Now Bill Frist is on the teach ID bandwagon

[Hannibal]

Care to explain to the rest of the class how my mind is 'closed'?

[tnf]

nah, we're beating a dead horse at this point. I already described that I'm on your side, but that we have no missing link or proof of our origin so everything is still a theory.

Fire up the time machine and get back with me then.

what would denote a missing link to you? That is a term oft bandied about by folks unsure of what they are really defining it as.

[Scourge]

Wouldn't Lucy be about as close as we have to a missing link atm?

[Scourge]

I'm not absolutely convinced we decended from monkeys. Perhaps as a seperate species along side them? But I do have a problem accepting that we just popped into existence as modern humans. There's too much evidence that the early humans were not capable of abstract thought and language as suggested by religeon (christianity at any rate). I fully admit I'm not very educated in that area but it seems pretty easy to see that evolution at least played a part in how we got here.

[tnf]

the link that slam dunks evolution of mankind from monkey perhaps?

Again, I believe monkey is indeed where we evolved from, but without definitive proof the religio-nuts will always have a foothold (albeit an insignificant one) with which to spread their lunacy. I could say that mankind was seeded onto earth from another galaxy and thus far it cannot be disproved.

I dont understand why you have a hard time presenting the untruths in order to solidify generally accepted scientific theory. Does that not already happen in science classes all over the world?

http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/evolution/religion/index.html

WE DIDN'T EVOLVE FROM MONKEYS.

Apes and humans all evolved from common ancestors, and the number of transitional fossils and forms is many. If you want, read the Ancestor's Tale by Dawkins.

riddla, I thought you were past the 'humans evolved from monkeys' stage of the argument.

This whole thing just took a huge leap backwards, if that was possible, but at least the level of understanding has been exposed.

[tnf]

I fully admit I'm not very educated in that area ..

The odd thing is, scourge, evolution - and really no other field - is open to critique from people who have absolutely no formal education in it. It becomes extraordinarily frustrating as a scientist to see the complete misconceptions, lack of understanding, and general unwillingness to accept data and observations in most folks who want to complain about evolution...

[tnf]

sum up the book and tell why we didnt evolve from monkeys and what this common ancestor may be...

[menkent]

you moron. we didn't evolve from monkeys because saying so would imply that monkeys (meaning modern monkeys) haven't been evolving for the however many hundred million years since our anscestors split off into seperate populations... unless you think a modern monkey travelled back in time and started shitting out proto-human babies. there's a good theory for your science class. covering your stupidity with increasingly stupid statements doesn't seem to help.

[menkent]

simple indeed.

edit: also, holes in the fossil record prove/disprove nothing. very, very few animals that die actually end up fossilized. it takes a pretty special set of conditions for it to happen. that said, there's a rather impressive number of fossils and artifacts tracing "human" evolution from knuckle-dragging fuckos through users of basic tools who had a sense of art/history to modern man... and a couple near-misses like neanderthals.

[Scourge]

I fully admit I'm not very educated in that area ..

The odd thing is, scourge, evolution - and really no other field - is open to critique from people who have absolutely no formal education in it. It becomes extraordinarily frustrating as a scientist to see the complete misconceptions, lack of understanding, and general unwillingness to accept data and observations in most folks who want to complain about evolution...

That is why I'm open to all info and try not to critique anything out of hand. I personally believe in evolution with the information I have taken in. IMO ID should not be taught in schools because of the lack of evidence to support it. I think we should teach the most plausible theory from the facts that we have and ID just doesn't seem to have it from what I can tell. I know I've just rehashed some of what has been said already, but it's what I believe at this time.

[menkent]

i like the anthropic principle. they should teach that in science classes instead :icon14:

[tnf]

lol, you're posting a graph which is essentially a puzzle yet to be completed with edits as early as last year?

ffs, the smithsonian human origins program FAQ even contradicts itself on the subject!

http://www.mnh.si.edu/anthro/humanorigi ... evolve.htm

http://www.mnh.si.edu/anthro/humanorigi ... nglink.htm

so you are saying that the entire fossil record should be complete RIGHT NOW?

of course there will be edits...new fossils are found. You asked for 'missing links' showing evolutionary 'intermediates' between primate species - I showed you the tree based on fossil evidence...science is a work in progress.

bottom line riddla - you don't understand evolutionary theory. you've demonstrated this over and over and over again - it's not different than explaining cosmology to kracus.

that picture you posted a long time ago - you and two other fellows sitting down covering your eyes, ears, and mouth - that was prophetic.

picture...puzzle...yet to be completed...edits as recently as last year...good fucking god...

[tnf]

simple indeed.

edit: also, holes in the fossil record prove/disprove nothing. very, very few animals that die actually end up fossilized. it takes a pretty special set of conditions for it to happen. that said, there's a rather impressive number of fossils and artifacts tracing "human" evolution from knuckle-dragging fuckos through users of basic tools who had a sense of art/history to modern man... and a couple near-misses like neanderthals.

absence of evidence is not evidence of absence.

[menkent]

erm yea... isn't that what i said... but in more words and without bothering to be clever?
meh, fuckit. he's not getting any smarter and i'm not getting any less tired.
gnight plyrs :-*

[tnf]

erm yea... isn't that what i said... but in more words and without bothering to be clever?
meh, fuckit. he's not getting any smarter and i'm not getting any less tired.
gnight plyrs :-*

yea, i was just reiterating what you said.

[tnf]

yet you fail to accept any of the inferences we make from the fossil record as being any more relevant than ID theory since those 'holes' need to be plugged. And the fossil record isn't going to give us the de-facto origin of life...scientists know this.
you asked for missing links - transitional fossils showing progression from monkeys to humans. as flawed as that logic was, i pointed out the numerous transitional fossils that make up the hominid fossil record. you called that a 'picture puzzle that was edited as recently as last month' or something and laughed at it.

i guess i just am not intellectually capable of continuing in this discussion.

[tnf]

your sig is coming true

again, its not that i disagree with you. its that alot of what you present as fact is in reality opinion based on a set of parameters which are continually being modified. as a scientist i dont see why its so hard to admit that we dont know yet. ID theory exists for this reason, however wrong and flawed it may be.

so ok, a common ancestor. which was... a lemur?

i've presented the facts about evolutionary theory. different than presenting fact. as a scientist who has studied it a *little* more than you have, I feel more comfortable in considering much of it factual, because of the overwhelming amount of data that supports said theory (and that data is not opinion).

fossils that show a definite transitional progression are not, in and of themselves, opinions. They are facts. that we put them into a theoretical framework that explains our origin doesn't detract from the strength of the inferences we can make from them, just like crime scene investigators who piece together a murder after the fact aren't just throwing out unsubstantiated opinions when they say they find DNA evidence, etc.

molecular vestiges present in the human genome...like a defunct genes once involved in vitamin c synthesis...opinion...vestigial orgrans...opinion....shared developmental genes...opinion....vertebrate pharyngeal pouches...opinion....hindlimbs in snake and whale embryos...opinion....etc.etc.etc.etc.etc.etc.etc.

and as for the lemur bit...i'm not going to waste anymore time trying to explain the basic tenets of evolutionary theory to you anymore. it's like trying to get kracus to understand that there are these 'pillars that affect the gravity of a black holes superstrings that are gateways to parallel gravities and the planets are all suspended on a giants cieling fan that we can't see because we aren't in the correct part of the spacetime continuum.'

[Hannibal]

If by 'devil's advocate' you mean someone who spouts irrelevant truisms or empty catchphrases in any discussion that's above his intellectual pay-grade, then you sir are the best fucking devil's advocate the world has ever seen.