Evolution Demonstrated In A Laboratory

[EricH]

But regarding the bones without soft tissue, that was understood to be millions of years old - Yes that was the case previous to Dr. Scweitzers experiments. She got quite a bit of flak for those experiments because soft tissue in fossils was inconceivable at the time. What has happened when experiments like hers got accepted.? Major (biased) recalibrations.

No, no, no! The age of the fossil has always been estimated to be millions of years old - Dr. Schweitzer did nothing to dispute that, nor did she ever intend to prove that the fossils were not millions of years old. You still don't understand the issue or the research. I wish you would stop repeating nonsense and start reading what posters here are telling you, and actually make the time to read the research.

Dr Schweitzer demonstrated that soft tissue structure could survive for millions of years, not that the fossil is young. Please get this through your thick head.

Have you read the original paper, the peer reviews and further work that developed upon this finding? What is the scientific consensus on this finding today?
Learner:
After-the-fact, well yes, naturally indeed!

At this point I don't believe that you have read any of the papers. I think you are getting your information from creationist videos on social media. Why did you say you have read the papers when you clearly haven't? Did you think you were going to get away with it?

And the discovery of the fossils is of enormous significance in advancing our knowledge of hominins, no matter that controversy surrounding some of the interpretations provided by the Principal Scientist. To provide commentary and criticism of someone's work you need to have a minimum degree of qualification in the subject, and it is clear to me that you do not pass this admittedly low bar.

Learner: I insert the previous: 'I mean... how much reasoning is required to process what scientists say and do in their labs? '

Clearly, more cognitive ability than you possess.

My advice would be shut up about things you know nothing about, rather than flapping your lips and telling everyone that you know nothing. All you do is keep reinforcing our opinion that you are a fool. And not just a fool, a fool by deliberate choice.

Pardon my language, but you have taken creationist fuckery to a whole new level of Dummy Kruger.

 

[Elixir]

Clearly, more cognitive ability than you possess.

I disagree. From the vocabulary, sentence structure and other tells, I think Learner is probably of above average intelligence.
The problem is what you [point out; he has chosen to take information from creationist videos on social media only. They likely have him convinced that any other source would be devil doo doo.
Not that it matters - a fool by choice is still just a fool, regardless of "cognitive ability".

 

[steve_bank]

I would not tell Learner or anyone else to 'shut up'. I am not entirely omniscient myself.

I can and do debate and oppose the specifics of cretionism.

 

[Elixir]

I would not tell Learner or anyone else to 'shut up'.

Nor would anyone else here, AFAICT. Everyone has engaged and responded to the “issues” raised.

I am not entirely omniscient myself.

Do you mean to imply that anyone else in this thread pretends to omniscience?

I can and do debate and oppose the specifics of cretionism.

That’s exactly what has been going on here. Perhaps you are sensing the frustration that arises from actual sources being “trumped” by (ignored in favor of) creationist pseudoscientific claptrap. That’s a real thing, and I apologize for the denigrating tone that has its origins therein. It’s not about the person, it’s about creos being dishonest brokers in conversation. That too, is a real thing.

 

[steve_bank]

Yes, some on the thread at times do seem to have a god like omniscience.

 

[Elixir]

Yes, some on the thread at times do seem to have a god like omniscience.

I am in awe of some of the evolutionary biologists I’ve met, but even they are awed by the complexity and simplicity of evolution.
Omniscience would be a lot more attainable in the field of plumbing or even civil engineering.

 

[steve_bank]

Yes, some on the thread at times do seem to have a god like omniscience.

I am in awe of some of the evolutionary biologists I’ve met, but even they are awed by the complexity and simplicity of evolution.
Omniscience would be a lot more attainable in the field of plumbing or even civil engineering.

It would appear nobody seems to get my humor. I guess I should keep my day job.

I know. Any thinking person who experiences the scope of something like that would have some humility.

Something Iearned, no matter how much anybody knows or how much exreience, nobody has all the answers all the time.

So I do not fault creationists for their beliefs, they are welcome to it. What leads you and I to science and others to creationism is a complex process. A large part of it is probably circumstances.


My interest in how things work I can trace back to smoe of the toys I had as a kid. Chemistry and construction sets. Electrical kits. I had a kit around 4th grade buiding a DC moter from scratch. Winding the armature.

It maybe different today with kids' emphasis on STEM, but not everybody went throuh that.

I read scifi as a kid, not the bible even though I went to Catholic schools. I have no idea how I did not end up relgious.

 

[Learner]

But regarding the bones without soft tissue, that was understood to be millions of years old - Yes that was the case previous to Dr. Scweitzers experiments. She got quite a bit of flak for those experiments because soft tissue in fossils was inconceivable at the time. What has happened when experiments like hers got accepted.? Major (biased) recalibrations.

No, no, no! The age of the fossil has always been estimated to be millions of years old - Dr. Schweitzer did nothing to dispute that, nor did she ever intend to prove that the fossils were not millions of years old. You still don't understand the issue or the research. I wish you would stop repeating nonsense and start reading what posters here are telling you, and actually make the time to read the research.

Dr Schweitzer demonstrated that soft tissue structure could survive for millions of years, not that the fossil is young. Please get this through your thick head.

This is a shorter post than the previous one (long posts are a little tedious), I'll respond to the easier of the two for now (If I am to respond to the longer post later).


Lets not play the "attorney"(Barrister UK ) trying to convince the court of the above claim, by presenting false charactisations and misleading statements. Your statement is in the present, the current condition! Sure when any experiment is done today; replicating the experiment done by Scweitzer, as you state ' Dr Schweitzer demonstrated that soft tissue structure could survive for millions of years [...]. that is a given - the current standard convention.

As I said: it wasn't thought to be possible back then, for soft tissue to survive millions of years. Her discovery opened the flood gates to much controversy, much more a controversy than you were trying to play down... not forgetting giving the very reasons creationists took to the findings in the very first place when this was new! You said in your previous post you knew all about Dr. Scweitzer but seem to not remember the animosity towards her discovery.

Have you read the original paper, the peer reviews and further work that developed upon this finding? What is the scientific consensus on this finding today?
Learner:
After-the-fact, well yes, naturally indeed!

At this point I don't believe that you have read any of the papers. I think you are getting your information from creationist videos on social media. Why did you say you have read the papers when you clearly haven't? Did you think you were going to get away with it?

Get away with it? I see. Well it's good that you highlight this in your post above in bold, which becomes revealing. How revealing, depends on whether or not you can actually quote where I said it!

You adapted to this rhetoric from when I initially said: 'I would need to revise my notes', (which is a collection of literature stored on some of my old drives - which may include the original papers). You seem to be so eager to enhance your argument, that this particular attempt, by it's weight (or lack of it)- is analogous to a Peacock displaying the illusion that it's bigger than it really is, by spreading it's feathers. I am forgetful on details of things from past interests, hence requiring a bit of revision etc. Forgetful but not as stupid as you like to think.

And the discovery of the fossils is of enormous significance in advancing our knowledge of hominins, no matter that controversy surrounding some of the interpretations provided by the Principal Scientist. To provide commentary and criticism of someone's work you need to have a minimum degree of qualification in the subject, and it is clear to me that you do not pass this admittedly low bar.

Learner: I insert the previous: 'I mean... how much reasoning is required to process what scientists say and do in their labs? '

Clearly, more cognitive ability than you possess.

My advice would be shut up about things you know nothing about, rather than flapping your lips and telling everyone that you know nothing. All you do is keep reinforcing our opinion that you are a fool. And not just a fool, a fool by deliberate choice.

That maybe so, but fair enough, nothing against your rep needing a little amplification.

Pardon my language, but you have taken creationist fuckery to a whole new level of Dummy Kruger.

.. "and that sums up my case against Learner, me lud"

 

[steve_bank]

How does Learner explain the fossil record without science? I expect that will be short answer, god did it?

Did humans coexist with dinosaurs? I knew a Christian who thought the bible says as much.

Unscientifically what does the fossil record tell Learner?

Given the genetic bottleneck that would have occurred on the Ark, how does Learner explain the human diversity today?

Please no links or videos, splell it out so even I can understand.

 

[Worldtraveller]

The only controversy about the soft tissue find came from YECs trying to leverage the initial discovery into something they could use to Lie More (TM). The scientific community basically took a look at it, said "Wow, this isn't something we've seen before, how could this happen?" The scientists then proceeded to conduct experiments, duplicating the conditions where the samples were found, to see if the processes would produce what was found.

They then published the results, and we all learned something new. That's how science works.

Thanks for coming to my Ted Talk.

 

[Elixir]

My interest in how things work I can trace back to smoe of the toys I had as a kid. Chemistry and construction sets. Electrical kits. I had a kit around 4th grade buiding a DC moter from scratch. Winding the armature.

No doubt, early conditioning, the satisfaction of the desire to understand how stuff works plays a huge part. I remember building an electric motor, creating simple robots from Erector Sets, and most of all. blowing lots of stuff up when I got a little older and gained access to some exotic materiél.
But none of that prepared me to understand evolution. Simple though its underlying principles are, the way it unfolds in nature is vastly complex. When I first heard of it as a toddler, it seemed almost as unlikely as the god that adults kept referring to. But the more I read about evolution, the more sense it made, whereas the more I learned about religions, the more incredulous I became - not only about the existence of gods, but more so, the notion that all those well-dressed people at all those churches actually BELIEVED the crap being emitted from the altar. Nope, not possible, I thought. And I still think that today. For every "Learner" out there striving to maintain an actual belief, there are hundreds trying to achieve nothing more than a pass from the authority figure at their church - you know, just in case there IS a god, and so they don't get the side-eye from the rest of the congregation that is looking at each other for signs of doubt...

Unscientifically what does the fossil record tell Learner?

The fossil record doesn't tell Learner ANYTHING. I doubt that he has ever found a fossil in situ, or examined one close up. What he has been told ABOUT the fossil record comes straight from Discovery Institute or whatever its current incarnation is. It doesn't get any unscientificker than that!

 

[steve_bank]

I grew up hearing the term Sunday Catholics. Families dressed up and went to church on Sunday as a ritual.

The first scifi book I remember was Tom Swift And His Rocket Ship. Don't remember where I got it.

The public library I could walk to got me started on being a lifelong reader. Kon Tiki was inspiring.

 

[EricH]

Lets not play the "attorney"(Barrister UK ) trying to convince the court of the above claim, by presenting false charactisations and misleading statements. Your statement is in the present, the current condition! Sure when any experiment is done today; replicating the experiment done by Scweitzer, as you state ' Dr Schweitzer demonstrated that soft tissue structure could survive for millions of years [...]. that is a given - the current standard convention.

Yet you clearly did not understand this until very recently. And I'm not sure that you understand the research even today.

As I said: it wasn't thought to be possible back then, for soft tissue to survive millions of years. Her discovery opened the flood gates to much controversy, much more a controversy than you were trying to play down... not forgetting giving the very reasons creationists took to the findings in the very first place when this was new! You said in your previous post you knew all about Dr. Scweitzer but seem to not remember the animosity towards her discovery.

There was no controversy about the age of the remains in the scientific community. But you have claimed, a half dozen times or more that the controversy involved the age of the remains. Why would you make this false claim if you were familiar with the research?

The controversy about the age of the fossil was a fiction created and propagated by dishonest creationists. One that keeps getting repeated to this day by people like you, even after the lie has been debunked many years ago and many, many times. In this thread you have kept repeating this lie even after you had been told that it was a lie.

The scientific community was skeptical of the claim that Dr. Schweitzer had discovered soft tissue structure in a sample dated to the Cretaceous. Skepticism is an appropriate response to an extraordinary claim of this nature. It took Dr. Schweitzer's team over a decade to demonstrate the mechanism by which this had happened. This is not a problem or an issue, this is how science is supposed to work! Skepticism is a good thing in this context.

Get away with it? I see. Well it's good that you highlight this in your post above in bold, which becomes revealing. How revealing, depends on whether or not you can actually quote where I said it!

I have quoted you making the claim over and over that the age of the fossil was the issue. You have done this at least a half dozen times, perhaps more. Do you want me to quote every single time you have said this just to add to your public humiliation?

You adapted to this rhetoric from when I initially said: 'I would need to revise my notes', (which is a collection of literature stored on some of my old drives - which may include the original papers). You seem to be so eager to enhance your argument, that this particular attempt, by it's weight (or lack of it)- is analogous to a Peacock displaying the illusion that it's bigger than it really is, by spreading it's feathers. I am forgetful on details of things from past interests, hence requiring a bit of revision etc. Forgetful but not as stupid as you like to think.

I had specifically asked you if you had read the scientific papers, the peer reviews and the current consensus regarding the research. You said yes, you had, naturally indeed. Is that not true? Now that your lack of knowledge about the research and your false statements have been exposed, you have started making excuses instead of acknowledging the problems with your behavior.
"But I put it on my hard drive and didn't actually read it".
"I forgot the details and I couldn't be bothered to refresh my memory because its much easier to just make it up".
"The dog ate the fossil soft tissue".
"The dog ate the hard drive".

You dig the hole deeper with every post you make. Do you want a bigger shovel?

And, since you brought up barristers -
Eric: M'lord, I move for a summary judgement against WeDontNeedNoEducation.

The Judge:
The evidence before the court is
Incontrovertible, there's no need for
The jury to retire
In all my years of judging
I have never heard before
Of someone more deserving
Of the full penalty of law
The way you made them suffer
Your exquisite wife and mother
Fills me with the urge to defecate
Since, my friend, you have revealed your
Deepest fear
I sentence you to be exposed before
Your peers
Tear down the wall