has largely been proven right which shows what a great thinker he was on the subject - One of his main allies of course is DNA as it actually reinforces his tree of life depiction of how species have evolved.

But it really doesn't, all it shows is that all creatures are assembled from the same materials in a very similar way. It does not provide a description of how we came to be how we are or indeed how DNA itself came to be. That part is speculation.

We know that humans share a common ancestry with chimps, benobos, gorillas and orang utans. Also we know that Whales and Hippos have a common ancester etc, etc, etc..

You can read what you like into it by decoding the DNA and saying anything that has this shared pattern is an ancestor or relative, but why? Why not simply another creature with a similar DNA, needed to exist in the same environment on the same nutrition etc? Why are we so desperate for an answer that we'll get half the facts and then draw our conclusions.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Presumably you can test a lot of the theory on bacteria which multiply very fast.

So lets say you give a culture of bacteria everything it needs. And then very slowly turn the temperature up. So if they multiply every 20 minuses and you increase the temperature by say 1 degree a month.

Would these evolve to become a version that was able to live at much higher temperatures? That shows adaptation to the environment and small steps of evolution.

You may even find that at certain critical points they completely change, say at 100 centigrade the water in them would boil so if any survive past that then it would likely be markedly different from the original cells?

Not my field but evolution seems logical enough to be feasible.

This is similar to an experiment that Prof Richard Lenski (Mitchigan State) ran on E-Coli bacteria. example link It was an excellent example of bacteria evolving to fit their conditions over tens of thousands of generations. In the expt the bacteria evolved the ability to metabolise citrate as well as glucose. Unfortunately, the ability of bacteria to evolve is v bad when it comes to degrading our armoury of antibiotics.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Presumably you can test a lot of the theory on bacteria which multiply very fast.

So lets say you give a culture of bacteria everything it needs. And then very slowly turn the temperature up. So if they multiply every 20 minuses and you increase the temperature by say 1 degree a month.

Would these evolve to become a version that was able to live at much higher temperatures? That shows adaptation to the environment and small steps of evolution.

You may even find that at certain critical points they completely change, say at 100 centigrade the water in them would boil so if any survive past that then it would likely be markedly different from the original cells?

Not my field but evolution seems logical enough to be feasible.

Maybe they would adapt, maybe they wouldnt. But i bet at the end of the experiment you would have a plate of bacteria, just like you started with. You wouldnt end up with a fish.

Bacteria make many changes all the time They have plasmids and can select genes and pass them to other bacteria via cunjugation. Some people seem to think this signifies evolution, but it it no such thing. These genes are already there, the bacteria just selects them when it needs them.

Micro evolution is testable. Organisms over time can change characteristics. However, these changes always revert back to the mean when the stressor is removed indicating they are adpative changes and not evolution. So you could say that micro-evolution is accepted and testable, and Darwin witnessed this in the finch beaks in the galapagos islands. However, macro evolution (one species converting to another) was an extrapolation and is not testable, has little evidence (no transition fossils) and is not a theory but an ancedotal suposition.

Confusing micro with macro evolution is what most scientists do by accident and some (like Dawkins) do on purpose to deliberately mislead to further his agenda.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

This is similar to an experiment that Prof Richard Lenski (Mitchigan State) ran on E-Coli bacteria. example link It was an excellent example of bacteria evolving to fit their conditions over tens of thousands of generations. In the expt the bacteria evolved the ability to metabolise citrate as well as glucose. Unfortunately, the ability of bacteria to evolve is v bad when it comes to degrading our armoury of antibiotics.

And at the end of the experiment were they bacteria or something else? If they were still bacteria they did not evolve, they adapted to their environment. I am so often frustrated by people using the "evolved" word when developed or adapted would have been far more appropriate.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

And at the end of the experiment were they bacteria or something else? If they were still bacteria they did not evolve, they adapted to their environment. I am so often frustrated by people using the "evolved" word when developed or adapted would have been far more appropriate.

Adaptation. Pure and simple. Just as the finches adapted on the galapagos islands. They did not evolve into monkies or fish.

You start with birds, you end with birds. Albeit birds with different shaped beaks.

Why cant more people understand this?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

  • The Prime Minister stated that there were three Brexit options available to the UK:   287 members have voted

    1. 1. Which of the Prime Minister's options would you choose?


      • Leave with the negotiated deal
      • Remain
      • Leave with no deal

    Please sign in or register to vote in this poll. View topic


×

Important Information

We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue.