Man didn't evolve from fish or monkeys

a reply to: wisvol

No it is not flawed. I've told you and your little friends that you use the term "macro-evolution" incorrectly. However. lets stick with how you are using it, speciation.

It takes time. We have understood the concept of evolution since about 1871/72 (when the Decent of Man was published, though individuals understood it before this). That means roughly 145 years have passed. Similarly practical genetic sequencing was not available until the 1980s (in that computer aided automatic sequencing was around, as opposed to the slow manual sequencing by the scientist). That is say 30 odd years, though it was not untill about 10 years ago that reaslistic time scales (weeks to days) were available.

So in the last 150 years (rounding up) have we observed speciation? Yes wehave!

But the point is, it takes a long time.

You also don't understand the molecular clock concept. "Billions of years" is either hyperbole on your part (I doubt that). No a molecular clock is a measure of genetic mutation rates, based on data we have. Billions of years? No! Millions yes, many thousands yes? But not billions. I understand Baysean statistics is probably out of your skill set (prove me wrong). But I will tell you what. Go learn to program in R if you can not, and scavenge the code and data sets which are out there for free, and do the experiments yourself. Its not as satisfying as collecting your own data, but I am pretty sure you don't have access to a Biochemistry/Genetics lab, let alone a next gen sequencer like a 454, or an Illumina Again prove me wrong.

Now as for the age of the world? That is a separate disipline, that would be radiochemisty and geology combined. But like with C14, you can do the radioactive isotope experiments. They are repeatable. Its not me repeating, it is me understanding. You see there was an honors level paper on this during my last year of my Bachelors with Honors. It was one of my favourites, after the Organic Mechanistic papers.

a reply to: iterationzero

Just remember these wombles think that "adaption to the environment" is not evolution. They probably think Giraffes got long necks through stretching really hard and passing that on

a reply to: Noinden

Again prove me wrong.

OK

The article you link to claims that different breeds of a plant commonly called goatsbeard (Tragopogon for botanists) constitute speciation.

However, speciation means a species originating from another.

Your condescension is still not helping your argument one bit.

Comparing molecular clock modeling to informatics is why you should learn about linear regressive modeling: it works with data whose variety obeys a specific set of conditions that life does not.

originally posted by: wisvol
a reply to: Barcs

Humans ARE technically apes,

no
This is what ape means.

This is a laughable response based on pure semantics. Humans belong to the Hominidae family, great apes. Humans are classified as apes and also primates. Sorry if this insults you, but that's the facts and it's downright hilarious what illogical lengths you will go to defend a viewpoint that has been debunked for decades.

the fossil record clearly shows 22+ distinct species of hominid

no
This is what species means.

=> Fossils don't show what species a bone is from, it allows us to guess.

LMAO! This is a 100% lie. You have a knack for that. Stop quoting dictionary sources, we are talking about science. Species is a classification of organisms in biology.

Homo gautengensis†
Homo rudolfensis†
Homo naledi†
Homo habilis†
Homo floresiensis†
Homo erectus†
Homo ergaster†
Homo antecessor†
Homo heidelbergensis†
Homo cepranensis†
Homo helmei†
Homo palaeojavanicus†
Homo tsaichangensis†
Denisovans (scientific name has not yet been assigned)†
Homo neanderthalensis†
Homo rhodesiensis†
Homo sapiens

This isn't even close to the complete list.

Are you seriously arguing that all of these are the same species? LMAO, stop trolling.

Phrenology was bunk science from inception and is now accepted as such by former phrenologists: www.historyofphrenology.org.uk...

The only thing bunk here is your response. That isn't even close to what I was arguing. But this is the norm from you. Lies built on top of lies, and sources that do not back up your view, and are mostly non sequiturs.

How do you know this? Phrenology? Millions of years? Please share

Nope. The fossils have all been dated and your criticism of scientific dating has been debunked for decades. Please stop the trolling already. You are a proven liar and rely on deceptive semantic arguments rather than addressing the actual evidence (which you still have not done once). You are the worst kind of fraud. I doubt you even believe your own arguments.

a reply to: wisvol

Neighbour, that does not prove anything, it is you stating your own biased views. Similarly the condescension is oozing like pus from your own posts, so it would behoove you, to drop that as a point of contention, unless of course you wish to agree that you are being hypocritical over that. Your choice.

Here is an older paper on observed speciation. Its not free, so I did not use it in the first instance. I'm not going to break IP and post the contents, so its up to you to get it.

You refusing to admit that speciation has been observed, is not actually an absence of specation being observed. But lets look at goatsbeard. It constitues a new species, in that it was not able to reproduce with it's parent species. Quod erat demonstrandum.

What part of this confuses you? No sersiously. You and your fellow deniers of evolution use every logical fallacy to try and avoid the actual argument of facts.

"Oh it is not evolution, it is adapting to the enviorment", no # Sherlock, that is evolution

"Oh sure micro-evolution has been seen, but not macro".... opps sorry yes it has, also as explained Micro and macro are part of the whole. For example a human hand, is still part of a human, just a smaller part of the whole.

"You do not speak for Science".... actually I sort of do, as I am a Scientist degrees and all, published, owner of patents, etc.

originally posted by: cooperton
Father Spirit impregnated mother earth with consciousness. Makes more sense to me than randomness creating consciousness (evolution).

The strawman is strong with this one.

a reply to: Barcs

This is a laughable response based on pure semantics.

Everything is laughable, I assure you.

All efficient conversation is based on pure semantics.

a reply to: Noinden

Your choice of words is as unfitting to a man of science as your perception of logic.

Enjoy both if you will

a reply to: Barcs

This is what species means. => Fossils don't show what species a bone is from, it allows us to guess.

LMAO! This is a 100% lie. You have a knack for that. Stop quoting dictionary sources, we are talking about science.

We are talking about science, using language, which you misuse, and I correct using contemporary language orthopraxy: this is how people diffuse science.

The remains dug up at Neanderthal were those of people.

I don't know whether your list includes remains of other species, maybe it does, and if such is the case explain how this makes you think the origin of species is other species without being impolite.

a reply to: wisvol

All depends how you interpret the word "evolution".

Yes, if you are being purposely obtuse and trying to redefine evolution on the fly, it all depends. People posting in this part of ATS, specifically referring to the Origins And Creationism area that we're currently having this discussion in, understand that we're talking about biological evolution. Biological evolution is most commonly defined as the change in allele frequency within a given population over time.

If you want to play semantic games about how to define, or in your case re-define, evolution, maybe this isn't the right part of the forums for that discussion.

Speciation was not observed: many times links to articles claiming it has were posted here, and all contained a caveat paraphrased here:

If speciation does not mean speciation, we have evidence of it.

Speciation, as it is understood by people wishing to discuss biology, has been observed. Again, if you'd like to re-define speciation, maybe this isn't the right part of the forums for that discussion.

a reply to: wisvol

You keep going on and on about language yet you constantly use it wrong.

Homo Neanderthalensis was NOT found at Neanderthal. The remains were found at Neandertal valley. See the difference? Just drop the h.

originally posted by: wisvol
a reply to: Barcs

This is a laughable response based on pure semantics.

Everything is laughable, I assure you.

All efficient conversation is based on pure semantics.

You are a troll. You haven't yet made a single valid argument about anything and have been caught in so many lies now, I lost count. People are too smart on this site for fall for that BS. Make a real argument.

a reply to: TerryDon79

You are wrong about this: Thal is the German word for valley, and the remains of those people were found in Neander valley, which the people who named those remains call Neanderthal.

a reply to: Barcs

You are saying I lied, and I did not. Cease responding to me.

We are talking about science, using language, which you misuse, and I correct using contemporary language orthopraxy: this is how people diffuse science.

You can't discuss science without using scientific terminology. I have not misused a single term. You have been guilty of equivocation, and changing meanings of words to fit YOUR BELIEFS. Sorry, you can't do that, logically.

The remains dug up at Neanderthal were those of people.

"People" isn't a species. Try again.

I don't know whether your list includes remains of other species, maybe it does, and if such is the case explain how this makes you think the origin of species is other species without being impolite.

Don't talk about politeness when you are being intentionally deceptive in your responses. I gave you the list of different hominid species. You argued that there was no way to tell the difference (something you completely made up). Biological classifications are assigned by scientists that study them. If you don't like their list, reach out to biologist or study them yourself. You are just blindly denying science.

You are saying I lied, and I did not.

You just lied again

a reply to: iterationzero

Yes, if you are being purposely obtuse and trying to redefine evolution on the fly, it all depends.

People have done this, and I am not among them.

Original meaning of evolution in english: the gradual development of something (used since the 12th century)

Redefined meaning: origin of species is other species (used since the late 19th century)

a reply to: wisvol

It might mean valley in German. Your point? There is a river called river river and also one called river river river.

Neandertal, neander valley, neander's hollow, Neandertal valley are all refering to the same place.

Notice that none of them are called Neanderthal?

ETA Thal AND Tal suffixes in German both mean valley or dale.

a reply to: TerryDon79

You keep going on and on about language yet you constantly use it wrong. Homo Neanderthalensis was NOT found at Neanderthal.

Thanks for contradicting your self

People have done this, and I am not among them.

Original meaning of evolution in english: the gradual development of something (used since the 12th century)

Redefined meaning: origin of species is other species (used since the late 19th century)

Both meanings still apply today. The 2nd one is the biological definition as it applies to the theory of evolution, and the ONLY definition that matters when we are discussing science.

a reply to: wisvol

How exactly did I contradict myself?