More proof evolution fails

[THORNHEART]

Wow recently everyday seems a new thing shows up....

http://www.aolnews.com/world/article/st ... s/19545186

Science continues to prove it doesnt have a clue what really went on back in " the days"

My favourite part is this quote

The finding, which will be published in Thursday's edition of Nature, is the latest to show that scientists have perpetually underestimated the humans who lived thousands and millions of years ago. Accumulating evidence shows, for example, that Neanderthals were not the stupid brutes of public image but beings capable of symbolic thought.

"We are still stuck in this Victorian image (that) the further you go back in time, the more primitive it has to be," says paleoanthropologist Wil Roebroeks of Leiden University. "The evidence is constantly showing us wrong."
Early Humans Were Tough

[Pedronicus]

How the hell does that prove evolution fails?

[Woodruff]

Wow recently everyday seems a new thing shows up....

http://www.aolnews.com/world/article/st ... s/19545186

Science continues to prove it doesnt have a clue what really went on back in " the days"

My favourite part is this quote

The finding, which will be published in Thursday's edition of Nature, is the latest to show that scientists have perpetually underestimated the humans who lived thousands and millions of years ago. Accumulating evidence shows, for example, that Neanderthals were not the stupid brutes of public image but beings capable of symbolic thought.

"We are still stuck in this Victorian image (that) the further you go back in time, the more primitive it has to be," says paleoanthropologist Wil Roebroeks of Leiden University. "The evidence is constantly showing us wrong."
Early Humans Were Tough

First of all, this doesn't show at all that evolutionary theory fails.

You do realize that evolution is a THEORY, right? And you do realize that what this does is VALIDATE the process behind evolutionary theory, right?

Honestly, that you seem to be so smug about this leads me to believe you don't really understand the scientific method.

[CreepersWiener]

This just goes to prove that GEICO was right all along.

[AAFitz]

Its proof alright.

And it proof of failing indeed.

However, its not evolution theory that you've proven has failed here.

Once again, the failure you prove, quite convincingly in fact, is that of reading comprehension skills, and making reasonable assumptions based on that comprehension.

You have also shown that scientists in their quest to understand the world better, discovered yet another piece of evidence which helps explain the evolution of humans on the planet. You've helped show, exactly how much work goes into said study, and how important it is. You've also helped show that 900000 years ago, there were humans able to live in colder areas of Europe, which goes against the stories in the Bible and Genesis so much so, that you have literally argued for the opposite side that you usually do. In fact, I think posting this new article, is one of the better arguments against near everything else you ever have posted on the subject.

So again, thanks for posting the proof of failure, though I assure you, its not necessary.

[PLAYER57832]

Wow recently everyday seems a new thing shows up....

http://www.aolnews.com/world/article/st ... s/19545186

Science continues to prove it doesnt have a clue what really went on back in " the days"

My favourite part is this quote

The finding, which will be published in Thursday's edition of Nature, is the latest to show that scientists have perpetually underestimated the humans who lived thousands and millions of years ago. Accumulating evidence shows, for example, that Neanderthals were not the stupid brutes of public image but beings capable of symbolic thought.

"We are still stuck in this Victorian image (that) the further you go back in time, the more primitive it has to be," says paleoanthropologist Wil Roebroeks of Leiden University. "The evidence is constantly showing us wrong."
Early Humans Were Tough

Agree with the above posters. You fall into the classic trap of thinking that all you have to do is find any criticism at all of evolutionary theory to make room for your theory. It just doesn't work that way. You have to actually prove your own theory might be true.

For my part, I have long felt that the Bible itself tends to indicate we have been around far longer than was previously thought (which as noted, actually supports evolution quite well). Just look at the progression of cultures, etc.

[Metsfanmax]

Wow recently everyday seems a new thing shows up....

http://www.aolnews.com/world/article/st ... s/19545186

Science continues to prove it doesnt have a clue what really went on back in " the days"

My favourite part is this quote

The finding, which will be published in Thursday's edition of Nature, is the latest to show that scientists have perpetually underestimated the humans who lived thousands and millions of years ago. Accumulating evidence shows, for example, that Neanderthals were not the stupid brutes of public image but beings capable of symbolic thought.

"We are still stuck in this Victorian image (that) the further you go back in time, the more primitive it has to be," says paleoanthropologist Wil Roebroeks of Leiden University. "The evidence is constantly showing us wrong."
Early Humans Were Tough

Agree with the above posters. You fall into the classic trap of thinking that all you have to do is find any criticism at all of evolutionary theory to make room for your theory. It just doesn't work that way. You have to actually prove your own theory might be true.

The unfortunate part is that in this case, the OP didn't even find any criticism of evolutionary theory. Only criticism of archaeologists and anthropologists.

[PLAYER57832]

Wow recently everyday seems a new thing shows up....

http://www.aolnews.com/world/article/st ... s/19545186

Science continues to prove it doesnt have a clue what really went on back in " the days"

My favourite part is this quote

The finding, which will be published in Thursday's edition of Nature, is the latest to show that scientists have perpetually underestimated the humans who lived thousands and millions of years ago. Accumulating evidence shows, for example, that Neanderthals were not the stupid brutes of public image but beings capable of symbolic thought.

"We are still stuck in this Victorian image (that) the further you go back in time, the more primitive it has to be," says paleoanthropologist Wil Roebroeks of Leiden University. "The evidence is constantly showing us wrong."
Early Humans Were Tough

Agree with the above posters. You fall into the classic trap of thinking that all you have to do is find any criticism at all of evolutionary theory to make room for your theory. It just doesn't work that way. You have to actually prove your own theory might be true.

The unfortunate part is that in this case, the OP didn't even find any criticism of evolutionary theory. Only criticism of archaeologists and anthropologists.

Except, that is the kind of "evidence" ICR uses frequently.

In truth, here is how they will see this:

To them, evolution is dependent upon the idea that ALL previous forms MUST be inferior to all later forms. Sometimes they even refer to "complexity" or such. So, to them anything that shows that things perhaps did not evolve as quickly or even reversed is considered "proof" that evolution fails.

It is just one more example of why the Institute for Creation Research depends upon MISunderstanding evolution to put forward their ideas, why it is absolutely critical that kids be taught real science and not this fakery.

[The Bison King]

Wow recently everyday seems a new thing shows up....

http://www.aolnews.com/world/article/st ... s/19545186

Science continues to prove it doesnt have a clue what really went on back in " the days"

My favourite part is this quote

The finding, which will be published in Thursday's edition of Nature, is the latest to show that scientists have perpetually underestimated the humans who lived thousands and millions of years ago. Accumulating evidence shows, for example, that Neanderthals were not the stupid brutes of public image but beings capable of symbolic thought.

"We are still stuck in this Victorian image (that) the further you go back in time, the more primitive it has to be," says paleoanthropologist Wil Roebroeks of Leiden University. "The evidence is constantly showing us wrong."
Early Humans Were Tough

More proof that the OP fails.

[AAFitz]

Wow recently everyday seems a new thing shows up....

http://www.aolnews.com/world/article/st ... s/19545186

Science continues to prove it doesnt have a clue what really went on back in " the days"

My favourite part is this quote

The finding, which will be published in Thursday's edition of Nature, is the latest to show that scientists have perpetually underestimated the humans who lived thousands and millions of years ago. Accumulating evidence shows, for example, that Neanderthals were not the stupid brutes of public image but beings capable of symbolic thought.

"We are still stuck in this Victorian image (that) the further you go back in time, the more primitive it has to be," says paleoanthropologist Wil Roebroeks of Leiden University. "The evidence is constantly showing us wrong."
Early Humans Were Tough

Agree with the above posters. You fall into the classic trap of thinking that all you have to do is find any criticism at all of evolutionary theory to make room for your theory. It just doesn't work that way. You have to actually prove your own theory might be true.

The unfortunate part is that in this case, the OP didn't even find any criticism of evolutionary theory. Only criticism of archaeologists and anthropologists.

Except, that is the kind of "evidence" ICR uses frequently.

In truth, here is how they will see this:

To them, evolution is dependent upon the idea that ALL previous forms MUST be inferior to all later forms. Sometimes they even refer to "complexity" or such. So, to them anything that shows that things perhaps did not evolve as quickly or even reversed is considered "proof" that evolution fails.

It is just one more example of why the Institute for Creation Research depends upon MISunderstanding evolution to put forward their ideas, why it is absolutely critical that kids be taught real science and not this fakery.

I saw that the gov of Texas couldn't find any money to buy the science books this year.

[Metsfanmax]

Except, that is the kind of "evidence" ICR uses frequently.

In truth, here is how they will see this:

To them, evolution is dependent upon the idea that ALL previous forms MUST be inferior to all later forms. Sometimes they even refer to "complexity" or such. So, to them anything that shows that things perhaps did not evolve as quickly or even reversed is considered "proof" that evolution fails.

It is just one more example of why the Institute for Creation Research depends upon MISunderstanding evolution to put forward their ideas, why it is absolutely critical that kids be taught real science and not this fakery.

I'm not too familiar with the the institute in question, but based on the quick search I just did it seems like your assessment of them is correct; I don't want to unfairly judge them, though. Is it true that they base their arguments on misconceptions of evolutionary science, instead of outright rejection of it?

[AAFitz]

Except, that is the kind of "evidence" ICR uses frequently.

In truth, here is how they will see this:

To them, evolution is dependent upon the idea that ALL previous forms MUST be inferior to all later forms. Sometimes they even refer to "complexity" or such. So, to them anything that shows that things perhaps did not evolve as quickly or even reversed is considered "proof" that evolution fails.

It is just one more example of why the Institute for Creation Research depends upon MISunderstanding evolution to put forward their ideas, why it is absolutely critical that kids be taught real science and not this fakery.

I'm not too familiar with the the institute in question, but based on the quick search I just did it seems like your assessment of them is correct; I don't want to unfairly judge them, though. Is it true that they base their arguments on misconceptions of evolutionary science, instead of outright rejection of it?

I personally would say its more of a backwards approach. They assume the earth is 6000 years old out of tradition, and because of the bible, and then simply look for tiny inconsistencies in modern science to substantiate that belief. Also, for the most part, they outright reject it, in favor of their translation of the Bible, genesis specifically.

In fact, there is simply no scientific evidence whatsoever that would lead one to believe the earth was snapped into existence 6000 years ago, and then plants snapped into existence 6000 years ago, and then the Sun after that. Its clear that no one would ever make that kind of assumption based on anything resembling science, so the only source is tradition and the mistranslation of the Bible itself, and the complete ignoring of common sense, logic, let alone science.

[tzor]

"We are still stuck in this Victorian image (that) the further you go back in time, the more primitive it has to be," says paleoanthropologist Wil Roebroeks of Leiden University. "The evidence is constantly showing us wrong."

One of the key elements of "evolution" is not that creatures evolve to be "better" but to be "better suited" to the environment at the time. One of the problems of scientific attitudes during the Victorian times is that they considered themselves "superior." This attitude could be seen everywhere. Condier the term "Dark Ages." Where they really dark? Consider that in the late 19th century in the United States the person who ran the pattent office wanted to have it shut down because he thought that everything that could possibly be invented was already invented.

One good example is that of dinosaurs, originally thought to be dull, colorless, dim witted and cold blooded. Turns out not to be the case. They did have some major design flaws (the large dinodaurs had their lungs above their hearts and no diaphram which became a problem when oxygen levels droped over the ages) but otherwise were very complex creatures.

Some animals just find their happy niche and that's that. The shark and the horseshoe crab are two examples. The shark is definitely impressive.

I mean, look at anchient man and modern man. Did anchient man have a beer belly? Clearly they were superior.

[PLAYER57832]

Is it true that they base their arguments on misconceptions of evolutionary science, instead of outright rejection of it?

Those two ideas are not in conflict. They absolutely reject evolution, but the Institute was established to try and give a scientific basis for young earth ideas. So, they start with the assumption that evolution contradicts the Bible and is therefore wrong. They generally won't even acknowlege that any Christians could possible accept both (occasionally they will admit to "rare exceptions" of "misguided individuals" -- but never will they accept the truth, that seeing evolution and the Bible as consistant are the majority position).

They have tried to actually find positive proof that the earth is young. (lionz posts regarding Turbites, Yellowstone, etc are all examples) However, they have recently backed off from that a bit. That is, those things are still taught, but they no longer expect the rest of the world to believe it. Most of the recent articles I have seen most recently simply try to attack evolution.

They now work on 2 fronts. First, within conservative churches, they actively teach young earth ideas, but make it clear to kids that these ideas won't be accepted because "the rest of the world is blinded". Instead, they spend most of their real effort on just debunking what they consider to be evolutionary theory. Its an "interesting" "shotgun" approach where they will often pull in articles or data like this, take real information and then very selectively report it to make it seem as if the only reason young earth ideas are not widely accepted is this huge conspiracy.

Of course, the real problem is that they don't really and truly counter evolution, only a "straw man" they create that is supposed to represent real evolutionary theory.

So, you have someone, obviously intelligent in other ways, such as Thornheart who feels quite confident posting this "criticism" that, ironically enough is actually support of evolution. Except, he doesn't understand evolution, so he thinks it is criticism. This is why I have gone from condescending tolerance to outright disgust and even anger at ICR and their activities. If ICR were honestly offering any real criticism of evolution, I might disagree, but it would be perfectly OK, even perfectly within the realm of science. This they do... putting forward distortions and pretending that things conflict with evolutin when they really don't, etc is neither Christian nor science.

[PLAYER57832]

"We are still stuck in this Victorian image (that) the further you go back in time, the more primitive it has to be," says paleoanthropologist Wil Roebroeks of Leiden University. "The evidence is constantly showing us wrong."

One of the key elements of "evolution" is not that creatures evolve to be "better" but to be "better suited" to the environment at the time.

Actually tzor, this is not even necessarily true. What survived often seems to have involved pur "luck" (yes, you and I will "insert God" there...). Think of a deer population. The "biggest baddest buck" normally would "win" the does and therefore pass on his genes. That is classic natural selection. However, in the real world a lot of things can happen. That buck might get hit by a car and be killed or be trapped behind a landslide, a flooded area and simply not have access to does. Also, bigger bucks tend to be stronger, but often also require more food (not absolutely true). He might "win" in good times, but find himself starving more quickly in lean times, so that the scrawny little guy actually "wins".

One of the problems of scientific attitudes during the Victorian times is that they considered themselves "superior." This attitude could be seen everywhere. Condier the term "Dark Ages." Where they really dark? Consider that in the late 19th century in the United States the person who ran the pattent office wanted to have it shut down because he thought that everything that could possibly be invented was already invented.

This is a key point. As you say, part of the idea of "superiority" does date back to the Victorian ideas of "superiority". Ironically, from a biological perspective, "superiority" is considered "better adaption" to the world around. So, in that regard, the "primitive" peoples were often truly "superior" to the Victorians who wanted to walk in the tropics in full clothing, etc. and wound up succumbing to diseases partially because of lack of resistance and partially becuase of poorer nutrition/medicines, etc. This same bias was carried through a bit.

One good example is that of dinosaurs, originally thought to be dull, colorless, dim witted and cold blooded. Turns out not to be the case. They did have some major design flaws (the large dinodaurs had their lungs above their hearts and no diaphram which became a problem when oxygen levels droped over the ages) but otherwise were very complex creatures.

Also, because they were superficially thought to look more like lizards, it tended to be assumed that they gave rise to reptiles who then gave rise to birds. We now know the story was very different.

Some animals just find their happy niche and that's that. The shark and the horseshoe crab are two examples. The shark is definitely impressive.

I mean, look at anchient man and modern man. Did anchient man have a beer belly? Clearly they were superior.

Bottom line Thornheart--
again, if you wish to criticize evolution, you need to look at real evolutionary theory and not rely on young earth type sites to explain it to you.

[Queen_Herpes]

I don't understand why the evolution deniers don't just accept evolution and claim that God made it that way. Every bit of physical evidence supports the earth being around for more than 6,000 years. Let's not forget that a number of these people also believe that the dinosaurs never existed. It took God, (reportedly) 6 days to create the earth and stars and firmament and other jibber-jabber. Arguably God made a few missteps (Adam and Eve and the Apple, Cain killing Abel) that God probably, potentially, maybe, could have misstepped in the early creation OR set things in motion from the beginning. Perhaps God, in creation of Man, started with Australopithecus and was hoping that it would evolve into its current form.

God is supposed to be mysterious and difficult for us to know (hence the need for priests and prophets and other TV evangelists to act as intermediaries between the "rest of us" and God.) Couldn't God be so mysterious as to have not clued-in Moses (when Moses wrote the Bible) to inform Moses about evolution? I mean, the Bible was supposed to be a story that helped people understand everything. Even back then, there was sufficient A-D-D that Moses had to go get the Ten Commandments from God twice, right? I can't believe that anyone would have read Moses' book if it had included reference to every scientific bit of reasoning behind creation and the processes involved. It would have been a very dry read and few people (yours truly included) probably wouldn't have wasted time with it. Could you imagine reading fireside or bedtime stories from the Bible if it included the Periodic Table of Elements? I mean, most of this was oral history anyways before being transcribed, right?

Kudos to Moses for leaving out the part about evolution. Otherwise, no one would have read that book. And where would we be without that book?

[Pedronicus]

Somewhere in America, Thornheart is reading this thread, unable to answer, cursing to himself (in a Ned Flanders non swearing style) and glaring at his bible.

Meanwhile, everyone else in the CC world is laughing at his stupid fucking thread.

[PLAYER57832]

Somewhere in America, Thornheart is reading this thread, unable to answer, cursing to himself (in a Ned Flanders non swearing style) and glaring at his bible.

Meanwhile, everyone else in the CC world is laughing at his stupid fucking thread.

No, in fact, he is shaking his head at how easy it is for us to be decieved.. and perhaps praying that we might "see the truth".

See, none is so blind as he who refuses to see. Thornheart won't see that what he believes about evolution is false, won't see that there is evidence to back evolution, because it would require him to trust sources he has already been convinced lie. And that is why I harp so much on this. You may feel these ideas are just silliness that no UK person would ever accept. I used to think that way myself (though substitute "educated person" for "UK").. and I have watched this movement spread insidiously through conservative churches, just beneath the light of day, occasionally "peaking out",but mostly just quietly building its following.

[Metsfanmax]

I don't understand why the evolution deniers don't just accept evolution and claim that God made it that way.

Few evolution deniers actually believe the science is wrong without believing that because of their religion, and therein lies the rub. To deny the validity of the Bible is to deny the validity of Christianity - because if one doesn't believe in the set of stories presented in the Bible, then Christianity is simply a way, as George Carlin excellently put it, for people to gather and compare clothes once a week. It would be no different from any generic belief, and functionally no different from abiding by a set of moral rules which happened to coincide with the ten commandments. These people aren't just believers in a higher power; they're a member of a social group, which powerfully shapes their views.

[DirtyDishSoap]

Who cares?

[tzor]

I don't understand why the evolution deniers don't just accept evolution and claim that God made it that way.

(2 Peter 3:14-18)Therefore, beloved, since you await these things, be eager to be found without spot or blemish before him, at peace. And consider the patience of our Lord as salvation, as our beloved brother Paul, according to the wisdom given to him, also wrote to you, speaking of these things as he does in all his letters. In them there are some things hard to understand that the ignorant and unstable distort to their own destruction, just as they do the other scriptures. Therefore, beloved, since you are forewarned, be on your guard not to be led into the error of the unprincipled and to fall from your own stability. But grow in grace and in the knowledge of our Lord and savior Jesus Christ. To him be glory now and to the day of eternity. (Amen.)

In other words they twist the "literal" words and miss out on the deeper more important lessons of the scriptures.

[PLAYER57832]

Who cares?

People who understand that science is critical to our society.

[DirtyDishSoap]

Who cares?

People who understand that science is critical to our society.

If it really was critical I'd rather focus on the now then our past, dismiss religion and the theories of how we came about and have people start working on my flying car.

I want my flying car.

[PLAYER57832]

Who cares?

People who understand that science is critical to our society.

If it really was critical I'd rather focus on the now then our past, dismiss religion and the theories of how we came about and have people start working on my flying car.

I want my flying car.

Developing a flying car requires understanding physics, aerodynamics, etc. While it is just barely possible to get those without knowledge upon which evolution is based, it is not possible to achieve much more without truly understanding science. Truly understanding science precludes believing young earth theories.

You don't have to know the constitution to know that you have rights in the US, but it helps!

[Haggis_McMutton]

I used to think that way myself (though substitute "educated person" for "UK").. and I have watched this movement spread insidiously through conservative churches, just beneath the light of day, occasionally "peaking out",but mostly just quietly building its following.

Seriously? Is it really spreading? I don't have any numbers but for some reason i was under the impression that creationism(and religion in general) was in the decline.

Also, what's your take on the guys writing ICR articles. Are they uneducated? Do they somehow managed to posses the knowledge any biologist would have but are still able, through some impressive mental gymnastics, to believe in a young earth? Or are they just doing it for money/ulterior motives/ whatever?