Richard Dawkins Explains Why There Was Never a First Human Being

[Interbane]

Here is the issue ant has:

Can we be absolutely certain of our narrative's truthfulness?

Your answer, ant, is no. Absolute certainty is foolish, short of analytic truths(true by definition).

But being short on neurons, people think of the truth of things in terms of a dichotomy, perhaps with a smudge of grey in the middle. If it's not absolutely true, then there's doubt. And the alternative to either of those is that it's false. But that's a poor reflection of our knowledge. Consider the oft-repeated example of how we can't be certain the sun will rise tomorrow. Certainty would be foolish, at the same time that complete confidence would be justified. The devil is in the details here.

That does not mean we should doubt that the sun will come up tomorrow. We have enough data and justification to be near-certain, though not absolutely certain, that the sun will rise in the morning. The same holds with the truth of evolution. You're wanting Dexter to admit that the knowledge isn't certain, as though you could segue from that and show that there is "doubt". But the concepts here do not have gradients of meaning outside academic philosophy to fully convey what is meant. Yes, there is doubt, but it's no larger than the doubt we have in nearly every other fact of our universe. Minimizing doubt is the best we can do; doubt will never be eradicated.

If you want to emphasize the doubt of homo sapiens' lineage, pointing to gaps in our knowledge is futile. Induction still applies, even to those gaps, based off evidence that supports the entire theory. It's like arguing against a handful of missing pieces in a trillion piece puzzle.

The only way to emphasize the doubt of homo sapiens' lineage(which is what you seem to be attempting), is to offer a stronger hypothesis. Otherwise, the doubt that exists is a well understood and accepted part of the provisional nature of science. Your ulterior motive is wafting.

[ant]

How do you account for the fact that humans share about 99 percent of DNA with chimpanzees?

Who the F*** is denying that??


BTW,
I thought you were on vacation??!!

[ant]

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.

After you read my post, you decided to blabber on about apes and chips.
And for what?

What the hell is all this for?
Go read my posts, for Christ sakes.

[ant]

If you want to emphasize the doubt of homo sapiens' lineage, pointing to gaps in our knowledge is futile. Induction still applies, even to those gaps, based off evidence that supports the entire theory. It's like arguing against a handful of missing pieces in a trillion piece puzzle.

This is comical.

Actually, science emphasizes that.

Induction based on what evidence? You mean the evidence that's in the gaps?
So, you've arrived at an objective fact based on an inductive analysis of little to no linear hominin fossil evidence that is both unresolved AND contested within the scientific community?
Totally logical! It makes sense now! WOW! You've proved it's an objective fact that our greats grandfather was a fish!!
What other facts can you share, based on that same strict scientific reasoning??

And here I thought we just appeared out of thin air in the Garden of Eden!
After all, that's what I've been saying here all along! Just ask Geo!

[Dexter]

This is comical.

Indeed. You accept evolution, except for the part about descending from earlier aquatic life forms.

[ant]

Indeed. You accept evolution, except for the part about descending from earlier aquatic life forms.

You're resorting to lies now.

I dispute how Dawkins is delivering his message here.
By scientific definition, it is not a FACT. And Dawkins knows how science defines the word "fact" and how his general audience defines it.

[geo]

How do you account for the fact that humans share about 99 percent of DNA with chimpanzees?

Who the F*** is denying that??


BTW,
I thought you were on vacation??!!

Oops, my bad. I did recognize my mistake as soon as I posted that.

But, you see, from my position, whether you're denying that we descended from a common ape-human ancestor or denying that life evolved from the sea or that the common ape-human ancestor evolved on a separate track from all other life, is all more or less the same. All positions are completely at odds with modern science. This isn't just my own interpretation of the data. This is common knowledge that you can find in any reputable source. Life evolved from the sea. There are no alternative theories being bandied about.

What I said about you being motivated to not look at the evidence still stands. Your position is untenable, but you won't even admit it, nor do you seem inclined to question it. It's actually very interesting.

I'm on vacation in Florida. Got in late, late last night.

[ant]

I'll tell you what really is the problem here.
The reason people's underwear is in wads over this is because I've questioned Richard Dawkins communication style.
But it's true. Dawkins has been known to cleverly dress up theory as fact. Mostly in his writings.

But there isn't an atheist on the planet, and certainly not here, that will question Dawkins delivery method.

No one here disputed the entire evolutionary process.
No one here claimed that it's not possible to conceive that Man's origin is some watery, mud puddle.
No one here denied that the DNA of apes and Man is near identical.

I questioned ONE DAMN EFFIN BRANCH OF EVOLUTION and it sends you all spinning out of control.

I've got news for you - there are very REAL open questions related to the lineage of homo sapiens.
That's not to say it's not highly likely that our origin is water. It's just highlighting the gap of knowledge for the sake of honesty and nothing else. It wasn't an attempt to say, "You see! God does exist!"
A believer like Kevin Miller, myself included, does NOT need gaps or shadows to find evidence for their faith.
I don't care how much you know or THINK YOU KNOW. The fact that anyone would feel a need to shoot someone down because of their beliefs goes to the essence of what an arrogant jerk that person is.

"He's a Creationist! SHOOT HIM!!" "SEND HIM TO THE GALLOWS!" "OFF WITH HIS HEAD!"

You guys just can't stand that I am not willing to throw strict scientific method and definition out the window for the sake of backing Dawkins.
I don't care.

[ant]

How do you account for the fact that humans share about 99 percent of DNA with chimpanzees?

Who the F*** is denying that??


BTW,
I thought you were on vacation??!!

Oops, my bad. I did recognize my mistake as soon as I posted that.

But, you see, from my position, whether you're denying that we descended from a common ape-human ancestor or denying that life evolved from the sea or that the common ape-human ancestor evolved on a separate track from all other life, is all more or less the same. All positions are completely at odds with modern science. This isn't just my own interpretation of the data. This is common knowledge that you can find in any reputable source. Life evolved from the sea. There are no alternative theories being bandied about.

What I said about you being motivated to not look at the evidence still stands. Your position is untenable, but you won't even admit it, nor do you seem inclined to question it. It's actually very interesting.

I'm on vacation in Florida. Got in late, late last night.

Yours was a knee-jerk reaction.
I am not at odds with modern science when I question one of its claims.
Have you read Thomas Kuhn's Structure? What is to be said about "common knowledge" as it relates to a scientific community?

What is "actually very interesting"? Is this an attempt at mockery?

If I were you, I'd enjoy my vacation.

[Interbane]

Induction based on what evidence? You mean the evidence that's in the gaps?
So, you've arrived at an objective fact based on an inductive analysis of no little to no linear hominin fossil evidence that is both unresolved AND contested within the scientific community?

No, ant, induction does not use missing data to extrapolate from. It uses existing data, of which there is more than enough.

Do you think any single "piece" of evidence amongst the millions would suffice for you? It looks like you need quite a bit more, to get through your thick skull that evolution can be classified as a fact.

Changes in the postcranial skeleton from 160 thousand years ago would be laughed at by you. So would the slight changes in brow ridges and mandibles from H. Neanderthalis or H. Heidelbergensis. Or the gradual increase in enamel thickness from “monkeys” through Australopiths through H. Sapiens. Or the thinning and straightening of the tibia and fibula across the three. Or the orientation of the Scapulae across the three. Or the fusing of chromosomes 2a and 2b into the human chromosome 2. Any single piece of evidence that shows the gradient change in proto-primates to prosimians to monkeys to humans. Or anything that shows lineage before that point. No single piece would suffice for you.

The fossils alone don’t tell us much. What is your assessment based on, looking at pictures of fossils on the internet? It’s about the countless inferences that can be made from multiple collections of fossils, showing trends that cannot be viewed singularly. Trends that are also supported by many other fields of science and many other pieces of evidence.

Since you’re already motivated to disbelieve, you won’t invest time to look through just how much evidence there truly is, nor the picture that is inevitably painted. You scoff at what inductive inferences could be based on, but then refuse to go look for yourself. Spare us your petty indignation, you’re making yourself look like a fool here.

Totally logical! It makes sense now! WOW! You've proved it's an objective fact that our greats grandfather was a fish!!
What other facts can you share, based on that same strict scientific reasoning??

Induction, or how you assume it works, hasn't proven anything. Why are you saying it has, and what makes you think that's my position? Also, what’s with the great-grandfather-fish idea? Is there a pseudo-scientist somewhere claiming that his great grandfather was a fish? That would be ridiculous, even without your assumption that this pseudo-scientist could somehow prove it.

But there isn't an atheist on the planet, and certainly not here, that will question Dawkins delivery method.

I would question Dawkins in a heartbeat, if he said something I thought was wrong. But instead I disagree with your critique. That we've evolved is a fact. You'd have better luck trying to redefine the word fact to fit your beliefs. You claim we're overreacting against your reaction. But, what if yours was the first overreaction? If your initial point was wrong ant, then every response to you in this thread was justified.