Posted on 04/19/2006 11:19:40 AM PDT by furball4paws
Right.
But so far they've been pretty good at not failing on the evolution front. Those recent finds were done by studying where the "correct" geologic layers were that should hold 3-4 million year old hominids. They went there, and sure nuf, there were fossils there that matched the expected change in species.
Evolutionary scientists have done pretty good predicting what we should find in related species DNA too, using Darwin's theory, and he didn't even know what DNA was.
Evolution still stands, despite the fever swamps of religiously motivated nay-sayers.
"...despite the fever swamps of religiously motivated nay-sayers."
Spiro Agnew lives!
Opinion has not changed, its as irrelevant as its history of irrelevance.
Engineers come in after the scientists finish.
Maybe The Victor could engineer for the benefit of all a model of testing that would affirm or not affirm ID.
What inthe world does that mean?
You really need a explanation?
Since it is babble, yes.
Opinion seeks its agenda by name calling , lack of knowledge, accusation, misrepresentation, distortion of terms, other unethical acts and in the end when frustrated violence.
In all of its history it has never provided a new fact or any new knowledge.
It remains the same today because it provides no new fact or knowledge.
It remains irrelevant.
So you agree that mythology is best left out of science class.
That would require that we be able to prove or disprove the existence of God. No model conceived in this life is going to suffice.
Science is a defined method. It does not include any argued faith and belief of any philosophy or opinion. Philosophy has its own method as does opinion.
Actually, I see misunderstanding of evolution here, and/or deliberate misrepresentation, if the poster has been around here long enough to have seen the innumerable "whats a 'theory'" threads.
The "theory" of evolution is not changed in any way by these new discoveries. They merely rearrange a particular hypothesis about which species begat which. And given the complexity of those little details, I'm sure we'll never know for sure the entire history of species evolution. What we do know is that evolution theory was correct before these finds, and it's still correct.
You DID know I was being sarcastic, right?
I tend to take things at face value, unless I know the poster well and know what they'd normally say. And my other tendency is to forget posters names from thread to thread, unless I've seen them around a lot.
That would require that we be able to prove or disprove the existence of God. No model conceived in this life is going to suffice.
Proof is a term of philosophy not science. Theory is of a higher order than proof by argument.
It is correct that without a fact neither science or engineering can concieve of any theory that would affirm or not affirm ID. Thats why ID is not science.
If you look at my original post, you'll see "/CRIDer 'logic'"
I did not know until you posed your second question. Sorry.
Thats OK -- it was more of a summary.
My first impression is how straight the tooth row on the "4.1-million-year-old Au. anamensis, left" compared with the slightly parabolic tooth row of the "previously discovered teeth of 3.3-million-year-old Au. afarensis, right." Not sure how much of this is the reconstruction. Given the wear on adjacent teeth, the angle of the tooth row can be estimated pretty well though. Also, there may be bone which does not show in the photograph.
Second impression is the slight decrease in size; not sure if this is evolutionary or due to the relative sizes of the different individuals.
To me the teeth themselves look quite similar, but teeth are a real specialty, one which I never studied much.
Tim White has been doing some good research, and adding to our once sparse collection of hominid fossils at an amazing rate. It is tough to judge these things from photographs, but you can bet the folks with the actual bones have been studying them pretty carefully.
It does not take too many mistakes to get you canned in science. Accuracy is very highly prized. I would tend to place a lot of trust in what they have to say.
You must have met my first wife.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.