[_ Old Earth _] A question in PM

[MarbleShooter]

Well, the proof of the pudding is in the eating. What verifiable evidence do you offer that proves man and chimp have a common ancestor? Remember, waiving your hands in the air proves nothing.

Ardipithecus existed prior to both Pan and Hominid lines. Chimps and humans both share the same genetic linage with this ape. Hominids would eventually splinter off into Australopithecus, and then we started to see the divergence down the line ( skipping a few groups) we see Homo heidelbergensis who anthropologists think is the link between Neanderthal and Us.

 

[zeke]

Ardipithecus existed prior to both Pan and Hominid lines. Chimps and humans both share the same genetic linage with this ape. Hominids would eventually splinter off into Australopithecus, and then we started to see the divergence down the line ( skipping a few groups) we see Homo heidelbergensis who anthropologists think is the link between Neanderthal and Us.

Well MS, your notion is interesting but you forgot to present your evidence that demonstrates primates have a common ancestor. Do you have any? Chimps and humans share genetic characteristics because chimps and humans have a common designer---God. For the record - Ardipithecus ramidus is a dead-end ape line - not your uncle.

 

[MarbleShooter]

Well MS, your notion is interesting but you forgot to present your evidence that demonstrates primates have a common ancestor.

I can provide you with the wikipedia link since you aren't specific on what type of evidence you need/want. There are plenty of sources to article for further reading for specific questions. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ardipithecus. As for your primate statement. You originally asked for human divergence, so I showed what is the most recent discovery of the bridge between Pan (chimps) and Hominids (humans)

Chimps and humans share genetic characteristics because chimps and humans have a common designer---God.

You can believe that if you want. I'm just showing that anthropologists have found and documented links between humans and chimps and have plenty of specimens that catalouge hominid/human evolution.

For the record - Ardipithecus ramidus is a dead-end ape line - not your uncle.

Ardipithecus did die out and was replaced by later groups of Pans and Hominids that were better adapted for survival. I personally find the evidence of his/her anatomical structure to be compelling enough for me to believe its an ancestor to modern hominids.

 

[zeke]

...I personally find the evidence of his/her anatomical structure to be compelling enough for me to believe its an ancestor to modern hominids.

And of course you can 'believe' via faith as you wish - I am asking if you can provide verifiable evidence via the scientific method (on this thread) that proves man and chimp have a common ancestor. Homologous structures work as well for common design as they do for descent with modification - yes? You will need to do better than that. What else do you have?

 

[MarbleShooter]

And of course you can 'believe' via faith as you wish - I am asking if you can provide verifiable evidence via the scientific method (on this thread) that proves man and chimp have a common ancestor[\quote] What evidence is it exactly would you like? Genetic, homologous, or something else? I don't want to shoot into the dark here if none of that would convince you anyway.

. Homologous structures work as well for common design as they do for descent with modification - yes?[\quote] I can not agree since there is no common designer theory to base such a claim. If you assert such, then that's your business. [\quote]You will need to do better than that. What else do you have?

I have about 150 years of tested thoery behind me. ;)

 

[zeke]

I have about 150 years of tested thoery behind me. ;)

Well, my friend those scientists who taught the Ptolemaic system had more than a 150-years of tested theory behind them and they thought the idea of a spinning earth was absurd. But guess what - they were wrong. Your 150-year point is a moot point. Scientists are not always right – even when they hold to the ‘majority theory’. You do understand that logic – right?

Does this mean you cannot provide the required proofs on this thread to support your notion that man and chimp have a common ancestor? You’re not a scientist ---are you? ;)

 

[MarbleShooter]

Well, my friend those scientists who taught the Ptolemaic system had more than a 150-years of tested theory behind them and they thought the idea of a spinning earth was absurd. But guess what - they were wrong. Your 150-year point is a moot point. Scientists are not always right – even when they hold to the ‘majority theory’. You do understand that logic – right?

I'm more then aware that scientists are not always right. I am, however familiar with the history and the subject of biological evolution. Currently there is no theory that can explain and has the repeated observations that the current theory of evolution has. I'm not saying there never will be, but that its pretty convincing. I'm also not interested in majority view when it comes to biology. I go with what makes the most sense and what can be demonstrated. That's about it. So far you haven't been able to logically dismantle the theory of evolution. So you haven't won me over. Simple as that.

Does this mean you cannot provide the required proofs on this thread to support your notion that man and chimp have a common ancestor?

THhis will be my third time I have asked you to tell me what you would accept as proof or evidence. You have yet to tell me. Tell me what you will accept, and I'll do my best to meet that goal.

You’re not a scientist ---are you?

I don't hold any doctorates or masters degrees, if that is what are asking. I have had a few biology classes while in college. I also took several classes on debate and philosophy. So we can continue on please.

 

[zeke]

I'm also not interested in majority view when it comes to biology.

But you're the one pushing the 150 years of majority opinion. I am encouraged to hear that you are not interested in majority view when it comes to biology.

So far you haven't been able to logically dismantle the theory of evolution. So you haven't won me over.

But I am not trying to dismantle biological evolution and I am not trying to 'win you over'. I am simply asking if you can defend your notion that man and chimp have a common ancestor. Thus far you have not even come close.

THhis will be my third time I have asked you to tell me what you would accept as proof or evidence. You have yet to tell me.

But I have noted what I would accept. Let me ask you again – can you present on this thread the verifiable evidence via the scientific method that proves man and chimp share a common ancestor? You do understand what I am asking?

You're up.

 

[MarbleShooter]

But I have noted what I would accept. Let me ask you again – can you present on this thread the verifiable evidence via the scientific method that proves man and chimp share a common ancestor? You do understand what I am asking?

You're up.

I do believe I linked you to a wikipedia article that has sourced the peer reviewed papers published that showed the study of Ardipithecus. I then asked if you wanted Genetic evidence or homologus evidence. The genetic evidence shows that Ardi has both the ERVs of both Modern Chimps and Humans. This would only happen if it was our ancestor and also a chimp ancesstor because ERV's only pass on genetically. Ardi also has the physical traits basil of both Chimps and Humans. If you believe your God did this all on purpose, and to go so far to place the ERVs in our Gnome, then I guess we'll just have to agree to disagree. I would ask where that is evident by scientific observation and verification. I'm not ruling out God as a bias, I just think if you make a claim that God designed Ardi, Neanderthal, Erectus, etc separately, I would like you to show me how you cam to that conclusion. ;)

 

[zeke]

I do believe I linked you to a wikipedia article that has sourced the peer reviewed papers published that showed the study of Ardipithecus.

As noted earlier - Ardipithecus ramidus is a dead-end ape species that shared a common designer with humans. You have provided no evidence on this thread to prove otherwise. Do you have *real science* to present or only your assumptions based on 'majority science' that is based on naturalistic metaphysics? You do understand the differences between science and metaphysics - right?

Questions: do you think 99% of Darwinian scientists are atheists/agnostics? Do you think atheists consider a common designer as a possible explanation for life on this planet or are they forced to accept naturalistic explanations only, i,e, naturalism? Are you an atheist?

I then asked if you wanted Genetic evidence or homologus evidence.

I would prefer to see you present both and please present your evidence on this thread - I don't debate websites. And if you could please refrain from presenting only assumptions and hand-waving as noted in your prior posts it would be helpful. Just science works fine for me.

The genetic evidence shows that Ardi has both the ERVs of both Modern Chimps and Humans. This would only happen if it was our ancestor and also a chimp ancesstor because ERV's only pass on genetically.

That’s a fallacious statement my friend. It is only one explanation. A common designer could have repeatedly used existing species in situ as the blueprint for constructing more advanced species or if ERV sequences have a function (and it appears they do) a common designer could have inserted the same ERV sequences at the same locus in separate species for reasons that are beyond current scientific discovery. Your Darwinian dogmatism is showing.

You need to actually provide the scientific evidence on this thread that proves ERV sequences found at the same locus could only be the result of common ancestry as you insist. Can you do that? I think not. Again, your assertions and presumptions prove absolutely nothing. Give us some real science...if you can.

Ardi also has the physical traits basil of both Chimps and Humans.

Again, homologous structures/genetic similarities work as well for common design and they do for common ancestry. You have provided nothing that proves they can only apply to common ancestry. You will have to do better if you are to convince anyone that your Darwinian dogma is the correct dogma.

You’re up. Looking forward to seeing your real scientific evidence that proves you metaphysical dogma correct.

 

[MarbleShooter]

As noted earlier - Ardipithecus ramidus is a dead-end ape species that shared a common designer with humans.

This is why I asked for what evidence you would accept. If you are going to just hand wave everything away and state "common designer" when I produce any evidence, then this conversation will never get anywhere. Mainly because there is no common designer theory. If you want to believe a common designer did it, that's fine. There is no field of study to back you. If you can present a peer reviewed study that shows how to determine a common designer, then I'm all for it. Other wise you have to demonstrate there was a designer to begin with.

You have provided no evidence on this thread to prove otherwise.

Quite the contrary. I provided links to articles that source the very papers on this subject. I provided the name of the specimen. I explained why its considered to be our ancestor. I have done more then show evidence. You don't have to accept it, but to say I haven't provided any is a lie. End of story.

Do you have *real science* to present or only your assumptions based on 'majority science'

Yes, unless you don't consider phylo genetics to be real science. If that's the case, I would love to see what you consider real science.

that is based on naturalistic metaphysics? You do understand the differences between science and metaphysics

I think I should be asking you that question. Mainly because "Naturalistic Mataphysics" can not exist. Mainly because they are 2 contradictory classifications. Naturalism being the study of the physical world, and metaphysics being the study of the supernatural and the concept of self. Nothing of what I have said is anything close to metephysics. Gnomes and Homologous structures are naturalistic, not metaphysical.

Questions: do you think 99% of Darwinian scientists are atheists/agnostics?

No, I'm also not trying to convince you of atheism or agnosticism. You stated there was no common ancestor, so I showed you what we have discovered and showed you why its considered an ancestor. To state I haven't done this is a lie.

Do you think atheists consider a common designer as a possible explanation for life on this planet or are they forced to accept naturalistic explanations only, i,e, naturalism?

No, there is no working theory or field of study to show a common designer. Unless you can demonstrate a common dessigner, then its useless as a scientific explanation.

Are you an atheist?

This is irrelevant to what we are talking about, and nothing but a diversion. I'm agnostic atheist. Any questions about that will only be answered in PM. Iim interested in staying on topic. If you no longer wish to talk about Ardi, then this conversation is over. Unless you want to talk about this through private message.

I would prefer to see you present both and please present your evidence on this thread - I don't debate websites.

I posted a link because I didn't want to fill up this entire thread with a wall of text. If you are hand waving my provided evidence because you have to click a link. Then I don't think I'm going to waste my time, going to that very link, just so I can paste the very papers that back up my position, But I see no point if you are just going to hand wave it away with "common designer", a non existent theory that is nothing but an unbacked claim.

And if you could please refrain from presenting only assumptions and hand-waving as noted in your prior posts it would be helpful. Just science works fine for me.

I have, you waved it away with your non scientific common designer claim. Either back your claim up, or admit stalemate.

That’s a fallacious statement my friend. It is only one explanation.

No, it is verifiable testing and observation that is exactly how ERVs work. Unless you have a paper that states otherwise, you do not have a leg to stand on. Claiming I'm wrong, but not providing any substantial evidence or president dose not work.

A common designer could have repeatedly used existing species in situ as the blueprint for constructing more advanced species or if ERV sequences have a function (and it appears they do) a common designer could have inserted the same ERV sequences at the same locus in separate species for reasons that are beyond current scientific discovery.

Where is your evidence that any of that happened. This is nothing but a claim used to wave away the current explanation of ERVs. This also shows what an ERV even is. An ERV is a Endogenous Retrovirus. Here is the wikipedia page for it. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Endogenous_retrovirus. If you taken the time even google ERVs, you see how your last statement makes no sense. What is the highest level of biology you have taken sir?

Your Darwinian dogmatism is showing.

Actually that statement alone you are not aware that most of Darwin's position on the theory of evolution has been tossed out. Mainly with the discovery of genetics. If can't be dogmatic of a position, if I already disagree with Darwinian Theory. This is why I asked you what level of biology you have studied, because if you had anything hire then a high-school level freshmen biology class, you would have seen that most of Darwinian theory is wrong and that Mendel is a bigger influence, and even that is barely saying anything because even Mendel was wrong and has been corrected. I think its been established that I should be asking you what you know.

You need to actually provide the scientific evidence on this thread that proves ERV sequences found at the same locus could only be the result of common ancestry as you insist.

Just did. I already have a feeling you are going to refuse that as well.

your assertions and presumptions prove absolutely nothing. Give us some real science...if you can.

I have, you haven't. Its your turn to provide evidence for your claim. I provided links to papers and articles. You haven't. You have made the assertion of a common designer, but no evidence for it. Your turn.

Again, homologous structures/genetic similarities work as well for common design and they do for common ancestry. You have provided nothing that proves they can only apply to common ancestry. You will have to do better if you are to convince anyone that your Darwinian dogma is the correct dogma.

Rinse repeat. This is a broken record at this point. Provide your evidence of a contrary or admit stalemate.

You’re up. Looking forward to seeing your real scientific evidence that proves you metaphysical dogma correct.

Nope, I played a full inning. Its your turn to provide counter evidence. If you can't. Admit stale mate.

 

[Barbarian]

But I am not trying to dismantle biological evolution and I am not trying to 'win you over'. I am simply asking if you can defend your notion that man and chimp have a common ancestor. Thus far you have not even come close.

It's pretty easy. First, we have a great number of transitionals between humans and other primates. But none where they shouldn't be.

Second, we have genetic information showing humans and chimps more closely related to each other than either is related to anything else. And we know it works, because we can test the method on organisms of known descent.

Third, and most remarkably, we have the chromosome number. We have one fewer pair than other apes. So, it was hypothesized that a chromosome fusion must have occurred in the line that led to us. Later, the fusion was found, complete with remains of telomers in the fused chromosome precisely where they would have to be.

 

[zeke]

I'm agnostic atheist.

Thanks – it helps to know your politics. Do you *know* God does not exist?

I think I should be asking you that question. Mainly because "Naturalistic Mataphysics" can not exist.

Well, I think we can agree that “Naturalistic Metaphysics” is an oxymoron that should not logically exist but it does indeed exist. It exists within the halls of Darwinism in the form of Darwinian ploys to pawn off mythology as science. Not good if you respect science as we all should do – yes?

I posted a link because I didn't want to fill up this entire thread with a wall of text.

Humor us and show us what you know – post your evidence on this thread (3rd request). Thanks.

No, it is verifiable testing and observation that is exactly how ERVs work. Unless you have a paper that states otherwise, you do not have a leg to stand on. Claiming I'm wrong, but not providing any substantial evidence or president dose not work.

The burden of proof is on you mate. I have already acknowledged that ERVs can be evidence for a common ancestor as well as a common designer. You are making the dogmatic (and non-scientific) statement that ERVs can only be explained by common ancestry. Your dilemma remains – you have never presented proof that your notion is correct.

Actually that statement alone you are not aware that most of Darwin's position on the theory of evolution has been tossed out.

You misunderstand once again – we are discussing Darwinism, aka, "the modern synthesis", aka, "neo-Darwinism". Are we on the same page? We are discussing the Darwinism that hundreds of PhD scientists today dissent from…

Dissent from Darwinism
"We are skeptical of claims for the ability of random mutation and natural selection to account for the complexity of life. Careful examination of the evidence for Darwinian theory should be encouraged."

"Scientific journals now document many scientific problems and criticisms of evolutionary theory and students need to know about these as well. … Many of the scientific criticisms of which I speak are well known by scientists in various disciplines, including the disciplines of chemistry and biochemistry, in which I have done my work." ~ Philip S. Skell, Member National Academy of Sciences, Emeritus Evan Pugh Professor at Pennsylvania State University
​

Why do hundreds of PhD scientists “Dissent from Darwinism”? We don’t see hundreds of scientists dissenting from the kinetic theory of gases – why Darwinism?

Nope, I played a full inning. Its your turn to provide counter evidence. If you can't. Admit stale mate.

No – thus far you struck out. You are making dogmatic statements regarding common ancestry – can you provide the required evidences to support your dogma? How did saurischian dinosaurs morph into birds all by themselves via chance? Where did all the new information come from to change forearms into wings of flight? Is it explained by ‘evolution of the gaps’ or do you simply wave your hands in the air and say, ‘evolution did it’?

 

[zeke]

It's pretty easy. First, we have a great number of transitionals between humans and other primates. But none where they shouldn't be.

Second, we have genetic information showing humans and chimps more closely related to each other than either is related to anything else. And we know it works, because we can test the method on organisms of known descent.

Third, and most remarkably, we have the chromosome number. We have one fewer pair than other apes. So, it was hypothesized that a chromosome fusion must have occurred in the line that led to us. Later, the fusion was found, complete with remains of telomers in the fused chromosome precisely where they would have to be.

LOL - File Under: "Complex Questions with Simple Answers". Present a little scientific evidence to support your simplistic assumptions. Can you do that on this thread?

 

[MarbleShooter]

I'm done. You are either a poe or just repeating already fallacious claims with no basis of understanding of the actual topic. I simply can't believe you are for real. Don't think it will benefit anyone to waste more time on your statements. You won't back up your clai and just posted the biggest pile of tripe I've ever seen. All of those arguments have been torn apart several times on this forum. There is no reason to do it again. I'm sorry for even thinking you even cared about what I had to say.

 

[Barbarian]

Well, I think we can agree that “Naturalistic Metaphysics†is an oxymoron that should not logically exist but it does indeed exist. It exists within the halls of Darwinism in the form of Darwinian ploys to pawn off mythology as science.

Someone's had a little fun with your trust in them. Even Darwin suggested that God created the first living things. And many of the most influential Darwinists have been theists.

Not good if you respect science as we all should do – yes?

Science is just a method. You don't respect science any more than you respect plumbing.

The burden of proof is on you mate. I have already acknowledged that ERVs can be evidence for a common ancestor as well as a common designer.

So far, not. A broken GULO gene is found in a number of species, but only in closely related ones is it broken in exactly the same way. This cannot be explained by a common designer. But a common God, creating species by evolution makes sense. "Designer" is the official doctrine of the Unification Church of Myung Son Moon, not a Christian idea.

You are making the dogmatic (and non-scientific) statement that ERVs can only be explained by common ancestry.

See above. Nothing else makes sense.

You misunderstand once again – we are discussing Darwinism, aka, "the modern synthesis", aka, "neo-Darwinism". Are we on the same page? We are discussing the Darwinism that hundreds of PhD scientists today dissent from…

Taking data from the creationist list of "scientists who doubt Darwin" and Project Steve, we find about 0.3% of people with doctorates in biology or a related field don't accept evolutionary theory. And so far, all of them for religious rather than scientific reasons.

Kinda puts it all in perspective, doesn't it?

Why do hundreds of PhD scientists “Dissent from Darwinism�

So far, because they have a religious predisposition to deny biology. Most of them aren't biologists, and that makes it easier, if they aren't familiar with the evidence.

We don’t see hundreds of scientists dissenting from the kinetic theory of gases

Because no modern religion is based on a rejection of chemistry.

How did saurischian dinosaurs morph into birds all by themselves via chance?

Darwin's great discovery was that it didn't happen by chance.

Where did all the new information come from to change forearms into wings of flight?

Random mutation, acted on by natural selection. Would you like to learn how that can produce new information? Do you understand what "information" means in a population of living things, or how it is calculated? Tell us where you are, and we'll get started.

 

[Barbarian]

Barbarian observes:
It's pretty easy. First, we have a great number of transitionals between humans and other primates. But none where they shouldn't be.

Present a little scientific evidence to support your simplistic assumptions.

Sure. Let's work backward. We have H. erectus, mostly identical to modern humans, except for the skull. But the most recent ones are so much like modern humans that it's hard to draw a line between advanced H. erectus, and archaic H. sapiens.

The Period of Transition Between Homo erectus and Homo sapiens in East and Southeast Asia: New Perspectives by the Way of Geometric Morphometrics
Acta Anthropologica Sinica (2000)
Volume: 19, Issue: Supplement, Pages: 75-81

Abstract:
Anatomically modern humans origin is one of the most passionately debated questions of the moment. The objective of this work, using a new methodology (3D geometric morphometrics) for studying human cranial shape evolution, is to shed some light on the evolution of the genus Homo in East and Southeast Asia, with African fossils for comparisons. This is a region of major palaeoanthropological interest due to the large number of fossil remains discovered beginning at the end of the 19th century. This part of the Old World is a key geographical area as far as the debate on the origin of anatomically modern humans is concerned. We present here our first results of architectural comparisons of human skulls dating from about 2.5-2 Ma to present days (from H. habilis to extant H. sapiens). We attempt to underline the main architectural differences between Homo erectus and Homo sapiens, but also to analyse eventual geographical and/or temporal intraspecific architectural variability.



Second, we have genetic information showing humans and chimps more closely related to each other than either is related to anything else. And we know it works, because we can test the method on organisms of known descent.

Third, and most remarkably, we have the chromosome number. We have one fewer pair than other apes. So, it was hypothesized that a chromosome fusion must have occurred in the line that led to us. Later, the fusion was found, complete with remains of telomers in the fused chromosome precisely where they would have to be.

Present a little scientific evidence to support your simplistic assumptions.

Sure. Here's some primate chromosomes:

Notice that the human chromosome is almost exactly the copy of two chimp chromosomes. This was discovered after it became clear that humans have one fewer pairs of chromosomes than other apes. So it was hypothesized that a fusion must have happened.

And there it is. There are even the remains of telomers at the fusion site, where they would have to be, if the fusion happened.

No way to explain that other than common ancestry.

 

[zeke]

I'm done. You are either a poe or just repeating already fallacious claims with no basis of understanding of the actual topic. I simply can't believe you are for real. Don't think it will benefit anyone to waste more time on your statements. You won't back up your clai and just posted the biggest pile of tripe I've ever seen. All of those arguments have been torn apart several times on this forum. There is no reason to do it again. I'm sorry for even thinking you even cared about what I had to say.

Interpretation: MarbleShooter is shooting blanks and he does not have the required evidence via the scientific method to prove man and chimp have a common ancestor as he claimed to have. He can only wave his hands in the air and appeal to the circularity of Darwinism - "man and chimp have a common ancestor because Darwinism says man and chimp have a common ancestor". You gotta love it.

 

[zeke]

No way to explain that other than common ancestry.

Simplistic answers to a complex questions once again my friend . Even our TE friend, Francis Collins saw through your non-logic when he correctly noted that genetic similarity “alone does not, of course, prove a common ancestor†because a designer could have “used successful design principles over and over again†(Collins, The Language of God).

What do you have that actually proves man and chimp share a great-granddaddy?

 

[zeke]

Even Darwin suggested that God created the first living things. And many of the most influential Darwinists have been theists.

Reality check---classical Darwinism does not allow god-talk and most evolutionists are atheists. Ask Richard Dawkins. Darwinism presents the notion that evolution happened via blind chance and did not have man in mind. Let's try to operate in reality - yes?