Thanks for the response, vecta3!
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by vecta3
yes the point of the lloyd pye vid was that the evidence aint what its made out to be, even possibly laughable.
|
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”?
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by vecta3
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 .
|
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.
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by vecta3
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
|
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.
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by vecta3
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.
|
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”.
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by vecta3
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".
|
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.
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by vecta3
so long as it fits with your worldview?
|
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).
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by vecta3
what is strange is why science isn't also asking the question, that is it possible we don't have a common ancestor?
|
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?
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by vecta3
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.
|
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.
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by vecta3
prove we come from a common ancestor or at least explain to me why it's a valid reasoning.
|
There is plenty of info
here.
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by vecta3
|
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.)