RE: Evolution/Creation debate

RE: Evolution/Creation debate (Full Version)

All Forums >> [Community Discussions] >> Dungeon of Political and Religious Discussion

Message

Tkman117 -> RE: Evolution/Creation debate (2/10/2014 6:56:14 PM)
The issue here is the source of the information, there is no scientific, peer reviewed paper that verifies that they aren't human. A lack of evidence is evidence in and of itself. Ive looked around and found nothing, nothing on google scholar where it would be given the importance of this "find." The extra volume can be explained as a form of evolution, the same way there are small dogs and big dogs. A culture that favours elongated skulls will gravitate toward someone who may natural have a more elongated skull without needing to artificially elongate it, could develop a larger volume as stated in the first link I supplied. Simply generalizing that neither side have evidence is wrong and arrogant, you need to look closer at WHY people reach the conclusions they do in order to make an educated decision. The scientific community reaches its conclusion because the evidence points toward it, while the "ancient alien" community reaches it's conclusions likely based on delusions of grandeur and a hope for something bigger than themselves as they try to twist facts towards their beliefs, the way creationists do.

epiphiny43 -> RE: Evolution/Creation debate (2/10/2014 7:05:51 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: vincentML quote: A male Great Dane can't realistically mate with a Chihuahua does that make them separate species? Your example does not illustrate my point, which was that a differentiating marker of speciation is the lack of fertile offspring in cross breeding. The test could be accomplished by using a thin turkey baster on the Chihuahua. Not. The problems with defining species as lack of cross fertilization has long been noted. Even such a surface treatment as Wikipedia discusses this. There are a Huge numbers of widely recognized species in birds, land mammals, sea mammals and other easily observed organisms that are fully cross fertile with other species within their genus and Nobody claims are not separate species. Even humans, recent work establishes the origin of some of current Homo Sapiens genes as coming from Neanderthal populations in Europe. They don't jump like fleas across an infertile species barrier, someone fucked the other and here we are. And I've seen claims of Dane/Chihuahua crosses. The mother may not have been that pleased . . .

DomKen -> RE: Evolution/Creation debate (2/10/2014 7:06:46 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Tkman117 The issue here is the source of the information, there is no scientific, peer reviewed paper that verifies that they aren't human. A lack of evidence is evidence in and of itself. Ive looked around and found nothing, nothing on google scholar where it would be given the importance of this "find." The extra volume can be explained as a form of evolution, the same way there are small dogs and big dogs. A culture that favours elongated skulls will gravitate toward someone who may natural have a more elongated skull without needing to artificially elongate it, could develop a larger volume as stated in the first link I supplied. Simply generalizing that neither side have evidence is wrong and arrogant, you need to look closer at WHY people reach the conclusions they do in order to make an educated decision. The scientific community reaches its conclusion because the evidence points toward it, while the "ancient alien" community reaches it's conclusions likely based on delusions of grandeur and a hope for something bigger than themselves as they try to twist facts towards their beliefs, the way creationists do. Keep in mind no scientific article makes in statement about brain case volume of these skulls. That is solely the realm of the nuts.

Kirata -> RE: Evolution/Creation debate (2/10/2014 7:14:44 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Tkman117 The issue here is the source of the information... Perhaps with regard to the DNA claims, but I posted photos. For me, the "issue" is somebody baldly claiming that the skulls are Homo Sapiens, that you can see the sagittal suture "quite clearly in the first two images" (which you can't) and that the absence of such a "unique diagnostic feature is not shown clearly in any image" (which it is). In short, making shit up hand over fist and branding people "nuts" in the bargain. If that's your idea of being scientifically minded, I don't share it. K.

Tkman117 -> RE: Evolution/Creation debate (2/10/2014 7:57:22 PM)
Just because you see one thing does not make the conclusion you're looking for correct. Have you examined these skulls first hand? Have you seen these things in person and are sure that you are correct? It's like the face on mars, just because you see one thing does not mean it's what you think you're looking at. You would need to examine the skulls further to either validate or refute your argument. Currently it seems as though the argument has been refuted, as the claims are not circulating in the scientific community, which it definitely would if it were true. If you have any peer reviewed information to bring to the table, please do. Also, I entertain all possibilities of thought, whether it be aliens or otherwise. However, I follow the science, the evidence, and reach conclusions based on that. I do not look at a picture and believe it disproves decades worth of scientific findings.

Tkman117 -> RE: Evolution/Creation debate (2/10/2014 8:13:01 PM)
The point I'm trying to make is you can't jump to conclusions. The conclusions I make are based on the evidence put forth and the validity of it all. If something seems off or not right with the theory or hypothesis, I ask and find the answer. I don't produce wild theories (used in this way It means something more like a hypothesis), I look for the answers with the resources I have.

Milesnmiles -> RE: Evolution/Creation debate (2/10/2014 9:32:09 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Tkman117 quote: ORIGINAL: Milesnmiles quote: ORIGINAL: Tkman117 They evolved the way all other species did. There was an empty niche in the ecosystem (flowering plants) and the bees (once wasps) filled it, they evolved together to maximize their needs, the flowers needed pollinators and the bees needed food. It's pretty much a symbiotic relationship. They evolved the way all other species did? No they didn't, the "normal" evolutionary processes, like natural selection or mutation, don't don't fit honey bees. ;-) And this claim is based on....what? Reality.

Milesnmiles -> RE: Evolution/Creation debate (2/10/2014 9:34:14 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: DomKen quote: ORIGINAL: Milesnmiles quote: ORIGINAL: DomKen What do you mean by how? A population of social wasps became specialized for feeding on flowers? Comparing honey bees to social wasps is a little like comparing the Taj Mahal to a grass hut, they both have pointy tops. ;-) Bees are very specialized social wasps you can look up the genetics if you don't believe me. BTW save me and you a lot of back and forth, post what ever creationist you got this claim from and I'll deal with it directly. What ever creationist I got this claim from? Okay, Scientific American. ;-)

Tkman117 -> RE: Evolution/Creation debate (2/10/2014 9:44:26 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Milesnmiles quote: ORIGINAL: Tkman117 quote: ORIGINAL: Milesnmiles quote: ORIGINAL: Tkman117 They evolved the way all other species did. There was an empty niche in the ecosystem (flowering plants) and the bees (once wasps) filled it, they evolved together to maximize their needs, the flowers needed pollinators and the bees needed food. It's pretty much a symbiotic relationship. They evolved the way all other species did? No they didn't, the "normal" evolutionary processes, like natural selection or mutation, don't don't fit honey bees. ;-) And this claim is based on....what? Reality. Let me guess, do unicorns and flying pigs exist in your "reality" as well? XD Seriously man, if you're gonna claim you know more than the scientific community, be prepared to back up your claims, otherwise you just look foolish [:D]

DomKen -> RE: Evolution/Creation debate (2/10/2014 10:13:17 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Milesnmiles quote: ORIGINAL: DomKen quote: ORIGINAL: Milesnmiles quote: ORIGINAL: DomKen What do you mean by how? A population of social wasps became specialized for feeding on flowers? Comparing honey bees to social wasps is a little like comparing the Taj Mahal to a grass hut, they both have pointy tops. ;-) Bees are very specialized social wasps you can look up the genetics if you don't believe me. BTW save me and you a lot of back and forth, post what ever creationist you got this claim from and I'll deal with it directly. What ever creationist I got this claim from? Okay, Scientific American. ;-) You're saying there is an issue of Scientific American that says bees are not evolved from social wasps? Which issue?

Kirata -> RE: Evolution/Creation debate (2/11/2014 1:43:21 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Tkman117 Just because you see one thing does not make the conclusion you're looking for correct... That's very true. For example, the people promoting the extraterrestrial hypothesis choose to interpret these skulls as evidence for their theory. But, of course, there remains a difference between interpretation and fact. Another example: If you only saw a photo of one of these skulls, sitting alone, you might reasonably conclude that the shape was due to cradle-boarding. But when you see them side by side with the skull of a Sapiens, that hypothesis must necessarily be abandoned. Skulls that have been deformed by cradle boarding do not grow 25-30 percent in volume. Add to that the lack of a sagittal suture, and it is evident that these are not the skulls of any species of Homo with which we are currently familiar. quote: ORIGINAL: Tkman117 Currently it seems as though the argument has been refuted, as the claims are not circulating in the scientific community... That nothing as yet has appeared in a scientific journal hardly constitutes a "refutation" of anything, and all I've seen here is a scurrilous exhibit of name calling and outright lies that refute nothing except their begetter's credibility. K.

DomKen -> RE: Evolution/Creation debate (2/11/2014 3:34:48 AM)
So according to that logic this guy is a different species as well. [image]local://upfiles/36489/85E7E21199904F29869CF940133F06A3.jpg[/image] Despite the fact that his head was reshaped by natural means and he is an H sapiens.

Kirata -> RE: Evolution/Creation debate (2/11/2014 4:09:33 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: DomKen So according to that logic this guy is a different species as well. Well no, Ken. That's not an example of my logic. That's an example of your logic. And a fine one indeed. [:)] K.

Rule -> RE: Evolution/Creation debate (2/11/2014 4:24:56 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: DomKen You shouldn't believe scam artists. http://doubtfulnews.com/2014/02/foerster-pye-and-ketchum-collaborate-paracas-elongated-skull-exposed-its/ That - I glanced at it - seems to be an article with sound arguments. Skull elongation as practised by Indians in South America as a status symbol does suggest that the pagan gods - or at least some of them - may have had elongated skulls; however, I have not ever encountered such a feature being described in world mythology. There were three long pointy wizards' golden hats covered with stars found in archaeological digs in Europe. Skeletons with giant skulls have also been found elsewhere. I recall having read a report about giant skulls being found on one of the Aleutian islands, maybe in a book by Ivan T. Sanderson. What ethnicity did these Paracas elongated skulls have? If they were Indian, I strongly doubt that they were pagan gods. As for being non-human based on mtDNA evidence, in my opinion that is extremely dubious and I would like to see such an assertion to be confirmed by other researchers. I do note that no remains of any pagan god, nor any grave of such a god, has ever been identified.

Kirata -> RE: Evolution/Creation debate (2/11/2014 5:05:55 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Rule quote: ORIGINAL: DomKen You shouldn't believe scam artists. As for being non-human based on mtDNA evidence, in my opinion that is extremely dubious and I would like to see such an assertion to be confirmed by other researchers. Don't be misled by scam artists. There is absolutely no claim that the skull is not human. The claim is... It had mtDNA (mitochondrial DNA) with mutations unknown in any human, primate, or animal *known so far. But a few fragments I was able to sequence from this sample indicate that if these mutations will hold we are dealing with a new* human-like creature, very distant from Homo sapiens, Neanderthals and Denisovans. ~Source Of possible interest, the sculpture below is of one of Akhenaten's six daughters. It is believed to be Meritaten. [image]http://euler.slu.edu/~bart/egyptarchive/AmarnaPrincess.jpg[/image] K.

DomKen -> RE: Evolution/Creation debate (2/11/2014 5:14:03 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Kirata quote: ORIGINAL: DomKen So according to that logic this guy is a different species as well. Well no, Ken. That's not an example of my logic. That's an example of your logic. And a fine one indeed. [:)] K. You clamed an increased skull volume indicated that the individual was not H sapiens. The pictured person clearly has an increased skull volume. Why does your diagnostic feature not apply? Is it because it is bullshit?

Milesnmiles -> RE: Evolution/Creation debate (2/11/2014 5:36:20 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Tkman117 quote: ORIGINAL: Milesnmiles quote: ORIGINAL: Tkman117 quote: ORIGINAL: Milesnmiles quote: ORIGINAL: Tkman117 They evolved the way all other species did. There was an empty niche in the ecosystem (flowering plants) and the bees (once wasps) filled it, they evolved together to maximize their needs, the flowers needed pollinators and the bees needed food. It's pretty much a symbiotic relationship. They evolved the way all other species did? No they didn't, the "normal" evolutionary processes, like natural selection or mutation, don't don't fit honey bees. ;-) And this claim is based on....what? Reality. Let me guess, do unicorns and flying pigs exist in your "reality" as well? XD Seriously man, if you're gonna claim you know more than the scientific community, be prepared to back up your claims, otherwise you just look foolish [:D] This is why Evolution is so flaky, instead of actually try to answer a simple question, Evolutionists get all bunchy and start CYA name calling and ignore the subject. The simple fact is there is no known reasonable "scientific" mechanism to explain how honey bees evolved. I'm not saying that there might not be one, that is why I asked, thinking that someone might know some more recent information on the subject. The problem is, no one here is familiar enough with the subject to even realize that honey bees are a special case.

DomKen -> RE: Evolution/Creation debate (2/11/2014 5:38:05 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Milesnmiles The simple fact is there is no known reasonable "scientific" mechanism to explain how honey bees evolved. I'm not saying that there might not be one, that is why I asked, thinking that someone might know some more recent information on the subject. The problem is, no one here is familiar enough with the subject to even realize that honey bees are a special case. No. They are not. Honey bees are simply very specialized social wasps. and which issue of Scientific American says otherwise?

Kirata -> RE: Evolution/Creation debate (2/11/2014 5:38:28 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: DomKen You clamed an increased skull volume indicated that the individual was not H sapiens. Stop making shit up. quote: ORIGINAL: DomKen The pictured person clearly has an increased skull volume. Sorry, but I am firm in my resolve not to destroy the entertainment value of your claims. K.

DomKen -> RE: Evolution/Creation debate (2/11/2014 5:40:56 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Kirata quote: ORIGINAL: DomKen You clamed an increased skull volume indicated that the individual was not H sapiens. Stop making shit up. So you are abandoning your claim? quote: ORIGINAL: Kirata Skulls that have been deformed by cradle boarding do not grow 25-30 percent in volume. So which is it?

Page: << < prev 12 13 [14] 15 16 next > >>

Collarchat.com © 2025

Terms of Service

0.0625