The Evolution of Theory: Defining the Debate

Breakpoint ^ | Feb, 16, 2006 | Allen Dobras

[b_sharp]

Useless Guilt by Association fallacy alert.

[trashcanbred]

Wow... at exactly 9:00am. that early :-)

[Coyoteman]

Wow... at exactly 9:00am. that early :-)

Probably Greenwich Mean Time.

[freedumb2003]

You would think that the CRIDers would learn they don't get to throw out uneducated assertions without a direct on point rsponse.

Of course, they never answer anything on point.

[freedumb2003]

Useless Guilt by Association fallacy alert.

I have been trying to point out the logical fallacies to them and I get back ad hominem.

Fighting against stupidity and vacuity is a never-ending and frustrating job!

[Doctor Stochastic]

Typical postmoderndeconstructionist comments by the author. He replaces scientific inquiry by textual analysis. Then he trys to impose his own definition of terms on those actually doing the work. Creationism is the soulmate of postmoderndeconstructionism.

[furball4paws]

Especially since there were no clocks :)

[Doctor Stochastic]

Evolution would be considered a law if it wasn't for Christian Fundamentalists.

Not really. Evolution is, was, and will always be a theory. Laws describe observed regularities; theories attempt to explain observations.

[labette]

Actually, I had never heard of "Malachite Man" until a couple of hours ago.
Amazing what you can find in a image search using "fossilized" and "man".

[jennyp]

There is no denying the fossil evidence and the progression from Australopithecus to Homo Habilis to Homo Erectus to Homo Sapien

Well, yes there is.

A. africanus used to be regarded as ancestral to the genus Homo (in particular Homo erectus). However, fossils assigned to the genus Homo have been found that are older than A. africanus. Thus, the genus Homo either split off from the genus Australopithecus at an earlier date (the latest common ancestor being A. afarensis or an even earlier form), or both developed from an as yet possibly unknown common ancestor independently.

That Wikipedia article isn't very clearly written. Besides, I suspect it's just wrong. Australopithecus, which vincentblackshadow referred to, is the genus, Australopithecus africanus is a species within that genus. The very next sentence after the ones you included in your quote, says "The gracile australopithecines first appeared in the hominid fossil record between 5.4 to 1.5 million years ago."

So, the earliest australopithecine fossil is 5.4 million years old. But what does Wikipedia say about how old Australopithecus africanus specifically was?

Australopithecus africanus was an early hominid, an australopithecine, who lived between 3.3 and 2.4 million years ago in the Pliocene.

Ah, interesting. A. africanus fossils range from 3.3 to 2.4 mya. OK, now what does Wikipedia say about how old Homo erectus fossils are?

It is now believed that H. erectus is a descendent of more primitive ape-men such as australopithecines and early Homo species. Before their settlement of South Eastern Asia, dating fewer than 500,000 and 300,000 years ago, H. erectus originally migrated during the Pleistocene glacial period in Africa roughly 2.0 million years ago and so disbursed throughout various areas of the Old World.

So the Wikipedia articles paint a fully consistent picture to what vincentblackshadow said.

This site at Michigan State says A. africanus fossils range from 3.3 to 2.3 mya, while H. erectus fossils range from 1.7 mya to 300 kya.

It is true that some later Australopithecine fossils are younger than some of the earlier Hominid fossils. But of course that's to be expected, since they're on a bush, not a ladder.

[furball4paws]

You're not counting all the disenfranchised voters who were turned away and couldn't read the ballot :)

[b_sharp]

Non-random in the sense that selection consistantly removes or limits the ability of a segment of the population from reproducing. This segment either has a deleterious feature or does not have a beneficial feature. The selection process is generally stable with small fluctuations over long periods of time.

The non-randomness of selection is easily observed by analyzing each letter for 'fitness' in the 'monkeys typing' mind experiment.

[Doctor Stochastic]

"A common but dangerous approach to the study of any body of unfamiliar material is to begin by adopting a definition of terminology, either one's own or another's, and to apply this terminology to one's findings even if the two are not compatible." - William Hays

Of course, Hays was talking about the Troping Hypothesis.

The author of the article makes this mistake willfully.

[trashcanbred]

Ironically I was out in that area for vacation last year but I never heard of of the bones at all. It is educational though to hear about this but in the end it doesn't prove Creationism. Finding bones in Cretaceous layers like they did in Moab sounds like a slam dunk until you do the carbon dating on them and find they are no more than 1500 years old. Either they were buried on purpose or they were mining (the latter seems to be the most logical). Either way it seems they were natives (my guess is Anasazi).

[AmericaUnited]

You're completely missing the point related to VESTIGIAL FEATURES. Modern science has made claims of no use, or de-selected use and then was PROVEN COMPLETELY WRONG, as more knowledge was discovered. That's why your use of these vestigial claims have so little credibility. Truthful (and non-emmbarrasing in the future) statements should be: WE DON'T KNOW OR UNDERSTAND WHAT THE USE IS?

[farmer18th]

His attempt is the best and most complete version of 'argument by dictionary' I have yet seen.

Not even close. The issue touches on public policy--the broader avenue and, hence, the broader definitions. Academy technocrats get angry when they have to use the language of the masses, so perhaps they should just come up with an excuse for eliminating the dialogue of democracy?

[Doctor Stochastic]

Evolution WAS the law in all the communist countries.

Except the Soviet Union, where "Darwinist Biologists" were executed and Darwin (along with Mendel) were not allowed to be taught or researched.

[furball4paws]

Getting rid of the masses would also work.

[CarolinaGuitarman]

"Modern science has made claims of no use, or de-selected use and then was PROVEN COMPLETELY WRONG, as more knowledge was discovered."

This is incorrect. The point is that these structures are not being used for their original function. For instance, the ostrich limbs are no longer used for flying, even though they are obviously underdeveloped wings. The appendix no longer is used to digest cellulose, which is the function it had originally in our ancestors. THAT is what a vestigial organ is, and that was the understanding of what one is at least since Darwin.

[VadeRetro]

You're not counting all the disenfranchised voters who were turned away and couldn't read the ballot :)

And they were 100 percent creationist, too.