Irreducible complexity and Evolution

originally posted by: peter vlar
a reply to: whereislogic
You can claim I'm a liar all you want...

I mentioned earlier because certain routines are predictable:

*: notice I'm not arguing or implying yet that anyone is lying on purpose; I've already left plenty of hints regarding victims picking up certain behaviour without even realizing it, as well as hints about at what point it becomes a bit too ridiculous or too far removed from the proper reasonable use of logic and language not to start thinking about the possibility of it being on purpose, or even discussing that.

i.e. I didn't claim you were a liar (lying, or lying on purpose). That's still not going to change the lies/falsehoods (things that are incorrect) in your commentary into truths. We can add another lie/falsehood to the list, the implication that I'm claiming that you are a liar (which requires it to be on purpose, knowing better). I'm wondering if I had said in the text above "notice I'm not arguing or implying yet that anyone is a liar" you would have switched to the paintjob "you can claim that I'm lying all you want...".

Here's a text that uses the verb "lying" (no implications regarding anyone, just a useful text for consideration).

Proverbs 14:5-7

5 A faithful witness will not lie,

But a false witness lies with every breath.

6 The scoffer seeks wisdom and finds none,

But knowledge comes easily to the person with understanding.

7 Stay away from the foolish man,

For you will not find knowledge on his lips.

Oh and Akragon? Quoting you earlier regarding a response to someone else (but my commentary below being unrelated to that and only being a response to your statement on its own as explained after "not in the sense seemingly implied by you..."; regardless of any debate or consideration one might want to have about whether or not the person you were responding to should have used that term):

Pretty sure your "god" told you not to call others fools...

If referring to the God who inspired the bible, I'm pretty sure he didn't (not in the sense seemingly implied by you there, in each and every situation, even when it's true and it's meant as a heads-up with further elaboration why and how a person can recognize it when doing some self-reflection). That would not be very loving or caring (see earlier quotations about "reproof") to leave people wallowing in their delusions, foolishness and/or discourage self-reflection. Of course, without further explanation or any details at all, it's not going to be very helpfuf in encouraging self-reflection if you call others fools without giving them any further help in realizing that (or why someone might come to that conclusion; the same counts for "liar" or "lying" or presenting or believing in falsehoods/lies, things that are incorrect, unwittingly or not knowing any better).

Matthew 23:17 (Jesus Christ speaking)

17 Fools and blind ones! Which, in fact, is greater, the gold or the temple that has sanctified the gold?

“Christ . . . [left] you a model for you to follow his steps closely.”—1 PET. 2:21.

I'm not going to start a debate about Matthew 5:22, especially when it's taken or only considered out of context.
Fool: Insight, Volume 1

Rather than denoting a person who is lacking in mental ability, the word “fool,” as used in the Bible, generally refers to an individual who spurns reason and follows a morally insensible course out of harmony with God’s righteous standards. Various Hebrew terms denoting such a one are kesilʹ (‘stupid one’; Pr 1:22), ʼewilʹ (“foolish one”; Pr 12:15), na·valʹ (‘senseless one’; Pr 17:7), and lets (“ridiculer”; Pr 13:1). The Greek aʹphron refers to an “unreasonable one” (Lu 12:20), a·noʹe·tos to one “senseless” (Ga 3:1), and mo·rosʹ to a ‘fool’ or “foolish” one (Mt 23:17; 25:2).
...
The fool despises wisdom and discipline. (Pr 1:7) [whereislogic: discipline is connected to reproof] Instead of heeding counsel, the fool continues walking in a way he considers “right in his own eyes.” (Pr 12:15) He is quick to take offense and bursts out in disputing. (Ec 7:9; Pr 20:3) He says in his heart (his actions indicating what his lips may not say in so many words): “There is no Jehovah.”—Ps 14:1. [whereislogic: a variation that may show what's in someone's heart, 'saying': "there is no J..."]

Jesus Christ rightly referred to the scribes and Pharisees as “fools and blind ones,” that is, persons lacking wisdom and being morally worthless, for they had distorted the truth by man-made traditions and followed a hypocritical course. Moreover, Jesus backed up the correctness of this designation by illustrating their lack of discernment. (Mt 23:15-22; 15:3) However, the individual wrongly calling a brother a “despicable fool,” judging and condemning his brother as being morally worthless, would make himself liable to Gehenna.—Mt 5:22; Ro 14:10-12; Mt 7:1, 2.
...
To become truly wise, a person must become a fool in the eyes of the world, “for the wisdom of this world is foolishness with God.” It is not the worldly wise but those looked down upon as persons without knowledge, fools, whom Jehovah has chosen to represent him. This has resulted in making the foolishness of this world even more apparent. Furthermore, this removes all reason for boasting on the part of the favored individual. Instead, all glory goes rightfully to the Source of wisdom, Jehovah.—1Co 3:18, 19; 1:18-31.

Answering a fool in harmony with or “according to his foolishness” in the sense of resorting to his degrading methods of argument puts the one so doing in agreement with the fool’s unsound reasonings or ways. In order not to become like the fool in this respect, we are counseled by the proverb: “Do not answer anyone stupid according to his foolishness.” On the other hand, Proverbs 26:4, 5 shows that answering him “according to his foolishness” in the sense of analyzing his contentions, exposing them as being ridiculous, and showing that his own arguments lead to entirely different conclusions from those he has drawn can be beneficial.

Bringing us back to:

This has been stated ad infinitum by myself, Peter Vlar, Barcs and others: NO EVIDENCE, NO SCIENCE.

Quoting Phantom423 and referring to my commentary about it on page 48, first comment there.

a reply to: whereislogic

I wasn't talking to you in that quote, and i was speaking of Jesus who is your partner's God regardless of if you agree with it...

Try matthew 5 for the quote i was referring to... Your friend has a tendency to call people names when they disagree with his nonsence posts

Not only is it uncalled for but quite A typical of Christian Fundies

a reply to: cooperton

According to the 1st law of thermodynamics, something cannot come from nothing. Therefore, since something exists, that something must have always existed. That is what the philosophers, the lovers of knowledge, call the Alpha-Omega, the Being that always was and always shall be.

So you're saying God is everything in the physical realm... which makes the planet God, which leads you down a very different path then your religion points

Funny, your book says "God is a spirit" which is not a part of the physical realm... and theres little to no evidence of spirits either for that matter

originally posted by: Akragon
a reply to: cooperton

According to the 1st law of thermodynamics, something cannot come from nothing. Therefore, since something exists, that something must have always existed. That is what the philosophers, the lovers of knowledge, call the Alpha-Omega, the Being that always was and always shall be.

So you're saying God is everything in the physical realm... which makes the planet God, which leads you down a very different path then your religion points

There's a possibility that Akragon knows that that's not what cooperton meant (even though cooperton phrased it wrong with "that something" referring to the earlier "something" that seemed to be referring to the evidence of everything that exists leading to the conclusion that "something exists"; it was unclear whether or not he was referring to an eternal God with "something" and it was phrased as if he was referring to something or just any thing in "everything that exists"; which is still not limited to "everything in the physical realm"). If that is the case, it comes dangerously close to twisting what someone is saying again. The respectful course would have been to correct and reprove him and patch up the argument in a way he probably meant it (or another option, point out where he went wrong if he meant to say something else and then letting him figure it out how to patch it up). Not make fun of getting it wrong and pound on it as if incorrect things is what makes one rejoice when said by others one wants to disagree with. Of course, all of this was an "if" scenario. Not saying that that is the case. Still, worthy of consideration.

1 Corinthians 13:4-7

4 Love is patient* [Or “long-suffering.”] and kind. Love is not jealous. It does not brag, does not get puffed up, 5 does not behave indecently,* [Or “is not rude.”] does not look for its own interests, does not become provoked. It does not keep account of the injury.* [Or “of wrongs.”] 6 It does not rejoice over unrighteousness, but rejoices with the truth.

a reply to: Akragon

He is saying that since the universe was created that something eternal with the power to create it had to exist before it and also exist beyond its boundaries...
And why shouldn't he that's exactly the way the Bible describes God...
Once again you show you are incapable of comprehension...By misinterpreting to suit your needs to slander because of your wrath... Thus causing you to be blind to that which is blatantly obvious to those whom do not suffer from your apparent limitations...
Hahaha
Oh by the way I'm a sinner but in all honesty I don't mean to hurt your feelings when I call you stupid I'm just trying to keep it simple for you...

What the first law is really stating is that the creation of the Universe has to be beyond natural...
In other words...So you can understand...
The cause was then of course Supernatural...
Go figure..

originally posted by: Akragon

Funny, your book says "God is a spirit" which is not a part of the physical realm... and theres little to no evidence of spirits either for that matter

Said the Spirit controlling a body that is typing on the keyboard. Whether or not you know that the Spirit created the body, or are under the misconception that the body creates the Spirit, you are nonetheless conscious and aware to a certain degree. When Moses asked God who He was He responded "I Am that I Am". We are temples of the Most High God, yet we have let robbers come in to ravage and destroy because we continually tie up the strong One.

originally posted by: 5StarOracle
a reply to: Akragon

He is saying that since the universe was created that something eternal with the power to create it had to exist before it and also exist beyond its boundaries...
And why shouldn't he that's exactly the way the Bible describes God...
Once again you show you are incapable of comprehension...By misinterpreting to suit your needs to slander because of your wrath... Thus causing you to be blind to that which is blatantly obvious to those whom do not suffer from your apparent limitations...
Hahaha
Oh by the way I'm a sinner but in all honesty I don't mean to hurt your feelings when I call you stupid I'm just trying to keep it simple for you...

What the first law is really stating is that the creation of the Universe has to be beyond natural...
In other words...So you can understand...
The cause was then of course Supernatural...
Go figure..

Thank you. And to whereislogic, yes, "something" was a reference to everything, or, existence in general. I.e. John's Logos in Chapter 1 of John. When I mention other sources outside the Bible it is to demonstrate that these are Universal Truths that have independently been concluded by many throughout history.

a reply to: 5StarOracle

He is saying that since the universe was created that something eternal with the power to create it had to exist before it and also exist beyond its boundaries...
And why shouldn't he that's exactly the way the Bible describes God...

so again, since existence exists... God did it

you rely on the notion that everything needs a creator... sure the universe as we know it seems to have had a beginning, but what if that beginning was just like a restart which has always happened? Perhaps it didn't have a "creation" point where some deity said "let it be"

Funny thing is i argue against my own beliefs here, but the way you guys blatantly deny what has been shown to you keeps me going

Once again you show you are incapable of comprehension...By misinterpreting to suit your needs to slander because of your wrath... Thus causing you to be blind to that which is blatantly obvious to those whom do not suffer from your apparent limitations...
Hahaha
Oh by the way I'm a sinner but in all honesty I don't mean to hurt your feelings when I call you stupid I'm just trying to keep it simple for you...

Doesn't hurt me in the least... it actually makes my case...

in any debate or argument, those that start tossing insults know they've already lost

What the first law is really stating is that the creation of the Universe has to be beyond natural...

No... it says energy can't be created or destroyed... which would technically mean it always existed

In other words...So you can understand...
The cause was then of course Supernatural...
Go figure..

yeah... your logic is astounding

Considering that law has nothing to do with anything supernatural... we have a pretty good idea of how the universe works these days... and we're apparently getting closer to understanding how it all happened at the beginning following a model/experiment that can be created in an extremely high compression lazer thingy thats the size of an apartment building...lol

point being... God is not a factor in science...

and until he comes down from the heavens for a chat with mankind... God will never be a factor in science...

I would actually love to see any of you address a single argument that the "evolutionists" have offered

Unfortunately, as it was pointed out many times... You can't

a reply to: cooperton

Easy on the preaching brother...

originally posted by: Akragon
a reply to: cooperton

Easy on the preaching brother...

If only you knew how important this is. It's normal to get fanatical about the NFL, NBA, etc, but the Truth has been universally persecuted throughout history.

originally posted by: cooperton

originally posted by: Akragon
a reply to: cooperton

Easy on the preaching brother...

If only you knew how important this was. It's normal to get fanatical about kids playing sports i.e. NFL, NBA, etc, but the Truth has been universally persecuted throughout history.

this isn't the place for it though... didn't i just say God does not factor into science?

originally posted by: Akragon

this isn't the place for it though... didn't i just say God does not factor into science?

Just keep searching. No one should ever be satisfied with a theory claiming they are the meaningless ancestors of mutant apes, it is a philosophical dead end.

"The first gulp from the glass of natural sciences will turn you into an atheist, but at the bottom of the glass God is waiting for you." Werner Heisenberg

originally posted by: cooperton

originally posted by: Akragon

this isn't the place for it though... didn't i just say God does not factor into science?

Just keep searching. No one should ever be satisfied with a theory claiming they are the meaningless ancestors of mutant apes, it is a philosophical dead end.

"The first gulp from the glass of natural sciences will turn you into an atheist, but at the bottom of the glass God is waiting for you." Werner Heisenberg

IF we only live 60-90ish years if you're lucky... why does it matter what our species evolved from?

quote]originally posted by: cooperton

originally posted by: Phantom423
a reply to: cooperton

originally posted by: peter vlar

I think the word you were looking for is dissent.

I choose my words carefully when I have the time. A dissident is "someone who opposes official policy from an authoritarian state", which fits the context well.

There is no authoritarian body dictating how we do our work. If that were the case, we would still be teaching Clovis First and denying that HSS were in the Americas thousands of years prior to the advent of Clovis culture. We wouldn't be discussing Pleistocene admixture, we wouldn't be having conversations about Homo Naledi, Denisovans or Floresiensis to name a few from the last decade and a half alone. And those are just finds in PaleoAnthropology and doesn't touch on any other disciplines.

I don't ask this sarcastically, have you or your team found any unequivocal evidence reinforcing the notion of evolution?

In short, yes. Beyond that I'm not going to discuss the specifics of things I worked on because I enjoy my private life these days and don't need other people who may be less respectful than you googling things and figuring out who I am. I hope you can understand that. I've done everything from sifting dirt at French and Indian War and Pre-Revolutionary War sites for school, Erie Canal sites on my own for research, with permission of course to mundane things like measuring attachment point scars on Neanderthal remains and calculating the individual's muscle mass to working on things related to cohabitation in the Levant at sites that were occupied by both "us" and Neanderthal. I've made mention of the above in other threads so I'll repeat it here. But anything more specific Im less than comfortable getting into.

I have read some of their content. Most of it comes from googling ideas that come to my head - i.e. "wtf were dragons and why do they match descriptions of dinosaurs" you'll get either creationists claiming they were dinosaurs perceived by humans, or evolutionists saying that's ridiculous that can't be true.

Maybe if you didn't use slurs like "evolutionist", the level of hostility would be significantly reduced. My background is in Paleoanthropology with specific focus on Pleistocene hominids. Not "evolutionism", because there is no such thing and the entire concept is insulting to be quite honest. The term was concocted specifically as a slur against people who engage in work that utilizes the scientific method. And to be frank, if you told me that something I stated in regards to you was rude or insulting, I would genuinely apologize and cease to use something that you felt slurs you personally or the work you have done.

The focus of study is great, but can lead to tunnel vision. I at one point refused any evidence that strayed from evolutionary theory. As much as you may think I only intake Christian "propaganda", I do make my best efforts to remain unbiased at the face of evidence.

To be fair, that is only your own personal experience. When I was in school, I was encouraged to question everything and attempt to falsify anything and everything I found to be less than sound. While I had always been interested in human evolution, it was that idiotic TV show w/ Charlton Heston as narrator that made me want to switch gears and study Anthropology formally because I bought into it hook line and sinker. Especially the portions with Virginia Steen-McIntyre. I approached it all critically and when attempting to falsify things, I learned how wrong my initial impressions were and learned the truth about what she really did as opposed to how she presented the situation in the mockumentary. I was always into conspiracy theories and was hooked on Holy blood, Holy Grail, UFO's etc... Then. I learned facts, how to properly employ the scientific method and to falsify things for myself. I don't regurgitate what. I see online and I sure as hell don't tow any party lines. I follow the evidence regardless of whether the end result jives with my original thoughts on a topic. The truth is the truth and I've found that learning from my mistakes often led me to a clearer truth. If we had the technology in 1997 to do the type of work and testing I wanted to attempt, I would probably still be working in Anthropology and would have had my doctorate and been widely published. But we didn't have the proper tools 20 years ago and it took a better mind like Svante Paabo to develop those tools for extracting ancient DNA. The bottom line though is that despite many protestations, I've yet to see anyone supporting a young earth and literal creator entity that didn't exist prior to 3500 years ago attempt to falsify a single peer reviewed paper and I'm not holding my breath waiting for that to happen.

Dude, don't get me started. I have evolutionists telling me i'm a retarded creationist,

I may vigorously disagree with your position but I don't think you're retarded and if I've ever implied such a thing, I sincerely apologize for it. The fact of the matter though is that you claimed that people like me are closed minded and we are shutting off children's ability to think critically when that couldn't be farther from the truth. There is zero freedom or critical thinking when children are literally indoctrinated into religion from birth and forced to attend a church of their parents choosing. I teach my kids about all religions. I let them make their own minds up, I give them facts and tell them to look at both sides of the story and not to take my word for anything just because I'm a parent and authority figure. So contrary to your previous statement, my kids at least aren't forced to believe in anything, let alone evolution. I give them the tools to look at the world around them and make their own informed decisions. I've even let them go to various churches with their friends so that they can learn for themselves. There is absolutely no indoctrination in my house.

and I have Christians telling me I'm out of touch with reality when I quote the words of Jesus. "God is good, but he's not that good", is the mentally often exhibited by Christians. We should be moving mountains and healing the sick, but that is not happening, so obviously no one is actually living the Christ lifestyle. As Paul said, all men are liars and God is True.

I agreed with all of that right up to quoting Paul. What most people think of as Christianity isn't anything close to what Christianity started out as. The Romanization of Christianity is little more than Pauline Doctrine created by a committee of Roman aristocrats trying to figure out how to convince the "pagan" citizenry to willingly go along with their new State Religion under Constantine.

Continued in next post...

a reply to: cooperton

At it's most base level it is a moral compass, which is beneficial to children.

This is also a common sentiment... Religion is important because it teaches children morality. It's BS. Look at the most religious parts of the US, the rural South in particular... Highest rates of STD's in minors, highest rates of teen pregnancy, rampant racism a half a century after the end of segregation. Those aren't the morals I want my kids to have and my kids manage to treat everyone else with kindness and as equals without have religion scaring them into morality. They treat others with respect because it's the right way to treat others, not because they're scared of Hell.

But the hypocrisy they see from their teachers (I speak from my childhood experience) ultimately renders them a half-believer or a full-blown atheist. Catholic school was a one-way ticket to atheism for me. Free thought brought me to agnosticism, and then actually reading the words of Jesus in a new context was eye opening. Syncretism is an interesting field where the prophets from all religions are compared for common teachings. The Good news is greater than anyone on earth currently knows, and although origins are important to know, it is much worse if it causes disparity among the various temples of God (you and I, etc).

I too went to Catholic School and it left a foul taste in my mouth. But the experience isn't what turned me off of religion. Organized religion is disgusting on so many levels and isn't what, based on my reading and research, what Christ would have wanted. I think the message of Christ is a beautiful one and a great way to live your life. The crap from Paul is nauseating and the organized, if you can consider today's 1000's of varieties and denominations of Christianity organized in any way, but the organized aspects of modern Christianity are so contrary to everything I learned in church or as an altar boy make me sick to my stomach. I've n se for such a hypocritical system of controlling the masses and that's exactly what Christianity became after the 4th century Romanization, a system of control and not a tool for talking to any god or gods.

A peace offering is needed after some exhausting logical discourse

I don't drink much these days ( my body is a mess and riddles with an early onset congenital arthritis that ended my military career as well as field work in anthropology and I don't have the patience to teach lol) so with all the medication I'm on adding alcohol to the mix isn't really a grand idea but I would gladly pull up a chair and have a beer with you.

originally posted by: cooperton

originally posted by: peter vlar

Evolution has the same ghastly nature. Because it is a dynamic theory that is always assumed to be true, the goalposts are constantly moved depending on new evidence. for example, soft tissue was found in dinosaurs - because the science elites can't consider the possibility of a younger earth, they had to move the goalposts and say "oh nvm I guess soft tissue can be preserved longer than we thought. Evolution's Achilles' heel is time, which is why anything indicating that the earth is younger than millions of years old is anathema, and outright refused.

Learning something new and that a prior assumption about permineralization was incorrect isn't moving the goal posts though. It's learning something new and incorporating it into the corpus of data we already work from. That is how science works, we learn something new then we try to understand how it works. Mary Scweitzer was a tenured professor, she wasn't going to lose her job if she came out with a claim that was contrary to what is currently accepted in her field. But claiming there's something screwy or that the goal posts are being moved because we learned something new, to me, is just odd. Shouldn't we embrace new ideas and evidence? Aren't you the one who claimed in a reply to Phantom that we were afraid of new or different ideas? If that were the case, we wouldn't be talking about fossilized soft tissue, which wasn't really a new idea. It's very rare yes, but the only new aspect was that it could be found inside permineralized bone.

There is nothing that indicates a young earth. I know you disagree with that and for the life of me, I can't understand ignoring all the evidence that supports a 4.6 Billion year old solar system in favor of a handful of YEC proponents making claims that they aren't qualified to make because they don't have a degree or any background in the fields that they are making these claims about. Evidence of a young earth isn't refused because it doesn't exist. I would never try to dispute tenets of Chemistry or physics because I don't have the proper education in those fields to do so. But that's exactly what the resident scientists at ICR and AIG are doing. You've got geologists making claims about biology, chemists making claims about geological formations and even funnier is the geologist who works for an Australian mining company and uses all of the evidence for a 4.6 Bn age of the Earth to locate Uranium deposits, publishes papers using and supporting an ancient age of the Earth and then write for ICR bat how the Earth is less than 12 KA. I would find it hilarious if he wasn't such a lying sack of poo. Do you really feel that the level of dishonesty used to promote their interpretation of scripture is either scientific or even Christian? Is it really Ok with you that these guys have to lie in their attempt to convince others that science is wrong? When over 95% of members of the NAS support an ancient earth and the validity of the MES and there are less than 10 resident "scientists" on staff at ICR for example, that tells me something is off.

To be clear, a peer reviewed paper isn't what impresses me. A paper that shows their work and how they obtained their results so that I can engage in due diligence and check the validity for myself... That's something I can latch on to. It's not anything that AIG or ICR do though. They don't show their work, they don't show you how they came to their conclusions or allow for their bogus science to be falsified. I don't understand how anyone can support such shoddy work that would get you a D if you tried to hand it in for a High School class and these guys are claiming to be legitimate scientists.

Out of curiosity, how old do YOU believe the earth is? I ask because in earlier posts, you reference Easter philosophies and how they support your notion of a creator. The issue. I see with that line of rationale is that Vedic Creationists still believe in a 4.6 Bn age of the Earth but insist that H. Sapiens have been here unchanged for hundreds of millions of years so I'm genuinely curious how you reconcile the concepts.

edit on 21-11-2017 by peter vlar because: (no reason given)

a reply to: cooperton

Consider this - with the rudimentary eye sensing light, this signal needs to be transduced into some sort of meaningful signal to the rest of the organism, otherwise it as an epileptic mess. Therefore, it would need not only a miraculous random mutation to generate photopigments, it would also need the processing units and reaction mechanisms to even have a useful function for it, otherwise it would be selected out of the gene pool quickly because it would likely disrupt something. Such is the logic of irreducible complexity.

Yet there is no logic in irreducible complexity. Behe started with a conclusion and then created a narrative to support his supposition. That isn't science and his "support" of IC is some of the most mind blowing circular logic in existence and is loaded with so many logical fallacies that I have to question the sanity of anyone who supports the concept. That doesn't mean I wouldn't buy you a beer though lol. I appreciate that you've shelved the ad hominem. BS in favor of a civil discourse. I can't in many way agree with you but I can at least give you courtesy and respect for standing by your position in the face of overwhelming evidence to the contrary. I'm in the North East as well so it's not unfathomable that it could happen at some point.

Not to mention that all mutations that would theoretically create novel proteins, would also discard the old protein that the gene coded for.

Not necessarily, no. Creating a new protein doesn't mean that the organism in question will always discard or cease to create the proteins it's predecessor did.

Look at it like this, humans and Chimpanzee and Bonobo are, genetically, extraordinarily close. It's the way that the same genes express themselves that lead to a host of morphological variation between the 2 genus, not an absolute lack of genes.

originally posted by: cooperton

originally posted by: Akragon

this isn't the place for it though... didn't i just say God does not factor into science?

Just keep searching. No one should ever be satisfied with a theory claiming they are the meaningless ancestors of mutant apes, it is a philosophical dead end.

So are you personally offended that in Anthropology we provide evidence of Homo Sapiens Sapiens sharing common ancestry with the Great Apes? Because that's how this statement comes across. Who cares about philosophy? It has nothing to do with the evidence we have supporting MRCA. There is zero evidence that one specific god created everything just a few thousand years ago. There is evidence of shared ancestry amongst all of the apes and we have established molecular clocks demonstrating average mutation rates thst lime up surprisingly well with what we see in the fossil record in regards to the emergence of new species, genetic divergence and split of Chimpanzee and Bonobo, transition from H. Heidelbergensis to Neanderthal in Europe, Densiovans and their admixture in E. Asia, genetic evidence showing a very complicated and less than linear evolution of H. Heidelbergensis in East and South Africa as they morphed in Archaic Homo Sapiens and on and on. And most importantly, we've been able to determine a rough time frame of when the MRCA of the genus Homo and the other extant Great Apes lived. Just because we have yet to find physical remains of that creature doesn't mean it didn't exist. Is that inference extrapolated from all of the other data and evidence we currently have? Absolutely. In my personal experience though, it's only a matter of time. Just like the evidence for Pleistocene admixture that didn't exist 20 years ago which I was able to extrapolate then and was laughed at by classmates for supporting can now be proven beyond a shadow of a doubt.

"The first gulp from the glass of natural sciences will turn you into an atheist, but at the bottom of the glass God is waiting for you." Werner Heisenberg.

You say this as if the two concepts live in mutual exclusivity when they don't. I simply don't understand why in your mind it has to be an either or proposition? I have seen zero evidence of a creator at all let alone the god of Abraham specifically tipping it's hat, but I'm not arrogant enough to rule out the possibility of evidence emerging at some point. It seems as if you however have closed all doors but the one you wish to see open which is too bad. Because despite claiming that we refuse to entertain other possibilities, it appears as if its actually you who is refusing to entertain the possibility of being wrong and are the closed minded one here.

originally posted by: peter vlar

There is no authoritarian body dictating how we do our work. If that were the case, we would still be teaching Clovis First and denying that HSS were in the Americas thousands of years prior to the advent of Clovis culture. We wouldn't be discussing Pleistocene admixture, we wouldn't be having conversations about Homo Naledi, Denisovans or Floresiensis to name a few from the last decade and a half alone. And those are just finds in PaleoAnthropology and doesn't touch on any other disciplines.

Yet these examples are all still under the impression that evolution is true. Do you think you could ever get a grant for an experiment that is intended to disprove the theory of evolution?

In short, yes. Beyond that I'm not going to discuss the specifics of things I worked on because I enjoy my private life these days and don't need other people who may be less respectful than you googling things and figuring out who I am. I hope you can understand that. I've done everything from sifting dirt at French and Indian War and Pre-Revolutionary War sites for school, Erie Canal sites on my own for research, with permission of course to mundane things like measuring attachment point scars on Neanderthal remains and calculating the individual's muscle mass to working on things related to cohabitation in the Levant at sites that were occupied by both "us" and Neanderthal. I've made mention of the above in other threads so I'll repeat it here. But anything more specific Im less than comfortable getting into.

What's the leading idea regarding the larger cranial volume in neanderthals?

human cranial capacity: 1300 cubic centimeters / 140lbs
neanderthal cranial capacity: 1600 cubic centimeters / 170lbs

These ratios indicate that the neanderthal was slightly more encephalized than the average contemporary human. Yet the supposed neanderthal is constantly depicted as a caveman looking brute. Is it ever considered that these may be just as human as other humans except with a different morphology? The Bible, and other sources, talk of various tribes and races of humans, and the neanderthal seems to fit that of an intelligent warrior rather than an ignorant caveman look, considering its high degree of encephalization and thick ribcage.

To be fair, that is only your own personal experience. When I was in school, I was encouraged to question everything and attempt to falsify anything and everything I found to be less than sound. While I had always been interested in human evolution, it was that idiotic TV show w/ Charlton Heston as narrator that made me want to switch gears and study Anthropology formally because I bought into it hook line and sinker. Especially the portions with Virginia Steen-McIntyre. I approached it all critically and when attempting to falsify things, I learned how wrong my initial impressions were and learned the truth about what she really did as opposed to how she presented the situation in the mockumentary. I was always into conspiracy theories and was hooked on Holy blood, Holy Grail, UFO's etc... Then. I learned facts, how to properly employ the scientific method and to falsify things for myself. I don't regurgitate what. I see online and I sure as hell don't tow any party lines. I follow the evidence regardless of whether the end result jives with my original thoughts on a topic. The truth is the truth and I've found that learning from my mistakes often led me to a clearer truth. If we had the technology in 1997 to do the type of work and testing I wanted to attempt, I would probably still be working in Anthropology and would have had my doctorate and been widely published. But we didn't have the proper tools 20 years ago and it took a better mind like Svante Paabo to develop those tools for extracting ancient DNA. The bottom line though is that despite many protestations, I've yet to see anyone supporting a young earth and literal creator entity that didn't exist prior to 3500 years ago attempt to falsify a single peer reviewed paper and I'm not holding my breath waiting for that to happen.

Yeah (my experience in) academia is mostly open-minded and supports free thinking, until you propose an idea that would disprove evolution. I've definitely put too much importance on conveying the counter-evidence to others. As my brother said, "even if you are right, who cares?" (he says with a laugh)

I may vigorously disagree with your position but I don't think you're retarded and if I've ever implied such a thing, I sincerely apologize for it. The fact of the matter though is that you claimed that people like me are closed minded and we are shutting off children's ability to think critically when that couldn't be farther from the truth. There is zero freedom or critical thinking when children are literally indoctrinated into religion from birth and forced to attend a church of their parents choosing. I teach my kids about all religions. I let them make their own minds up, I give them facts and tell them to look at both sides of the story and not to take my word for anything just because I'm a parent and authority figure. So contrary to your previous statement, my kids at least aren't forced to believe in anything, let alone evolution. I give them the tools to look at the world around them and make their own informed decisions. I've even let them go to various churches with their friends so that they can learn for themselves. There is absolutely no indoctrination in my house.

Sincere apologies for jumping to conclusions, that is great to let them figure it out on their own.

I agreed with all of that right up to quoting Paul. What most people think of as Christianity isn't anything close to what Christianity started out as. The Romanization of Christianity is little more than Pauline Doctrine created by a committee of Roman aristocrats trying to figure out how to convince the "pagan" citizenry to willingly go along with their new State Religion under Constantine.

Paul's letters are definitely useful, and I do think he was an enlightened man who had visions of Jesus, but I agree I think he is overemphasized. For example, the gnostic gospels have a whole wealth of information. You would think we'd be stoked that more words of Jesus were found in Nag Hammadi, but it is largely viewed as heresy.

It is much healthier having these cordial conversations. Again, sorry for any harsh words to you, and the others. Know that it was from a mentality of trying to convey ideas that I believe are important and are most beneficial to anyone who can conceive them

originally posted by: peter vlar
There is zero evidence that one specific god created everything just a few thousand years ago.

Yet the histories of multiple cultures have a much more fantastic story. They universally talk of supposedly impossible events. Not to mention the scribes of these cultures were very few, and only wrote the most important information. They weren't wasting their time writing fiction. Rowling wouldn't have wrote Harry Potter if she had to engrave it into stone.

a reply to: Akragon

How does God not Factor into Science when Science is studying his handiwork?
Science will bow down to God in acknowledgement it's already begun to do so...
The Universe had a beginning and will one day end that is the belief science holds as true today...
It's not going to be collapsing in on itself and restarting...

a reply to: cooperton

I believe Neanderthal are not only falsely portrayed as modern mans inferior but that they are portrayed as such rather purposefully... When in fact they were superior in various aspects...
The Bible eludes to the fact that mankind suffered a number of setbacks not progressions especially genetically... The teachings also point to the longevity which was once enjoyed by man when God would no longer suffer any man for more than 125 years or what ever it was... Now this brings me back to Neanderthal and his pronounced brow ridge... Did you know that your brow grows ever so slightly throughout your lifetime?
Now that's food for thought...

originally posted by: cooperton

originally posted by: peter vlar

Yet these examples are all still under the impression that evolution is true. Do you think you could ever get a grant for an experiment that is intended to disprove the theory of evolution?

No, these finds aren't made under the impression that evolution is true. You're making an illogical leap of faith with such an assumption. Let me use Hueyatlaco as an example as you erroneously cited it as an example of someone having their career ruined for publishing dates that are too old to fit into some supposed narrative. They didn't go to the site to attempt to prove or disprove anything. They simply followed the evidence and the evidence supports an extremely ancient date. Nobody had their career ruined because of the dates associated with the site and tests in the diatoms at the site show an age of at least 80 KA and as old 260 KA based on the time frame those specific diatoms were alive in that area. But there was no goal that they were trying to prove.

As for getting a grant, nobody sets out on such an experiment. What type of experiment do you think would disprove evolution? Were talking about the most widely evidenced theory in the history of science. It would take more than a single hypothesis or experiment to overturn the entirety of the MES. Were talking about several scientific disciplines from anthropology, Paleoanthropology, paleontology, evolutionary biology, basic biology and genetics. And that's just a starting point. But essentially, that's the tactic of ICR, AIG etc... They start with a conclusion and then fit data to their preconceived narrative. People in my field simply do the work, test the remains from the sites, date it and then follow the data. There isn't a preconceived notion that were trying to fill in the blanks for

What's the leading idea regarding the larger cranial volume in neanderthals?

Cranial capacity has a direct correlation to body mass. They also had a larger visual cortex than HSS, likely a result of lower light conditions in northern latitudes, hence their larger cranial capacity. It doesn't mean they were smarter and it doesn't mean they were dumb brutes either. They had culture, practiced medicine, took care of the elderly and even people who survived limb amputations. They buried their dead with grave goods, decorated their bodies with paint and jewelry and much more.

These ratios indicate that the neanderthal was slightly more encephalized than the average contemporary human. Yet the supposed neanderthal is constantly depicted as a caveman looking brute. Is it ever considered that these may be just as human as other humans except with a different morphology? The Bible, and other sources, talk of various tribes and races of humans, and the neanderthal seems to fit that of an intelligent warrior rather than an ignorant caveman look, considering its high degree of encephalization and thick ribcage.

They're a cousin species who evolved in Europe independently of HSS from earlier H. Erectus who first left Africa 1.8 MA. The Erectus in Europe evolved over nearly a million and a half years and adapted to their local ecological niche. Personally, I would consider any member of our genus to be human as do many other anthropologists. But they're not Homo Sapiens with a different morphology. Where they evolved from similar progenitors, we evolved independently in our own ecological niche. There are enough genetic and morphological differences as well as the separation of nearly 2 million years that it's quite safe to consider them a different species. It's a bit anachronistic to insist that the barrier that separates species is the inability to successfully breed.

Yeah (my experience in) academia is mostly open-minded and supports free thinking, until you propose an idea that would disprove evolution. I've definitely put too much importance on conveying the counter-evidence to others. As my brother said, "even if you are right, who cares?" (he says with a laugh)

There's a huge difference between putting forth an idea that one feels would disprove evolution and having evidence to support the claim. We follow the evidence, whether we like the conclusions that evidence leads us to or not.

Sincere apologies for jumping to conclusions, that is great to let them figure it out on their own.

No apology necessary but I appreciate it nonetheless.

Paul's letters are definitely useful, and I do think he was an enlightened man who had visions of Jesus, but I agree I think he is overemphasized. For example, the gnostic gospels have a whole wealth of information. You would think we'd be stoked that more words of Jesus were found in Nag Hammadi, but it is largely viewed as heresy.

I don't want to stray too far from the actual topic of the thread by getting into a deep dialogue regarding the historicity or divinity of Christ. I'll stick with my earlier statement that I think the message attributed to him is a beautiful way to live your life and I'm probably closer to that message than most self proclaimed Christians. However, yes... I agree that ignoring the finds at Nag Hamadi and other early Coptic and Egyptian texts like the Gospel of St. Thomas is foolish. I domt get the fear of embracing something that could take one closer to their god. Though the Gospel of St. Thomas would make an organized church anachronistic and unnecessary so there goes an entire tax free industry if they utilized such scripture.

It is much healthier having these cordial conversations. Again, sorry for any harsh words to you, and the others. Know that it was from a mentality of trying to convey ideas that I believe are important and are most beneficial to anyone who can conceive them

Again, no apology necessary.

Yet the histories of multiple cultures have a much more fantastic story. They universally talk of supposedly impossible events. Not to mention the scribes of these cultures were very few, and only wrote the most important information. They weren't wasting their time writing fiction. Rowling wouldn't have wrote Harry Potter if she had to engrave it into stone.

We are also talking about cultures and civilizations at the dawn of technology where a great many phenomena were still not understood and natural phenomena were attributed to a whole slew of gods. Even the early parts of Judaism were polytheistic and the god of Abraham was originally a dualistic set of entities. Just because it was important enough for them to write it down doesn't mean it is historically or factually correct. If that were the case then there are literally hundreds of gods vying for our attention and I've yet to see evidence of one let alone the myriad of polytheistic pantheons that have existed since before the advent of writing.