Something about Religion (come on everbody express your opinion!!!)

[wjmurray]

Originally Posted by elite

Easy understanding: the theory of evolution is as much a theory as germ theory.

Unfortunately there are still people out there who don't acknowledge germ theory, hilariously enough. Or heliocentricy. Aaaaahahahahhaa.

What people don't understand is that evolution itself is a fact, ie there is no controversy or debate in the scientific community over whether or not evolution occurs or whether or not we evolved from lower life forms. The debate in the scientific community concerning evolutionary theory (the body of interconnected statements about natural selection and the other processes that are thought to cause evolution) revolves around the mechanism itself. The fact that scientists debate the mechanism through which evolution occurs does not invalidate the fact of evolution. The term theory when used in reference to evolution only refers to the various models that try to explain how life evolves, it does not refer to evolution itself which is a fact proven through both observation and evidence.

That people choose to ignore the evidence or disbelieve it because it goes against their personal superstitious beliefs does not make their personal opinions or beliefs regarding evolution valid or even worthy of consideration or debate.

[cdnredraider]

Originally Posted by wjmurray

there is no controversy or debate in the scientific community over whether or not evolution occurs or whether or not we evolved from lower life forms.

There is actually controversy/debate that we emerged from lower life forms.

[RyJ Maduro]

Originally Posted by cdnredraider

You don't believe or disbelieve 9/11 was an inside job....You either acknowledge it or negligently ignore it

Wait...are you suggesting...

[RCS]

The first and most major reason for gaps is "stratigraphic discontinuities", meaning that fossil-bearing strata are not at all continuous. There are often large time breaks from one stratum to the next, and there are even some times for which no fossil strata have been found. For instance, the Aalenian (mid-Jurassic) has shown no known tetrapod fossils anywhere in the world, and other stratigraphic stages in the Carboniferous, Jurassic, and Cretaceous have produced only a few mangled tetrapods. Most other strata have produced at least one fossil from between 50% and 100% of the vertebrate families that we know had already arisen by then (Benton, 1989) -- so the vertebrate record at the family level is only about 75% complete, and much less complete at the genus or species level. (One study estimated that we may have fossils from as little as 3% of the species that existed in the Eocene!) This, obviously, is the major reason for a break in a general lineage. To further complicate the picture, certain types of animals tend not to get fossilized -- terrestrial animals, small animals, fragile animals, and forest-dwellers are worst. And finally, fossils from very early times just don't survive the passage of eons very well, what with all the folding, crushing, and melting that goes on. Due to these facts of life and death, there will always be some major breaks in the fossil record.

Soooooo....what you're saying is that there is no continuous record of evolution of species, and no way to prove it?

That people choose to ignore the evidence or disbelieve it because it goes against their personal superstitious beliefs does not make their personal opinions or beliefs regarding evolution valid or even worthy of consideration or debate.

Versus some random guy in a white lab coat, that was taught what he knows by some other random guy in a white lab coat, who was taught what he knows...I'm sure you'll see the continuity here.

If you can come to me with an uniterrupted, indisputable record of the evolution of life on this planet, then I'll drop my argument and appluad you. Simply because you don't believe in something doesn't mean it's not true (and fairly, that goes both ways). The fact that you state other's beliefs are not even worthy of consideration is just as faith-based and egotistical as the opposite viewpoint.

If things were that simple, I could simply close my eyes and you'd go away, right?

[cdnredraider]

Originally Posted by RyJ Maduro

Wait...are you suggesting...

No No....I haven't gone insane. That will be the day when I actually see wjmurray make a well thought out response to something

[cdnredraider]

Do old fossils that are similar mean that we found descendants of modern species or that the animal kingdom was much more diverse originally??

Every time something old is found, it is predecessor. Is there a way to determine that it is a predecessor as opposed to just a closely related species??

[Thumper]

Originally Posted by RCS

Soooooo....what you're saying is that there is no continuous record of evolution of species, and no way to prove it?

This diagram plots the set of Hominin species known to science currently. But you're right, because a Hominin with a 1,275 cm3 cranial capacity has not been found yet, the rest means absolutely nothing.



Link

By the way, this was the fossil record just 50 years ago.



Link

[cdnredraider]

I would love to see the fossils that those charts are made from. Almost every fossil I have seen of that it based upon a few small slivers of a skull. Basically impossible to recreate an accurate model from it unless you have to plans for how it should turn out before you started.

[Thumper]

Australopithecus afarensis

What was found:




What was reconstructed:




Full reconstruction:

[cdnredraider]

Pretty sketchy to make any kind of judgment on cranial size based on just that

[Swedish goalie]

You are not correct!

What was found:




What was reconstructed:




Full reconstruction:

[Thumper]

Originally Posted by cdnredraider

Pretty sketchy to make any kind of judgment on cranial size based on just that

Additional A. afarensis skulls found:

[wjmurray]

Originally Posted by cdnredraider

There is actually controversy/debate that we emerged from lower life forms.

No, there is no debate in the scientific community whatsoever regarding evolution being a fact. The debate is being created by creationists who, to be absolutely blunt, don't matter when it comes to scientific discourse. Their opinion and beleifs are meaningless and as I said not worthy of consideration or debate.

You can choose to ignore the facts, but that does not make your beliefs or opinions on the subject any more worthwhile nor does it give them any value when discussing science.

[Thumper]

Originally Posted by cdnredraider

Pretty sketchy to make any kind of judgment on cranial size based on just that

And yet somehow you know that this is what Jesus looked like...............

[Swedish goalie]

Originally Posted by wjmurray

No, there is no debate in the scientific community whatsoever regarding evolution being a fact. The debate is being created by creationists who, to be absolutely blunt, don't matter when it comes to scientific discourse. Their opinion and beleifs are meaningless and as I said not worthy of consideration or debate.

You can choose to ignore the facts, but that does not make your beliefs or opinions on the subject any more worthwhile nor does it give them any value when discussing science.

That is an America phenomena. I have never heard of anything about "intelligent design" in european media.


YouTube - Penn and Teller Bull**** - Creationism 1/3

related
YouTube - Penn & Teller; The Bible is Bull****.