The Problem With Evolution- Part 1, Ape to Man Ridiculousness

[FJK]

24 minutes ago, Tristen said:

"the scientists who study this stuff" didn't realize "there was a problem"

They already believed it was true and ignored evidence that it was not, something called confirmation bias.

We find what we look for.

[Starise]

9 hours ago, Marathoner said:

You have your homework cut out for you. I recommend that you head into "enemy" territory to learn the basics. I don't furnish links in my posts, but you can use a search engine to find these pages easily enough.

Suggested websites:

pnas.org has an introduction to modern theory ("Genetics and the origin of species: an introduction")

evolution.berkeley.edu has quite a few pages. Samples to check out:

"Starting the Modern Synthesis: Theodosius Dobzhansky"

"DNA, the language of evolution"

 "Evolution 101"

plantlet.org has a page titled "Synthetic Theory of Evolution"

Becoming familiar with modern theory is best accomplished by going to the sources yourself. That is, if you wish to be prepared to understand what proponents of Evolution throw at you. Understanding it aids in answering it. 

After becoming familiar with the basics, you'll know what to look for with regard to sound rebuttal. Forget Piltdown Man, monkeys, and all that. That's 75 years ago. 

I fail to see a connection to an assumption on your part that since I displayed  hoaxes still often accepted by the scientific community, especially Lucy,  that I am somehow assumed to not know about current evolutionary teachings?

And while I am addressing this,  Do you think I would delve into a subject such as this without study ?, and do you think I wasn't prepared to post further information on this topic and that I need a study into evolution 101? And when I gave you the opportunity to make your statements more clear you told me I needed to study it myself? Aren't you prepared to state your claims?

If we are looking at old information as irrelevant, such as these proven hoaxes, we might as well throw Darwin's book out while we are at it, since it is plenty old, yet nothing has really changed since it was written in that book with respect to the evolution position itself, so I would ask what is really old and outdated here? 

As has been mentioned, any scientific community which resorts to extrapolations and accepts known hoaxes to make a point, isn't bent on the truth. We have proof of this in my first post. How can this be irrlelvant to a discussion on this topic?

 

[Marathoner]

 

2 hours ago, Starise said:

I fail to see a connection to an assumption on your part that since I displayed  hoaxes still often accepted by the scientific community, especially Lucy,  that I am somehow assumed to not know about current evolutionary teachings?

And while I am addressing this,  Do you think I would delve into a subject such as this without study ?, and do you think I wasn't prepared to post further information on this topic and that I need a study into evolution 101? And when I gave you the opportunity to make your statements more clear you told me I needed to study it myself? Aren't you prepared to state your claims?

If we are looking at old information as irrelevant, such as these proven hoaxes, we might as well throw Darwin's book out while we are at it, since it is plenty old, yet nothing has really changed since it was written in that book with respect to the evolution position itself, so I would ask what is really old and outdated here? 

As has been mentioned, any scientific community which resorts to extrapolations and accepts known hoaxes to make a point, isn't bent on the truth. We have proof of this in my first post. How can this be irrlelvant to a discussion on this topic?

It's irrelevant in their point of view for a variety of reasons, my friend. First, they view science as an ever-increasing body of knowledge that changes (and grows) over time reflecting corrective peer-review processes. Secondly, poking holes in orthodox understanding to arrive at something new and more accurate is how they claim good science works. In the lecture hall, my physical anthropology professor lampooned Piltdown Man, et. al. Third, studies have been conducted over the past 20 years to counter criticism of evolutionary claims, and portions of your OP have been raked over the coals in a manner of speaking. 

You're addressing me like an opponent in a debate, as if I'm supposed to change your mind about the topic in question. Why do I need to "state my claims?" I chimed in with a good faith effort to help a brother, offering some basic premises underpinning the modern synthetic theory of biological evolution I learned about in college. The links I suggested to peruse furnish information about modern theory. I didn't come to this thread to try to belittle you or otherwise make you look "stupid." I didn't come to this topic in order to debate you, either.  

I was only trying to pitch in with a helpful contribution to support your case. I'm not a mind reader or a prophet, Starise. However, your response is representative of why I avoid this area of the forum and others like it. I don't do very well in discussions like this one. My apologies for any perceived offense. 

 

[Marathoner]

3 hours ago, Tristen said:

Hey Teddyv,

I think the bigger "problem", and the main implication of the Piltdown man hoax, is that "the scientists who study this stuff" didn't realize "there was a problem" for 40 years - despite the fact that most of the evidence used to discredit the hoax was available to these "scientists" from the time of discovery.

This demonstrates that the "the scientists who study this stuff" were operating under the influence of a confirmation bias - which had them accept this evidence without the requisite due diligence - because it agreed with their worldview and narrative. This, in turn, demonstrates methodologically that facts are not simply followed to their natural conclusion (as is commonly, erroneously claimed), but rather interpreted according to the interpreter's worldview and presuppositions.

Such implications are important when it comes to giving objective consideration of opposing positions.

 

Hi Marathoner,

These are largely semantic issues. The original definition of "ape" was a non-human, higher primate. Going by the secular description of the shared ancestor between humans and higher primates, the candidate would certainly qualify as an "ape".

Since no-one is really characterizing the position as claiming humans evolved from modern "apes", this is an empty non-issue.

 

This is inaccurate.

The "fact" is that humans share more in common (genetically and morphologically) with apes than we do with any other creatures.

However, the necessary association of 'similarity' with 'relatedness' is a matter of worldview; namely, the presupposition that all life is "related" - back to a common ancestor. That is, the interpretation that 'more similar' means 'more related' is founded in bias - presupposing the conclusion that all life is "related", and subsequently bringing that conclusion to the interpretation process.

 

 

I know. I attempted to offer my understanding of modern theory in a naive attempt to help. I always enjoy reading your contributions, Tristen.  

[teddyv]

7 hours ago, Starise said:

I fail to see a connection to an assumption on your part that since I displayed  hoaxes still often accepted by the scientific community, especially Lucy,  that I am somehow assumed to not know about current evolutionary teachings?

And while I am addressing this,  Do you think I would delve into a subject such as this without study ?, and do you think I wasn't prepared to post further information on this topic and that I need a study into evolution 101? And when I gave you the opportunity to make your statements more clear you told me I needed to study it myself? Aren't you prepared to state your claims?

If we are looking at old information as irrelevant, such as these proven hoaxes, we might as well throw Darwin's book out while we are at it, since it is plenty old, yet nothing has really changed since it was written in that book with respect to the evolution position itself, so I would ask what is really old and outdated here? 

As has been mentioned, any scientific community which resorts to extrapolations and accepts known hoaxes to make a point, isn't bent on the truth. We have proof of this in my first post. How can this be irrlelvant to a discussion on this topic?

 

Should we dismiss Christianity because of a few bad actors? That is the standard you are applying.

[Starise]

6 hours ago, Marathoner said:

 

It's irrelevant in their point of view for a variety of reasons, my friend. First, they view science as an ever-increasing body of knowledge that changes (and grows) over time reflecting corrective peer-review processes. Secondly, poking holes in orthodox understanding to arrive at something new and more accurate is how they claim good science works. In the lecture hall, my physical anthropology professor lampooned Piltdown Man, et. al. Third, studies have been conducted over the past 20 years to counter criticism of evolutionary claims, and portions of your OP have been raked over the coals in a manner of speaking. 

You're addressing me like an opponent in a debate, as if I'm supposed to change your mind about the topic in question. Why do I need to "state my claims?" I chimed in with a good faith effort to help a brother, offering some basic premises underpinning the modern synthetic theory of biological evolution I learned about in college. The links I suggested to peruse furnish information about modern theory. I didn't come to this thread to try to belittle you or otherwise make you look "stupid." I didn't come to this topic in order to debate you, either.  

I was only trying to pitch in with a helpful contribution to support your case. I'm not a mind reader or a prophet, Starise. However, your response is representative of why I avoid this area of the forum and others like it. I don't do very well in discussions like this one. My apologies for any perceived offense. 

 

I was attempting to ascertain what conclusions you are trying to convey. I still am not completely sure? Are you throwing balls into the opponent's hoop?, or are you simply showing that science advances? I think everyone agrees there.

I wanted you to state your claims because I feel you were undermining those hoaxes as irrelevant to the discussion, and suggesting I was somehow behind for posting them here. If you are going to jump in that arena, I suggest you be prepared to answer questions and say more than you don't think I know enough about the subject. I said I was all ears, and so far it seems you are supporting the evolution from ape to man. If you aren't it sounds awefully waffly. "If" this is your assertion, then I would like to know how you make that idea align with the bible and where the proof you found is.

I don't see a half suggestion that evolution is ok as helpful, especially if your suggestions have no basis, so yes you have entered a debate in full swing 

[Starise]

1 hour ago, teddyv said:

Should we dismiss Christianity because of a few bad actors? That is the standard you are applying.

No but in this case we don't even have a show.

[Starise]

In light of the last few posts, I'll post a link concerning a researcher who is awarded for study and research into commonalities and advances between Neanderthals and the rest of us. Dated Oct. 2022.  Link HERE

Here is a grand claim that Neanderthals and us are a different species.The article starts out in saying these are advancements in " human evolution". What a bunch of crock! 

Remember the earlier findings on Neanderthal man-

Neanderthal and Cro-Magnon Man- These are now believed to be normal European Homosapiens. Some of these 'prehistoric men' have a larger brain cavity than modern man.

Donald Johnson, one of the world's most recognized experts on "fossil man" writes.

Neanderthal Man. He was another Homo. Some think he was the same species as ourselves...

 I consider Neanderthal nonspecific with sapiens, with myself. One hears talk about putting him in a business suit and turning him loose in the subway. It is true, one could do it, and he would never be noticed. He was just a little heavier boned than people of today, more primitive in a few facial features., but he was a man. His brain was as big as a modern man's, but shaped in a slightly different way. Could he make change at the subway booth and recognize a token. He certainly could.

It would not surprise me that men thousands of years ago had heavier bones. This would make perfect sense. They were bi pedal and just ruddier men. Why make them out to be another species? I'll tell you why. To attempt to add a look of truth to their dead theories.

 

[Tristen]

1 hour ago, teddyv said:

Should we dismiss Christianity because of a few bad actors? That is the standard you are applying.

I don't think this is the argument being presented.

The point, at least from my perspective, is that there is such a strong ideological bias towards the secular narrative that some "scientists who study this stuff" are compelled to present false evidence in favor of their position, and other "scientists who study this stuff" have been operating under the same confirmation bias - by which they neglected to do their due diligence in properly scrutinizing the evidence that agrees with their existing ideology.

The examples provided by @Starise are famous because they have been so heavily promoted throughout society - to advance the secular narrative. Many of these still are promoted in uninformed (and/or disingenuous) circles. As such, much of the historical, ideological confidence in the secular narrative can be attributed to these false evidences.

Given the common story-arc, that everyone who disagrees with the secular narrative is, in some sense, scientifically ignorant, it is reasonable to remind people that the "scientists who study this stuff" should not be trusted, but rather heavily scrutinized (in accordance with the tenets of Critical Reasoning).

 

[Tristen]

9 hours ago, FJK said:

They already believed it was true and ignored evidence that it was not, something called confirmation bias.

We find what we look for.

To be fair, we all suffer from "confirmation bias" to some degree.

My problem is with those promoting the secular narrative that refuse to consider the influence of such biases - but rather think they have simply followed the evidence to its natural conclusion. Such people therefore (and ironically) assume that everyone who disagrees with them is suffering some form of intellectual compromise.