Evolution is contradictory?

  • Thread starter Thread starter buss0042
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
LeafByNiggle said:
That too, is a question. But why must one test the same sample? Why not test other samples? Surely if dinosaurs were living 40,000 years ago there would be more than one sample found among all the various bones found.
Click to expand...
There are and continue to be more. But, retest the same samples until resolution is reached. What are you afraid of?
 
buffalo said:
40.png
LeafByNiggle:
Maybe, maybe not. Errors can be made in testing, right?
Click to expand...
Yes, retest the same samples, several times as well as other soft tissues.
Click to expand...
I was going to make a smart remark about some members themselves needing certain soft tissue tested but I’ll wait until I get an answer to my previous enquiries.
 
Bradskii said:
So if we go back to the early hominids, back to the time our ancestors had barely started walking, we see a gradual ability to control the environment. Evolving from a gradual increase in intelligence. Stone tools, fire, cooking, clothing, speech.
Click to expand...
Stone tools, maybe. Start fire, cooking, clothing; probably. Abstract speech, definitely. Got any data?
Bradskii said:
You do seem to like things to be cut and dried so maybe you can point out the date when there was no evidence for intelligence (sapience) at all.
Click to expand...
Sure. I’ll look at your data and point out that date for you.
 
buffalo said:
40.png
LeafByNiggle:
That too, is a question. But why must one test the same sample? Why not test other samples? Surely if dinosaurs were living 40,000 years ago there would be more than one sample found among all the various bones found.
Click to expand...
There are and continue to be more. But, retest the same samples until resolution is reached. What are you afraid of?
Click to expand...
Are you missing something? The bones are millions of years old. The geological age of the rocks in which they were found are millions of years old.
 
Bradskii said:
Are you missing something? The bones are millions of years old. The geological age of the rocks in which they were found are millions of years old.
Click to expand...
Yep, either the rock age dating is wrong or the carbon dating. We will see, soon.
 
buffalo said:
40.png
rossum:
Your inability to understand that natural selection is not chance is becoming tedious I’m afraid. By all means criticise evolution for what it is.
Click to expand...
Is evo unguided - yes
Is evo blind - yes
Is evo chance - yes (unless your claim is random mutations are programmed)
Click to expand...
And the roll of that Dice always comes up with a Male and a Female. 🤔
 
Last edited:
o_mlly said:
40.png
Bradskii:
So if we go back to the early hominids, back to the time our ancestors had barely started walking, we see a gradual ability to control the environment. Evolving from a gradual increase in intelligence. Stone tools, fire, cooking, clothing, speech.
Click to expand...
Stone tools, maybe. Start fire, cooking, clothing; probably. Abstract speech, definitely. Got any data?
Bradskii said:
You do seem to like things to be cut and dried so maybe you can point out the date when there was no evidence for intelligence (sapience) at all.
Click to expand...
Sure. I’ll look at your data and point out that date for you.
Click to expand...
What do you mean: ‘stone tools probably’ and ‘cooking’ probably? There is undeniable evidence for early hominids making tools and using fire. We have good dates for all of these. What we need from you is a time when there was zero intelligence.

That’s your point, is it not? That the precursor to Homo sapien showed no intelligence. Or do you really want to suggest that Homo sapien appeared at a particular date fully formed.

Oh gee. Yeah you do. I forgot. And you even have names for them.
 
buffalo said:
40.png
Bradskii:
Are you missing something? The bones are millions of years old. The geological age of the rocks in which they were found are millions of years old.
Click to expand...
Yep, either the rock age dating is wrong or the carbon dating. We will see, soon.
Click to expand...
You. Can’t. Date. Bones. From. Million. Year. Old. Rock. With. Carbon. Dating.

Do you undertand that sentence?
 
Bradskii said:
You. Can’t. Date. Bones. From. Million. Year. Old. Rock. With. Carbon. Dating.

Do you undertand that sentence?
Click to expand...
Right. There is no carbon left. So if you find carbon… then… the bones are not that old. Duh. (eliminating contamination of course)

Now add elastic soft tissue and one has to really wonder.
 
Last edited:
Bradskii said:
What do you mean: ‘stone tools probably’ and ‘cooking’ probably?

There is undeniable evidence for early hominids making tools and using fire.

You do seem to like things to be cut and dried …
Click to expand...
Please quote me accurately. That’s “stone tool, maybe.”

Cite your undeniable evidence for making tools. Unless we ground you to a particular, you have a history of making hay (uncut and un-dried) out of generalities.
 
buffalo said:
Is evo chance - yes (unless your claim is random mutations are programmed)
Click to expand...
No. Random mutations are indeed chance. Natural selection is not chance. The output of the process, the naturally selected mutations, are not chance.

rossum
 
buffalo said:
The dates are around 28,000YA well withing the dating limits.
Click to expand...
Mary Schweitzer’s dates are a lot older than that. Young dinosaurs are not relevant anyway. We see them flying round every day.

rossum
 
buffalo said:
Unless it is much older than the supposed ancestor it came from.
Click to expand...
Both are transitional. Do you know when the first Tiktaalik evolved? We know when some Tiktaaliks existed; we do not know when the species first evolved.

I can show that some Europeans existed after George Washington. Are you trying to tell me that no Americans ever descended from Europeans because some Europeans lived after George Washington? You need to think this point through more carefully, buffalo.

rossum
 
So because we have lap top computers today and people didn’t have lap top computers in the 1920’s have we evolved into more intelligent humans than they were?

Because people in the 1800’s drove horse and buggy and we have cars today instead have we evolved into more intelligent human beings?

The tools we use today are more advanced than the tools used in the 1950’s does that mean we have evolved into more intelligent creatures than they were then?
 
rossum said:
Yes. We now know that is certain conditions protein fragments (not “soft Tissue” can survive for longer than previously thought.
Click to expand...
Yes, 65 million years. It has to be, but we have no empirical evidence to back it. Blind faith at its best.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top