Polish MEP calls for ‘scholarly debate’ on evolution

Radio Polonia ^ | Oct 16, 2006

[Doctor Stochastic]

'That is a heritage of communism when evolutionary doctrines were taught in schools like a kind of religion.'

Typically incorrect statement. Stalin had those supporting evolution executed. Darwin was not allowed. Either the author is lying or ignorant of history.

[Ichneumon]

Thanks Coyoteman, for that interpretation of the evidence.

Ah, yes, the old "that's just your interpretation, I can interepret anything and everything any way I want, so I will" standby excuse of the anti-evolutionists comes to the forefront. As usual.

No, son, that's not just "his interpretation", that's what a comprehensive overview of the evidence indicates, and you can't hand-wave it away that easily. Not if you want to retain any intellectual honesty, that is.

Michael Moore and Cindy Sheehan "interpret" the Iraq war differently, but that doesn't make them right, and that doesn't make their "interpretation" any more defensible. Reality is what it is, and the honest person faces what it has to teach us.

Unfortunately, homology is not evidence of a transitional form,

It's evidence that they were a different species from ourselves, and that they are diagnostic of a transtional form. Take it up with the professionals if you think you can hand-wave away the totality of their evidence. This should be amusing.

By the way, do you know what Coyoteman does for a living?

nor is variance that is well within contemporary boundaries

ROFL!!

evidence for Mr. H. Ergaster being anything but human.

You'd have a point if your claim were correct, but since it's not...

And Coyoteman had you pegged in advance when he wrote, "Creationists often either hand-wave that evidence away, no matter what it is..."

And contrary to your misleading and racist picture, here's what Ergaster's skull actually looked like:

I don't know anyone with a face like that, do you? Is that "well within contemporary boundaries" where you live? The tiny sloped forehead, the protruding muzzle, the prominent brow ridge, the small cranium? Okay, maybe it *is*, but...

[Ichneumon]

[Which "Big Lie" would that be? Be specific. Your credibility and your honesty are riding on it. ]

Evolution. That specific enough?

Yes it is. Specific enough to demonstrate that you tell grossly overinflated and transparent falsehoods, since even most of the wildest-eyed anti-evolutionists admit the validity of evolutionary change -- the existence of evolution -- even if they deny common descent and speciation. Thanks.

So much for your credibility and your honesty.

Someday I hope to meet an anti-evolutionist who isn't a shameless liar.

[Ichneumon]

[Is "Let there be" the best you can manage in the face of real-world findings that exist when you say they don't? Yes, I suppose it is. Are you really that incapable of discussing the actual topic? Yes, I suppose you are.]

I certainly hope it makes you feel good holding a conversation with yourself. Can't go wrong there. Eh?

Feel free to prove me wrong on my conclusions about you. I would welcome it, as it would be a very refreshing change in the quality of your posts on this topic.

[taxesareforever]

Someday I hope to meet an anti-evolutionist who isn't a shameless liar.

Don't worry, you will. His name is God.

[dread78645]

I find that in many fields of science there are scientists who reject the theory of evolution because in their fields they also find evidence against the theory.’

" ... and we will publish this evidence ...
err...Wait!
What's that? Look over there!
No, Over there, don't you see it?"

[Ichneumon]

[Someday I hope to meet an anti-evolutionist who isn't a shameless liar.]

Don't worry, you will. His name is God.

You should really stop telling blatant falsehoods about God, I don't think He'll appreciate that. He's not an "anti-evolutionist", He uses evolution to generage new species and to adapt them to changing conditions.

I'll pray for you.

[Coyoteman]

I was out for a few hours (that work thing), and in my absence Ichny has responded to the issues admirably.

I want to touch on only one point:

Dave writes: When I have reiterated over and over again that the evidence is the same, the interpretation is different.

Sorry, that doesn't cut the mustard. That is simply a hand-wave, and there is no validity at all to that argument (or lack of argument). Your offer to repost a bunch of anti-science apologetics from AnswersinGenesis is likewise of no use in a scientific argument. When will you realize that apologetics is not science, and that it has no evidentiary standing in a scientific debate?

Son, it doesn't matter one hoot what your interpretation is. What matters is the interpretations of those who know what they are talking about. Those who know the evidence.

I might have a lot of opinions on higher math and physics, but what are they worth? Nothing! And I am smart enough to realize it.

Unfortunately, you seem think that your religious belief constitutes scientific evidence, or that your non-scientific opinions on the theory of evolution mean something. That happens not to be the case.

You have carved out a comfy niche here with a creation ping list made up of folks who regularly bash the sciences in general and evolution in particular. But until you all actually learn something about those sciences, and about evolution, your opinions are just that--opinions. They are not "alternate interpretations," they are opinions. And in a scientific context they are not worth the pixels they are written to our screens with.

[VadeRetro]

Have you actually read that Mehlert link in your supposed demolition of the "man-to-human evolution? (Is that really hard?)

He's telling creationists to change their story from "It's an ape! Just an ape!" to "It's a man! Just a man!"

I assume you meant to cite it as evidence that erectus is indeed "A man! Just a man!" But are you sure you've never linked anything that claimed it's "An ape! Just an ape?"

What does it mean when creation science has trouble telling "Just a man!" from "Just an ape?"

[taxesareforever]

You should really stop telling blatant falsehoods about God

Either you believe the Bible and God or you believe Darwin. Your so-called proof for evolution is from science of humans and not the Bible. The proof I use is from God, which is His Word. Now, give me a clue from the Bible that God said he created the Big Bang, for that is where the origin of species originates whether you acknowledge it or not.

[Fester Chugabrew]

Neither . . .

Well, pardon me while I roll my eyes, too. The likelihood of a global deulge is far greater when the planet is covered by 3/4ths water as opposed to 3/4ths land. Even a child 3 or 4 year old child would understand as much. But you've taken up your own brand of cherry-picking called "denial of a basic fact." That's okay. I'm used to it.

. . .isn't interested in following the evidence . . .

Actually I'm waiting for more of the same evidence. Water has been found in places we did not expect it. Do you think a magical dose of hyper-verbiage will make it go away? Keep huffing and puffing. So far the evidence is credible for a global deluge.

Come back when you learn how to actually test a hypothesis in a rigorous way.

Hehe. Go away until you can demonstrate in history a definite connection between man and ape. Until then you're just blowing conjectural smoke and gumming up education for the rest of us.

[ml1954]

The World According to Dave....

Accepted scientific evidence, analysis, and theories in biology, physics, chemistry, geology, etc. = 'snow job'.

Genesis = Science textbook.

And Dave says 'I really like science'.

[ml1954]

The World According to Dave, Part 2....

Accepted scientific evidence, analysis, and theories in biology, physics, chemistry, astronomy, genetics, geology, etc. = Ideology.

And Dave says 'I really like science'.

[Dimensio]

Wow, what a transparent falsehood! See my previous post, kid.

Blowfish was referring to claims of a global flood, not evolution.

[jennyp]

Thank you, Sopater, for your contribution to the ongoing Ape or Human scientific research survey. Could we please have your expert opinion on these other fossil species?

Which of the following are "just an old ape" and which are "just an old human"? Try it, it's fun!

Fossil hominid skulls. Some of the figures have been modified for ease of comparison
(only left-right mirroring or removal of a jawbone). [CLICK HERE] for larger photo.
(Images © 2000 Smithsonian Institution.)

• (A) Pan troglodytes, chimpanzee, modern
  
• (B) Australopithecus africanus, STS 5, 2.6 My
  
• (C) Australopithecus africanus, STS 71, 2.5 My
  
• (D) Homo habilis, KNM-ER 1813, 1.9 My
  
• (E) Homo habilis, OH24, 1.8 My
  
• (F) Homo rudolfensis, KNM-ER 1470, 1.8 My
  
• (G) Homo erectus, Dmanisi cranium D2700, 1.75 My
  
• (H) Homo ergaster (early H. erectus), KNM-ER 3733, 1.75 My
  
• (I) Homo heidelbergensis, "Rhodesia man", 300,000 - 125,000 y
  
• (J) Homo sapiens neanderthalensis, La Ferrassie 1, 70,000 y
  
• (K) Homo sapiens neanderthalensis, La Chappelle-aux-Saints, 60,000 y
  
• (L) Homo sapiens neanderthalensis, Le Moustier, 45,000 y
  
• (M) Homo sapiens sapiens, Cro-Magnon I, 30,000 y
  
• (N) Homo sapiens sapiens, modern

We know that A) is a modern chimpanzee and N) is a modern human. Everyone agrees that M) was a modern human as well. Your challenge is to fill in these blanks:

Fossil	Just an ape	Ape-like transitional	Human-like transitional	Just a human	Not related at all to apes or humans
B	[_]	[_]	[_]	[_]	[_]
C	[_]	[_]	[_]	[_]	[_]
D	[_]	[_]	[_]	[_]	[_]
E	[_]	[_]	[_]	[_]	[_]
F	[_]	[_]	[_]	[_]	[_]
G	[_]	[_]	[_]	[_]	[_]
H	[_]	[_]	[_]	[_]	[_]
I	[_]	[_]	[_]	[_]	[_]
J	[_]	[_]	[_]	[_]	[_]
K	[_]	[_]	[_]	[_]	[_]
L	[_]	[_]	[_]	[_]	[_]

The Responses So Far:

Person	A Pan troglodytes (modern chimp)	B, C Australopithecus africanus	D Homo habilis	E Homo habilis	F Homo rudolfensis	G Homo erectus	H Homo ergaster	I Homo heidelbergensis	J, K Homo sapiens neanderthalensis	L, M Homo sapiens sapiens (Cro-Magnon, modern human)
Mainstream scientists	ape	ape-like trans	ape-like, human-like trans	ape-like, human-like trans	ape-like, human-like trans	human-like trans	human-like trans	human-like trans	human-like trans, human	human
Published creationists...
Bowden, Malcolm	ape		human		human		human			human
Brown, Walt	ape	ape	ape	ape				human	human	human
Gish, Duane (1979)	ape		human		human		human			human
Gish, Duane (1985)	ape		ape		human		human			human
Luskin, Casey	ape	ape	ape	ape	ape	human	human	human	human	human
Mehlert, A. W.	ape		ape		human		human			human
Menton, David	ape		human		human		human			human
Taylor, Paul	ape		human		human		human			human
Amateur creationists...
DannyTN	ape	ape	ape		ape	human	human	human	human	human
editor-surveyor	ape	ape	ape	ape	ape	ape	ape	ape	human	human
Elsie	ape	ape	ape	ape	ape	ape	ape	ape	human	human
Michael_Michaelangelo	ape	ape	ape	ape	ape	ape	ape	ape	human	human
MississippiMan	ape							ape		human
Sopater	ape		human	human						human
taxesareforever	human	human	human	human	human	human	human	human	human	human
vetsvette	ape					human				human

[VadeRetro]

You can put DaveLoneRanger down for H. erectus being human. While trumpting that he was "debunking man-to-human evolution" he linked an AiG paper by Mehlert which asserts such.

Now we just have to watch and see if he ever posts one of the creationist opinions which contradicts Mehlert.

[jennyp]

Darn, I can't use it 'cuz (from my quick reading) Mehlert was referring to the WT-15000 ("Turkana Boy") fossil, & the survey is referring to the D2700 fossil. But Mehlert does seem to be saying that all Homo erectuses are just short examples of Homo sapiens. So whaddya think? Is it fair to mark him (& DLR by reference) for number G being "just an old human"?

[jennyp]

Dave, I don't have you down for any definitive statements on these fossils. Since you are making the case that there are no transitional ape-human fossils, care to join in & say specifically which ones are just an ape vs. just a human?