That reply was excellent, especially the spirit of collegiality that Love is which I sensed IN it! Plus the pictures and illustrations and all! I love all of that!:)
I commend you!:)
So I wd like to encourage to do the same again and at all times whether any question or comment is SIGNED ape or leakey or gould or darwin or dawkins or etc! Doing the same when YOUR OWN AUTHORITIES are quoted, mined or not, --but especially when mined! --- enhances your standing with me myself and I am sure with others! That way you set the example to other evolutionists as to how --IN & WITH LOVE AND RESPECT--to handle questions posed in the name of EVOLUTIONARY AUTHORITIES --ESPECIALLY SINCE YOU SAY THAT YOU STILL FIND HOW THEY AGREE WITH YOU----just as I am setting the example to creationists and IDs ---notice ATHENA's response and she may not even be a ider nor creationist! --- as to how --IN & WITH LOVE AND RESPECT---to handle any responses like quote-mining and etc--- and how I, who am always talking about LOVE, wd love to get questions and quotes, even A question or A quote, from ANYONE quoting MY AUTHORITY & -TIES, especially from any atheist or evolutionist, as to why and how MY OWN AUTHORITY says and cd say that he loves Jacob and hates Esau or that there are 6 things he hates, or how come David, the man after his own heart says that he hates his enemies with perfect Hatred! Hint!
Now on to the 2ndary subject overall, but to the primary subject of this thread underall!:)
Thanx!Alun wrote: Good question. I actually left most of the evidence for this argument out, as I had anticipated debate with ID advocates, not creationists. I have as of now added more information in the way of proof to this premise.
Alun wrote: In fact the best way of dating fossils and geological strata is a technique called radioisotope dating.
Thanx for all those details.
So how do you answer this guy? What's he missing?
"Eleven human skeletons, the earliest known human remains in the Western hemisphere, have recently been dated by this new accelerator mass spectrometer technique. All eleven were dated at about 5,000 radiocarbon years or less! If more of the claimed evolutionary ancestors of man are tested and are also found to contain carbon-14, a major scientific revolution will occur and thousands of textbooks will become obsolete."
Walter T. Brown, In the Beginning (1989).
bold and underline by ape
Xlnt pics! That skeleton surely looks like mine!:)Alun wrote:You don't think this looks like an intermediate?ape wrote: Except for me, of course, why no ape-human intermediate-species nor transitional links found? They don't exist? Or what?
Lucy is important because it walked upright, but did not have the brain capacity of a human.
But is it dated correctly?
"Zihlman compares the pygmy chimpanzee to "Lucy," one of the oldest hominid fossils known and finds the similarities striking. They are almost identical in body size, in stature; and in brain size.... These commonalties, Zihlman argues indicate that pygmy chimps use their limbs in much the same way Lucy did...."
ADRIENNE L ZIHLMAN, U. C. Santa Cruz,
Science News, Vol.123, Feb.5. 1983.
How is that new AMS working?
Any thing newer since 1989?
Why wd or shd a r-evoltuion occur if Brown is right?
Is Zihlman right?
Alun wrote: And later came species like [the ones you showed].
Was Ergaster found before 1989?
And if not, does Brown's comments and this statement below still apply?
"A great legend has grown up to plague both paleontologists and anthropologists. It is that one of them can take a tooth or a small and broken piece of bone, gaze at it, and pass his hand over his forehead once or twice, and then take a sheet of paper and draw a picture of what the whole animal looked like as it tramped the Terriary terrain. If this were quite true, the anthropologists would make the F.B.I. look like a troop of Boy Scouts." W. Howells, Harvard, MANKIND SO FAR.
Alun wrote:Most definitely. Even today, bacterial cells are next to nothing compared to eukaryotic cells. ....ape wrote:Are you saying that the cell has grown even more complex since the first one?
But what of this statement by Monod?
"....we have no idea what the structure of a primitive cell might have been. The simplest living system known to us, the bacterial cell....in....its overall chemical plan is the same as that of all other living beings. It employs the same genetic code and the same mechanism of translation as do, for example, human cells. Thus the simplest cells available to us for study have nothing 'primitive' about them....no vestiges of truly primitive structures are discernible."
Jacques Monod, French biochemist, Nobel Prize winner, CHANCE AND NECESSITY. underline by ape
Alun wrote:Pretty much just what it sounds like; more specialization, more order, and usually the mobilization of more resources.ape wrote:What was the criteria for talking about 'the growing complexity of the form of life on Earth.'?Both ways, I guess. I am not really using complexity versus simplicity to say anything definitive, just describe what evolution looks like to me.ape wrote:Do things usually only work from simple to complex or do they also usually work from complex to simple or do they usually work both ways?
Both OPPOSITE ways! Xlnt!
So then, you realise that things that are complicatingly simple also look complex, and things that simply complicating also look simple, which means that we can't go by sight or by what it looks like to us only. Big rule in Science as you know: things are never only what they seem.
Alun wrote:Paleontologists. The first fossils are of bacteria.ape wrote:If they work both ways, which evolutionist or 'nists determined that the simple form of life came first as the usual suspect?;)
And what are and where are the ancestors of bacteria?
And what say you to these guys?
"I am also aware of the fact that, at least in my own subject of paleoanthropology, "theory" - heavily influenced by implicit ideas almost always dominates "data". ....Ideas that are totally unrelated to actual fossils have dominated theory building, which in turn strongly influence the way fossils are interpreted." David Pilbeam, Yale, quoted in BONES OF CONTENTION.
underline by ape
"The fossil record with its abrupt transitions offers no support for gradual change...All paleontologists know that the fossil record contains precious little in the way of intermediate forms; transitions between major groups are characteristically abrupt."
Stephen Jay Gould, paleontologist at Harvard,(1977)
underline by ape
"...we have proffered a collective tacit acceptance of the story of gradual adaptive change, a story that strengthened and became even more entrenched as the synthesis took hold. We paleontologists have said that the history of life supports that interpretation, all the while really knowing that it does not."
Niles Eldredge, Chairman and Curator of Invertebrates, American Museum of Natural History.
underline and bold by ape
"It remains true, as every paleontologist knows, that most new species, genera, and families and that nearly all new categories above the level of families appear in the record suddenly and are not led up to be known, gradual, completely continuous transitional sequences." George Gaylord Simpson, professor of vertebrate paleontology at Harvard.(1965) underline by ape
Alun wrote:Yes. The idea is that if we observe things without any distractions, we'll be getting less biased data to work with.ape wrote:Isn't dealing with the evolution of life while making no conclusions about how evolution happened nor about where the life that evolution evolves comes from... analogous to, similar to, comparable to... talking about the rain-bow while not discusing where rain comes from, ... or talking about words without talking about where letters came from,
But the Bias of Hatred works whether one is distracted with distractions or with no distractions! In fact, the focus of the Bias of Hatred works 'better' in and on its object when there are NO distractions!
We have to look at the specifics and look at, by keeping it in mind at all times, the overall body of evidence at the same thime! And vice versa! We can walk and talk and chew gum at the same time!:) So there is only one way out:
This double-duty necessitates the Love in attitude for attractions and distractions or repulsions, for the atom and the Uni.
Well natural selection is in part an explanation of where natural selection came from and how natural selection happens, but I do think it's a very separate issue from the genesis of life in the beginning. [/quote]ape wrote:or talking about the natural selection in life without talking about where life came from nor where NS came from or how NS happened?
Hmmmm To me that NS sounds like God himself being self-creating! God explaining where God came and comes from: himself, and HOW he happens: in the very Love by which he defines himself!:) Hmmmmmm
Cd Natural Selection be another name for God, and vice versa? Is NS God in other words, and vice versa?
So don't you think that everything is interconnected?
“Einstein shows that the holism of Quantum Theory asserts that there is a sense in which everything is connected to everything else. This has been confirmed."
John Archibald Wheeler,1911-2008, Director of the Center for Theoretical Physics at the University of Texas-Austin, Joseph Henry Professor of Physics Emeritus at Princeton University.
Alun, what is happening is this:
"It was-and still is-very hard to arrive at this concept from [ONLY] inside biology. The trouble lay in an unremitting cultural struggle which had developed from 1860 onward between biologists on the one hand and the supporters of old beliefs on the other.
The old believers said that rabbits had been created by God using methods too wonderful for us to comprehend.
The new believers said that rabbits had been created from sludge, by methods too complex for us to calculate and by methods likely enough involving improbable happenings.
Improbable happenings replaced miracles,
and sludge replaced God,
with believers both old and new seeking to cover up their ignorance in clouds of words, but different [OPPOSITE] words.
It was over the [OPPOSITE] words that
passions [OF HATE] raged,
passions [OF HATE] which continue to rumble on in the modern world,
passions [OF HATE] that one can read about with hilarious satisfaction in the columns of the weekly science magazine Nature and listen to in basso profundo pronouncements from learned scientific societies."
Fred Hoyle, late mathematician, physicist and Professor of Astronomy, Cambridge University, "Mathematics of Evolution," , Acorn Enterprises: Memphis TN, 1999.
Only Love and Respect for all words and their opposites can solve this problem and, of course, solve all other problems we have in the world today and in the future.
Words are the eyes of our eyes, and Love is the Eye of all words and their opposites!:) Is why we have the Mind's Eye or the Mind's I!
Alun wrote: Perhaps this will make more sense to you once we get to the natural selection part of the argument; there are many things that occasionally are said of natural selection, but it is a fairly limited idea.
Thanx! It will make more sense to me then since it already makes so much sense to me now!:)
Alun wrote:Thanks; you too.ape wrote:Hope you had and/or is still having a nice Xmas or holiday!:)