Technology is a fickle thing. It is dependent upon the user's or users' input. No matter how great a study is, or how great the tools we employ are .... the person using it seems to be the most frequent point of failure.
Another way to say a similar idea is to say that guns don't kill people, people kill people. We do it every day in many different ways. We kill each other a little bit, over and over, and over again.
https://youtu.be/MY02Ba-TQJM?t=41s
To bring together two things previously understood as different and recognize them as a single entity.
Unification.
All life shares common genes.
Therefor a common ancestry exists.
What is wrong with this logic ?
It is a cop out...
"The failure is your inability to understand"
Anyone can shout as much... after all only they understand their twisted thinking.
If you go out of your way to simplify the rational, of course it will seem overly simple.
Quite so. We know much more about evolution than we do gravity, but gravitation theory isn't controversial. One doesn't find such controversy around anything in physics, much of which is far more outlandish than evolution.
Physics research doesn't reverberate through the social order. Tell some people that Schroedinger's infamous cat is alive and dead at the same time and nobody bats an eyelid. Tell those same people that humans and chimpanzees have shared ancestry and they start frothing at the mouth.
Yes but two important points that seperate reasonable and unreasonble beliefs:
1) Supported by logic and observation
2) Open to criticism and falsification
Everything takes belief. You believe what you see and hear, right?
Pfft. Not when I'm dealing with a bullshit merchant like you I don't.
I think why people struggle with macro evolution as a theory is that it is taking what we see today and then applying it to periods hundreds of millions of years of time in the past. The conclusion that a long long time allows simple organisms to evolve into organisms that are much much more complicated in a lot of peoples minds is a big big leap to make. As with regard to the evidences presented for macro evolutionary theory, these evidences have been discussed in this forum and concerns have been raised. Unfortunately in the main these concerns have been ridiculed rather than answered.
I saw at least a few posts answering concerns, where there any unanswered ones that come to mind?
I know some were listed in extremely long posts with no formatting that made them very difficult to read.
Let's go with Lucy, we spent most of the time arguing about footprints rather than our main concerns that more recent finds suggest that she wasn't bipedal and that the bones at the time of there discovery were stretched quite significantly to aid in the impression that she was bipedal.
Let's go with Lucy, we spent most of the time arguing about footprints rather than our main concerns that more recent finds suggest that she wasn't bipedal and that the bones at the time of there discovery were stretched quite significantly to aid in the impression that she was bipedal.
Look I hope you don't think I'm being evasive or 'tricky' or anything but I am a bit puzzled here. I've already touched on this in a previous post but it's worth highlighting again. I mean, there is much in physics which is far more challenging and controverisal than the theory of evolution and yet you pass it by. How about string theory? How about quantum 'reality'?
My point is simply this: by comparison to these other concepts, the theory of evolution is not controversial at all. There is still considerable (often very sharp) argument about how it happened, but no working scientist questions that evolution did happen. And yet you do, and you're not even a qualified scientist.
To be blunt, it looks like you're nit-picking and probably on the basis of some blurb you've read on 'Answers in Genesis', or something equivalent.
I think string theory and quantum reality is not pushed so much in the media and does not appear as often in the public eye as the theory of evolution. As such people haven't thought so much on how these theories should affect the way they look at the world or how it might contradict there present views. I don't imagine string theory and quantum reality appear heavily in the primary school and or even secondary school syllabuses.
Of course the theory of evolution is controversial we wouldn't be having this argument if it wasn't controversial. We're not aloud to mention the main reason it's controversial, but another is because it's trying to view the past through the glasses of the present as the question "You were there I take it?" can always be asked. Macro evolution is not based upon observation of the actual events but rather on the extrapolation of present observable information.
I am puzzled as to why you continue with the notion that no working scientist questions evolution, yes they might be unicorns in the proverbial sense but they do exist. It is true, I have already conceded my lack of qualifications as a scientists, however whenever I ask the opposition in this argument of their scientific credentials all I receive in reply is some tumble weed traversing the desert.
I think string theory and quantum reality is not pushed so much in the media and does not appear as often in the public eye as the theory of evolution. As such people haven't thought so much on how these theories should affect the way they look at the world or how it might contradict there present views. I don't imagine string theory and quantum reality appear heavily in the primary school and or even secondary school syllabuses.
Of course the theory of evolution is controversial we wouldn't be having this argument if it wasn't controversial. We're not aloud to mention the main reason it's controversial, but another is because it's trying to view the past through the glasses of the present as the question "You were there I take it?" can always be asked. Macro evolution is not based upon observation of the actual events but rather on the extrapolation of present observable information.
I am puzzled as to why you continue with the notion that no working scientist questions evolution, yes they might be unicorns in the proverbial sense but they do exist. It is true, I have already conceded my lack of qualifications as a scientists, however whenever I ask the opposition in this argument of their scientific credentials all I receive in reply is some tumble weed traversing the desert.
Exactly, that's exactly my point.
It's controversial to YOU, it's not controversial at all to folk who specialise in this field, and nor to those who have the benefit of a basic science education.
I fear those who tend to specialize in the field have been indoctrinated from a very young age unless the specialize only to oppose.
I was once told a story about scientists, as they progress in their studies they specialize more and more. They learn more and more about less and less until they know absolutely everything about nothing.
That's part of your problem I feel, you listen to too many stories. Science doesn't rely on stories, it relies on evidence. And in the case of evolutionary theory, we are talking about...
...overwhelming, observable and verifiable evidence.
Twpsyn, lately I've felt a sense of calm when I read your stuff. You seem comfortable with your convictions....even tho' it's at the risk of angering some people.
Oh well, what can you do ?
Lucy was bipedal,no question about it.
Twpsyn, lately I've felt a sense of calm when I read your stuff. You seem comfortable with your convictions....even tho' it's at the risk of angering some people.
Oh well, what can you do ?
There's nothing you can do. This is a science thread; metaphyisics, magick, angels, demons, fairies, voodoo, leprechauns, wizradry, baby jesus and mysticism is up the corridor.
Everything takes belief. You believe what you see and hear, right?
Pfft. Not when I'm dealing with a bullshit merchant like you I don't.
Well, there is what you see, and there is what you read. If you see and hear a bird, do you believe it is a bird, or do you need to perform tests to determine if it is a bird?
Don't insult my intelligence. I know who you are and I've already told you to piss off and aggravate someone else. This is the third time: piss off and aggravate someone else.
The most cherished goal in any of the fields of science (a new theory), as in bad romance novels, is unification.
When we can do it, it's the biggest thrill.
The only sane response to a proposed unification is surprise .
Are we so surprised by Darwin's findings, that we are led astray regarding human evolution?
I leave it to you. Are you an expert ?