It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.
Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.
Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.
Originally posted by saturnine_sweet
I could care less what your opinion is
And it's similarly contrary to constructive discussion of science to assume Zedd's comments were dogma of any type.
Originally posted by saturnine_sweet it is not constructive to a conversation such as this to interject dogma.
In reality, for those trained in science... when the science of evolution makes a statement, it is generally accepted because it has been subject to peer review. And the evidence is always part of the peer review.
You basically just said that because the theory of evolution states it, its true.
Correct, that was not lost here. Just because you (or others) cannot fathom the eons required for evolution to enable the sequential adaption of species branching, does not mean it cannot happen. Time is on our side here... there has been a great deal of it.
We were talking one beast to another, like a fish to a lizard, not instantly, but over time, things of that sort.
What fath was that? Logic? Reason? Rationality? Please, don't categorize like that.
please don't preach your faith. Thanks.
But that is what you are doing. You'll find that ATS is among the Internet's most open minded discussion communities. A diversity of opinion is not only embraced, it is encouraged. However, (and there always is a however isn't there?) we're also more aware, educated, skeptical and rational than any other board of our ilk (conspiracy, politics, aliens, science, etc.). If you present an opinion, and solicit discussion, you should be prepared for contrary analysis because that is how truths are discovered. No truth was ever discovered through head-nodding mindless agreement, it was discovered through intense, informed, skeptical analysis of what is known and speculated to be likely. As such, thousands of scientists have devoted lifetimes of effort on the science of evolution which is generally accepted as the means from which life became diverse. As all things do, the science evolves and learns from its mistakes and refines its knowledge base. Just as all science does. I'm aware of a small branch of christianity-inspired folk who would have focus remain on disconnected pieces of evolution science that contain possibilities for error or are otherwise incomplete... choosing to ignore vast collections of knowledge which are complete, tested, and stood the test of intense peer review. However, we discuss these things here. Your attempt to categorize members who believe different than you as something beneath you will not end well. We value members who are able to engage in informed discussion to further all our understandings of a variety of topics. It would be shame if you could not find a way to temper your reaction to alternative opinions, and were unable to collaborate in such discussions.
I am not here to stir up trouble
You're quoting a popularized misconception spread by creationists such as Kent Hovind (Dr. Dino) who attempt to sensationalize misunderstandings of evolution science. No one in science ever claimed that man evolved from monkeys. Instead, apes, monkeys, and man all evolved from a primate ancestor.
Originally posted by gvret My problem with evolution- if we are supposed to come from monkeys ...
By continuing to spread this misconception, you're not really helping to focus on the issue.
Phenacolemur jepseni was a Plesiadapiforme that lived about 60 MYA, and some researchers consider the Plesiadapiformes to be the common ancestor of all the primates. It's difficult to know for certain which (if indeed any) of the Plesiadapiforme species was "the" ancestor, but I personally feel confidently that if it was not P. jepseni, it was a close relative. The reason for the difficulty in identifying the species is that the only trait that all primates share, but that is not shared with other mammals, is the "petrosal bulla," part of the skull that surrounds the inner ear. In some non-primates, the bullae fuse to the petrosal in adulthood, so in order to tell if a questionable species was a primate, juveniles have to be found. Juveniles don't fossilise as easily as adults, and they are much less frequently recovered, because of their size (c.f. Behrensmeyer 1978, Butler and Chatters 1994, e.g.). Still, P. jepseni juveniles did posess the fused petrosal bulla, suggesting that they were, or were closely related to, the ancestor of all living primates. www.talkorigins.org...
Did you read the link? saturnine_sweet... grow up. You're arguing simply to argue. In this world, that's called Trolling, and in this site, it's handled quickly. If you read my post, it was thin on the topic, and long on advice. I strongly suggest you take the advice to heart and discover how to engage people who disagree with you. Otherwise...
Originally posted by gvret If you can point to a connection in the evolutionary process from the primate to human
But the question I just posed, using their own rules, is stunningly improbable.
Anyone who truly believe it either needs to educate themselves outside of the dogma, or need to learn to think in the first place.