It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Irreducible complexity and Evolution

page: 68
16
<< 65  66  67    69  70  71 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Nov, 27 2017 @ 06:43 PM
link   
a reply to: 5StarOracle

You posted you statement, with out citing a source, I went to Scifinder and Reaxys along with Google to look. Google had a bunch of creationist sites, using the exact language you did. Thus it should be assumed you got your information from there, or someone told you who got their information from there.

Thus cite your source. It is the honest way to do this neighbour.




posted on Nov, 27 2017 @ 06:45 PM
link   
a reply to: 5StarOracle

So you are an old earth Creationist? Because you are clearly a creationist.



posted on Nov, 27 2017 @ 06:47 PM
link   
a reply to: Noinden

Well here is some honesty for you...
I read it in some magazine and remembered the statement that human feet were attached... Years later I looked at the bones and saw no feet...
So I just wanted to pose a question that there was no answer to to prove you make assumptions...
Just playing a little game to make my point...



posted on Nov, 27 2017 @ 06:49 PM
link   
a reply to: Noinden

I don't think that's accurate...
I don't believe there is a classification for how I think and what I believe... If there is I surely don't know about it....
Because I see it all as a puzzle that has to fit together not separated neglecting one over the other...



posted on Nov, 27 2017 @ 06:54 PM
link   
a reply to: 5StarOracle

Hey at least you are not claiming the Mandela effect. Since you like the simplest explanation, that would be you have misremembered what you read "in some magazine". Perhaps you could name the magazine?



posted on Nov, 27 2017 @ 06:54 PM
link   

originally posted by: 5StarOracle
a reply to: Phantom423

Who's us folks?
Time to God is not the same as to man...
1000 years is as a day and a day is as 1000 years to him...
Time has no hold over God...
Therefore 7 days to him could just as easily be explained away as billions of years to us...


That might be the case, but we humans have to scuttle our way through life with the science that we have.

I presume you're a Creationist. If not, no problem. I was just curious why Brian Thomas at ICR would even be interested in the metatarsal bone when the whole project should be bogus because of the time line.

In any case, the original paper appears to be a description of a transitional fossil. As I said, transitional fossils are found for most species - another proof of the evolutionary process. Perhaps Mr. Thomas didn't realize it, but he was commenting on something that is totally anathema to his beliefs.



posted on Nov, 27 2017 @ 06:55 PM
link   
a reply to: 5StarOracle

You are advocating that evolution is wrong, and that life was created. You are Christian, and you have implied you don't think the earth is around 6000 years old. That would mean ... Old Earth Creationist.

Or are you now going to claim you don't think Evolution is wrong?



posted on Nov, 27 2017 @ 06:58 PM
link   
a reply to: 5StarOracle




Because I see it all as a puzzle that has to fit together not separated neglecting one over the other...


Well puzzles are our business. You were starting to put pieces together. Keep thinking. You don't have to be stuck in a perpetual revolving door. There's lots to be learned for the open mind.



posted on Nov, 27 2017 @ 07:02 PM
link   

originally posted by: 5StarOracle
a reply to: Phantom423



This is Lucy
Once more... why were human feet added to her?


And once again, Human feet were not added to her. Australopithecus Afarensis feet were added to her. Yes, it's true that Lucy was found without feet. However, you are ignoring the fact that Lucy is only one exemplar of A. Afarensis. That means that she isn't the only A. Afarensis we have to work from. Furthermore, Australopithecus is the name of a genus, not a species. There are 9 species of Australopithecus and only one is a likely ancestor to out genus, Homo and it isn't A. Afarensis from which Lucy is an exemplar.

A. Afarensis, A. Africanus, A. anamensis, A. bahrelghazali, A. deyiremeda (proposed), A. garhi, A. sediba (Sediba is the most likely candidate for our ancestor and were found by Lee Berger whose team also discovered a massive haul of Hom Naledi remains in the Rising Star Cave system in S. Africa). These 7 are the Gracile Australopithecines. We then have the 2 Robust Australopithecines as A. robustus and A. boisei. These latter 2 do have enough morphological differences that there is some debate as to whether or not they should receive their own Genus. If they were determined to be a separate genus, they would then become Paranthropus Robustus and Paranthropus Boisei.

But the point is that we know what an Australopithecus foot looks like. Just because Lucy was incomplete doesn't mean that people are falsifying data to fit a preconceived narrative. We have feet from other fossil remains and know what her feet would look like. And on top of that, we have footprints of A. Afarensis preserved in volcanic ash at Laetoli and dated to 3.7 million years BP which is at least 1.6 Ma prior to the earliest member of our own genus, Homo Habilis. There is absolutely zero possibility that these prints were made by any member of our genus and the only other bipedal hominid in the region at that time is A. Afarensis.

Analysis of the Laetoli footprints indicated the characteristics of obligate bipedalism: pronounced heel strike from deep impressions, lateral transmission of force from the heel to the base of the lateral metatarsal, a well-developed medial longitudinal arch, adducted big toe, and a deep impression for the big toe commensurate with toe-off. That means that in addition to feet that were remarkably similar to ours morphologically, they walked in a fashion identical to us.

To sum it up, in the artists recreation of Lucy, the feet weren't human, they were the feet of an Australopithecus Afarensis based on what we know from other A. Afarensis and the other Australopithecines. It's not like someone just sad "F(& it... I want them to be our ancestor so I'm just sticking my neighbors wife's feet on here 'cause that'll teach those bible thumpers!!!".



posted on Nov, 27 2017 @ 07:10 PM
link   
a reply to: Noinden

I'm only guessing at national geographic I could be mistaken though...
That article could be one I remember about the assumption made that Lucy seemingly walked like us...
Perhaps it was time or omni readers digest I can't be certain...



posted on Nov, 27 2017 @ 08:27 PM
link   
a reply to: 5StarOracle

So you are saying, that you might not remember it completely?



posted on Nov, 27 2017 @ 09:26 PM
link   
a reply to: peter vlar

What about the fourth metatarsal? I know she was found without feet, but didn't they come to the conclusion that Australopithicus feet were similar to human. Hence the title of the article: "They Walked Tall" or something like that. Why aren't Australopithicus foot fossils classified as transitional (not sure that's even a classification).



posted on Nov, 27 2017 @ 09:33 PM
link   
a reply to: 5StarOracle

I would not dispute that it is quite appropriate to have faith in science based knowledge. Check for instance Professor Walter Lewin's lectures, for instance conservation of energy.


What he shows is absolute faith in the theory of Conservation of Energy. This is what it means when a theory cannot be falsified. You can do the experiment, the result will be the same. Theory therefore is the highest form of explanation of an observed phenomenon.

In the case of Evolution through natural selection as a Theory to explain NOT the origin of species but the diversity of species

Contrary to what you seem to imply, faith in scientific theory is not the same thing as faith in a postulated creator god. As a matter of fact, Christian Doctrine stipulates that it is forbidden to test god. This means that god has tried to put himself beyond the reach of science.

As far as I know, there is no scientific method to proof god, proof that he is solely responsible for this universe or that he exists. I am afraid that you have nothing more than a losing battle. God is not a scientific theory, not even an hypothesis, but, scientifically, a frivolous appeal for those who lazily fail. .



posted on Nov, 27 2017 @ 09:42 PM
link   

originally posted by: Yvhmer
God is not a scientific theory, not even an hypothesis, but, scientifically, a frivolous appeal for those who lazily fail. .


There are people who died for their belief in God. What would suffice as evidence for God? The countless testimony of people's experience of spiritual euphoria and an all-loving presence? The amazing nature of the human body? The perfect habitable equilibrium of our solar system? Our ability to express emotions and love? Does written history from various cultures suffice? What if God came incarnate, not as a Father figure, but as a Brother, to unambiguously tell us the Truth, and conquered death as a sign to demonstrate his power and authenticity? What if he also fulfilled prophecy from cultures across the globe from thousands of years prior to his coming?

Not sure what you guys are looking for in terms of proof.


originally posted by: peter vlar

To sum it up, in the artists recreation of Lucy, the feet weren't human, they were the feet of an Australopithecus Afarensis based on what we know from other A. Afarensis and the other Australopithecines. It's not like someone just sad "F(& it... I want them to be our ancestor so I'm just sticking my neighbors wife's feet on here 'cause that'll teach those bible thumpers!!!".


Are there any links you can send to other A. Afarensis fossils? Lucy is the most complete fossil I can find.
edit on 27-11-2017 by cooperton because: (no reason given)



posted on Nov, 27 2017 @ 09:45 PM
link   
a reply to: cooperton

Try starting here. Note they don't list all specimens just important ones.



posted on Nov, 27 2017 @ 10:15 PM
link   

originally posted by: Phantom423
a reply to: peter vlar

What about the fourth metatarsal? I know she was found without feet, but didn't they come to the conclusion that Australopithicus feet were similar to human. Hence the title of the article: "They Walked Tall" or something like that. Why aren't Australopithicus foot fossils classified as transitional (not sure that's even a classification).


I do believe that this is what you're looking for... www.wired.com...



posted on Nov, 27 2017 @ 10:20 PM
link   
a reply to: cooperton

In addition to the link noinden provided,HEREis a very recent A. Afarensis find as well. Since I can't share my credentials to read the full paper, here is an article but it probably doesn't have the info thsat you're looking for... www.sciencedirect.com...



posted on Nov, 28 2017 @ 09:17 AM
link   
a reply to: peter vlar

Great post, Peter. I wonder what our resident creationists will come up with to deny all that.
edit on 11 28 17 by Barcs because: (no reason given)



posted on Nov, 28 2017 @ 09:22 AM
link   

originally posted by: Barcs
This thread has pretty much turned into nothing but the same ol' creationists repeating the same ol' nonsense they have been spouting for years. ... It's not that complicated to understand.


This communications revolution has led to information overload, as people are inundated by countless messages from every quarter. Many respond to this pressure by absorbing messages more quickly and accepting them without questioning or analyzing them.

The cunning propagandist loves such shortcuts—especially those that short-circuit rational thought. Propaganda encourages this by agitating the emotions, by exploiting insecurities, by capitalizing on the ambiguity of language, and by bending rules of logic. As history bears out, such tactics can prove all too effective.
...
Some propagandists play on pride. Often we can spot appeals to pride by looking for such key phrases as: “Any intelligent person knows that . . .” or, “A person with your education can’t help but see that . . .” A reverse appeal to pride plays on our fear of seeming stupid. Professionals in persuasion are well aware of that.
...
They also distort and twist facts, specializing in lies and half-truths. Your emotions, not your logical thinking abilities, are their target.

The propagandist makes sure that his message appears to be the right and moral one and that it gives you a sense of importance and belonging if you follow it. You are one of the smart ones, you are not alone, you are comfortable and secure—so they say.

Now what's described above also has an effect on the victims of propaganda (oh, source was the article in my signature). So they end up demonstrating the effectiveness of appeals to pride and reverse appeals to pride by showing in their commentary how they view anyone who doesn't want to jump on their bandwagon or argues against it in comparison with themselves (the supposedly smart and educated ones).

Coming back to Barcs for a moment:

...repeating the same ol' nonsense they have been spouting for years.

Like this (which demonstrates some aspects of what I've brought up so far in this comment, most notably the effect of that technique having been used on the people I'll be quoting below relentlessly and repeatedly rather than just the cause)? Starting with page 46:

Why don't you tell us again about all your degrees and how well you understand science, because based on your posts here you are a huge expert! LOL! - Barcs


If that's the case, then you truly did not understand what you were looking at. - Phantom423


Here's your problem in a nutshell: You don't understand mechanism i.e. the way things work. ... A real scientist seeks to understand mechanism - how stuff works. Creationists shut the door and close the book on learning. It's easy, doesn't take much effort and definitely does not stress the brain. - Phantom423


That is the problem with creationists, they are flummoxed by geology and genetics scares them - Noinden


You and the Creationist crowd have closed the book of knowledge. ...You, of course, will never understand it... - Phantom423


And that really is the bottom line, it's easier to ignore evidence because A. You don't understand it... - peter vlar


It's unfortunate that you're so closed minded and refuse to attempt to understand the science you dispute.


....thanks for trying to be smart. - puzzlesphere


apparently you don't even know what the word evidence means... - Akragon


simple explanations to simple issues... but far over the head of simple people apparently - Akragon

Between brackets is mine:

you should get off of ATS and read a book...Seriously, it would really behoove you to educate yourself a little. I'm sure your 8th grade science teacher could give you some suggestions. If not, try THIS book . It has a lot of polysyllabic words in it though so maybe you could get our mom to read it to you at bedtime. ... It won't help your arrogance [that one was funny after all that].... - peter vlar


If you don't understand...then there's no point in discussing this. ...When was the last time you set foot in a science class beyond high school or sifted dirt at a dig site?... what kind of a reply are you expecting when your refutation of valid science that you clearly don't understand well enough to falsify...their lack of understanding of science... - peter vlar


Go get a physics book. - Phantom423 [used 3 times in a row]


Go get a math book along with the physics book. - Phantom423


Jeez, get a few books. - Phantom423


Maybe you can figure something out. Not very hopeful, but...... - Phantom423


Get a book. ... And this time, get some quality books and do some real research before you start writing. -Phantom423


Come back when you're equipped to challenge the data... And that's because you can't discuss the data. You simply don't know how. ... Because you simply don't know how.

That's why I said, come back when you're equipped to challenge the mountains of evidence that validate evolution as the best theory which fits observational evidence. Again, you simply can't do that because you don't know how.

Get some books, listen to some lectures, read the research and come back with an honest presentation as to why over 500 journals and thousands of research articles are wrong. - Phantom423


Try coming up with something new and isn't exclusively based on propaganda... -Barcs [euhm, who's being repetitive in their behaviour and demonstrations of appeals to emotions, in particular pride, having done a real number on them in terms of how they now view anyone who disagrees with them regarding this subject?]


If you had a clue,... But you don't...For someone of your magnitude of arrogance... - peter vlar [ah the funny arrogance accusation again after expressing one's own]


If you really believe that then you've never worked in science or gone to grad school for anything science related. - peter vlar


So I assume this is your own take on a topic that you know absolutely nothing about. - Phantom423


Try learning... - dragonridr


...haven't got a clue when it comes to any of the material...and I have serious doubts that you would understand any of it if you tried to read it. - peter vlar


Dont bother i think we have been arguing with a teenager. Ive not seen him display anything above 10th grade science class. ... And ive noticed hes unwilling to admit he doesnt understand... - dragonridr


That's to be expected though from the scientifically illiterate. - peter vlar


You're very far behind the learning curve. - Phantom423


You hate evolution, don't understand the science behind it... - peter vlar

Coming back to:

...repeating the same ol' nonsense they have been spouting for years.

Some people are indeed being a bit repetitive in their demonstration of the effect (or endresult) of the repetitive techniques described regarding playing on the emotion: pride.



posted on Nov, 28 2017 @ 09:42 AM
link   
a reply to: whereislogic

hahaha. great compilation. You can't scrutinize evolution without being deemed scientifically illiterate by the dogmatists. Evolution lies in overcomplicating vague evidence. Lucy was about 3.5 feet tall with 40% of her skeleton, and following the logic of the infallibility of evolution, this must be a missing link!

I dare anyone to carbon-date a supposed Australopithecus, but then that might, you know, totally ruin the story.



new topics

top topics



 
16
<< 65  66  67    69  70  71 >>

log in

join