1 edit
Originally posted by Proper Knobyes ive heard this also, however this does not address the question, Noobster, for while a human may be getting taller, he is still simply a taller human, also when a Lion overcomes all other lions, he may be a stronger, faster and more fit Lion, but he doesn't become a Zebra or an Elephant, does he??
We are still evolving.
One noticeable trend throughout the last few centuries is that we are getting taller.
Originally posted by robbie carrobieRobbie, as per usual you've gone way, way off on a tangent.
yes ive heard this also, however this does not address the question, Noobster, for while a human may be getting taller, he is still simply a taller human, also when a Lion overcomes all other lions, he may be a stronger, faster and more fit Lion, but he doesn't become a Zebra or an Elephant, does he??
The question posted was whether humans are evolving. I pointed out that data shows as a species we are getting taller, and i can vouch for this. I'm a pretty tall 6' 2", when i visit friends who live in old cornish houses i can't fit through the doorframe, by a long way.
2 edits
Originally posted by Proper Knobyes me dear Noobster, but you are still a human, unless of course your evolving into one of the X-men 🙂 Doors in Scotland are generally seven feet in height, although in older houses and cottages they tend to be much smaller. Are you attributing this to the idea that in the past, persons were much smaller generally? How do we know it has naught to do with the construction procedure when house walls were generally built just above head height to facilitate the placing of roof trusses, and thus doors were correspondingly smaller.
Robbie, as per usual you've gone way, way off on a tangent.
The question posted was whether humans are evolving. I pointed out that data shows as a species we are getting taller, and i can vouch for this. I'm a pretty tall 6' 2", when i visit friends who live in old cornish houses i can't fit through the doorframe, by a long way.
Originally posted by robbie carrobieI was giving you a practical example from my own experience.
yes me dear Noobster, but you are still a human, unless of course your evolving into one of the X-men 🙂 Doors in Scotland are generally seven feet in height, although in older houses and cottages they tend to be much smaller. Are you attributing this to the idea that in the past, persons were much smaller generally? How do we know it has naught ...[text shortened]... d height to facilitate the placing of roof trusses, and thus doors were correspondingly smaller.
You can also look at this if you like -
http://www.econ.upf.edu/docs/seminars/baten.pdf
pg 11 has a nice graph for you.
There is also data from military records going back a souple of centuries. The average height of a male English trooper born in the mid 19th century was 166cm, 5' 5". The average height for a UK male today is 177.2cm or 5' 9.7".
As a species we are growing.
Originally posted by robbie carrobieIt's not semantics to observe that your terminology either is rooted in, or attempts to spew ignorance regarding the nature of scientific inquiry. Your whole argument in this thread, indeed the article itself, hinges upon the difference between a scientific hypothesis and a scientific theory. A mere hypothesis can fall after a single refutation. Your article, even if wholly accurate (when does a short article by a journalist ever fail to misstate the issue?) barely puts a small nick in a theory as well developed as evolution.
spare me your vain arguments over semantics, any clown with an ounce of common sense would have worked out from the context what i was referring to. I refer to it as a hypothesis for the very reasons that visited has mentioned, in that by its very nature it is founded on a premise, and may or may not be subject to falsification and the scientific mo ...[text shortened]... even draw different conclusions from the very same data??? that may just be as equally as valid?
These others to which you refer can believe whatever they please, but the validity of opinions rests on method. You are distorting scientific method--such distortion is the original strategy of the creationist. You started with a semantic gesture, but when called upon it, you turn around and accuse your interrogator of "vain semantics". Words never have so much importance for an argument as when they are used incorrectly to obscure the absence of reason.
Originally posted by robbie carrobieOkay, you bail out. You don't believe the things you're youself is writing. This is just a game to you. But when you bail out like this you have lost the game. You've lost the discussion. Right?
no comment.
Evolution stands. Creationism is religious stupidities. We agree on this.
1 edit
Originally posted by robbie carrobiealso when a Lion overcomes all other lions, he may be a stronger, faster and more fit Lion, but he doesn't become a Zebra or an Elephant, does he??
yes ive heard this also, however this does not address the question, Noobster, for while a human may be getting taller, he is still simply a taller human, also when a Lion overcomes all other lions, he may be a stronger, faster and more fit Lion, but he doesn't become a Zebra or an Elephant, does he??
Of course not, nobody has ever claimed that, and if that's your bite-sized view of how evolution works, then i think you need to get back to the drawing board Robbie.
Galvy has made a very similar comment from what i remember sometime in the past also. Is this the theory of evolution they teach at the Kingdom Hall?
Originally posted by Proper KnobHe doesn't know much about evolution, does he?
[b]also when a Lion overcomes all other lions, he may be a stronger, faster and more fit Lion, but he doesn't become a Zebra or an Elephant, does he??
Of course not, nobody has ever claimed that, and if that's your bite-sized view of how evolution works, then i think you need to get back to the drawing board Robbie.
Galvy has made a very simila ...[text shortened]... ber sometime in the past also. Is this the theory of evolution they teach at the Kingdom Hall?[/b]
Does he know anything about science? I doubt it.
He is a fundamental creationist - ignorant of facts.
Originally posted by Proper KnobFair enough answer. Can we attribute this to evolution though? Could it be because of better nutrition or something? I'm just asking. I struggle with the classic examples of evolution.
I was giving you a practical example from my own experience.
You can also look at this if you like -
http://www.econ.upf.edu/docs/seminars/baten.pdf
pg 11 has a nice graph for you.
There is also data from military records going back a souple of centuries. The average height of a male English trooper born in the mid 19th century was 166cm, 5' ...[text shortened]... he average height for a UK male today is 177.2cm or 5' 9.7".
As a species we are growing.
Manny
Originally posted by FabianFnasOnce again.
He doesn't know much about evolution, does he?
Does he know anything about science? I doubt it.
He is a fundamental creationist - ignorant of facts.
If a frog turns into a prince, its a fairy tale.
If a frog turns into a prince and it takes 10 million years, its science.
1 edit
Originally posted by Wulebgractually trout fly since you have failed to notice the whole point of the text i shall need to state it plainly, here was a scenario, in which one piece of data, had been accepted as providing 'evidence', through an evaluation, which to all intents and purposes was not viewed objectively, but as has been the case in the past, the 'theory,' was formulated and the evidence, if you could call it evidence, in this case a lower jaw bone and a few teeth, evaluated to fit the theory. Does that sound like good scientific method to you? And my dear trout fly, this was the point, the same piece of evidence , the exact same data may be evaluated and a different conclusion drawn, as was seen in this instance. thus the statement stands, that you may evaluate the evolutionary hypothesis, theory to you, and i may also evaluate it, and our conclusions may be different, thus the most that anyone can state is, that it seems plausible to them. It was not an attempt to somehow undermine the God of science, for everyone knows, like the pope, how infallible he is, it was merely a tongue in cheek dig, which, as predicted, had the exact same effect and produced, as with religionists, a somewhat defensive response. It as not even a nick, but a drop in the ocean.
It's not semantics to observe that your terminology either is rooted in, or attempts to spew ignorance regarding the nature of scientific inquiry. Your whole argument in this thread, indeed the article itself, hinges upon the difference between a scientific hypothesis and a scientific theory. A mere hypothesis can fall after a single refutation. Your article mportance for an argument as when they are used incorrectly to obscure the absence of reason.
Originally posted by FabianFnasi have no comment to add to your questioning Fabians, for it was a loaded question, and if i have learned anything, its not to argue with a man with a loaded gun 🙂
He doesn't know much about evolution, does he?
Does he know anything about science? I doubt it.
He is a fundamental creationist - ignorant of facts.
Originally posted by Proper Knobmmmm, forgive me if i am wrong Noobster, but dont you Evos, profess that species transmutate, like fish became, amphibians, amphibians became reptiles, reptiles became birds, birds became mammals., etc etc.??
[b]also when a Lion overcomes all other lions, he may be a stronger, faster and more fit Lion, but he doesn't become a Zebra or an Elephant, does he??
Of course not, nobody has ever claimed that, and if that's your bite-sized view of how evolution works, then i think you need to get back to the drawing board Robbie.
Galvy has made a very simila ...[text shortened]... ber sometime in the past also. Is this the theory of evolution they teach at the Kingdom Hall?[/b]
Originally posted by robbie carrobieA gradual transition. Not a lion just turning into an elephant or a tiger.
mmmm, forgive me if i am wrong Noobster, but dont you Evos, profess that species transmutate, like fish became, amphibians, amphibians became reptiles, reptiles became birds, birds became mammals., etc etc.??