No no no we clearly evolved from elephants... /sarcasm
Posted on 04/13/2005 6:20:23 PM PDT by PatrickHenry
you have observed macroevolution? please share
You should find this page interesting. As you say anti-evolutionists maintain that no intermediates between humans and our ape ancestors have been found. They say that every fossil hominid can be easily classified as "human" or "not human". Curious then, that the anti-evolutionists differ on the classification of fossil hominids. How can this be when there is no such thing as an intermediate? The existence of such difficult-to-classify intermediates is a *prediction* of ToE (You know, that science that according to you isn't falsifiable ;) ) and the existence of these hard-to-classify fossils is a vindication of ToE.
Here is another set of predictions made by ToE. The best things that can be said about a scientific theory are that (a) It is in accordance with the known data (b) It has made successful predictions about previously unknown data (c) It has survived falsification attempts. ToE connects millions of data points, has made numerous predictions, and numerous potential falsifications have instead confirmed it.
As a specific example you might care to ponder how "evolutionists" managed to successfully predict that marsupial fossils would be found on Antarctica. That is a highly specific prediction. One of many, many, many. How did they know that? (think plate-tectonics) Science can explain its reasoning behind such predictions, but faith-based belief-systems do not make verifiable predictions.
Millions of repeatable observations have the potential to falsify common descent with modification. Every time we dig up a fossil we can make predictions about its morphology based on its depth in the geological column, and based on its geographical location. We can predict what radiometric dating will say about the fossil. Every time we gene-sequence a new species we might get results that falsified common descent, but this never happens.
If there was a designer that designer went to great pains to make the biological kingdom appear as if all organisms are descended from a great tree of life. Perhaps to fool scientists into disbelieving Genesis I/II and going to hell? Or perhaps Genesis is not literally true in the most simple-minded interpretation. Creation stories that made sense to bronze-age goat-herds don't make sense in the light of modern knowledge. If you want to accept the literal truth of the entire bible you are rejecting more than just a major branch of biology (the keystone of modern biology). You are rejecting physics (radiometric dating), astronomy (SN1987A), cosmology (Cosmic Microwave Background), paleontology (fossil record), archeology (timelines for other civilizations that deny the biblical account), geology (no evidence for global flood).
Wrong. Sure, there's evidence that evolution takes place within a species—but the fossil record has not yielded evidence of one species becoming another, as Darwin confidently predicted. This lack of evidence has not gone unnoticed by sociologist Rodney Stark. Stark calls himself neither an evolutionist nor an advocate of Intelligent Design; instead, he says, he is merely a scholar pursuing the evidence where it leads. In For the Glory of God (Princeton University Press, 2003), Stark offers startling evidence that Darwinists have covered up mounting flaws in their theory. He concludes that the battle over evolution is hardly a case of "heroic" scientists fighting off the persecution of religious fanatics. Instead, from the start, evolution "has primarily been an attack on religion by militant atheists who wrap themselves in the mantle of science in an effort to refute all religious claims concerning a creator—an effort that has also often attempted to suppress all scientific criticisms of Darwin's work."
Doesn't mean anything, it means humans and apes coexisted at the same time that all.
Throw all the big words that you dont understand away when addressing me, it neither intimidates or impresses me :D
What big words, sorry? Is there some part of my argument that you didn't understand. Point it out and I'll try to clarify it for you.
Doesn't mean anything, it means humans and apes coexisted at the same time that all.
Try again, and read the article more carefully. It indicates no such thing.
You cant PROVE that is a human. You have bones... how scientific is that? wild speculation at best. you know what happens when you start to assume things dont ya?
felonious placemarker
You are still posting before you've read and understood the argument. Your point is not relevant to the point being made in the article. Please read the article again.
That's a mighty paranoid conspiracy theory you've got there. But it's just a fantasy, and it's false. I'm sure it brings you some comfort though.
Meanwhile, biologists continue to do actual science which overwhelmingly supports evolution, as they have for almost 150 years now. Deal with it.
Try reading more *science* sources and fewer creationist ones, if you want something approaching a realistic view of what evolutionary biology is all about. Trying to "learn" about evolution from creationist sources is almsot exactly like trying to "learn" about conservatism from Michael Moore movies, and for exactly the same reasons.
Excellent analogy.
As far as im conserned they could all be apes. we really dont know for sure now do we?
well, where has one species turned into another?
here in reality..
If ToE is not true we ought to be able to easily tell for sure. After all we can do it for all modern skulls. Why can't you (or to be more fair, a evolution-rejecting scientist skilled in the art, like the scientists in the article) tell? There's no such thing as an intermediate, right? Every modern skull we look at, we can tell if its human or not-human. Why can't we reliably do that for fossils? The fossil record overwhelmingly indicates gradual change over time, right back to the smallest and oldest fossils we can find from hundreds of millions of years ago.
how do you ToE isnt an APE that went extinct?
Huh? You lost me. Another attempt at humor maybe? You forgot to include the joke.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.