Australopithecus Sediba

The whole paradigm is based on arbitrary designations! We agree!

Not so. Sure it's inherited, but that doesn't mean it's all related.

Can you give an example? --You just admitted it was all arbitrary.

So...is this an argument from ignorance? Isn't that a big no-no that is often the bane of the theist's arguments?

 

So it IS argument from ignorance.

 

Can I ask you some questions just to see where you are in this?

Say you have three languages A, B and C. Language A has a word "cup" to denote a bowl-shaped object from which to drink beverages. Language B has the word "Kupf" to denote the very same object while language C uses the word чашка (tjashka) for the same object.

Is there any chance that, just on the basis of the words for this one object, we might find reasons to assume possible relationships between the 3 languages? And could there be any chance, you think, that further investigation of similarities and, especially, dissimilarities between these 3 languages could produce even more reasons to assume possible relationships and perhaps even refine such an assumption? If so, is it bonkers to think that we might get the idea to call such data evidence of linguistic relationships?

 

Uh, no it isn't an argument from ignorance, I don't think you're using that fallacy correctly. We know how DNA works, we know that if we are all related then DNA sequencing across all diverse organisms should look exactly how it DOES look. If you have a better explanation then the burden of proof shifts to you.

 

Early Man(Cro Magnon) find in South America in early part of 20th century burried and poo pooed even though Photos exist , Finds like this will disprove the Out of Africa as only viable beginning .

 

Evolution is a means to explain the the transition, it is not about the origin of life. don't get the origin of species and life confused.

 

Don't try to distance the theory further from reality than it already goes. Evolution does not exist in isolation from the history of the world. Either it is part of what the world is and has developed, or it isn't. You can't pick your epoch and ignore the origin of life and the development/existence of diverse creatures.

 

This weasels out of responsibility for an unfounded claim. That IS the definition of argument from ignorance and it's what you just did above:

 

And even the reporter who wrote the story understood that one implication of this was that A. Sediba could have been a 'cousin' of A. Afarensis. There's little reason to think there was only one species of Australopithecines at any given time.

Except, you know, the cranial development.

You had trouble in math classes, didn't you? If you accept progressive change and adaptation on a small scale, you must necessarily accept change and adaptation on a large scale, given longer periods of time. If you keep making small changes, eventually the accumulated changes will be so great that it establishes reproductive isolation. That's a species.

Except, you know, the massive fossil record that screams speciation, the transitional fossil evidence, the observed examples of speciation, and the logical sensibility of the proposal given the evidence.

What it shows is that there are many potential evolutionary paths for hominids, and provides one potential example.

 

There are also instances where things appear to be related linguistically, but in fact have no relationship whatsoever.

Because this is a false analogy you are making, you may wish to say you are "embarrassed" by saying, "estoy embarazada." However, my response to that would be perhaps you were "bare-assed" at the time, but now "CONGRATULATIONS!"



NO RELATIONSHIP. Correlation does not denote causation.

 

Uh...no...did you read it? cranial size is smaller.

Is that your excuse?

 

Except I am not claiming that evolution is true because it hasn't been proven false. Are you going to deny that DNA is evidence in favor of evolution? We understand inheritance, we understand DNA. If you are saying it is NOT evidence because it could have all been "poofed" into existence, that is a completely different claim BY YOU and the burden of proof shifts TO YOU. I'm confused how you think this is an "unfounded claim" that DNA evidence is inherited.

 

You are dancing around the fact that inheritance does not denote inter-relatedness of organisms of differing types.

The paradigm is so strong that it doesn't even occur to adherents with blind faith to question the veracity of the claim at the basis. I never said anything was "poofed" into existence--that's you and your false dichotomy. I showed you the definition of argument from ignorance which addresses that fallacy.

Remember: " ... the choices may in fact not be two (true or false), but may be as many as four, (1) true, (2) false, (3) unknown between true or false, and (4) being unknowable (among the first three)." ??

You are creating the false dichotomy of it's either all species are interrelated through DNA inheritance or "poof!"

It's YOUR false dichotomy, and YOUR argument from ignorance, and YOUR attempt to shift the burden of proof.



I am not talking about changes in a species over time. I'm taller than my parents--human beings in general are taller at this point in history than in the past--that's evolution. However, there is no evidence that any creature has changed from one creature into another creature over ANY length of time. In fact, as a. Sediba likely demonstrates, the variety of developments in creatures is legion and may not have ANYTHING at all to do with this artificial and arbitrary construct (as you already noted earlier) of taxonomy. It's a paradigm! And the more discoveries, the more convoluted and mathematically improbable are the claims of the unity of the origins of life. It's specious and it's time to see it for what it is.

 

Sorry, but our claim has already been defended by, oh I don't know, around 70 years of research on DNA. And once again, it is only an argument from ignorance if I claimed that it is true because nobody has proven it false. It is true because we have KNOW HOW DNA IS INHERITED How the hell are you not getting that?

Sorry, but the fossil record, DNA evidence, and speciation events completely demolish that claim.

 

It never ceases to amaze me how antiscience some people can be while they live a life that only science can provide.

 

Biogenesis and evolution are just two different topics. Evolution cant answer the questions of Biogenesis, it was never meant to.

 

Note that I only asked these questions to see where you are in this. I simply try to understand what kind of limit it is you impose on our ability to resolve historical developments, be it between species or, in this case, between languages.

And from your reply it seems that your position is that there is no way we can conclude anything about relationships between historical developments regarding any subject. Is that correctly understood?

Say, for instance, that we have evidence of interactions (e.g. trade or conquest) between people in the regions where the 3 languages from above are spoken, could that perhaps support the assumed morphological relationships between those languages. In such a way that we may conclude, for example, that there is more than correlations, or lack of correlation, between "cup" and "Kupf" and чашка?

 

This is explained through observations which indicate that the evolution of modern homo sapiens was not a linear process where one species evolves into the next species etc etc etc. Fossil evidence indicates that multiple species of australopithecenes and/ or homo ancestors lived on the planet simultaneously. For example, Homo sapiens and Neanderthals were known to exist at the same time and recent genetic studies indicate that interbreeding occurred between the two. Although we are almost certain that A. sediba shares a common ancestor with homo sapiens it is not known if H. sapiens are direct ancestors of A. sediba.

In a broader sense, phylogenetic evidence gathered over the last two decades has become perhaps the strongest single line of evidence supporting the ToE. It is now possible to arbitrarily and objectively define the relative evolutionary history of all known life today. As different as a bacterium and a human might be, both organisms share certain functional genes. These genes are common to all known life thus comparisons of these genes allow scientists to generate a 'tree of life' that maps out the relative evolutionary history of all organisms based on phylogenetic information.

I would encourage people who are uncertain about the merits of ToE to really dig into what lines of evidence the ToE is based upon as well as what the ToE actually explains/ predicts. Its important to note that explanations for the origin of life on this planet are not included in the ToE.

 

I'm not talking about biogenesis--I'm talking about evolution AFTER life came into being.

Jeesh...How resistant you people are to look at the basis of your ideologies,

 

I'm waiting for the bacterial flagellum to be introduced to this argument.

 

Your repeated fallacious assertions does not make it so. I know that's how specious "science" has become so ingrained that it's nearly impossible to talk about these things without using the faulty language, but seriously....what happened to genuine inquiry? It seems falsity told often enough are taken as "truth/"

 

If the very first single cell organism had to be irreducibly complex, what then?

 

That the lack of a fossil record. And the stages of anything that would be observable in the evolutionary process is missing. Instead we get nice little pieces to stick into a theory thats starting to get taped up with bandaides.

Good! Then we will start calling it,(ToE) "The theory of EVERYTHINGOLUTION "! Thanks.

 

If I were you I wouldn't put it in the way of getting anything.

 

You mean? I don't understand.