Anger Acceptable for Atheists

[billvon 3,116]

>if gray wolves became extinct BEFORE chihuahuas appeared, then either
> their must be an intermediate species or there is some kind of a problem
>with evolution.

Or no one has yet found a fossil within that 200 year stretch.

>Basically I'm trying to nail down the pedigree, so to speak, of humans.
>If scientists aren't entirely clear who we evolved from, or when, then it is
>hard to accept evolution as it applies to humans as fully proven.

That's fine. So it's 99.986% proven, and that number is increasing every day. It might be that we were created by an 'intelligent designer' or the Flying Spaghetti Monster, or that the first humans were brought here by an army of storks carrying babies. The odds of those are incredibly small, and have no evidence whatsoever that they occurred, and thus are not accepted by most intelligent people.

>Scientists have met a higher standard of proof than religious folks on
>this but they haven't met their own high standards.

In a very real sense, no scientific theory - ever - meets the sort of standards you propose. No theory is ever immune from question or attempts to discredit it. That's the strength of science. No one burns you as a witch, or excommunicates you, or exiles you when you try to discredit a theory. Indeed, scientists who _do_ successfully discredit or alter major scientific theories win Nobel Prizes.

The fact that evolution has successfully withstood decades of this review - and has indeed spawned entirely new areas of study - is one of the best possible testaments to its validity.

[SivaGanesha 2]

Quote

pedigree

So if I understand the chart correctly:

1. The nearest ancestor of Homo Sapiens is Homo Heidelburgensis. However, the time overlap between these two species seems razor thin, so if there were even a slight error in timelines, the claim that Homo Sapiens is descended directly from Homo Heidelburgensis would be thrown into question.

2. On the basis of the fossilized remains of a mere 50 individuals the conclusion was drawn that Homo Heidelburgensis is the direct ancestor of Homo Sapiens.

3. There are a lot of question marks in the chart.

"It's hard to have fun at 4-way unless your whole team gets down to the ground safely to do it again!"--Northern California Skydiving League re USPA Safety Day, March 8, 2014

[SivaGanesha 2]

Quote

In a very real sense, no scientific theory - ever - meets the sort of standards you propose...

It is not a scientific standard, but a benchmark that I use in my own mind is the legal standard of proof beyond a reasonable doubt.

If you claim that the earth is round and not flat, I would consider that proven beyond a reasonable doubt.

If you claim that the blood circulates in the human body, I would consider that proven beyond a reasonable doubt.

If you claim that Homo Sapiens directly descended from Homo Heidelburgensis, I do not consider that proven beyond a reasonable doubt.

"It's hard to have fun at 4-way unless your whole team gets down to the ground safely to do it again!"--Northern California Skydiving League re USPA Safety Day, March 8, 2014

[jakee 1,595]

Quote

No I'm saying that if the opposite scenario occurred

No, Siva. You said both.

"Now suppose (I have no idea how reasonable these dates are but this is just a thought experiment) the last known appearance of Species A was 30,000 years ago, and the first known appearance of Homo Sapiens was 31,000 years ago. Then you have no problem with the theory of evolution."

That's quite a basic error you've made.

Do you want to have an ideagasm?

[SivaGanesha 2]

Quote

Quote

No I'm saying that if the opposite scenario occurred

No, Siva. You said both.

"Now suppose (I have no idea how reasonable these dates are but this is just a thought experiment) the last known appearance of Species A was 30,000 years ago, and the first known appearance of Homo Sapiens was 31,000 years ago. Then you have no problem with the theory of evolution."

That's quite a basic error you've made.

What part of "no problem" are you having trouble understanding?

I mentioned both possibilities--the possibility of a gap in timelines and the possibility of an overlap in timelines. But it is the possibility of a gap that is problematic. The possibility of an overlap was just mentioned for comparative purposes.

Based on the timelines posted by Lindsey, it appears that a 4% difference either way would indeed mean the difference between there being a healthy overlap or a problematic gap. So I was right to be concerned.

"It's hard to have fun at 4-way unless your whole team gets down to the ground safely to do it again!"--Northern California Skydiving League re USPA Safety Day, March 8, 2014

[jakee 1,595]

Ah, looks like I can't read. My apologies.

Still, as Bill pointed out, a 200 year gap in unearthed fossils of a certain species does not show that the species in question was extinct in that 200 years.

Do you want to have an ideagasm?

[billvon 3,116]

>If you claim that the blood circulates in the human body, I would
>consider that proven beyond a reasonable doubt.

And I could prove you wrong. I could show you a body from the morgue where no blood circulated, and a patient getting heart surgery that had much of his circulation outside his body.

At that point you could update your thinking in one of two ways:

1) "His claim that blood circulates in the human body is basically correct, with some caveats on corner cases."

2) "There is no proof that blood circulates in the human body; scientists admit that they cannot prove this to within a reasonable doubt."

Which would be the intelligent choice to make?

You are starting to go down the "argument from incredulity" path - "I do not understand certain aspects of evolution, therefore no one does and there is no general consensus."

[SivaGanesha 2]

Quote

1) "His claim that blood circulates in the human body is basically correct, with some caveats on corner cases."

2) "There is no proof that blood circulates in the human body; scientists admit that they cannot prove this to within a reasonable doubt."

Which would be the intelligent choice to make?

You are starting to go down the "argument from incredulity" path - "I do not understand certain aspects of evolution, therefore no one does and there is no general consensus."

That's because there is, indeed, no general consensus. No one even seems to be sure what the immediate direct ancestor of Homo Sapiens is. That strikes me as being equivalent to trying to explain human circulation without knowing the difference between an artery and a vein.

This is a space of knowledge that is just not very well mapped out right now.

"It's hard to have fun at 4-way unless your whole team gets down to the ground safely to do it again!"--Northern California Skydiving League re USPA Safety Day, March 8, 2014

[billvon 3,116]

>No one even seems to be sure what the immediate direct ancestor
>of Homo Sapiens is.

Most recent one is Homo Sapiens Idaltu, but as they were nearly identical to us, that's not that much of a surprise.

> That strikes me as being equivalent to trying to explain human
>circulation without knowing the difference between an artery and a vein.

Yes - and it may be that you are attempting to understand evolution with the same sort of misconceptions, as evinced by your earlier post.

[SivaGanesha 2]

Quote

Most recent one is Homo Sapiens Idaltu, but as they were nearly identical to us, that's not that much of a surprise.

Apparently discovered less than five years ago:

Homo Sapiens Idaltu

What am I to make of your claim just a few posts ago that the theory of evolution has withstood "decades of review"?

"It's hard to have fun at 4-way unless your whole team gets down to the ground safely to do it again!"--Northern California Skydiving League re USPA Safety Day, March 8, 2014

[jakee 1,595]

Quote

Quote

Most recent one is Homo Sapiens Idaltu, but as they were nearly identical to us, that's not that much of a surprise.

Apparently discovered less than five years ago:

Homo Sapiens Idaltu

What am I to make of your claim just a few posts ago that the theory of evolution has withstood "decades of review"?

What on earth do you mean?

The theory of evolution did not suddenly spring into existence with that discovery. Until that discovery was made biologists were not powerless to test any predictions of evolutionary theory. Seriously, wtf?

Do you want to have an ideagasm?

[SivaGanesha 2]

Quote

The theory of evolution did not suddenly spring into existence with that discovery. Until that discovery was made biologists were not powerless to test any predictions of evolutionary theory. Seriously, wtf?

Again, let me frame the context of this discussion from my point of view.

My posts are not attacking the general theory of evolution. Rather, I am playing devil's advocate with the specific claim that humans evolved from an ancestor that was not human, and from which other non-human species may also have evolved from.

I am addressing the question of whether there is any possibility that evolution is generally correct, but wrong in the specific case of humans. I am posing this specific question because, although creationists probably have problems with evolution generally (eg it doesn't support their view of the age of the earth) they seem especially hot and bothered about claims that humans and eg chimps evolved from a common ancestor. I think this gets in the way of their beliefs about humans "being made in God's image".

What I claim is that until you identify the human species "family tree" with some accuracy, the possibility that evolution is generally correct but erroneous in the case of humans remains a viable hypothesis. The link posted to:


Handprint

is not exactly inspiring in terms of the certainty and accuracy of the information presented.

"It's hard to have fun at 4-way unless your whole team gets down to the ground safely to do it again!"--Northern California Skydiving League re USPA Safety Day, March 8, 2014

[maadmax 0]

"We don't know how the first organisms formed. But basic hydrocarbons and amino can be formed in a primordial atmosphere, and we know that RNA can spontaneously replicate, consume energy and evolve in the proper conditions. We know that an iron sulfide metabolism can start from basic chemicals and synthesize oligomers, polymers, dipeptides and tripeptides. Scientists are currently working on explanations as to how these steps all worked together to produce the first proto-organisms."

____________________________________________

These explanations are adequate if you already have a conclusion in mind and need to arrange facts to support it. Until scientists find the explanation, they are working on an unproven hypothesis. Using this
to contradict Intelligent Design is not acceptable. As far as theories go, they are on equal footing as to which one is actually correct. If you look at the pyramids, one fact is intuitive, they had a creator and builder, as with the universe.

_______________________________________

[billvon 3,116]

>Using this to contradict Intelligent Design is not acceptable.

It isn't "contradicting Intelligent Design." Intelligent design has ZERO scientific basis. The various abiogenesis theories have some scientific basis. There is no contradiction between the two in the scientific world; it's something vs. nothing.

There is more solid evidence that Bush pulled off 9/11, and that the Apollo landings were faked, than there is for Intelligent Design.

[kallend 2,148]

Quote

Using this
to contradict Intelligent Design is not acceptable necessary.

Since there is not one iota of objective evidence to support the dogma of "intelligent design", there is no need to contradict it. It simply is NOT science.

...

The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.

[Lindsey 0]

If you look at the pyramids, one fact is intuitive, they had a creator and builder, as with the universe.

If you look at the pyramids, you know that there were builders (people) and structures (pyramids), so it logically follows that the people built the pyramids. Most of us have no dilemma about whether people or God put the pyramids there, even though the structures must have been very difficult (nearly impossible) for people to build. If God went "poof" and made the universe, the pyramids would have been easy. Why don't we assume God did it?

When we look at the universe, we see....well, the universe but, unlike the pyramids, no builder. So, being capable of reasoning, we look for how it came to be. Some of us, though, just decide that it's magic and leave it at that.

--
A conservative is just a liberal who's been mugged. A liberal is just a conservative who's been to jail

[maadmax 0]

When we look at the universe, we see....well, the universe but, unlike the pyramids, no builder. So, being capable of reasoning, we look for how it came to be. Some of us, though, just decide that it's magic and leave it at that.

[Lindsey 0]

Your comparison between pyramids and the universe to make the point that they both have a builder doesn't make sense. We assume people built the pyramids because we know that people were here, so it follows that they built the pyramids. Were there no people we'd look for an alternative explanation. There is no evidence for any "builder" of the universe. When looking for the origins, we look for evidence. Some people, rather than paying attention to evidence, prefer to assume there must be a builder like there is for the pyramids.

linz

--
A conservative is just a liberal who's been mugged. A liberal is just a conservative who's been to jail

[jcd11235 0]

Quote

Just because you understand the process of how some things came about, how does that cancel out a designer?

There is no need to "cancel out a designer" because there is no scientific basis to suspect a designer to begin with.

Math tutoring available. Only $6! per hour! First lesson: Factorials!

[billvon 3,116]

> 95% of the matter and energy of the universe is still unknown and undescribed.

99.999% of the planet Earth has never been directly observed at all. It's more likely that it's a planet with a molten iron outer core, solid inner core and rocky crust than a crystal ball full of dinosaurs and Hobbits, though.

How can we say that if we've never even been to the core? Because we can use the processes of science to discover what's in the core. We might be off a bit; the composition of the inner core might be 75% iron and 25% nickel instead of 80% iron and 20% nickel.

But the fact that we might be off by a few percentage points, and the fact that we have never seen it, does not at all lend credence to the dinosaur and Hobbit theory - because there is zero evidence to support that.

[Shotgun 1]

Quote

We might be off a bit; the composition of the inner core might be 75% iron and 25% nickel instead of 80% iron and 20% nickel.

Or we might be way off... Due to an "epiphany" I had one night, I am convinced that the inner core of the Earth is filled with ants.

[philh 0]

It seems to me you have misunderstood two separate points about human evolution.
1. Did humans evolve from a non human ancestor?
2. What is the date and sequence for that evolution?

In a similar way we might ask
1 did a murder take place? and
2 who committed the murder?

Lets assume we cannot answer question 2, that does not in any way imply that we cannot answer question 1 .
You are creating a straw man , our ability to identify when we were descended from which species has nothing to do with our ability to say whether it happened. We have so many independent lines of evidence that it happened, that there is no reasonable doubt about it. When it happened is an entirely different issue.

As to my boss’s so cavalier attitude, I can only assume I work at an institution that makes a lot more money than yours. 40 lots of Eurodollar futures has PV01 OF $1000 , last year I alone made several tens of millions of dollars trading so I and my boss would certainly consider that sort of position so negligible that we would ignore it. Perhaps for someone that makes very little money that might be considered a big position , for us, it is peanuts. I guess that backs up my point that 4% difference is not necessarily a big deal, it all depends. Again I feel I need to repeat the point . if we cant pin down when human and chimps split to within 4% difference that would have no bearing on whether or nor it happened.

[nerdgirl 0]

Quote

These explanations are adequate if you already have a conclusion in mind and need to arrange facts to support it. Until scientists find the explanation, they are working on an unproven hypothesis. Using this to contradict Intelligent Design is not acceptable. As far as theories go, they are on equal footing as to which one is actually correct. If you look at the pyramids, one fact is intuitive, they had a creator and builder, as with the universe.

I quoted your entire response so as to maintain the context.

Would you clarify the highlighted section above?
Do you mean "acceptable" to you through your religious worldview?
Or do you mean "acceptable" as an absolute?

VR/Marg

Act as if everything you do matters, while laughing at yourself for thinking anything you do matters.
Tibetan Buddhist saying

[philh 0]

We can be sure (not 100% ) because our theoreis make very specific testable predicitons. When those predictions are shown to be exactly right we justifiably have great confidence .

[SpeedRacer 1]

Quote

These explanations are adequate if you already have a conclusion in mind and need to arrange facts to support it. Until scientists find the explanation, they are working on an unproven hypothesis. Using this
to contradict Intelligent Design is not acceptable. As far as theories go, they are on equal footing as to which one is actually correct. If you look at the pyramids, one fact is intuitive, they had a creator and builder, as with the universe.

The idea that the universe and life may be the result of Intelligent Design does in no way exclude the idea that Evolution took place. Evolution may be a part of the Plan of the Intelligent Design.

Speed Racer
--------------------------------------------------