Collarspace Discussion Forums


Home  Login  Search 

RE: Evolution/Creation debate


View related threads: (in this forum | in all forums)

Logged in as: Guest
 
All Forums >> [Community Discussions] >> Dungeon of Political and Religious Discussion >> RE: Evolution/Creation debate Page: <<   < prev  12 13 [14] 15 16   next >   >>
Login
Message << Older Topic   Newer Topic >>
RE: Evolution/Creation debate - 2/10/2014 6:56:14 PM   
Tkman117


Posts: 1353
Joined: 5/21/2012
Status: offline 		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.

(in reply to Kirata)
Profile   Post #: 261
RE: Evolution/Creation debate - 2/10/2014 7:05:51 PM   
epiphiny43


Posts: 688
Joined: 10/20/2006
Status: offline
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 . . .

(in reply to vincentML)
Profile   Post #: 262
RE: Evolution/Creation debate - 2/10/2014 7:06:46 PM   
DomKen


Posts: 19457
Joined: 7/4/2004
From: Chicago, IL
Status: offline
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.

(in reply to Tkman117)
Profile   Post #: 263
RE: Evolution/Creation debate - 2/10/2014 7:14:44 PM   
Kirata


Posts: 15477
Joined: 2/11/2006
From: USA
Status: offline
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.

< Message edited by Kirata -- 2/10/2014 7:31:43 PM >

(in reply to Tkman117)
Profile   Post #: 264
RE: Evolution/Creation debate - 2/10/2014 7:57:22 PM   
Tkman117


Posts: 1353
Joined: 5/21/2012
Status: offline 		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.

(in reply to Kirata)
Profile   Post #: 265
RE: Evolution/Creation debate - 2/10/2014 8:13:01 PM   
Tkman117


Posts: 1353
Joined: 5/21/2012
Status: offline 		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.

(in reply to Tkman117)
Profile   Post #: 266
RE: Evolution/Creation debate - 2/10/2014 9:32:09 PM   
Milesnmiles


Posts: 1349
Joined: 12/28/2013
Status: offline
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.

(in reply to Tkman117)
Profile   Post #: 267
RE: Evolution/Creation debate - 2/10/2014 9:34:14 PM   
Milesnmiles


Posts: 1349
Joined: 12/28/2013
Status: offline
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.
;-)

(in reply to DomKen)
Profile   Post #: 268
RE: Evolution/Creation debate - 2/10/2014 9:44:26 PM   
Tkman117


Posts: 1353
Joined: 5/21/2012
Status: offline
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

(in reply to Milesnmiles)
Profile   Post #: 269
RE: Evolution/Creation debate - 2/10/2014 10:13:17 PM   
DomKen


Posts: 19457
Joined: 7/4/2004
From: Chicago, IL
Status: offline
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?

(in reply to Milesnmiles)
Profile   Post #: 270
RE: Evolution/Creation debate - 2/11/2014 1:43:21 AM   
Kirata


Posts: 15477
Joined: 2/11/2006
From: USA
Status: offline
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.

< Message edited by Kirata -- 2/11/2014 2:34:43 AM >

(in reply to Tkman117)
Profile   Post #: 271
RE: Evolution/Creation debate - 2/11/2014 3:34:48 AM   
DomKen


Posts: 19457
Joined: 7/4/2004
From: Chicago, IL
Status: offline 		So according to that logic this guy is a different species as well.




Despite the fact that his head was reshaped by natural means and he is an H sapiens.

Attachment (1)

< Message edited by DomKen -- 2/11/2014 3:35:45 AM >

(in reply to Kirata)
Profile   Post #: 272
RE: Evolution/Creation debate - 2/11/2014 4:09:33 AM   
Kirata


Posts: 15477
Joined: 2/11/2006
From: USA
Status: offline
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.




< Message edited by Kirata -- 2/11/2014 4:10:49 AM >

(in reply to DomKen)
Profile   Post #: 273
RE: Evolution/Creation debate - 2/11/2014 4:24:56 AM   
Rule


Posts: 10479
Joined: 12/5/2005
Status: offline
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.

_____________________________

"I tend to pay attention when Rule speaks" - Aswad

"You are sweet, kind, and ever so smart, Rule. You ALWAYS stretch my mind and make me think further than I might have on my own" - Duskypearls

Si vis pacem, para bellum.

(in reply to DomKen)
Profile   Post #: 274
RE: Evolution/Creation debate - 2/11/2014 5:05:55 AM   
Kirata


Posts: 15477
Joined: 2/11/2006
From: USA
Status: offline
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.



K.


< Message edited by Kirata -- 2/11/2014 5:07:11 AM >

(in reply to Rule)
Profile   Post #: 275
RE: Evolution/Creation debate - 2/11/2014 5:14:03 AM   
DomKen


Posts: 19457
Joined: 7/4/2004
From: Chicago, IL
Status: offline
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?

(in reply to Kirata)
Profile   Post #: 276
RE: Evolution/Creation debate - 2/11/2014 5:36:20 AM   
Milesnmiles


Posts: 1349
Joined: 12/28/2013
Status: offline
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
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.

(in reply to Tkman117)
Profile   Post #: 277
RE: Evolution/Creation debate - 2/11/2014 5:38:05 AM   
DomKen


Posts: 19457
Joined: 7/4/2004
From: Chicago, IL
Status: offline
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?

(in reply to Milesnmiles)
Profile   Post #: 278
RE: Evolution/Creation debate - 2/11/2014 5:38:28 AM   
Kirata


Posts: 15477
Joined: 2/11/2006
From: USA
Status: offline
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.

(in reply to DomKen)
Profile   Post #: 279
RE: Evolution/Creation debate - 2/11/2014 5:40:56 AM   
DomKen


Posts: 19457
Joined: 7/4/2004
From: Chicago, IL
Status: offline
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?

< Message edited by DomKen -- 2/11/2014 5:41:13 AM >

(in reply to Kirata)
Profile   Post #: 280
Page:   <<   < prev  12 13 [14] 15 16   next >   >>
All Forums >> [Community Discussions] >> Dungeon of Political and Religious Discussion >> RE: Evolution/Creation debate Page: <<   < prev  12 13 [14] 15 16   next >   >>
Jump to:





New Messages No New Messages
Hot Topic w/ New Messages Hot Topic w/o New Messages
Locked w/ New Messages Locked w/o New Messages
 Post New Thread
 Reply to Message
 Post New Poll
 Submit Vote
 Delete My Own Post
 Delete My Own Thread
 Rate Posts




Collarchat.com © 2025
Terms of Service Privacy Policy Spam Policy

0.109