Kepler: Thanks for the response, vecta3!
So you just take Lloyd Pye’s (not a biologist) word for it, but then later claim that to make an informed view you need “something like a degree in evolutionary biology”?
i never claimed his was the truth but another opinion is all. what he says is either true, untrue or possible. and i said i'd need a degree to have a scientific viewpoint, not any viewpoint. whether it would still even be valid would still be up for question of course.
This is a bit extreme. Why are you even discussing this if you don’t consider yourself qualified? I do not have a degree in evolutionary biology, but it turns out that
some people do – and they write a lot of books and make documentaries and websites that allow lay people like myself to digest what’s going on in science. If you, vecta3, were presenting your
own novel ideas, research, hypotheses, etc. concerning evolutionary biology, then I may wonder about your credentials and qualifications. But, since we are doing nothing new here and are simply summarizing information that is easily available on the internet and in books, I don’t see such a requirement as necessary.
i do consider myself to have an opinion worth sharing, just not a scientifically (dis)empowered one...as i've already stated.
Evolutionary biology, like many sciences, is very complex. There isn’t ever going to be
one simple “smoking gun” piece of evidence for something as complicated as evolution. What it sounds like you are saying here is “science is complicated, therefore I’ll just believe whatever I want” – which is rather weak.
that picture of man going from a hunched monkey to an upright human, looks about as basic an idea as one could have really. science hasn't explained it though has it? evolutionary biology or whatever, complex or simple...all they say is that we believe that men and apes have a common ancestry, yet they have zilch evidence of this. and, unlike you say, i don't have a belief, i'm just questioning. from one perspective one might say, ludicrous as it apparently, that maybe the fact that there is no evidence, means it might not be so..
Watch the link to the video you posted. You’re misunderstanding it. The shift was from “humans evolving from something chimpanzee
like” to “chimpanzees evolving from something human
like”. In
both cases, there was a non-human non-chimpanzee common ancestor - it was not simply invented to “fill in the gaps”.
so you're saying then that science used to believe that we evolved from chimplike ancestors. i thought the notion that chimps evolved from human like ancestors to be superfluous to the idea that we didn't evolve from chimps. yes the anthropoligist still adheres to the common ancestor theory and that's where i see it gets weak for me. interesting how this scientific research backs up the native american view that they (apes and chimps) evolved from humans
The evidence points to “no connection”? I’m not sure where this is coming from. Your conclusion to doubt the science is based on your misunderstanding of what is being presented.
well yeah...the science states clearly that we did not evolve from chimps or monkeys, that's a fact as far as science is concerned. the common ancestor thing is purely hypothetical...so there is only "factual" evidence that suggests, at present, no connection of humans evolvong from apes or chimps. so i'm not doubting the science here at all, i'm agreeing with it...the point we separate is that i don't go on to assume, pretty much as fact, that there then must be a common ancestor.
What’s my “worldview”? Also, it’s very easy for someone to say the same thing to you. I think you may have simply ignored what you were actually responding to with that, so I’ll just post it again here:
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)
i would say that your worldview is what seems logical to yourself. the rest sounds open minded but i can't say for one second that that is my experience of science or scientists. in fact i always thought new theories were/are generally laughed at and the proponents deemed charlatans. i watched a vid on the, apparently, excrutiatingly bad science behind the theory and manufacture of vaccines, yet it goes on. modern medicine kills 200,000 a year in the states, and thats scientifically based, sometimes on trials that can be manipulated and distorted. so science in some ways IS the pseudo science.
Why do you think science hasn’t asked this question? Remember, humans sharing a common ancestor with other primates was not always an accepted idea (before Darwin, possibly a bit earlier? I’m not sure exactly). Science surely existed then. The question becomes – why did science shift into thinking humans might share a common ancestor with other primates?
with no proof of common ancestry, just loads of hypotheses, it would seem, to me at least, a fair question to ask whether or not it's even a valid notion. perhaps the idea never existed before because, other than a similarity of appearance, there's no reason to assume a common ancestry.
Common descent was definitely not “bourne out of not having an answer”. Again, this possibly comes from your misunderstanding of the Lovejoy Ardi video above.
imo it was. yes we look similar, so what?
There is plenty of info
here.
plenty of scientists refuting this "evidence"...so have some gone mad? if science has such an opened minded yet firm base, how can there be such different beliefs and ideas? isn't science supposed to do away with personal interest interfering with results? this site has plenty of scientific info that refutes darwin evolution. http://www.evolutionnews.org/evolution/
It's not surprising that things can be equally well explained by some greater "intelligent designer". Such a "higher power" can be invoked to explain just about anything. (The old "God put the fossils there to confuse humans" sort of thing.)
[i]
i don't know why fossils would be confusing? i'm certainly no christian and i'm not sure about higher powers etc...but what i do know is that scientists know alot less than what it outwardly presumes to. who's to say that the scientists that seem to be adequately raising some good questions about darwin evolutionary theory, are the only true scientists on the matter? i read your wicki piece which seem to contain the usual ideas that purport to support the theory of common ancestry, many of which are questioned by the site i linked to.
Problem 5: No Workable Model for the Origin of Life http://www.evolutionnews.org/2012/12...obl067431.html
Despite decades of work, origin-of-life theorists are at a loss to explain how this system arose. In 2007, Harvard chemist George Whitesides was given the Priestley Medal, the highest award of the American Chemical Society. During his acceptance speech, he offered this stark analysis, reprinted in the respected journal Chemical and Engineering News:
The Origin of Life. This problem is one of the big ones in science. It begins to place life, and us, in the universe. Most chemists believe, as do I, that life emerged spontaneously from mixtures of molecules in the prebiotic Earth. How? I have no idea.21
Many other authors have made similar comments. Massimo Pigliucci states: "t has to be true that we really don't have a clue how life originated on Earth by natural means."22 Or as science writer Gregg Easterbrook wrote in Wired, "What creates life out of the inanimate compounds that make up living things? No one knows. How were the first organisms assembled? Nature hasn't given us the slightest hint. If anything, the mystery has deepened over time."23
Likewise, the aforementioned article in Cell Biology International concludes: "New approaches to investigating the origin of the genetic code are required. The constraints of historical science are such that the origin of life may never be understood."24 That is, they may never be understood unless scientists are willing to consider goal-directed scientific explanations like intelligent design.