Kepler:Of course you need to allow for all possibilities, but at the end of the day you need to see where the evidence is pointing. The evidence points to humans and other modern primates sharing a common ancestor.
yes the point of the lloyd pye vid was that the evidence aint what its made out to be, even possibly laughable.
Sure, it's possible. But if you want to be convincing, you need to present some evidence. The fact that something is merely possible isn't that interesting.
well i did present another point of view...one that questions the current evidence. interest is a personal matter and i've no desire to be convincing.
It's good to question things, but at some point you need to do your due diligence and examine the different evidences for different ideas. Don't leave it at "some group somewhere in some time thought this, therefore this commonly accepted scientific idea may be incorrect".
Why did those people think the way they did?
Why do biologist come to the conclusions they do? If you consider these questions it becomes a bit easier to reach a conclusion.
to make an informed "scientific" view of the topic would require something like a degree in evolutionary biology, like i said, us with little of that can only wonder, seeing as we cannot be completely critical of the evidence, without indepth knowledge of it and even then there is no hard indisputable proof either way and if there were we couldn't evaluate. so i'll go on feeling to
These links still support the idea that humans and other modern primates share a common ancestor, which is what Animus27 originally said.
true. but this is a change in stance is it not...was it not lovejoy's examination of ardi that resulted in a change in the way that we view evolution? that following his research we no longer say "man evolved from apes or monkeys" because they showed it to be untrue. now this left the question of "well then what did we evolve from"...and the lame answer is "a common ancestor"...which of course we have no remains or proof of. funny how science races to fill the gaps and then a notion/idea (like common ancestor) becomes as good as a fact when it's pure assumption. so if the evidence points to no connection their only option was "common ancestor". if anything all this has given me even greater reason to question the "science".
Not at all. Science provides a model that is
not "fixed" or "final". This is its strong point. The model is
constantly changing as new evidence and data comes in. It is very much possible to draw conclusions, as long as you keep an open mind and continue to exam new ideas and new data (which is basically what science, as a process, is).
so long as it fits with your worldview? everything i've said could be completely wrong...that's what i like to hear. what is strange is why science isn't also asking the question, that is it possible we don't have a common ancestor? considering the notion is bourne of not having an answer. if anything it makes sense to wonder if the none answering answer is even valid. prove we come from a common ancestor or at least explain to me why it's a valid reasoning.
had a quick look at this
http://www.evolutionnews.org/2011/06...e_i047161.html