breathilizer

Right, but what he was saying is that we didn't evolve from apes as we see them today. I don't think anybody here disagrees with that, and in fact, no one even said what he was implying we did. We modern apes (humans) evolved from other apes, and so did other modern apes (gorillas, chimps, etc)

simian

Of course, in the case of biological entities, you can look at the fossil record, assume they have biological reproduction (a big assumption to be sure). Look for general trends, what may be related species from millions of years apart. Notice that they split into two (or more) species at some point. Gee, wouldn't it be nice if we had some way to test to see how good the family tres is? It sure is handy we can now compare strings of DNA and look for matches that indicate actual relationships - using similar methods to determining human relationships.

"Common design" or whatever term you wish to use does not even rise to the level of hypothesis, not to mention theory. If it does, please tell me how it can be falsified.

Science cannot add a supernatural component because science is the study of the natural world. Using naturalistic explanations.

Allowing predictions to be made, that can be tested and falsify or not falsify the predictions made. As a long line of non-falsifying results build up, the hypotheses formed from earlier observations gain strength.

Simian

Kingreaper

not unless the designer happens to be dumb, evil and rather forgetful (as well as definitely not omniscient) http://www.freewebs.com/oolon/SMOGGM.htm

and I think that http://www.freewebs.com/oolon/SMOGGM.htm#retina is especially relevant

ok so you don't think science should assume naturalism, do you think that tests of drugs shoulld be ignored as Demons could have interfered with them? do you think engineers should install automated praying machines instead of extra supports? do you think that antibiotics shouldn't be used, because maybe we've been trapping angels inside them and if the angels were let free they would heal everyone? should we just flood areas of farms instead of irrigating, because the apparent good affects of irrigation could be fertility demons attracted to water?
science is the search for useful ideas, and with all the evidence for evolution even a thursdayist must admit the world works as though evolution happened and so by assuming evolution happened we can understand it better

Duck!

But forensic scientists can't observe a murder taking place. All they can do is look at the evidence that's left after the fact and construct hypotheses about what happened and see how they fit the evidence. Do you think that forensic science shouldn't be admitted in a court of law as evidence because it can't observe the process of murder taking place?


Duck!

gregor

Mikie,

One of the many things you fail to grasp is that you ARE seeing it happen today. There are many transitional animals walking the earth right now. What they will transition into is anyone's guess. We'll have to see evironmental pressures and population isolation to find out. Oh, and we'll have to live for 10,000 years.

What? Can't live for 10,000 years to see significant transformations?

I guess the only thing we can do is look to the fossil record.

And if we found the 1930 sedan buried at one level (containing no seat belts), and we saw a 1955 sedan higher in the strata (with a lap belt), and we saw a 1970 sedan buried at a higher level (with a rudimentary shoulder harness), and we saw a 2000 sedan (with an shoulder harness and electronic sensor) - we'd assume that these similar forms modified over time.

manderguy

Nonsense. You can test evolution all day long with the fossil record. The theory makes predictions. You look at the fossil record and see if those predictions follow the pattern we see.

At one level, we should never find a human skeleton in situ with amonite fossils.

At another, if common descent is true we would expect the current diversity to arise from one or several simpler forms. We see this increase in diversity over time in the fossil record as new lineages arise.

At still another level we can make specific predictions about what transitional form we would expect. If birds evolved from dinosaurs, we should find intermediaries that share traits from both lineages. We should never find a fish/bird intermediary.

One example in human evolution is the prediction of where we're likely to find intermediate fossils in the Rift Valley of Africa. Because the rift continues to spread, the further you move from the middle, the further back in time the deposit. Anthropologists have used this pattern to successfully predict what types of intermediates would be found in which layers.

How does a common designer account for that?

Duck!

Two things.

Firstly, cars can't reproduce so of course they didn't "evolve" in the way that organisms do. Archaeologists aren't daft enough to think that two cars got together and had offspring. At least I hope they're not.

Secondly, if archeologists in the future were able to examine cars and accurately date them, then surely they'd be perfectly justified in assuming that cars had "evolved" from earlier ones. Because there's a certain gradualness to how car technology has changed over the last hundred years. A Model T ford is obviously an older design than a McLaren F1. But they'd need more than just these two cars. They'd notice the gradual changes in car design and technology as time went on. The technology changes. Sometimes old technology is replaced by brand new technology. With enough cars being dug up in the future it's perfectly plausible that a history of the development of automobiles over the last century could be constructed.


Duck!

Mikie

Utter nonsense.

breathilizer

Dude, get over yourself. We're apes. We are primates with no tails. Go look at a chimpanzee or a gorilla. It is beyond obvious.

Duck!

Chimpanzees should be considered part of Hominid family


Duck!