Richard Dawkins Explains Why There Was Never a First Human Being

[ant]

You're that upset that Dawkins used a specific example to make his point, illustrating a theory that you supposedly agree with? As I said, the point of the thought experiment was to illustrate the gradual change that MUST have happened based on overwhelming evidence, which you say you agree with.

HEY!! READ MY LIPS!!!

I MADE IT CLEAR WHAT EXACTLY I WAS/AM DISAGREEING WITH DAWKINS HERE!
GO BACK AND READ MY POST(S). YOU ARE BEING ARGUMENTATIVE HERE FOR THE SAKE OF ARGUMENT AND NOTHING ELSE!

I ALSO COMMENTED ABOUT WHAT THERE IS NO CLEAR EVIDENCE OF!

WHAT PART OF THAT DON'T YOU EFFIN GET???!!!

Yeah, sorry, I still don't get it.

Homo sapiens' footprints (so to speak) do not travel back in time unambiguously to the ocean. Are you saying they do? Provide evidence for that here, please.


As I've said before, and it is something that is not in dispute, Evolution is theory laden. Saying so is not the same thing as saying it is strictly a theory. Where have I indicated the process of evolution is not true? Show me.

Again, It's not a clear linear path to the Pacific Ocean for homo sapiens. Not yet, at least.
How do we know we weren't seeded here by one of Interbane's ET planets?

We gather as much empirical evidence as we can and create a narrative we hope has enough explanatory vigor.
Historical interpretation is inductive. Can you tell me how it is we arrive at objective truth from inductive processes?

[Dexter]

Homo sapiens' footprints (so to speak) do not travel back in time unambiguously to the ocean. Are you saying they do? Provide evidence for that here, please.

The theory and facts that you say you agree with would say that yes, they do travel back to the ocean. What is another possibility that is consistent with all that is known of biology?

How do we know we weren't seeded here by one of Interbane's ET planets?

Even if that were true, evolution still happened.

[ant]

Homo sapiens' footprints (so to speak) do not travel back in time unambiguously to the ocean. Are you saying they do? Provide evidence for that here, please.

The theory and facts that you say you agree with would say that yes, they do travel back to the ocean. What is another possibility that is consistent with all that is known of biology?

How do we know we weren't seeded here by one of Interbane's ET planets?

Even if that were true, evolution still happened.

You ignored a question. I'll take that as an admission of ignorance on your part. That is not a bad thing.


Wiki:
Evidence from the fossil record


There is little fossil evidence for the divergence of the gorilla, chimpanzee and hominin lineages.[25][26] The earliest fossils that have been proposed as members of the hominin lineage are Sahelanthropus tchadensis dating from 7 million years ago, and Orrorin tugenensis dating from 5.7 million years ago and Ardipithecus kadabba dating to 5.6 million years ago. Each of these have been argued to be a bipedal ancestor of later hominins, but in each cases the claims have been contested. It is also possible that either of these species are ancestors of another branch of African apes, or that they represent a shared ancestor between hominins and other apes. The question of the relation between these early fossil species and the hominin lineage is still to be resolved

How does little fossil evidence related to hominin lineages impact a factual claim that homo sapiens have a fish as a grandfather?

How do unanswered questions related to the relation between early fossil species and the hominin lineage affect a claim that it is a FACT our greats grandfather was a fish?

Can we say that evolution is both fact and theory? -
A scientific theory is "a well-substantiated explanation of some aspect of the natural world, based on a body of knowledge that has been repeatedly confirmed through observation and experiment"

Based on that definition, do we have a well-substantiated explanation of the lineage of homo sapiens?
If you say yes, then you are denying that the hominin lineage is unresolved. That is contrary to what science says.

[ant]

Dexter wrote:
Even if that were true, evolution still happened.

Who's evolution? ET's or Man's?

What evidence do you have that evolution as we currently understand it would have been the same for homo sapiens if ET was responsible in some way?

Do you think if there's life in other parts of the universe evolution would be the same for it as it is here?
If so, what evidence do you have to support that claim?

You are flirting with omniscient knowledge here.
Do you expect me to believe your propositions without a shred of evidence to back them?

[Dexter]

You ignored a question. I'll take that as an admission of ignorance on your part. That is not a bad thing.

You want evidence that all organisms are descended from ancestors in the water? Would you like me to paste in an evolution textbook or some Wiki pages?

It is also possible that either of these species are ancestors of another branch of African apes, or that they represent a shared ancestor between hominins and other apes. The question of the relation between these early fossil species and the hominin lineage is still to be resolved[/b]

How does little fossil evidence related to hominin lineages impact a factual claim that homo sapiens have a fish as a grandfather?

It doesn't. Why would it? Obviously no one is claiming that the evolutionary tree has been completely constructed.

If you think the theory that life started in the water and evolved from there is controversial, the burden of proof is on you. It is my understanding that this is part of what scientists consider to be a fact, and is based on fossil and DNA evidence, as well as things like biogeography and developmental biology. Aren't you agreeing with these basic facts of evolution?

[ant]

the burden of proof is on you

LMAO!!!

Okay, Dexter.
I'll take your burden off your back again.

Hot potato!!

[Dexter]

the burden of proof is on you

LMAO!!!

Okay, Dexter.
I'll take your burden off your back again.

Hot potato!!

OK, well first you admit that you accept evolution and then you want to question what every evolutionary biologist considers to be uncontroversial facts. Nothing wrong with questioning, but are you still confused about burden of proof?

[ant]

I found your greats grandfather

[geo]

Good Lord, Ant.

There's no theory proposing that humans evolved on a separate track than all other life forms. This demonstrates an astonishing level of denial and ignorance on your part. Whether you're a Creationist or not, you're certainly very motivated to not look at the evidence.

How do you account for the fact that humans share about 99 percent of DNA with chimpanzees? We're all hominids. Indeed, chimpanzees and bonobos are more closely related to humans than they are to gorillas.



"Along with the common chimpanzee, the bonobo is the closest extant relative to humans." (Wikipedia article on Bonobos)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bonobo

I have to say, it's good to know where you're coming from though. Your position has never made any sense until now. By the way, I heartily recommend The Third Chimpanzee by Jared Diamond. It's a wonderful book.

[geo]

deleted