Uncovering Our Earliest Ancestor

[Samerron]

Uncovering Our Earliest Ancestor - 'Ida' The Missing Link In Evolution | quietube

Do believe in evolution now??

 

[Libra]

So this is where we came from?

In school I was taught about evolution and it seemed normal ,natural to me,at home and church I was taught about Adam and Eve and that nasty apple.

Talk about a confused child.

 

[ylris611203]

Yes I believe in evolution; but not for humans?

The evidence of Ida being part of a human evolution is very weak. It all relies on one foot bone much like the evidence for Lucy relies on the pelvic bone.

 

[beer good]

Yes I believe in evolution; but not for humans?

Why everyone else but not us? Can you explain the mechanics by which all other species evolve, but we don't? Have we not genes, environment, sexual organs? If you kill us, do we not die? If you breed us, do we not pass on our heritage?

It all relies on one foot bone much like the evidence for Lucy relies on the pelvic bone.

How so? "Ida" is a complete skeleton with several traits (face, teeth, etc) that are more monkey than lemur. "Lucy" isn't complete, true, but there's more than just the pelvic bone suggesting hominid traits - and unlike Ida, she's not the only specimen of the species we've found either.

 

[ylris611203]

Why everyone else but not us? Can you explain the mechanics by which all other species evolve, but we don't? Have we not genes, environment, sexual organs? If you kill us, do we not die? If you breed us, do we not pass on our heritage?


How so? "Ida" is a complete skeleton with several traits (face, teeth, etc) that are more monkey than lemur. "Lucy" isn't complete, true, but there's more than just the pelvic bone suggesting hominid traits.

When you spend a $1,000,000 to purchase the skeleton you are more inclined to want to find results.

 

[beer good]

When you spend a $1,000,000 to purchase the skeleton you are more inclined to want to find results.

I could bring up the cost of, for instance, the creationism museum, or for that matter the cost of developing a new jet plane (gravity is just a theory, after all) but that would be pointless since simply trying to discredit your opponents on a subject as irrelevant as money makes for a crap argument. I note that you didn't actually answer any of my questions.

 

[ylris611203]

I could bring up the cost of, for instance, the creationism museum, or for that matter the cost of developing a new jet plane (gravity is just a theory, after all) but that would be pointless since simply trying to discredit your opponents on a subject as irrelevant as money makes for a crap argument.

You think money makes for a crap argument, I don't.

I note that you didn't actually answer any of my questions.

Evolution is only a theory.

 

[beer good]

You think money makes for a crap argument, I don't.

When the only argument you have against something is "someone paid money for it", regardless of how well their case is grounded in provable facts, it's a crap argument. Especially in a world where nothing happens without someone getting paid. I'll just let you look up the words "peer review" and leave it at that.

Evolution is only a theory.

:lol: I was wondering how long it would take you to get to that one. Suffice to say that even the hardcore creationists cringe at using that argument. But it's not a response to my questions either.

 

[ylris611203]

When the only argument you have against omething is "someone paid money for it", regardless of how well their case is grounded in provable facts, it's a crap argument. Especially in a world where nothing happens without someone getting paid. I'll just let you look up the words "peer review" and leave it at that.


:lol: I was wondering how long it would take you to get to that one. Suffice to say that even the hardcore creationists cringe at using that argument. But it's not a response to my questions either.

You seem to be getting irate because I don't agree with you. Sir David Attenborough's programme about Ida is very interesting but the conclusion is arrive at by way of some quite flimsy evidence.

 

[beer good]

You seem to be getting irate because I don't agree with you. Sir David Attenborough's programme about Ida is very interesting but the conclusion is arrive at by way of some quite flimsy evidence.

I'm not irate. I think you're funny. Consistently so.

 

[Champagne]

Evolution is only a theory.

Theories are explanations. The scientific method is a way to explain observations on the basis of the laws of nature. Since explanations (in other words, theories) are the whole point of science, there's no such thing as "only" a theory.

Evolution is a process. The theory of evolution is an explanation of how that process works. Evolution itself is not a theory, since evolution is not an explanation, it's an observed process (which, incidentally, makes it a fact).

That's very, very basic science. If you don't even understand that, it's interesting that you think you understand enough science to reject something that's so mainstream.

So, having established what scientific theories are, and knowing that as far as scientists are concerned humans are related to other lifeforms via descent with modification from common ancestors, on what basis are you rejecting human evolution? (assuming you are, of course - that question mark in your first post is a bit confusing)

 

[ylris611203]

So, having established what scientific theories are,

We have not established what scientific theories are; you have just given your option of what you assume them to be.

A theory is not a certainty it is an assumption.

 

[beer good]

We have not established what scientific theories are; you have just given your option of what you assume them to be.

No, Champagne is correct. That's the meaning of the word "theory" in science, and it's not just her "option" (assuming you mean "opinion"), and it's not up to us to establish the meaning of the word; it's been used in that sense since the ancient Greeks. Quoting the United States National Academy of Sciences:

Some scientific explanations are so well established that no new evidence is likely to alter them. The explanation becomes a scientific theory. In everyday language a theory means a hunch or speculation. Not so in science. In science, the word theory refers to a comprehensive explanation of an important feature of nature supported by facts gathered over time. Theories also allow scientists to make predictions about as yet unobserved phenomena.

A scientific theory is a well-substantiated explanation of some aspect of the natural world, based on a body of facts that have been repeatedly confirmed through observation and experiment. Such fact-supported theories are not "guesses" but reliable accounts of the real world. The theory of biological evolution is more than "just a theory." It is as factual an explanation of the universe as the atomic theory of matter or the germ theory of disease. Our understanding of gravity is still a work in progress. But the phenomenon of gravity, like evolution, is an accepted fact.[

Or, if you want something simpler, let's just consult a dictionary:

the·o·ry
n. pl. the·o·ries

1. A set of statements or principles devised to explain a group of facts or phenomena, especially one that has been repeatedly tested or is widely accepted and can be used to make predictions about natural phenomena.

Scientific theories are not themselves 100% factual; they are explanations of observed facts. The theory of gravity doesn't say "let's just assume that gravity exists"; it says "we have observed the existence of gravity, and here's how we explain it." In light of new evidence or knowledge, a theory can be adjusted or even abandoned completely. The theory of evolution is currently one of the most researched and well-supported scientific theories there are, but even that might one day be replaced by another theory if we come up with a better explanation for the facts that the ToE tries to explain; but simply saying "it's just a theory" doesn't really cut it, that's pointless semantics meant to influence only those who don't understand the meaning of the word.

Besides which, you admit in your first post in this thread that the theory of evolution is correct, just not for the species Homo Sapiens Sapiens. And I'm still waiting for your reply on how that would work.

 

[ylris611203]

Scientific theories are not themselves 100% factual; they are explanations of observed facts.

Correct.............. there is room for doubt.

Besides which, you admit in your first post in this thread that the theory of evolution is correct, just not for the species Homo Sapiens Sapiens.

I said that I believe, I did not say it was correct.

And I'm still waiting for your reply on how that would work.

Maybe that is for another thread, this one is about Ida.

 

[beer good]

Correct.............. there is room for doubt.

For doubt based on facts, yes. So present a different interpretation that explains the facts better than just about every professional who's studied the matter over the last 150 years and I'm sure everyone will be thrilled to read it.

Maybe that is for another thread, this one is about Ida.

Personally, I don't mind if you respond in this thread, since you were the one who raised the issue in this thread. I'm sure nobody else will mind either. But by all means, post your explanation in a separate thread and I'll be glad to respond to it.

 

[ylris611203]

For doubt based on facts, yes. So present a different interpretation that explains the facts better than just about every professional who's studied the matter over the last 150 years and I'm sure everyone will be thrilled to read it.


Personally, I don't mind if you respond in this thread, since you were the one who raised the issue in this thread. I'm sure nobody else will mind either. But by all means, post your explanation in a separate thread and I'll be glad to respond to it.

Did you see Sir David Attenborough's programme about Ida? All the evidence they had about Ida was there and it was not very convincing. If you have not seen the programme what are you basing your information on?

 

[Champagne]

We have not established what scientific theories are; you have just given your option of what you assume them to be.

A theory is not a certainty it is an assumption.

Scientifically, a theory is an explanation. It most certainly is not an assumption.

Other definitions of "theory," which are used in a nonscientific sense, are irrelevant when you're talking about the scientific context, which we're doing here.

Where Ida is concerned, I wish the press would drop this "missing link" nonsense. The whole concept of a missing link is based on a misunderstanding, and it just confuses things. It'd also be nice if the results had been published as the first step in the proceedings. I really don't like this trend toward reporting major discoveries at press conferences rather than in journals, although I see the report has been published in PLoS ONE:

http://www.plosone.org/article/info%3Adoi%2F10.1371%2Fjournal.pone.0005723

 

[Robert]

It's all very interesting. What I want to know is when they first found remains, where they looking for the missing link and develop their theory to prove the connection, or did they do an examination of the remains and develop the theory based on the evidence?

 

[Champagne]

Read the link in my previous post and see what you think they were doing.

 

[Robert]

Read the link in my previous post and see what you think they were doing.

It's too late to read all that now, perhaps tomorrow. What I did read was interesting, but it didn't answer the question.

Just so you know, I'm not agreeing or disagreeing. I'm just asking the question because I know that failure to follow proper scientific procedures is not unusual.