interesting thing from my biology text:

Just curious, talt - when was that textbook published?

2007

Thanks.  I feel better that at least some texts remain honest.

I'll DITTO that!

That is weird. You are usually among the "it's just a theory" crowd.

My position is the same as it has always been. ..that's why I said "DITTO" to the textbook statement on "theory".

Note the highlighted applied to my position which is ----Darwinism alleges over eons of time a natural transition from reptiles to mammals is "just a popular definition of theory---namely a 'guess' or 'specualtion'".

Well, then you have somehow managed to come across completely different than you really are.

I had you down as one of the types who didn't believe that Darwin's theory is not "an explanation that can hold up against repeated experimentation".

You certainly claimed to disagree with that.

The quoted text says that a theory is NOT a "guess or speculation". It does NOT say that Darwin's theory is a guess or speculation. It says that Darwin's theory is NOT a guess or speculation.

You misquoted the highlighted statement.

wow... talk about utter failure in reading comprehention.

it clearly says that a theory only means "a guess" when used in regular conversaion between people, but the scientific term "theory" means a repeatable, verifiable, best explanation according to evidence. This is a lot like the "android / robot" thing, people keep on calling androids "robots" on TV. But according to the actual definitions, the two are completely different.

Likewise according to the actual scientific definition, a theory is not "a guess"

LOL.....Ya, it happens sometimes! 

Upon reading your comment back to me, perhaps I did.

Just to clarify, lest more confusion becasue I'm sure another blog on Evolution Theory will pop up sooner or later...

I said that Darwinism alleges over eons of time a natural transition from reptiles to mammals is "just a popular definition of "theory"---namely a 'guess' or 'specualtion'". As I read the textbook quote I thought that went right along with defining "theory" as 

Certainly Darwinism as I described has not been able to hold up against repeated experimentation.

Oddly enough it does.

The fact that you are and remain ignorant of such experiments doesn't really mean much.

The definition of science really has nothing to do with whether you understand it or not.

Have you knowledge of any true scientific experiments or empirical evidence that show natural transition from reptiles into mammals?

Leauki -

Don't.  Please don't.  These are poor electrons, harming no one.  Let them move on.

I don't think reptiles ever turned into mammals, but both have common ancestors.

You are confusing one of today's species turning into another (which Darwinism denies is possible) and evolution (which results in different species but never ever causes one species to "turn into" another.

I have seen experiments showing that animals changed over generations. Can you explain why you assume that they would stop doing so at a certain point? (Note that "species" depends on a single point in time. The concept of "species" does not exist from one generation to another so any claim about a "species border" is irrelevant.)

We agree I don't think reptiles ever turned into mammals either.

But..."both have common ancestors"? This is Evolution Theory speak. What scientific evidence shows reptiles and mammals come from common ancestors? Where is the evidence that phylogeny exists, clear and identified?

I understand that science proves that each kind of reptile have their own common ancestors and that science proves that each kind of mammals have their own common ancestors, but not that reptiles and mammals have common ancestors between them.

You and I are from the human family tree and we both have a common ancestor in Adam and Eve..one root, lots of branches all "within kind".  We share no common ancestor(s) with any other mammal, reptile or otherwise...they each have their own separate root and lots of branches.  

Yes, I believe that animals and plants can change over generations...depends on natural circumstances for that to happen and the way the genes within kind reshuffle or recombine...I think the Ark might have had 2 of one kind of Dog and they diversified over time.  This is properly called Recombination or Variety within Kind. Does recombination or Variety within kind continue...sure it can and does

Now, the human body though has always been just as we appear today.

There are mounds of both physical evidence (fossils and the like), and genetic evidence.

That you think the fossil evidence was placed there by satan to trick us, or that you are incapable of comprehending the genetic evidence is irrelevant.

Ah yes... the proven to be false theory of deletion based micro-evolution posited by creationists... If you beleive that, then you also do not beleive in cancer, moles, or the countless experiments that observed the "creation" of "new" genes in a lab.

There is a reason why we wear sunblock and protect our gonads with a lead patch when taking xrays. and that reason is called mutations.

It didn't even look the same 100,000 years ago, let alone "always".

Genetics show that all animals share an ancestor. That alone is enough.

The idea that all living things share a genetic code just by chance is ridiculous. And the story that some evil smurf or some other supernatural being planted the code in all his creations has nothing to do with science. The only scientific explanation (i.e. explanation that doesn't require smurf or similar beings) is common descent.

Always remember:

Science: explanation that doesn't require smurfs

Not science: any explanation that requires smurfs

Forget about that "kind" thing.

Kinds do not exist over time, only at specific moments.

You are just showing that you don't understand the theory you are arguing against.

also, "science" doesn't prove anything. science most definitely does not SAY anything. Science (latin for "to know) is just the philosophy of seeking knowledge by using constructed logical thinking and disproveable assumptions instead of simply saying "I declare it to be true, so therefore it is".

PEOPLE have disproven many things while utilizing science.

Example of science:

1. Observation: the flashlight is broken

2. Hypothesis: Replacing a bulb always fixes a broken flashlight

3. Test: proven false, it did not fix the flashlight in question.

4. Hypothesis 2: replacing a battery always fixes a broken flashlight

5. Test 1: not proven false, flashlight now works.

*now repeat the test many times

6. Test 2: not proven false, second flashlight also works.

7. Test 3: proven false, flashlight not fixed by replacing battery.

* now analize result

8. Hypothesis 3: replacing a battery SOMETIMES fixes a broken flashlight...

and so on and so on.

As you observe and experiment you can make theories, and refine them.

Repeat experiments again and again and find new information you can use to further refine and make your theories more accurate, by accounting for rare situation or unexpected variables.

EX of non scientific reasoning:

1. I found a book that says the world is made up of four elements: water, earth, fire, and water.

2. I decided it must be real because it is a pretty cool concept.

3. I am gonna go and cast some magic spells now.

Another example of non scientific reasoning:

1. I found a book that says the world is 6000 years old, and the earth center of the universe (and the sun revolves around it).

2. I am just going to beleive it because all my friends and family beleive it too.

3. I am gonna ignore any evidence, such as telescopic evidence or mathematical calculations, that proves what I beleive in to be false.

Another example of scientific reasoning:

1. I found a book that says the world is 6000 years old, and the earth center of the universe (and the sun revolves around it).

2. hypothesis: if earth is the center of the universe, than I can make observations with a telescope and perform some calculus and verify it.

3. Test: falsifies hypothesis.

4. conclusions: The book in question is wrong about the earth being the center of the universe.

5. hypothesis: if the earth is 6000 years old than: <insert a plethorea of tests and proofs here>.

6. Problem. I do not have the resources to run those experiments...

7. Analysis:

the claim that the earth is 6000 years old is made by a book full of made up claims that I have personally verified to be false, that book contains absolutely no evidence or sources quoted, simply a claim to be taken on blind trust...

the claim that the earth is older than 6000 years is made a plethorea of sources which use scientific reasoning and provide evidence.

While it is possible that the evidence is faked, it seems as a more legitimate source, until I have the wealth to personally test this, I shall trust the people who follow scientific reasoning and provide evidence and experiments to back up their conclusions, rather then the book that is full of falsities which I have personally verified to be made up balony.

lula posts:

Really? What did the human body look like and where is the empircal evidence of such?

And where is the empirical evidence there were humans 100,000 years ago?

My questions take us back to the original point. Which is, in truth, your assertion that the human body looked different 100, 000 years ago, comes under the popular definition of evolution "theory"---namely a 'guess' or 'speculation and one that has not been able to hold up against repeated experimentation.

I forgot. You haven't yet understood what a fossil is.

I'll wait a few years. I think I first heard of fossils when I was five. And it took until I was a teenager for me to understand them.

Fossil: n. An evil rock placed in the earth by satan to trick wholesome christians into abandoning their faith for the evils of science and homosexuality. [/sarcasm]

leauki posts:

That's just it..in view of the multitude of human fossils now discovered, and the completeness of the fossil record, the evidence supports my claim that the human body always looked the same. This is because human ancestry only goes back as far as Adam and Eve, the first two human beings.

So your assertion that the human body didn't look the same 100,000 years ago fits within the popular definition of evolutionary theory, namely it is nothing other than a guess or speculation and one that has not been able to hold up against repeated experimentation or in this case has not been proven in the fossil record. It certainly makes one wonder how it is that our youth are indoctrinated year after year with nothing more than evolutionary speculation financed by taxpayers money.

Perhaps, Leauki you are looking for, but haven't found, the same kind of fossils that Darwin described in his book, The Origin of Species, page. 293. "By the theory of natural selection all living species have been connected with the parent species of each genus, by differences not greater than we see between the varieties of the same species at the present day. And these parent species, now generally extinct, have in their turn similiarly connect with more ancient species; and so on backwards, always converging to the common ancestor of each great class. So that the number of intermediate and transitional links, between all living and extinct species, must have been inconceivably great. But assuredly if this theory be true, such have lived upon this Earth."  

Lula, 100K - 400K years ago the ancestors of humans looked like this and/or this. Both species have sufficient fossils to count as evidence. That fossil record traces even further back than that, but there you have it: clearly humanoid skeletons that are geographically connected to us, but are older and demonstrate clearly differing traits from any humans alive today.

STARSTRIKER 1[quote]Lula, 100K - 400K years ago the ancestors of humans looked like this and/or this. Both species have sufficient fossils to count as evidence. That fossil record traces even further back than that, but there you have it: clearly humanoid skeletons that are geographically connected to us, but are older and demonstrate clearly differing traits from any humans alive today.[/quote

  STARSTRIKER1,

I appreciate the two links from Wikipedia....this one below and the other one about Neanderthals. They show human skulls (not humanoid) and as to their age, we can't be sure as none of the dating methods are 100% accurate. Evolutionists claim they are from 125K to 400K years ago...yet, they could have been formed at the time of Noe's Flood about 5 or 6,000 years ago.

What do we know?

THAT.....In the theoretical ancestry of mankind, Evolutionists have imagined a time they call "Pre-historic" and teach about fossils of supposed apelike human ancestors they call "hominids".

THAT....no "humanoid" ancestor for man has ever been convincingly documented.  

Here's a part of the first link from Wikipedia.

Homo rhodesiensis Fossil range: Pleistocene
Skull found in 1921
Scientific classification
Binomial name
†Homo rhodesiensis Woodward, 1921

Homo rhodesiensis is a possible hominin species described from the fossil Rhodesian Man. Other morphologically-comparable remains have been found from the same, or earlier, time period in southern Africa (Hopefield or Saldanha), East Africa (Bodo, Ndutu, Eyasi, Ileret) and North Africa (Salé, Rabat, Dar-es-Soltane, Djbel Irhoud, Sidi Aberrahaman, Tighenif). These remains were dated between 300,000 and 125,000 years old.

Let's look at the first sentence. Homo rhodesiensis is a possible hominin species described from the fossil Rhodesian Man.

 

What do we now know of Rhodesian Man found in 1921? That the skull was discovered in a cave and that anthropologists and artists simply assumed it to be a half-ape/half man sort of creature and went about depicting it that way. Yet, later a competant anatomist examined it and found that the skull was just a normal human being. Further analysis reveals dental caries which modern diets tend to produce and also a hole through the skull made by a bullet or crossbow.

Let's look at the second paragraph and photo.

Another specimen^[1] "the hominid from Lake Ndutu" may approach 400,000 years old, and Clarke in 1976 classified it as Homo erectus. Undirect cranial capacity estimate is 1100 ml. Also supratoral sculus morphology and presence of protuberance as suggest Philip Rightmire : give the Nudutu occiput an apprence which is also unlike that of Homo Erectus but Stinger 1986 pointed that thickened iliac pillar is typical for Homo erectus. ^[2]

Replica of the skull

 As concerning the classification, Homo erectus.....we know that early on this classification included the evolutionary hoaxes, Java Man and Peking Man. At the time, becasue the skulls have prominent brow ridges similiar to the Neandertals, they were promoted as the "missing links" between apes and humans.

Anyway, turns out that the fossils identified under the classification Homo erectus show the brain size is within the range of people today and that they walked erect. Both morthology and associated archaelological/culture findings show Homo erectus to be fully human and even some evolutionists today agree that erectus should be included in homo sapiens.

Also some fossils found in rock layers were within the time span of modern human beings.

Homo sapiens neanderthalensis (Neandertal man) are what becasue of their distinctive features evolutionists call the "cave men". But what has modern science told us of these features''' ...the stooped posture...the brow ridges....the bowed legs....turns out they are all bones of fully human people who were afflicted with the disease called rickets and arthritis.