Apes descended from Humans – NOT the other way around.

[ptif219]

Could you please rephrase that so I can understand exactly what you are saying? Thank you.

No if you can't understand I can not help you

 

[Jetboogieman]

I found proof of evolution.

Bow before me Ptif!

 

[Krasche]

I found proof of evolution.

Bow before me Ptif!

XDDDD that's awesome

 

[The Mark]

How does it feel when people twist your words and take things out of context?

I'd prefer it not happen, but have come to expect it from time to time.

Was there a specific point you intended to convey by this question?

What this means is evolution has along way to go and it will be decades before many questions are answered

Who was contending otherwise? Perhaps not as long a way to go as you think, but it's definitely not fully fleshed out yet (so to speak).

 

[ptif219]

I'd prefer it not happen, but have come to expect it from time to time.

Was there a specific point you intended to convey by this question?

Just making sure you know how it feels when you and your friends do it to me

Who was contending otherwise? Perhaps not as long a way to go as you think, but it's definitely not fully fleshed out yet (so to speak).

That is the point. There are to many questions yet this theory is taught as fact to our children. They are not taught that it is not fact just a theory

 

[The Mark]

Just making sure you know how it feels when you and your friends do it to me

When did I twist your words, and who are these friends who you claim did so as well? I do not recall doing any such thing.

That is the point. There are to many questions yet this theory is taught as fact to our children. They are not taught that it is not fact just a theory

I have no knowledge of the public school system as I was home schooled by my parents - who most definitely did not teach evolution to me as fact.

However, this appears to be an opinion/claim/position of yours - would you care to back it up with a few supporting sources?

 

[Verthaine]

That is the point. There are to many questions yet this theory is taught as fact to our children. They are not taught that it is not fact just a theory

I'm have no problem with that as long as there are viable alternative theories that can be presented.
And Intelligent Design is not a viable alternative .

 

[Polotick]

I got this.

A chimp and an orangutan fell in love and mated. Their offspring were human. The result of this is there is no missing link.

 

[Dittohead not!]

That is the point. There are to many questions yet this theory is taught as fact to our children. They are not taught that it is not fact just a theory

It is neither taught as fact, nor as "just a theory." It is taught as a scientific theory.

What Is a Scientific Theory?
Scientists don't use the term "theory" in the same way that it's used in the vernacular. In most contexts, a theory is a vague and fuzzy idea about how things work — one with a low probability of being true. This is the origin of complaints that something in science is "only a theory" and so isn't credible. For scientists, a theory is a conceptual structure used to explain existing facts and predict new ones. According to Robert Root-Bernstein in his essay, "On Defining a Scientific Theory: Creationism Considered," to be considered a scientific theory by most scientists and philosophers of science, a theory must meet most, if not all, of certain logical, empirical, sociological and historical criteria.

Just like the theory of gravity, the germ theory of disease, cell theory, atomic theory, the kinetic theory of gasses, and a whole lot more.

 

[Wake]

No offense, ptif, but this issue leaves me perplexed. Wouldn't it be evolution either way if we went from humans to apes or apes to humans? Regardless, I feel this theory doesn't help religion at all.

 

[The Mark]

WTF!

ptif219 is temp suspended!

How could the mods do this to us, we were having so much fun in this thread!

:mrgreen:

 

[Anarcho-fascist]

No if you can't understand I can not help you

"That is not showing the progression of human and ape from one species"
In other words:
"The picture does not show the progression of humans and non human apes from one species"
In other words:
"The picture does not show the progression of humans from a species, nor does it show the progression of non human apes from that same species."

The picture does show a progression of form to more human-like species.
The picture does not show any fossils between modern chimps and the the most recent common ancestor of humans and chimps (at "5" in the chart below).

|
|
+---o birds
|
|
+-5-+---o  chimpanzee
|   |
|   |
|   `---o bonobo
|
|
+---+---+---o Australopithecus africanus
|   |   |
|   |   |
|   |   `---o Australopithecus afarensis
|   |
|   |
|   1---2 Homo habilis (at 1 or 2)
|   |
|   |
|   3---4 Homo erectus (at 3 or 4)
|   |
|   |
|   +---o You
|   |
|   |
|   `---o Neanderthal
|
|
`---o Ardipithecus

As one moves in the above chart from modern humans back to larger groupings the bones share fewer humanlike features.

This picture shows a smooth gradation of form.

Tell me which of the skulls in the picture are "human" and which are "ape".

 

[Strelok]

That is the point. There are to many questions yet this theory is taught as fact to our children. They are not taught that it is not fact just a theory

A theory based on evidence that allows you make a strong induction that the theory is true. We wouldn't get anywhere with knowledge if we made sure that we somehow found absolute, 100% proof that every single thing we believe is true. You're going to have to accept something that is, say, (forgive the arbitrary, random percentage) 85% likely to be true and the like. Heck, from the looks of it, it seems that you accept things that have no quantified likelihood in regards to them being true or not. Yet you hold evolution up to the ultimate scrutiny. *coughs*

 

[The Mark]

So when is ptif219 back?

I want to keep attempting to convince him he is incorrect in part or in whole.

 

[obvious Child]

So when is ptif219 back?

I want to keep attempting to convince him he is incorrect in part or in whole.

I think you're better off working on cold fusion. That user cannot learn.

 

[The Mark]

I think you're better off working on cold fusion. That user cannot learn.

*70 years later, on my deathbed*

Well, I've successfully created a stable zero-point energy system mrgreen: I know, sci-fi insanity, but it's 70 years).

Sad thing is, ptif219 doesn't believe in it because much of its supporting theory passed through the peer review process.

He's still running a gas-powered generator, since the power grid stopped using fossil fuels 40 years ago - but he doesn't believe it actually works, so he went off grid - and won't use solar panels or other such because they were also developed via science.

 

[The Mark]

Of course, he still uses a gas generator, which was also developed via science (electricity, internal combustion engines, gears, fuel refining, electricity transmission methods, stuff that runs off electricity such as his computer, etc, etc.)

But those were developed before he was born, so he's fine with...

Ah, **** it, I can't make the reality fit any reasonable theory.

 

[Jetboogieman]

Of course, he still uses a gas generator, which was also developed via science (electricity, internal combustion engines, gears, fuel refining, electricity transmission methods, stuff that runs off electricity such as his computer, etc, etc.)

But those were developed before he was born, so he's fine with...

Ah, **** it, I can't make the reality fit any reasonable theory.

Mark.

This is the way Ptif sees the universe.

 

[obvious Child]

Sad thing is, ptif219 doesn't believe in it because much of its supporting theory passed through the peer review process

Actually I don't buy that. Ptif219 doesn't believe for two reasons. One, his grasp on science is effectively unmeasurable, and two it doesn't support his ideological basis. He doesn't believe because he doesn't want to. You can't reason someone out of a belief they never reasoned themselves into. It's kind of why I'm particularly mean to several users here. It's for the laughs as they are unable to be reasoned with.

 

[Tucker Case]

Actually I don't buy that. Ptif219 doesn't believe for two reasons. One, his grasp on science is effectively unmeasurable, and two it doesn't support his ideological basis. He doesn't believe because he doesn't want to. You can't reason someone out of a belief they never reasoned themselves into. It's kind of why I'm particularly mean to several users here. It's for the laughs as they are unable to be reasoned with.

Exactly. If he wants to believe something, it doesn't matter at all whether it passed through the peer review process or passed through the colon of an aardvark that was recenty taught all about special relativity. The only thing that matters is that he wants to beleive it.

 

[The Mark]

Exactly. If he wants to believe something, it doesn't matter at all whether it passed through the peer review process or passed through the colon of an aardvark that was recenty taught all about special relativity. The only thing that matters is that he wants to beleive it.

But we're talking about ptif219.

Your two examples are identical in that context.







:mrgreen:

 

[scourge99]

Exactly. If he wants to believe something, it doesn't matter at all whether it passed through the peer review process or passed through the colon of an aardvark that was recenty taught all about special relativity. The only thing that matters is that he wants to beleive it.

we cant expect ptif to fairly evaluate the objections here and now. he is far too invested in a worldview that rejects scientific findings. in time perhaps he will start to see the truth.

 

[Tucker Case]

we cant expect ptif to fairly evaluate the objections here and now. he is far too invested in a worldview that rejects scientific findings. in time perhaps he will start to see the truth.

I think that is where I have the biggest problem with most of the anti-evolution types.

I don't have any problem with questioning scientific findings because I think that this is one of the most valuable parts of the scientific process. It's of the utmost importance to challenge almost every view we hold in as many different ways as possible so that we can test them.

But to flat-out reject scientific findings for little more than deep personal desire for these findings to be false is the most detrimental thing that can be done. Everyone becomes dumber if that mentality is allowed to persist.

 

[marduc]

I think that is where I have the biggest problem with most of the anti-evolution types.

I don't have any problem with questioning scientific findings because I think that this is one of the most valuable parts of the scientific process. It's of the utmost importance to challenge almost every view we hold in as many different ways as possible so that we can test them.

But to flat-out reject scientific findings for little more than deep personal desire for these findings to be false is the most detrimental thing that can be done. Everyone becomes dumber if that mentality is allowed to persist.

Agree 100% with all of the above.

What complicates the issue even more is that quite often the average joe is deliberately fed false information, distortions, and gross innacuracies that get repeated over and over. The worst part is the are the snake oil salesmen that purposely sow these seeds of doubt, even when they have to resort to dishonest and/or manipulative tactics such as quote mining, and spreading obvious falsehoods, even to the point of continuing to spread the same falsehoods long after they have been refuted.

This whole muddy the waters to sow doubt in the minds of the average person with limited scientific literacy approach is abhorrent IMO.

 

[Tucker Case]

Agree 100% with all of the above.

What complicates the issue even more is that quite often the average joe is deliberately fed false information, distortions, and gross innacuracies that get repeated over and over. The worst part is the are the snake oil salesmen that purposely sow these seeds of doubt, even when they have to resort to dishonest and/or manipulative tactics such as quote mining, and spreading obvious falsehoods, even to the point of continuing to spread the same falsehoods long after they have been refuted.

This whole muddy the waters to sow doubt in the minds of the average person with limited scientific literacy approach is abhorrent IMO.

I think that the media in general needs to approach the way that they report science in an entirely different way. They report the results of a study as though they are what science claims to be true instead of pointing out that a single study does not mean much. the results have to be repeated over and over again before something is taken to be true.

The incompetence of the media is why we are told that eggs are good for us one week, bad for us the next, good for us, bad for us, good for us... and so on and so forth.

Their incompetence leads some people to believe that science is incompetent.