Questions for Evolutionists

[chezlaw]

[ QUOTE ]
Regarding my earlier post mentionning having just gotten Dawkins The Ancestor's Tale on my "TO READ" stack, given the number of discussions on this topic on OOT, I decided to re-prioritze a bit and at least read the introduction titled "The conceit of hindsight". It is so well written, makes a case that should NOT be obnoxious to theists, albeit it probably will be to creationists, that I really wished I could post just that intro here. Unfortunatly Amazon did not have the full intro, only the first page. However looking at Orion, the original publishers, there is a dwonloadable pdf of the firsts 105 pages of the book which includes and goes well beyond the intro. So here is the link for those that think they may, and those that thing they may not, be interested, and want some form of confirmation.

On this Orion - Dawkins - The Ancestor's tale page, just click the "extract" link (top left of page) and you will have a 105 pages pdf available.

Enjoy and thanks again, Chez,

MidGe

[/ QUOTE ]

Your welcome. Many theists have no problem with this stuff and I'm sure the literal chaps will be fascinated by the elaborate fantasies.

chez

[chezlaw]

[ QUOTE ]
You convinced me! I'll read it. I also want to re-read The Blind Watchmaker in detail. Any suggestion on which to read first?

[/ QUOTE ]

Toughie. I'd go with Ancestor's tale just because its contemporary and refers to lots of other current work.

chez

[ QUOTE ]

Why is evolution still theory, and not fact? If the case for evolution is so strong, as some claim here why is ID given a second thought by anyone in any school system anywhere??

[/ QUOTE ]

Because claasical physic is still theory and wiil be so until every one of its formulae, including the one for acceleration, until every value has been tested for every possible variable [img]/images/graemlins/smile.gif[/img] LOL

As far as ID is concerned, it probably is because very few people understand what science is, and they keep on confusing it with the realm of belief or religion. [img]/images/graemlins/smile.gif[/img]

[Jeff V]

[ QUOTE ]
8mya primates spread across the globe- they were highly successful, largly because of oppasble thumbs (and in some cases big toes as well). Very adaptable creatures were all over Europe, africa, asia, south america, north america. All over the place. The climate waas perfect for them- tropical jungles all around. Then the climate changed as it was want to do, and vast tracks of the forests died off, and food became scare in a lot of areas.
The vast majority of male apes don't help with child rearing at all, male chimps don't even know which kid is theirs. The apes that could survive in the low food environment were the ones where both the male and female provided for their young. This is the beginning of monogomy in humans. Primates already had opposable thumbs which helped them to carry food, but the males who were the best providers were the ones who could walk upright further than the others, using their hands to carry more food at a time, and having to make fewer trips.

[/ QUOTE ]

This is not a stretch? For so many reasons?

[Lestat]

I think you might be misunderstanding just how strong a theory is. Gravitation is still a theory. As is relativity, etc. Strong theories are rarely disproved, they are mainly added upon or slightly altered in some way (Newtonian theory for example). But the basic premise of a scientific theory is almost ALWAYS correct! ID is nowhere even near theory status.

[Borodog]

[ QUOTE ]
Why is evolution still theory, and not fact? If the case for evolution is so strong, as some claim here why is ID given a second thought by anyone in any school system anywhere??

[/ QUOTE ]

You don't understand what a scientific theory is. Evolution, like gravity, is both a theory and a fact. Evolution is an observable fact that demands explanation (at least of rational people interested in their world). We explain the observable fact of evolution with the theory of evolution, just as we explain the observable fact of gravity with the theory of gravity.

See, for example:

Evolution is a Fact and a Theory.

[Borodog]

By the way, Jeff. What are your thoughts now on "transitional fossils" in light of the chart I posted?

[joel2006]

[ QUOTE ]
I was just asking questions. It's funny that the fact I asked means I have a "religionist" agenda to some people- It works both ways I s'pose.

You missed my point here Jeff, I never said that u have any kind of agenda (although u appear to have outed yourself), I was talking about the question itself, which predates all of us, and was posed by religionists in their battle against Evo.

Why is evolution still theory, and not fact?

This question is another of the clever tricks to confuse the ignorant. In Science the word 'Theory' is not used to mean an unproven hypothesis, but rather a body of interconnecting observations that explain some complex phenomenom, like for example the 'Theory of Gravity' or 'Theory of Relativity' most of the tenets of Special Relativity have been emperically verified, but that doesn't mean that it is no longer a 'Theory', the same is true of Evolution.

If the case for evolution is so strong, as some claim here why is ID given a second thought by anyone in any school system anywhere??

Because people who hold strong religious beliefs are often willing to ignore any and all evidence that contradicts what they want to believe. This is because at the root of all belief is faith, and faith is the willingness to believe without any evidence at all. ID was hijacked by creationists as an alternative to Evolution, despite the little known fact that ID and Evolution are not necessarily mutually contradictory, it is in fact entirely possible that both are true. The problem is that ID isn't science, it contains no testable hypotheses, and is grounded on a hypothesis (that man is too complex to have evolved at random) that must be accepted on faith, since there is no evidence one way or the other. I was raised in a Christian Fundamentalist family and it is just this type of intellectual dishonesty in much that they do that turned me off at a very young age. If one is in possesion of the Truth, then why is it necessary to mislead or deceive people?

[tolbiny]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
8mya primates spread across the globe- they were highly successful, largly because of oppasble thumbs (and in some cases big toes as well). Very adaptable creatures were all over Europe, africa, asia, south america, north america. All over the place. The climate waas perfect for them- tropical jungles all around. Then the climate changed as it was want to do, and vast tracks of the forests died off, and food became scare in a lot of areas.
The vast majority of male apes don't help with child rearing at all, male chimps don't even know which kid is theirs. The apes that could survive in the low food environment were the ones where both the male and female provided for their young. This is the beginning of monogomy in humans. Primates already had opposable thumbs which helped them to carry food, but the males who were the best providers were the ones who could walk upright further than the others, using their hands to carry more food at a time, and having to make fewer trips.

[/ QUOTE ]

This is not a stretch? For so many reasons?

[/ QUOTE ]

1- there is evidence of a massive spread of primates ~8 mill years ago (it starts around 16 miilion years ago)
2- there is evidence of a severe decline in the total numbers of primates and primate species around 6 mya.
3- there is evidence of signifigant climate change - esp in the east african rift system where the earliest hominid specimeins are found.
4- the fossil evidence of humans shows that bipedality comes first, before large brains, before the femoral/humeral index of modern humans, bofre changes in dentition.

[Jeff V]

The graph was supposed to prove what?