I
impsputso
Guest
Hello everybody!
I am a new member in this forum.I love it so much .
I aslo want to ask you one question.Please tell me your idea.It is so important to me :
How cam I make friend with a pretty girl ?
Thank a lot!
- Status
I am a new member in this forum.I love it so much .
I aslo want to ask you one question.Please tell me your idea.It is so important to me :
How cam I make friend with a pretty girl ?
Thank a lot!
B
Benadam
Guest
This animal was bipedal with grasping feet. The males had small canine’s. This creature is such a mish mash that the researchers who discovered it may be embarking on a semipsychedelic journey through time.
G
grannymh
Guest
Please go to the top of this thread and click Catholic Answers Forums for a list of forums in which this question can be asked. Check out the “sticky notes” for guidance regarding a particular forum. Catholic Living, Water Cooler, and Back Fence are some forums you can look into. Go through the various threads to find one which may be discussing something similar to your question. Good luck.
H
hecd2
Guest
Well, my bet is that none of the posters on this thread who think that this is funny and a strike against evolutionary theory (see below) have read the papers in Science, because what is actually funny is how much misconception and empty triumphalism can be based on a poorly written and researched popular article. I have read the papers, and so I’ll be very happy to discuss just what any of these people find amusing, with reference of course to the actual research.
Any of you care to explain (with reference to the original research of course) just what you find so funny and why you think it is a strike against evolutionary theory? Reggie’s comments are particularly egregious and ill-supported and I’ll address them separately.
Hmm - the fossils were discovered in the mid-1990s, first described in 1994 and it has taken 15 years of painstaking work by 50 researchers with the fossils of at least 36 individuals to complete the papers published in Nature.
Alec
evolutionpages.com
H
hecd2
Guest
Suppose you tell us (with reference to the actual research of course) just how any claim in any of the eleven papers shows that evolution went in reverse.
Well, they obviously are in some ways. Chimps are more advanced than humans in their tree climbing abilities for example. But suppose you tell us (with reference to the original research of course) just how any one of the eleven papers supports the notion that chimps are generally more advanced than humans.
Suppose you tell us (with reference to the actual research of course) just how Darwin is proven wrong.
Suppose you tell us (with reference to the original research of course) just how any one of the eleven papers supports the notion that chimps are generally more advanced than humans, or (to focus on a key element of your strawman) cognitively more advanced than humans.
You always seem to have great difficulty in distinguishing between hypotheses, theories and facts. And in any case, I think you will find it impossible to find a single reputable scientific paper or textbook that suggests as a hypothesis or claims as a fact that humans evolved from chimps.
And in this case, what *fact *would that be (with reference to the actual research of course)?
Perhaps you will explain (with reference to the research papers of course) exactly what claim in the eleven papers is contrary to the Theory of Evolution? (The fact that there are various levels of controversy in all branches of science, and considerable controversy about the detailed path of human evolution, is neither news nor particularly surprising given the methodology of science and the current early stage of development of our knowledge of human palaeontology. If scientists were to follow your prescription to eschew controversy, the scientific method would collapse and we’d never learn anything about the natural world. The fact is that in spite of uncertainties and controversies we know a lot more about pre-H sapiens hominids and the evolutionary path leading to modern humans than we did in 1859)
You have a track record of attempting to make rhetorical capital from controversies and new discoveries in science, but the hypothesising, testing, correcting and improving nature of the scientific method is to science’s benefit, not its shame - it seems to me that the vast majority of scientists will welcome and be fascinated by the research on Ar ramidus and the new things it tells us about human origins - regardless of cheap jibes at a grotesque straw man of that work.
Alec
evolutionpages.com
G
grannymh
Guest
Of course, I will be happy to explain my giggles as I did in my reply to Sideline (post 17) And, yes, I did laugh before reading the original research which I will soon be in the process of finding. By the way, I may need your help with this. You mentioned the papers as being published in both Science and Nature…
The reason the idea struck my funny bone is that in my part of the world, back in the early 1950’s when I first learned about evolution, there were plenty of jokes about dating the missing link. This was in spite of the common ancestor theory. The turn-about of having apes descending from us was like saying “so there”. The idea of the original movie of the “Planet of the Apes” made my imagination do summersaults.
Seriously, the line following the quoted line gives my intentions. It reads: “I can’t help the giggles which actually have nothing to do with the main issues at hand.”
Blessings,
granny
R
reggieM
Guest
Very good!. I wouldn’t call that the most sophisticated insight, but perhaps evolutionary theory can tell us that much about the natural world.
I realize that it may not be fair to respond to direct quotes from evolutionists which have been published in an obscure source like the science and technology section of the Toronto daily newspaper but in any case …
“In a way we’re saying that the old idea that we evolved from a chimpanzee is totally incorrect,” he says. “It’s more proper to say that chimpanzees evolved from us.”
Lovejoy says chimps experienced more profound evolutionary changes in their backs, pelvises, limbs, hands and feet as they adapted to life in the trees than the hominid line of upright species that evolved into humans.
“Hominids, it turns out to be, are pretty primitive,” he says.
There are a few good ways to remind everyone that this is not funny at all.
First, he is an evolutionist – and therefore must be taken seriously.
Second, he didn’t say those things.
Third, he retracted those statements. What he meant was, “It’s **not **more proper …”
Fourth through an infinite number can be generated here…
As for this statement:
“So the whole savannah theory (of walking) is now gone as well.”
That should not be a problem at all also. I mean, it was just a theory and now it’s “gone”. Of course, this particular evolutionist could be completely wrong in his claims also – but that never happens because he believes in Charles Darwin, so he must be right.
If you’re saying that I cannot find a reputable paper on the topic of evolutionary theory, then perhaps you’re right again.
It’s like the claim: “No reputable scientist has the slightest doubt about evolutionary theory.” This is obvious because any scientist who doubts Darwinian theory is obviously not reputable.
Well, I’ll just say that when pompous blow-hards are humiliated in public by their own words, then they should be ashamed. If they’re not – then it’s all the more reason to find ways to expose their arrogance.
But as for the serious concern that I perceive in your post, I can suggest that you really shouldn’t worry about it that much. Items like this will come and go. Evolutionists will continue making absurd claims and they will continue to provide some very comical stories and their “uncertainties and controversies” will continue to be explored – all while they demand to be taken seriously.
People will laugh at such things – as evidenced here. Nobody needed my commentary to see how ridiculous this was. So, I wouldn’t worry about it. Evolutionary speculations are a lot cheaper than any of the jibes I can come up with.
From your post to granny:
I was hoping you were saying that this particular story wasn’t that funny in comparison to others which are even more hilarious. But you’ve taken on a tone of the Sunday school teacher here, so I don’t think you’re going to come up with something that will top this one.
But evolutionary comedians are fairly prolific. The title of Mr. Dawkins latest book is the marketing phrase for a circus act so looking for humor in the Darwinian world should not be that much of a problem either.
Here’s another very humorous scientific story published this week – you might find this a lot funnier than the man-to-monkey tale:
Mysterious dark force is shuffling dark stuff around that may not exist.
PhysOrg reported on a scientist’s idea that “an unknown force is acting on dark matter,” which, by definition, is also unknown. A team at U of St. Andrews “believes that the interactions between dark and ordinary matter could be more **important **and more complex than previously thought, and even **speculate that dark matter might not exist **and that the anomalous motions of stars in galaxies are due to a modification of gravity on extragalactic scales.”
p.s. I believe you wrote me off some time ago as being a person not worth responding to. I hope I haven’t done anything to change your mind about that.
R
reggieM
Guest
In fairness, monkeys are funny creatures. When people think about chimps they usually smile or laugh.
E
edwest2
Guest
To reggieM,
My Baloney Detection Meter was over a hundred feet away but it blew up in the box anyway with that physics article. As a fiction writer, I am beyond amazed at some of these scientific… what… pronouncements? Wild, wild guesses based on stuff they don’t think exists?
Man, oh man.
Peace,
Ed
My Baloney Detection Meter was over a hundred feet away but it blew up in the box anyway with that physics article. As a fiction writer, I am beyond amazed at some of these scientific… what… pronouncements? Wild, wild guesses based on stuff they don’t think exists?
Man, oh man.
Peace,
Ed
B
Benadam
Guest
They have been very thorough. I don’t doubt the accuracy of their reconstruction as it pertains to the animals physiology. I even think the hypothesis for bipedalism and other human characteristics plausible considering the unique addition to the fossil record that ardi offers. I also take into account as do many of the posters on this thread that the next find will ineviteably overturn the reality that the researchers are constructing with this find. Have you ever noticed that data from paradigm shifting finds such as ardi, in the end, aren’t quite as far reaching as first thought?
H
hecd2
Guest
Sure. They are published in Science, and unusually for Science they have made them all free access for six months. So you’re in luck - go here. If you read and understand a few of them you will be in a far better position to comment than those who think that reading a popular and inaccurate news article is all that is required to ridicule the work.
Aha! Similar to the links I get when I google dating fossils
. But actually, the papers don’t suggest that apes descend from us.So sorry to include you with others - who still need to explain what they find funny (with reference to the actual research of course).
Alec
evolutionpages.com
H
hecd2
Guest
Well on the evidence of this post, you are not worthy of dialogue and you have not done anything to change my mind about that. You obviously think rhetorical clowning constitutes argument. Doesn’t stop me pointing out to others your more egregious sillinesses though. I notice that in all the bluster you have not been able to back up a single one of your jibes about Ar ramidus. Others won’t miss that either. Same goes for your ill-informed comments on the work on galactic rotational curves that show a universal correlation between the surface density of luminous and dark matter on the scale of dark matter haloes.
Alec
evolutionpages.com
H
hecd2
Guest
Have you read and understood the paper? Oh no - I forgot - you don’t do that; it could challenge one of your preconceptions. So Gentile et al’s paper in Nature is baloney because *you *think so? You don’t even know what it’s about.
Alec
evolutionpages.com
R
reggieM
Guest
You said that before and then attempted to engage in dialogue with me. So, you contradict yourself here. Maybe you should try to convince yourself about your own views first before making them public.
No, I think it’s the perfect reaction to the article as posted.
Indeed. You convinced me that chimps are more advanced than humans in their tree climbing abilities.
H
hecd2
Guest
Seems reasonable.
What aspects specifically of the hypotheses and conclusions put forward in these papers do you think will “inevitably” be overturned, and why? Not that I think that every aspect of the hypotheses will survive further finds, but you seem confident that the bulk of the conclusions will be overturned. (I have my own reasons to be sceptical of some of the claims, but let’s see what you have to say).
Sometimes they are and sometimes they aren’t. Are you talking about palaeontology, or science in general? I think that every major find (ie new species in reasonable preservation) in human palaeontology is bound to be quite transformative at the moment given how little we know. But as I said I am sceptical about some claims for Ardipithecus.
You haven’t explained why you suggested that the researchers were on a happy trip, though.
Alec
evolutionpages.com
R
reggieM
Guest
I forgot to add that to my expected responses to this article. Forget the direct quotes from the scientist involved in the study – the important matter is that the news article is “inaccurate”.
This can be phrased in various ways. Saying it’s “popular” sometimes is good enough to discredit it also. But it’s very good to say that the article is “wrong” or it “misunderstood” what the scientist actually said.
Popular news articles only get the information wrong when they say something that might sound critical of evolutionary theory.
B
Benadam
Guest
H
hecd2
Guest
Well, I don’t rely on them at all, preferring to rely on the actual science - unlike ignorant creationists and supporters of ID for whom selective journalism is a proxy for learning. You have still failed to support a single one of your erroneous interpretations of the research by reference to the authors’ own claims in the papers:
Suppose you tell us (with reference to the actual research of course) just how any claim in any of the eleven papers shows that evolution went in reverse.
Suppose you tell us (with reference to the original research of course) just how any one of the eleven papers supports the notion that chimps are generally more advanced than humans, or (to focus on a key element of your strawman) cognitively more advanced than humans.
Suppose you tell us (with reference to the actual research of course) just how Darwin is proven wrong.
Suppose you tell us (with reference to the actual research of course) just what scientific facts have been proven wrong.
Perhaps you will explain (with reference to the research papers of course) exactly what claim in the eleven papers is contrary to the Theory of Evolution?
Or are you just blowing smoke?
Alec
evolutionpages.com
R
reggieM
Guest
I see you contradicted yourself again. 10 minutes ago I wasn’t worthy to dialogue with and now you try to dialogue with me again. Obviously, if you have to contradict yourself twice in a matter of three exchanges with me, I’m going to find it very difficult to understand anything you’re trying to say.
Apparently, you didn’t like my reflections on Mr. Lovejoy’s commentary which I quoted directly.
Again, as I pointed out – in the evolutionary view of the world, he didn’t actually say that the “old idea” was “incorrect”. On the contrary – he was reaffirming the old idea.
Perhaps you now want some evidence to prove that Mr. Lovejoy actually said that. Actually, it’s much simpler to claim that the article was “inaccurate”. That often happens when evolutionists say embarrassing things. Instead of getting very upset with this news publication for making inaccurate statements – you want to engage me (a person unworthy of dialogue just earlier this evening) in a dialogue about what Mr. Lovejoy actually meant by the statements I quoted from him.
I’m very willing to accept the opposing, contradictory evolutionary view that when chimpanzees “evolved from us” they actually became less advanced and had less mental capacity. That’s the great thing about evolution. Organisms evolve from the simple to more complex to the point where the human brain emerges – and then, of course, chimpanzees evolve from humans and their brains get smaller have have massively less capacity. This was necessary because the environment required them to get rid of the ability for abstract thought, writing literature and building high-rise apartment buildings. They needed to climb trees and eat bananas so all of that cognitive advancement was really getting in the way. With the reduction of mental capacity, this is actually evolutionary progress and not what I mistakenly characterized as “evolution in reverse”. Chimps gained some tremendous advances over humans – and you pointed one out. They can climb trees better than humans. Of course. I believe they can pick gnats out of each others fur better than humans can also. Clearly, these are signs of evolutionary progress – who could doubt it?
I already explained this very clearly. Darwin could not possibly have been wrong. When Mr. Lovejoy said that the “old idea” was “incorrect” – that did not mean that the old idea was “wrong”. It really meant that Darwin’s ideas are more correct now than ever. In fact, Darwin agreed with Mr. Lovejoy that chimps actually evolved from humans also. He just never actually said it or wrote it down. But we know that he believed it. We’re more certain about that then we are about evolutionary theory itself.
I was very far ahead of you here. The old facts were not wrong. If they were, then they weren’t facts. If the new facts contradict the old ones – then the contradiction is only apparent. With careful interpretation we see that both views are perfectly reconciled. This is obvious by Mr. Lovejoy’s statement that the “old idea” was “totally incorrect”. It’s also obvious when he said that the savannah theory was “gone now”. This is pretty basic stuff and I don’t see how anyone could disagree.
I’ll summarize, as I said before.
Mr. Lovejoy must be correct, because he is an evolutionist. The ideas that he explicitly criticized as being “totally incorrect” or “gone” are also correct - for an immense variety of reasons – the number of which is limited only to what one’s imagination can develop.
Clearly, nothing at all could be contrary to the Theory of Evolution. I’ve been convinced that it explains everything and cannot possibly be incorrect in any manner.
So, I think our apparent conflict of ideas here is based on a misunderstanding. You thought I was criticising the article and ridiculing the Theory of Evolution and the idea that chimps evolved from humans.
But on the contrary, I was fully supporting all of the contradictory claims of evolution – since they all must be true and that is obvious.
R
Ridgerunner
Guest
It’s undoubtedly true. One of them brought me my tractor repair bill just today. Then there was Lonnie Bob in high school…
- Status