Astronomy and Astrophysics Questions and Answers

[Grim Reaper]

Now that is interesting. Grim's "junk=no God" kind of vanished.

Not really. We still have some junk, just not as much as we thought before.

And some of the stuff, even if it does anything, still leads to junk like the appendix and wisdom teeth.

[MajGenl.Meade]

Now see those are both carefully designed to provide cash to poor doctors and dentists....

[rubato]

And no interest in the real science.

Just smarmy bullshit.

How surprising.

yrs,
rubato

[dales]

[Sue U]

That's kind of a dodge, isn't it? When I look at chimpanzees and bonobos

No I don't think it's a dodge. Precisely - we can look at chimpanzees and bonobos. Unfortunately we cannot look at all those hominids - not even a little bit. All we can look at are the fictional pictures and models created by people who shape the final result to conform to what they want it to look like. That's how we get those drivel pictures showing a monkey at one end and a human at the other with all sorts of gradually "improving" bits in between. Fact is, that kind of chain is scientific nonsense (regardless of religious thought).

Let me be clear; when I mentioned looking at chimpanzees and bonobos, I wasn't talking about the family resemblance between them; I was talking about their family resemblence to us. And the "ascent of man" pictures to which you refer are meant to convey the broad concept of evolution, not to scientifically graph the genetic course of evolution. No one thinks a chimp "became" an australopithecine which became homo habilis which became a neanderthal which became homo sapiens. But it is perfectly clear that they are branches down the same evolutionary line, although the exact placement and organization of those branches on our diagrams may yet be modified as more genetic information becomes available.

Change occurs within a species... monkeys come and monkeys go. Some made it and some didn't.

Now neanderthal certainly looks like a good candidate to be my brother or cousin at least - not the kissing kind - I doubt that they were failed monkeys.

I don't understand what you mean by this. If neanderthal was not a "failed monkey," what was it? Was it a "different animal" than us? Why or why not?

[MajGenl.Meade]

I now see your point re bonobos and chimpanzees. I sometimes see family resemblance involving pigs and lemurs (if shaved)

"No one thinks that....." Actually that is precisely the purpose of those "ascent of man" images - to relentlessly promote the simplistic acceptance by the masses of atheistic thought. But no matter - we agree that it is not at all science and yet it is so prominently used in museums of "natural science". A line is so much more propagandic than a tree.

Neanderthals. There are so many lines of thought. For a time it was almost gospel that the DNA strands present in Neanderthal and modern man were a result of inter-breeding. I understand (perhaps too strong a word) that there is a current theory that there was less inter-breeding and more of a common source, which may or may not be African.

At any rate, it certainly looks as if both neanderthal and cro-mag could equally claim to be humans.

Meade

(And yes I can see a rather obvious conclusion)

[Sue U]

I am not (at the moment, anyway) looking for any conclusions, obvious or otherwise. I'm simply trying to understand your point of view; particularly, why you accept evolution in some circumstances but not others, where you draw the boundaries, and where and why you think divine intervention is necessarily involved.

[MajGenl.Meade]

Fairy 'nuff, Sue. It's late at night here now and I have to be up at 5 a.m. for the weekly Men For Jesus meeting. I will respond later on Saturday - altho' we have about 200 kids from various Free State homes at Maselspoort all day for a fund-raiser (for our Bolokanang home and the Uitkoms school next door).... I'll find time!

But as a place holder, here's a brief TV4 thought about Art and Belief from my brother-in-law Brian (confession: I've not watched it yet as it keeps hanging up on my stupid G3 connection).

http://www.4thought.tv/themes/can-art-m ... oplay=true

Good night for now
Meade

[Lord Jim]

we have about 200 kids from various Free State homes at Maselspoort all day for a fund-raiser

What's the plan?

Are you going to ply the kids with booze and hookers to get them to write big checks? Or are you auctioning them off?

(Just thought I'd give you a little of your own literalist medicine... )

[Grim Reaper]

"No one thinks that....." Actually that is precisely the purpose of those "ascent of man" images - to relentlessly promote the simplistic acceptance by the masses of atheistic thought. But no matter - we agree that it is not at all science and yet it is so prominently used in museums of "natural science". A line is so much more propagandic than a tree.

It can only lead to that thinking if you don't want to think about how evolution works. The "Ascent of Man" isn't a chain of scientific nonsense. It represents a brief history of the evolution of mankind. And science is about starting from pre-concieved notions and poking holes in those notions until the truth is left standing. We don't dress up fossils to look like how we want them to look like, we look at how skeletons are arranged in existing humans and animals. We look at how muscles are anchored to bones and how the shapes of bones define the range of mobility a creature could have.

To say that these fossils are arranged to adhere to a fantasy is to do a huge disservice to anthropologists and paleontology in general and the amount of work that's been done to eliminate guess work as much as possible.

After all, if all they needed was to adhere to a fantasy, they wouldn't still be out there digging up bones, trying to improve our understanding of the past. They'd just point to what they already have and go no farther.

[MajGenl.Meade]

I am not (at the moment, anyway) looking for any conclusions, obvious or otherwise.

Oh you'll just hoist me later then - I know it! Given enough rope.......

I'm simply trying to understand your point of view; particularly, why you accept evolution in some circumstances but not others, where you draw the boundaries, and where and why you think divine intervention is necessarily involved.

Evolution - the question is whether (one) can make a word mean so many things. What I mean by it is the tendency of living things to adapt to environment and for genes to go "wrong" in beneficial ways. That is, a particular genetic anomaly (whatever the right word is) - an error - may in fact equip an animal to survive where others of its kind (with all the right stuff) might fail. So to my way of thinking, dogs are failed wolves but amazingly successful in that failure. Now wolves are not failed snakes, or whales, or dinosaurs, or sparrows, or amoebas or anything else one cares to name. Finch beaks might change but finches is finches. A particular insect type may find that individuals who look more like leaves are naturally "selected" for survival whereas the less leafy looking ones die off. Perhaps that's a rather too elastic boundary?

The issue is not divine intervention - as if something else came first. When - God created from the beginning. Why - because He wanted to. Where - everywhere. What - every thing.

It can only lead to that thinking if you don't want to think about how evolution works

I agree - that's who it is aimed at - like all good propaganda.

We don't dress up fossils to look like how we want them to look like

Not sure who "we" is - but please explain the gradations of "hairyness" on the chain - evidence of hair comes from what artefacts? Also "feathered dinosaurs" (an amazing exhibit at the Cleveland Natural History museum that I enjoyed immensely - the scientific equivalent of the Creation fantasy museum in Kentucky Ohio). And the skulls* built so cleverly from a tiny fragment - because they "must" have looked like this. Science or conformity to pre-conceived notions?

Where no evidence exists, guess work apparently is just fine.

Meade

* quite honestly labelled and presented too; little grey bits to show (casts of) actual bone that was found, lost among white plastic "scientific" impressions of what the entire thing "must" have looked like

[Grim Reaper]

Evolution - the question is whether (one) can make a word mean so many things. What I mean by it is the tendency of living things to adapt to environment and for genes to go "wrong" in beneficial ways. That is, a particular genetic anomaly (whatever the right word is) - an error - may in fact equip an animal to survive where others of its kind (with all the right stuff) might fail. So to my way of thinking, dogs are failed wolves but amazingly successful in that failure. Now wolves are not failed snakes, or whales, or dinosaurs, or sparrows, or amoebas or anything else one cares to name. Finch beaks might change but finches is finches. A particular insect type may find that individuals who look more like leaves are naturally "selected" for survival whereas the less leafy looking ones die off. Perhaps that's a rather too elastic boundary?

Finches are an interesting one to bring up since birds evolved out of dinosaurs. You start off with a small feathered lizard that climbs trees and end up with something smaller that can fly.

I agree - that's who it is aimed at - like all good propaganda.

Except it's not aimed at people who don't want to understand evolution. It's aimed at people who want to learn about evolution, who want to understand where we came from and where we might end up. The people who think we came from chimpanzees aren't going to be swayed by the picture, if anything it will just cement their misunderstandings.

Not sure who "we" is - but please explain the gradations of "hairyness" on the chain - evidence of hair comes from what artefacts? Also "feathered dinosaurs" (an amazing exhibit at the Cleveland Natural History museum that I enjoyed immensely - the scientific equivalent of the Creation fantasy museum in Kentucky Ohio). And the skulls* built so cleverly from a tiny fragment - because they "must" have looked like this. Science or conformity to pre-conceived notions?

The evidence comes from looking around at similar stuff. You can learn a lot about the shape of a fossil by looking at it in comparison to more complete fossils or existing species. And feathered dinosaurs came about because of feathered imprints found alongside fossils. Not just the bones are preserved, but sometimes an outline of the creature as it died.

And of course it's dishonest to focus on the more fragmentary fossils when we do have more complete fossils to look at. As if the usage of some informed guess work automatically invalidates every bit of evidence out there.

Where no evidence exists, guess work apparently is just fine.

Guess work, based upon an understanding of how the different body parts interact. It's not just blind faith like you keep implying it to be. It starts by looking at existing species and seeing how everything comes together and using that knowledge to figure out how extinct species would have looked and acted.

[MajGenl.Meade]

Except it's not aimed at people who don't want to understand evolution

Says you. I say it's not. It is exactly aimed at "people who think we came from chimpanzees" and is intended to "just cement their misunderstandings". It is a false picture and this is exactly why it is promoted.

Finches are an interesting one to bring up since birds evolved out of dinosaurs. You start off with a small feathered lizard that climbs trees and end up with something smaller that can fly

Says you. I say they didn't. And there you go with your own chain - suddenly "small feathered lizards" and then birds (along some putative "chain" that actually doesn't exist.

And feathered dinosaurs came about because of feathered imprints found alongside fossils.

I hope you read all of the Wiki article - particularly the non-identification with birds and the controversy over "feathers" yeah/nay?

As to the rest, illustrations of extremely hairy to less hairy to hardly any hair men are nothing more than speculation designed to fit the theory. Since hominids must be man's ancestors etc. they must have been hairy and the younger (geiologically speaking) ones must be less hairy until we have hom. sap at the end of the line - just as each gradation is illustrated with increasingly upright locomotion. Granted that bones tell a story in that regard, it still suits the educators to produce as certainty what is only conforming to a pre-conceived idea

Meade

[Grim Reaper]

Says you. I say it's not. It is exactly aimed at "people who think we came from chimpanzees" and is intended to "just cement their misunderstandings". It is a false picture and this is exactly why it is promoted.

It absolutely is not aimed at those people because they don't even understand what the image is actually conveying. It's like trying to use a banner to propagandize toward blind people. They can't even see the thing that's being used to supposedly influence their thoughts.

Says you. I say they didn't. And there you go with your own chain - suddenly "small feathered lizards" and then birds (along some putative "chain" that actually doesn't exist.

The chain does exist though, we have dinosaurs, small feathered dinosaurs, dinosaurs with bird-like features, and eventually birds. Strip a bird of it's feathers and it looks like a tiny ugly dinosaur.

I hope you read all of the Wiki article - particularly the non-identification with birds and the controversy over "feathers" yeah/nay?

There's no real controversy left anymore. It is widely accepted that birds came from dinosaurs. Something might come along that upsets that idea, but it will come because of a desire to learn about the past, not a desire to paint up fantasies and call it done.

And more dishonesty, "oh, there's some controversy, therefore it's impossible for us to know anything". We may not have every single piece of the puzzle, but we have enough to figure out the picture being shown.

As to the rest, illustrations of extremely hairy to less hairy to hardly any hair men are nothing more than speculation designed to fit the theory. Since hominids must be man's ancestors etc. they must have been hairy and the younger (geiologically speaking) ones must be less hairy until we have hom. sap at the end of the line - just as each gradation is illustrated with increasingly upright locomotion. Granted that bones tell a story in that regard, it still suits the educators to produce as certainty what is only conforming to a pre-conceived idea

The idea of hairy > less hairy is borne out through the changes in environment. We started off hairy because our ancestors needed hair to keep warm. Hair became less important, and thus was bred out, as our ancestors advanced away from the trees and eventually discovered fire and better tools. It's why the other primates still have hair, they never evolved to have more control over their environment.

[MajGenl.Meade]

GR sometimes I think we talk past each other - or I don't really understand what you are saying or vice versa

People who think we came from chimpanzees are quite ignorant and believe in non-God origination of life. They think they know "evolution". One of the things that influenced them in their ignorance is the chain diagram showing a gradual change from monkey at one end to man at the other. They can see it. They do see it. They are intended to see it. It reinforces their ignorant prejudice. It wears down the objections of other not-so-smart people who do NOT think that "we came from chimpanzees". They see the picture and its endorsement by "science" and "museums" and "natural history books" and they think it must be right. It is the kind of "teaching" that little children are exposed to - because they don't know much and they can be propagandised heartly.

I don't understand why you defend such an obvious piece of non-science as the "chain of being" which in fact is wrong (even by the standards of evolutionary theory). It is a tree - not a chain. And you know the sad thing - there's no links on a tree and none in evolutionary theories of human origin either

Speaking of dishonesty - you are the only person (not I) who has come up with "oh, there's some controversy, therefore it's impossible for us to know anything". What a stupid comment. The "controversy" in your posted link is a robust debate between scientists who disagree with each other. I hope you read it.

And on hairiness you prove my point; that's what I said - thank you. Rationalise it as much as you like (and it is a good argument), the illustrations are designed to "prove" the idea that you expound when there is no evidence. In fact, no-one knows a damn thing about the relative hairiness of early men; it is all extrapolation of a theory which is then illustrated to make it look like a fact. It is presented as factual. It is not science.

If you're going to argue your corner, at least come up with something better than shaving birds

Meade

[Grim Reaper]

It is the kind of "teaching" that little children are exposed to - because they don't know much and they can be propagandised heartly.

But it's OK to propagandize them with religious teachings. Just not the teachings you disagree with.

I don't understand why you defend such an obvious piece of non-science as the "chain of being" which in fact is wrong (even by the standards of evolutionary theory). It is a tree - not a chain. And you know the sad thing - there's no links on a tree and none in evolutionary theories of human origin either

Now you're just splitting hairs. It can be described over all as a tree, but when you look at an individual line of ancestry, calling it a chain isn't completely wrong like you're saying.

Speaking of dishonesty - you are the only person (not I) who has come up with "oh, there's some controversy, therefore it's impossible for us to know anything". What a stupid comment. The "controversy" in your posted link is a robust debate between scientists who disagree with each other. I hope you read it.

That's what you keep implying every time you bring up controversies as if it invalidates everything we do know. And the controversies aren't all that strong either. Some people are pretty sure birds evolved from dinosaurs, others aren't so sure but they don't have a better alternative explanation. That doesn't mean that birds couldn't possibly come from dinosaurs, just that not everybody is completely convinced that they did.

And on hairiness you prove my point; that's what I said - thank you. Rationalise it as much as you like (and it is a good argument), the illustrations are designed to "prove" the idea that you expound when there is no evidence. In fact, no-one knows a damn thing about the relative hairiness of early men; it is all extrapolation of a theory which is then illustrated to make it look like a fact. It is presented as factual. It is not science.

You keep arguing backwards. We didn't start off with hairy ancestors and then go look for hairy hominids to claim as ancestors. That's what we ended up with after we started looking for our ancestors. And we can have a pretty strong guess by looking at the fossil record and comparing them to existing primates. We're the only primates that aren't covered in hair, so the farther back from "us" that we go, the hairier our ancestors get. So saying "no one knows a damn thing" is completely dishonest. We do know, you just don't want to accept the evidence until someone invents a time machine and brings forward one of our ancestors.

[rubato]

Except it's not aimed at people who don't want to understand evolution

Says you. I say it's not. It is exactly aimed at "people who think we came from chimpanzees" and is intended to "just cement their misunderstandings". It is a false picture and this is exactly why it is promoted.

Meade[/quote]

What idiots think we are descended from chimpanzees? Outside the christian whack-a-mole right-wing?

"Christians" lack of connection with the real world is too stupid to bother with.

I'll talk REALLY SLOWLY for this audience. Chimpanzees and Homo Sapiens are both species living simultaneously in the modern age. Therefore it is inherently unlikely that one is derived from the other because that would claim that time stands still for chimpanzees and not for other species. Are you getting this?



yrs,
rubato

[MajGenl.Meade]

You must be talking to your hand rubato. Young children (who are not necessarily idiots) are encouraged to simplistically believe that man evolved FROM apes by "science" and "museums" depicting a chain of being starting with 'a ape' and ending with "a man". Their minds are being conditioned by false images to accept (what might be) a correct theory (but depicted incorrectly). Idiots (who are not necessarily Christians) are similarly conditioned by and exposed to such images which are scientifically not correct.

Idiots promote and defend the use of such images.

No Christian (right or wrong) believes man is descended from chimpanzees.

Meade

[Gob]

[MajGenl.Meade]

Rake's progress?