Donating = Loving
Bringing you atheist articles and building active godless communities takes hundreds of hours and resources each month. If you find any joy or stimulation at Atheist Republic, please consider becoming a Supporting Member with a recurring monthly donation of your choosing, between a cup of tea and a good dinner.
Log in or create an account to join the discussions on the Atheist Republic forums.
Donating = Loving
Bringing you atheist articles and building active godless communities takes hundreds of hours and resources each month. If you find any joy or stimulation at Atheist Republic, please consider becoming a Supporting Member with a recurring monthly donation of your choosing, between a cup of tea and a good dinner.
Donating = Loving
Bringing you atheist articles and building active godless communities takes hundreds of hours and resources each month. If you find any joy or stimulation at Atheist Republic, please consider becoming a Supporting Member with a recurring monthly donation of your choosing, between a cup of tea and a good dinner.
FREE E-BOOKS
Get the book "Why There Is No God" and one more book for FREE!
Sign up below for the Atheist Republic Newsletter to get the books.
Record Your Message!
Record your voice here for it to be aired on the Atheist Republic Voicemails Podcast.
Send us your views and opinions, your personal stories, messages of support, comments on recent news, or any comments you would like to share about your part of the world.
Note : By clicking record you are allowing us to broadcast your message on any of our platforms.
Affiliate Disclaimer
Links to atheist related books, shirts and movies and other atheism related products are affiliate links.
All proceeds will go to keeping the Atheist Republic website up and running; providing resources, advocacy, community tools and encouragement to atheists all over the world.
Willfully ignorant would mean the same.
Willfully ignorant would mean the same, yes, and perhaps be more politically correct? ;)
Perhaps it would be more politically correct, but I refuse to sugar coat on this matter. The theory of evolution is one of the most heavily tested theories in all of science.
It is so successful that to unseat it will require:
1) An alternative theory that makes the same exact predictions as the current theory in all studied phenomenon up to the present.
2) This alternative theory must make different predictions than the current theory on some new (currently unknown) phenomenon and these must match observation.
3) Must explain why evolution worked so well for so long, yet was somehow fundamentally wrong.
Each requirement by itself is almost impossible, but taken together it is a pretty tall order.
What is much more likely is tiny modifications will be made as new information is found. This has already happened many times.
I'm not disagreeing whatsoever, and you're more than justified in being aggravated by the intellectual dishonesty and 'pulpit archaeology'. I count myself lucky to not have actually met a real YEC.
I think that out of some mysterious desperation, primarily of a sociopolitical nature, the modern day atheist has a tenuous grasp on reality and so you see an arrogance in evolutionists not unlike the arrogance of the Clergy in the dark ages. If you don't agree with them then you are stupid. I find it simultaneously amusing, revealing and abhorrent.
Evolution is a failed metaphysical experiment that should have been put to rest at least shortly after society ended it's dictation that chimpanzees and piano legs should be made to wear pants when appearing in public.
Pathway Machine - "Evolution is a failed metaphysical experiment"
Science fail, it is a theory not an experiment: dumb on purpose.
Nyarlathotep: Science fail, it is a theory not an experiment: dumb on purpose.
1) theories can not be proved
Pathway Machine: Then stop saying evolution is proved. Stop the doublespeak.
Nyarlathotep: 2) theories are models that make predictions
Pathway Machine: So is astrology.
Nyarlathotep: 3) the validity of a theory is solely determined by how accurate these predictions match observations
Pathway Machine: Speculation, interpretation, theoretical, If you see a bump on a frog's ass and say it's evolution your observations match, if you say it was created that way they don't match. Circular reasoning.
Nyarlathotep: 4) when someone says the word proved they typically mean the idea has preformed extremely well at #3 above
Pathway Machine: Which means absolutely nothing.
Nyarlathotep: 5) the word theory is often used to represent any old idea like "I have a theory why John's backpack is missing".
Pathway Machine: Exactly.
Arrogance out of desperation. Metaphysical experiment.
Pathway Machine - "Then stop saying evolution is proved. Stop the doublespeak."
I never said that. Can I assume you will retract this accusation? Or have you moved into the standard apologists lying phase already?
Pathway Machine: Speculation, interpretation, theoretical, If you see a bump on a frog's ass and say it's evolution your observations match, if you say it was created that way they don't match. Circular reasoning.
Another strawman.
@Pathway Machine
Do you want to know why Human evolution from a Miocene ape got so much attention by the media, and evolutionist just won't let it go?
Oh for crying out loud. All this back and forth. Posting people that are spinning just like the global warming deniers and tobacco corps saying cancer isn't caused by tobacco.
Evolution is real and a fact. DNA proves it.
"Pathway Machine : Nyarlathotep: 2) theories are models that make predictions
Pathway Machine: So is astrology."
When did astrology ever make an accurate prediction. The Evolutionary model has been used to make accurate predictions. Evolution is an undeniable fact. That is what a strong theory is. Fact.
A stong theory is not a fact chimp.
Any Theory is not a fact.
A fact is something you can observe.
A claim that a theory proposes could become a proven fact if it is demonstrated by observation later on.
A theory is a prediction model.
A fact is an observation in some way.
Theory of evolution= prediction that species evolve
Evolution= evolution exists(fact)
Human evolution= that humans do evolve.(there is enough evidence to support this claim(DNA))
Human evolution from a Miocene ape= Macro evolution(extraordinary claim)
4 different claims, when grouped up under one word EVOLUTION people start mixing up things.
It happens
Jeff - "Human evolution from a Miocene ape= Macro evolution(extraordinary claim)"
You are not a special snow flake. Humans are:
Animalia (animals)
Vertebrata (vertebrates)
Mammalia (mammals)
Primates (primates)
Hominoidea (apes)
Hominidae (great apes)
Do you reject all of those? Or just a few?
I'm trying to view this from a neutral perspective...
Jeff, how do you account for DNA comparison showing the human tree of evolution? The kinship with chimpanzees/bonobos, gorillas and orangutans?
I understand there are "gaps in the evidence", but you seem so sure that there is another truth to be found. What is that truth and what makes you so convinced in it?
I look at the evidence presented and I do not see the same attributes "chimpanzees/bonobos, gorillas and orangutans" all share when compared to humans.
They have attributes that truly belong to the habitat they were in.
Fact; just because you do not find fossils of something yet, it does not mean it did not exist before some time period.
There are better and more logical explanations of what could have happened then claiming that a Miocene ape transformed into something completely uncalled for with no explanation at all of how that happened.
What kind of environment would transform a hunter(ape) that has his appendix working perfectly into a creature(human) that has his appendix not working anymore?
Evolution is simple, you adapt to an environment to be better at it.
Not being able to eat basically anything requires an environment that I cannot even imagine.
The way I see it, the Miocene ape had everything better then a human to survive on this planet and yet it went extinct even though they were one of the most numerous specie on the planet since we found so many fossils of them compared to other species.
It is a mystery how we humans without knowledge of fire could survive and they not, when they have thrived for millions of years.
Whatever happened around 200 000 years ago, it was sudden and it drove the Miocene apes to extinction while humans suddenly showed up.
I am sorry to say macro evolution does not explain the evidence presented at all but contradicts them.
Time travel is much more likely then macro evolution regardless of how ridiculous it is.
Thus it is not a good prediction model and should not be used to explain human origins.
"What is that truth and what makes you so convinced in it?"
Do I need to know what happened to understand that the proposed claim is ridiculous and contradictory.
This is like when a theists says something like this:
If god did not do it "What is that truth and what makes you so convinced in it?"
Jeff - "I am sorry to say macro evolution does not explain the evidence presented at all but contradicts them.
Time travel is much more likely then macro evolution regardless of how ridiculous it is."
Jeff; that is crank magnetism all over again.
@ Jeff
"Fact; just because you do not find fossils of something yet, it does not mean it did not exist before some time period."
Yes, I agree.
But there would also be no reason to assume that a species existed before a period from which fossils have been found, unless there is some other kind of evidence suggesting that it did. Otherwise, it would essentially be to ask for proof for a negative, as in: "You cant prove that god does not exist, therefore god exists."
"This is like when a theists says something like this:
If god did not do it "What is that truth and what makes you so convinced in it?""
Sure, and then we show them the fossil record, DNA comparison, explain the theory of evolution, etc... Just a single tooth from a single possible ancestor is infinitely more proof than a theists has for their god being responsible for creating anything at all. (I don't doubt that you are aware of that, I'm just trying to make the point clear.)
"Do I need to know what happened to understand that the proposed claim is ridiculous and contradictory."
No, of course not.
That wasn't what I was saying. I'll try to explain what I'm trying to ask for...
We have proof of human evolution/origins, in the form of fossils, DNA comparison, etc. Yes, there are gaps, that is undeniable. I get that you are saying that the evidence that we have for human evolution is not at all convincing enough.
But, from my point of view there is nothing else that provides any convincing evidence than the evidence we already have. It seems the most plausible evidence there is, and since we now and then keep finding more evidence that fit in the gaps, it seems all the more correct and consistent to me. A worst case scenario when finding new fossils is that some assumed time lines need adjustments or a new branch pops up, not something that would break the theory of evolution.
So what alternatives are there? You gave "time travel" as an example. I have no idea if you meant that seriously, but we can take any example: extraterrestrials, time travel, deities, hollow earth, etc. For all I know, extraterrestrials did a drive-by-DNA-alteration 200000 years ago, but there is no evidence for that to make it a more convincing scenario than a single fossil of a possible ancestor.
Since you seem so sure that the evidence we do have, is not nearly convincing enough, my assumption is that you think something else is more plausible. Is there any evidence for anything else that is more likely to be the truth?
How have you come to the conclusion that there is a more plausible alternative?
"Yes, I agree.
But there would also be no reason to assume"
I did not assume anything.
A guy claimed that macro evolution is supported by evidence and the evidence is not there.
What he presented are biased assumptions like the assumption that there are no fossils before a particular time period of a specie.
I'm just pointing out that fact for whoever uses this assumption as if it is evidence.
(I don't doubt that you are aware of that, I'm just trying to make the point clear.)
yes but I am saying that having an alternative explanation is not the reason behind rejecting a ridiculous argument.
You reject for it's own reasons like having contradictory claims, or contradicting some evidence.
"I get that you are saying that the evidence that we have for human evolution is not at all convincing enough."
Actually what i am saying is that the evidence contradicts macro evolution, it basically shows quite the opposite, that macro evolution cannot be what happened since the evidence show that some main aspects of macro evolution are contradictory when applied to humans.
Eg:
Macro evolution is an explanation of how a specie adapts to an environment through generations.
If one cannot even provide the environments to explain the adaptation there is simply no case.
There is no explanation.
The hypothesis is scraped by default.
Unless you provide the explanation you are believing it on faith and not a conclusion derived from science or reason.
Eg:
What kind of environment habitat would make apes lose the hair that has protected them from sun radiation and cold for millions of years?
What was the environment that completely restructured the feet bones of humans to become unbalanced and weak as they are today?
What was the environment that changed the eye, from a hunter night vision eye, to a color vision eye?
What was the environment that made the appendix not working anymore?
These are very important questions to be answered first before making the claim that it magically happened.
AS I said, I do not need to provide an alternative reason, I can prove that macro evolution could not have happened unless a person can provide a single possible habitat that explains the differences from a Miocene ape to a human.
The fact that one cannot even imagine one is shocking to the point that the proposition that time travel happened is more likely since I can imagine that at least.
@ Jeff
"Actually what i am saying is that the evidence contradicts macro evolution, it basically shows quite the opposite, that macro evolution cannot be what happened since the evidence show that some main aspects of macro evolution are contradictory when applied to humans."
Okay.
My stance is that, I'm willing to change my beliefs if sufficient evidence is presented.
What then is the evidence that shows that "some main aspects of macro evolution are contradictory when applied to humans"?
"Unless you provide the explanation you are believing it on faith and not a conclusion derived from science or reason."
Yes but as I understand it, we have a certain amount of evidence and from my point of view it holds up. You claim it does not and contains contradictions, but what I'm asking for is:
Why doesn't the evidence we have hold up? What are the contradictions or what constitutes more plausible evidence?
"What kind of environment habitat would make apes lose the hair that has protected them from sun radiation and cold for millions of years?
What was the environment that completely restructured the feet bones of humans to become unbalanced and weak as they are today?
What was the environment that changed the eye, from a hunter night vision eye, to a color vision eye?
What was the environment that made the appendix not working anymore?"
My answer is, I don't know. But the evidence we have is all we have. I don't believe a deity intervened any more than I believe aliens or time travel is the explanation. Because all of the other hypothesis have zero evidence, as far as I know.
I re-edited it.
You are too fast :P
All done :)
"My answer is, I don't know. "
"I don't know."is not enough to justify how unlikely a claim is.
It is like when theists say "How can one know the mind of god?"
You cannot first claim A happened, and then when asked how did that something happen you reply" I don't know" in science.
If you claim that Macro evolution happened, you MUST explain how did macro evolution happen.
If you don't, then you are considered as sprouting nonsense and ignored.
"But the evidence we have is all we have. I don't believe a deity intervened any more than I believe aliens or time travel is the explanation. Because all of the other hypothesis have zero evidence, as far as I know."
is it possible that that you cannot distinguish between degree of likelihood?
If I claim:
1)that an ape transformed to change his body completely(into a human), in a way that not a single bone even matches anymore to that of an ape.
2)that an unknown specie is the ancestor of humans which has much more similar physical features.
Which is more likely?
1 or 2?
"Why doesn't the evidence we have hold up?"
there is no evidence, just propaganda.
list the evidence here.
DNA you mentioned before (mitochondrial DNA) proves the first female is only max 300 000 years old while macro evolution expect millions of years for it to happen.
That is evidence against macro evolution, not for it.
The DNA evidence is clear, before 300 000 years ago the human race did not exist as a specie, or better described, the mtDNA was so drastically different that it cannot be traced further back.
let me tell you a piece of history:
There was once a huge debate(war) evolutionists in the scientific community were divided in 2 big groups.
-1 group was following the Darwinian principle of millions of years for evolution to occur and estimated that the split from the common ancestor occurred around a minimum of 8 million years ago.
-Another group was more evidence based and looked at the fossils and saw that 3 million years ago apes were walking upright already so they claimed that the split was a maximum at 5 million years and a minimum of 3 million years ago.
They decided to settle the problem with the mitochondrial DNA test and find the first woman.
After the test came in they were shocked it wasn't 8 mil , not even 3 million, but just 100 000 -300 000 years only.
"Bullshit , it was a mistake , do it again"
"We did it a 100 times already"
"We don't care it MUST be wrong, do it a 1000 until you get it right."
result:
The scientific community was wrong. and instead of throwing macro evolution in the bin, no they just said, "until we have a "better" explanation let it stay there for now."
@ Jeff
""I don't know."is not enough to justify how unlikely a claim is.
It is like when theists say "How can one know the mind of god?""
I don't think I have nearly enough information to be able to make any educated guesses to the questions you asked. So the honest answer is: I don't know.
To do that would require me to brush up a lot on the specific subject of human evolution.
"You cannot first claim A happened, and then when asked how did that something happen you reply" I don't know" in science.
If you claim that Macro evolution happened, you MUST explain how did macro evolution happen.
If you don't, then you are considered as sprouting nonsense and ignored."
Always the same antagonist... I'm not making claims. I'm just pointing out that we do have some evidence and I'm asking you, what makes you so confident in that it is not valid or even evidence against human evolution.
"is it possible that that you cannot distinguish between degree of likelihood?"
I'm not sure exactly what you mean by that, but of course it's possible that I can be wrong or unwittingly biased.
"f I claim:
1)that an ape transformed to change his body completely(into a human), in a way that not a single bone even matches anymore to that of an ape.
2)that an unknown specie is the ancestor of humans which has much more similar physical features.
Which is more likely?
1 or 2?"
With the evidence I know about, I'd have to give you the answer you don't want to hear: Alternative 1 (assuming you are talking about Darwinian evolution).
As far as I know there is no fossil or other evidence, that would support alternative 2.
I'm not saying it's impossible, far from it.
Do you have any recommendations for links or other sources one can read about this and the mitochondrial DNA test?
Mt DNA is public knowledge you can look it up.
Try what i just found on the net which seems acceptable but I have not read it all.:
http://www.mhrc.net/mitochondrialEve.htm
You keep claiming again and again that there is evidence for a claim.
I claimed there is none and begged for you to list them.
Yet you seem to avoid this subject with the excuse that you are not competent on the subject.
If you are not competent you are admitting that you believe it on faith and not science logic etc....
You are trusting what other say about something, exactly like theists trust their local priest because they think they know better on matters of god.
When you do not know something, the only acceptably position is that we currently do not know.
You can say this guys says that, but somewhere you have to say I do not know.
If some evidence convinced you of a claim, present it here.
I will not accept anything which is not an extraordinary evidence for the extraordinary claim that a specie that has absolutely nothing similar to another, could transform over generations randomly into another in such a relatively short time.
(btw you cannot even present normal evidence either, but do try)
The fact that you lack the capacity or the will to even understand how absurd this claim is, is the problem.
You heard it so many times by so many different people, that its became your default position, to the point that I need evidence to convince you otherwise.
The burden of proof for the claim suddenly got shifted on the one not making the claim.
It is called an argument of popularity fallacy.
"With the evidence I know about"
you mean the propaganda you accustomed to listen?
Did you just say somewhere that you do not know?
Go and read the actual papers and see how humble the actual scientists are on this subject.
Do you really think that papers like the aquatic ape hypothesis would arise or even be considered if there was evidence of macro evolution from a Miocene(land) ape?
The evidence is so thin and contradictory that the scientific community don't have a clue about what happened when asked about those questions I asked you.
I knew you could not answer them because they cannot answer them and it is shown in their papers.
They completely avoid the subject and focus on small aspects like social behavior growing the brain size, etc...
(which btw they conclude that this is just a speculation)
Palm facing when reading those "scientific" papers.
It is ridiculous that in 2016 they have not progressed one bit with knowledge of how human evolution occurred from Darwin's paper which was thin in itself of how it happened in the first place.
Considering how much money, politics was involved in this, the entire scientific community risking their reputation, jobs to support this for so many years, you world expect they would at least deliver a possible scenario(not evidence) of how the bones of the feet of an ape, were completely changed to a different functioning output,(they don't work the same, and function to do the same things).
nope they are left with the same old excuse:
"well nature can do everything."
very similar to:
"God can do everything."
This is the type of bullshit you would expect when someone is wrong.
BTW
The correct answer was 2
It is not a matter of opinion.
It is a fact that 2 is more likely then 1.
Since 2 is one of the last stages required for 1 to happen.
(I.E. The unknown specie has an ancestor which is an ape. like the current hypothesis of macro evolution predicts)
Just wanted to show you how biased you are, to the point of not understanding what is more likely.
This is what I feel whenever we debate.
You seem to ignore what i am saying and focus on what I wish the conclusion is.
It blinds you from honest discourse, and ends the discussion basically.
@ Jeff
Every time you have a discussion it turns into "You made a claim!" and passive aggressive antagonising. Can't a simple question be asked without turning into a pissing contest?
"You are trusting what other say about something..."
Yes! I'm trusting a peer reviewed community. So I'm a faith-head! Right?
So, let me ask you, have you personally done all the research on everything known to humanity? When you got your first touch screen phone, did you dismantle it and verify that the claimed solution was indeed the solution that was used, and not magic or alien technology?
Could it be that you also trust "what other say about something"? It would be a hectic life to research and verify everything all the time.
I'm willing to admit ignorance or that I'm wrong. And I understand full well that money and politics can corrupt just about anything. I also understand that in the collective knowledge in a peer reviewed community, it's possible that there are large errors and/or agendas.
I'm thankful that you in effect pointed out a part of the commonly accepted evidence which has flaws that I was largely unaware about.
Regarding the evidence for human evolution and mitochondrial DNA, I will read up on it (given time) because I find it interesting. But I'm not about to jump through hoops just because you demand it and start listing every schoolbook and article I've read through the years. That's just ridiculous.
"Go and read the actual papers and see how humble the actual scientists are on this subject."
I asked you for recommendations, to give you the chance to show me the information that is "correct" according to you, or obviously flawed information. But you don't seem interested to do so.
I was genuinely curious, so I asked you what makes you so confident that you're right and the presumed evidence of the scientific community is wrong. You successfully killed my curiosity to know your perspective.
Forget I asked.
"I asked you for recommendations"
No you asked me for alternatives which have evidence.
I simply won't reply to that, since it is insulting for me be expected to produce alternatives to your ridiculous default position.
Would you produce an alternative for whoever says god created the black holes?
"But you don't seem interested to do so."
I gave you a link and it had papers as references to the subject.
As I said it is public knowledge, you could check easily with a google search.
"to give you the chance to show me the information that is "correct" according to you"
instead of just going on sites of evolution, check the papers.
I did point you in the right direction.
I don't have a bias that says , "this is the right paper this is the wrong one", i know the papers do not provide the basic requirement of environments, you can go and check them all.
" I understand full well that money and politics can corrupt just about anything."
Thank goodness that you at least accept what is more likely.
"hen we debate you fail at getting to basic common sens things.
If I cannot get you to reason on those, there is nothing I could say that will get to you.
You leave me with the feeling.
I'm just wasting my time with this guy.
"Every time you have a discussion it turns into "You made a claim!""
Maybe just maybe, you actually did make the claim and you cannot understand the neutral position.
It is irrelevant how many books you read on one thing when it comes how much it is based on evidence.
"So, let me ask you, have you personally done all the research on everything known to humanity?"
No, but if I did not check something, i do not say I have a position on it.
I say i do not know.
I will only have a position when I have verified that whatever the claim is, has evidence to support it.
At worse i would say:
The scientific community current position is ...........
You seemed to start with the scientific position as if you know that is the more reliable position, because the media says so.
That is a problem when finding the truth.
Unless you get rid of that, you will never be unbiased.
"Could it be that you also trust "what other say about something"?"
i do when I see the phone working, i trust it works, there is evidence for it to work, my eyes.
When someone says that man cannot possibly fly, like the entire scientific community said, and came up with scientific papers and mathematical formulas that proved that man cannot possibly fly.
It was people that actually read those papers and saw how biased they were that said, "these guys are not scientific, but were pushed by greed, pride and bias to start from the answer rather then the evidence presented.
Macro evolution was a proposition that also started from the answer.
Humans exist, apes exist, therefor we must have come from them,
Al we need now is find the evidence for it.
(dam still looking after 100 years but lets put more propaganda on it for now)
People like you were the people that could have prevented the discovery of aerodynamics.
People who accept what the media says without question or trying to imagine at least a way of how could something happen.
The reason why you could not answer my questions is because they are so unlikely or impossible that with all the level of imagination we all collectively have(scientists included) we could not imagine a habitat to effect a specie and make such drastic physical changes.
NOT EVEN IMAGINE IT
A person not effected by bias can see this problem without me pointing at it, and many scientist do realize and say nothing about it for fear of loosing their jobs, pride and popularity.
In fact all papers avoid the subject entirely, even though they are claiming to give an explanation of human origins through macro evolution.
"Forget I asked."
I did answer your question, you just were too biased to see my basic common sens reasoning.
I am not putting alternative hypothesis there because that would show that you understood nothing of what i said above.
When you finally admit that the macro evolution hypothesis is the most unlikely thing that could have happened because we cannot even imagine it, then and only then, we can proceed to what actually is more likely that happened.
Things we can actually imagine and build scenarios on. That is science.
...and the one link you provided is by a Christian Creationist, at the "Molecular History Research Center". An organization that doesn't seem to exist except in his domain name "mhrc.net" and in his logotype. A "teacher" former teacher at the Antillian Adventist Uneversity, who thinks he's had encounters with demons.
Thanks, but I think I'll find the info for myself.
I edited my previous post, you are too fast as always :P
"Thanks, but I think I'll find the info for myself."
that is exactly what i wanted you to do from start.
check the papers and see if any of them offers an possible environment of how evolution could have changed the structure of the feet, the rib cage, etc of a homo erectus(ape) to a cro-magnon(human).
I said I did only a few seconds google search for that link, but what he seems to propose is not wrong in itself, can you get past the bias and see what people say and not who says them and why?
@ Jeff
My apologies for the late reply (swamped at work, house guests, etc).
Having a simple discussion with you is exhausting.
You have many good points, but at the same time (at least as it seems to me), when the questions are regarding certain subjects, you take the immediate stance that the person asking you questions is hostile and that the person is a complete idiot who has his mindset locked.
In such situations, in almost everything you write you insinuate bias, gullibility, bad judgement or worse...
Pointing out mistakes, ignorance, etc, can be done without being insulting. I'm by no means saying I'm perfect. I have slipped up many times, but I'm learning and improving.
That said...
I'm currently reading about epistemology, specifically on the disadvantages of having an unreliable epistemology. Most notably: Faith. As in, having beliefs that are not based on evidence or likelihood. While reading about this, I'm also trying to re-evaluate my own assumptions.
In light of this, I find it fascinating that you seem so sure that macro evolution is lacking in evidence, specifically in the case of human evolution. That is why I asked.
"No you asked me for alternatives which have evidence.
I simply won't reply to that, since it is insulting for me be expected to produce alternatives to your ridiculous default position.
Would you produce an alternative for whoever says god created the black holes?"
I don't even get what you mean by "alternatives" here.
It was not intended as a demand or an expectation. I asked specifically if you have any recommendations.
Why did I ask? Because I can spend time trying to find all the relevant information on this subject and sift through it all, and then I'll probably be done in 5-10 years (free time isn't free, you know...). And as I tried to explain, I was interested to first of all find the information you think shows the problems you address, instead of having to go through everything.
I don't expect anyone to cough up tons of material for anyone who asks. But there is no harm in asking...
The simple answer that I now have "find and read through the actual scientific papers, skip sites about evolution" is a good help in that regards. Though, I have no idea about the workload that actually means.
"Maybe just maybe, you actually did make the claim and you cannot understand the neutral position.
It is irrelevant how many books you read on one thing when it comes how much it is based on evidence."
Yes.
My way of thinking and expressing myself is not as exact as it seems to be for you. My intention was not at all to claim that "there is proof", but rather to say that, as far as I'm aware, the consensus is that there is proof; and then to ask, what about it makes it invalid?
"You seemed to start with the scientific position as if you know that is the more reliable position, because the media says so."
It's not so much what that the media says (I'm not at all a person who trusts media), but it's rather that it was what was taught in school. And what is said in media and scientific magazines doesn't really dispute/refute what was taught. There has been virtually nothing that I have come across that claims that the "gaps in the evidence are to great" and/or "the biological development during this periods are to great to be explained by the evidence."
"A person not effected by bias can see this problem without me pointing at it"
It's as if you assume that everyone digs up all the scientific papers on any and all subjects and makes a detailed analysis of it.
I have only an elementary knowledge in the subject of human evolution. If nobody
"People like you were the people that could have prevented the discovery of aerodynamics."
I find this is a very derogatory and judgemental remark. Is it really so hard to have a civil discussion and leave out personal insults?
"When you finally admit that the macro evolution hypothesis is the most unlikely thing that could have happened..."
In 5-10 years, when I've had the time to catch up on the subject, if I come to the conclusion that the biological development during some period is to great to be explained by the evidence and that, as you say about the human foot, "we could not imagine a habitat to effect a specie and make such drastic physical changes", I don't see a reason for there to have been anything more "fantastic" than events we don't know or understand yet.
Like drastic but beneficial mutations, epigenetics beyond our current understanding, perhaps in combination with walking upright or secondary effects of intelligence, like starting to cook our food.
My thought is that just because "we can't even imagine it", is not a valid reason to say it couldn't have happened. It may just be beyond current understanding.
Pages