... the opinion of one or even a few remote people of reknown are not all that valuable given the enormity of the deception and false science concerned.
.
One example. .. I for instance. was taught through high school that man decended from apes. I remember well the little drawings in textbooks presented to show how man made this transition.
Yes, it is deceptive to use drawings in high school textbooks (not known for scientific accuracy in any science btw, as they are not written by scientists but editors working for a book company that wants to turn a profit), especially when there is actual evidence you can use (drawings aren't evidence are they?)
The Unique Universal Phylogenetic Tree, Copyright © 1999-2002 by Douglas Theobald, Ph.D.(1999-2002):
- (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
Note that (A) is a modern chimpanzee and than (J), (K) and (L) are neanderthals - another branch on the hominid tree.
Of course there is some discussion these days whether chimpanzees,
Pan troglodytes, and bonobos,
Pan paniscus, (the homosexual\bisexual chimp), should be classified as
Homo troglodytes and
Homo paniscus due to their genetic and morphological similarities.
And then there is recent finds since that article\picture\list, like the finds of
Homo sapiens fossils in Ethiopia:
160,000-year-old fossilized skulls uncovered in Ethiopia are oldest anatomically modern humans, Robert Sanders, 11 June 2003
The skulls, dug up near a village called Herto, fill a major gap in the human fossil record, an era at the dawn of modern humans when the facial features and brain cases we recognize today as human first appeared.
.
The fossils date precisely from the time when biologists using genes to chart human evolution predicted that a genetic "Eve" lived somewhere in Africa and gave rise to all modern humans.
Note the concordance between the genetic information and the fossil information, and that the skull pictured fits to the right of (I) and the left of (M) in the first picture -
just where it should if evolution were correct, and just where it should if the dating were correct eh? Remarkable that such a
predictable find actually validates the concept eh?
The clear but relatively minor changes in hereditary traits between these fossils (less in each step than the variation seen in modern human skulls) is another reason why I use my definition for evolution as "[color:"blue"]the change in hereditary traits in populations from generation to generation[/color]" rather than the genetic "change in frequency of alleles" (which are difficult to measure from fossils). This is even more clear when you consider that the major difference between human and chimp is in the skull, that changes to other bones (hips, fingers, feet, etc) are smaller in scale.
Is that still the same theory of evolution that is being taught today? How is that one idea actually beneficial to biology or any other branch of science?
Basically yes, that is being taught today (at least where science is allowed), but that is not the "theory of evolution" - it is just the evidence of evolution. It is taught, and it is beneficial because it is true, that
is what the evidence shows. No theory needed.
Or, has the idea, planted as a concrete unarguable scientific fact in the minds of many people, actually caused them to stumble repeatedly looking for clues to answers to questions about life in many of the wrong places?
Ideas don't create "unarguable scientific fact" no matter how sound and tested the ideas are, the "unarguable scientific fact" exists independent of those ideas. The evidence in those pictures is real, solid, objective reality. The skulls are facts not ideas. They show\demonstrate\illustrate evolution in the human lineage. That is fact. What can be wrong about teaching things that are fact? Things that are true?
People "looking for clues to answers to questions about life" are also using philosophy and faith in addition to scientific fact and theory, but the question is whether they should use known truths, validated scientific truths as a basis for building that search that extends beyond evidence and logic, beyond deduction to faith and belief. Shouldn't you start on a sound foundation? Shouldn't you start with truth? Tested truth?
As a comparison, lets say you needed some money. Would it be more effective to go and get a job or would it be more effective trying to convince yourself that somewhere in your house there must be a bag containing a million dollars and so spend your time trying to find it instead of going out and simply earning a paycheck in a manner that is well known to succeed?
But this is just a wild idea analogy, and does not relate to life or even science in general, science that is based first on evidence, then on logical deduction of theory from the evidence, prediction made by the theory, and then testing of it for validity and soundness. You analogy misses several necessary steps and so it is a straw man (remember the definition above for this logical fallacy?), and does not in any way represent evolution or any other science.
because that essentially is what evolutionists have done... claimed for years and years to have all the answers... the pot of gold at the end of the rainbow... but when you actually get there, the pot is empty. Until that point you don't realize that your years and years of learning and hearing about the pot of gold you were seeking were all in vain.
And this too is false, not just because it is based on your really weird analogy, but because evolution does not claim to "have all the answers" - no science does. Science is tentative and the conclusions (theories) only relate to the evidence and predicted results
IF the theory is sound.
But more than that, science in general and evolution in particular are not philosophies that even
attempt to find "all the answers" all they study is natural phenomena and the objective evidence of objective reality. If that happens to include rocks, then science will study rocks (geology), if that happens to include chemicals, then science will study chemicals (chemistry), if that happens to include stars, then science will study stars (astronomy), if that happens to include sub-atomic particles, then science will study sub-atomic particles (physics), and if that happens to include life, then science will study life (biology), and finally, if that happens to include changes in hereditary traits in populations from generation to generation, then science will study changes in hereditary traits in populations from generation to generation (evolutionary biology).
That study will include reviewing
all the evidence looking for trends and tendencies, build theories on those trends and tendencies, and then develop tests for those theories - predictions that should occur if the theory is true and should NOT occur if the theory is false (ie - either A or notA should happen, one IF the theory is true the other IF it is false). That is what the scientific method is - the method by which science is done.
Those theories, predictions and tests will involve the area of study, the rocks, the chemicals, the stars, the sub-atomic particles, the life and the changes in life. They will not "pretend" to "have all the answers" to the questions of "life, the universe, and oh,
everything" (DNAdams, the "Hitchiker's Guide" series, original BBC radio version).
You are conflating evolution (a science) with all science, then with naturalism (a philosophy) and then with
metaphysical naturalism, which is why you also likely (like all creationists) come to the false conclusion that evolution is atheism or necessarily atheistic. It's that "A results in B, here is B, therefore A must be true" invalid logical construction again. Once again we see that C also results in B, and therefore A cannot be concluded from B alone:
Science in general, and evolution in particular, are also parts of the philosophy of
methodological naturalism:
Naturalism is any of several philosophical stances, typically those descended from materialism and pragmatism, that do not distinguish the supernatural (including strange entities like non-natural values, and universals as they are commonly conceived) from nature. Naturalism does not necessarily claim that phenomena or hypotheses commonly labeled as supernatural do not exist or are wrong, but insists that all phenomena and hypotheses can be studied by the same methods and therefore anything considered supernatural is either nonexistent or not inherently different from natural phenomena or hypotheses.
.
Many modern philosophers of science[1][2] use the terms methodological naturalism or scientific naturalism to refer to the long standing convention in science of the scientific method, which makes the methodological assumption that observable effects in nature are best explainable only by natural causes, without reference to, or an assumption of, the existence or non-existence of supernatural notions.
.
This distinction between approaches to the philosophy of naturalism is made by philosophers supporting science and evolution in the creation–evolution controversy to counter the tendency of some proponents of Creationism or intelligent design to refer to methodological naturalism as scientific materialism or as methodological materialism and conflate it with metaphysical naturalism.[3] These proponents of creationism use this assertion to support their claim that modern science is atheistic, and contrast it with their preferred approach of a revived natural philosophy which welcomes supernatural explanations for natural phenomena and supports "theistic science" or pseudoscience.
Sounds like the creationist conflations I know from experience.
That is what evolution has done to many people engaging in scientific pursuits. When new discoveries are actually made, they are made independently or simply suddenly show up because someone was observing in the right place at the right time, causing evolution to be rewritten and re-theorized over and over.
Ah yes the old creationist PRATT that "evolution is not science" because it keeps changes theories when new evidence invalidates old theories ... when that is actually a
critical and necessary element of actually doing real actual science, and it is what makes evolutionary biology a science based on evidence and sound conclusions (theories).
That is exactly why theory should not be taught as scientific fact. No other field of science allows that.
No science teaches theory as fact, they all do teach that all
scientific theories are
based on fact and what those facts are, the evidence of objective reality. The science of biological evolution in particular talks about the "
theory of evolution" because it is a theory.
Once again you demonstrate a lack of understanding of evolution in particular and science in general, make several logically invalid statements and reach conclusions that were invalid before you started.
Haven't you learned anything yet?
Enjoy.
ps - modified policy: [color:"blue"]My time is limited, but I have time to answer more than one response it seems. Therefore, I will continue to post on threads that interest me, but may reply to more than the first response if they discuss the issue(s).[/color] I expect other people to do the same. Thanks for your consideration.
