Why is Anthropology taken so seriously in the "science" world? The entire discipline is based on the assumption of evolution when it's completely impossible to dismiss the possibility of creationism.
>believes in the Homo erectus
>literally out of africa
Friend if you want to add religious elements to the discussion tell me what makes you think evolution and creationism do not go hand in hand.
I've read the bible very carefully - there are no direct or precise explanations but rather the general idea of God being the origination point and the supreme Creator, guider of creation - but it does not say God did this according to our concepts, it is said God works in mysterious ways that humans are not able to understand.
Do not dismiss evolution, it is backed by so much proof and its laboratory tested.
Adam was not physical, Eden was not part of this universe - it came down here. Adam took human flesh - this is a lower state of being.
What the tradition explains about this is that the human soul got created when Adam took human flesh. There is no one to say that evolution did not happen in this reality for the conditions of man to be fully developed.
You should read what the early holy fathers wrote about the chapter of Genesis, also what the athonite monks wrote about it - they describe it in great details.
Go ahead and disprove the possibility of a god or god-like deity, better yet prove evolution actually exists
>inb4 evolution is adoption over time maymays
Remember Darwin himself wasn't an evolutionist, he believed in adaptation
He believed the canaries adapted over time to their environment, he never specifically said humans evolved from apes you fool
>not a good one
Define a good argument, you can't disprove God then the entire argument FOR evolution crumbles, the entire science of Anthropology is based on a THEORY
Man go out, get few books. Watch few documentaries about evolution - understand what studies are behind it, the works behind it.. then come back.
I'm sorry but we cannot talk with you about evolution when it is so evident that you do not understand how it is defined.
Christians know genesis was meant to teach Jews the idea of omnipotent God - but it did not cover the exact procedure of creating an universe - it's an metaphorical story - entry level story to simply understand that God is omnipotent and is behind everything.
>He believed the canaries adapted over time to their environment, he never specifically said humans evolved from apes you fool
>Lamarkian evolution isn't a theory about evolution, darwinian theory isn't a theory about evolution, natural selection isn't a mechanism of evolution, evolution only refers to human evolution?
Anthropology is very much a soft science, it is not taken seriously by much of the scientific world.
Your transparent trolling aside, anthropology is neither 'based upon' nor does it even require the 'assumption of evolution'. It does however address them currently as they are the most well founded and accepted principles regarding the origins and development of all life, hominid included.
Anthropology also does not dismiss the possibility of an intelligent creator, it simply lacks the scientific evidence with which to pursue the hypothesis, so it does not.
Anthropology is a Humanity profession that applies the scientific theory, it would make it fairly scientific. Of course when you try and apply such a restricted way of research (CAN'T HEAR CAN'T TOUCH CAN'T SEE LALALALA) you wont find anything for the argument of creationism.. It's like trying to swim to the shore but limiting yourself to only float in the shore's direction.
Why is physics taken so seriously in the "science" world? The entire discipline is based upon the assumption of special relativity when it's completely impossible to dismiss the possibility of luminiferous aether.
>Believes in the propagation of light through space without a medium
I think you need to look up the phrase "soft science". Also I never claimed it was not a scientific discipline. Im not afraid of discussing or researching the possibility of an intelligent designer. I am also unwilling to flatly state that it is false. No credible scientists should be willing to confirm a negative in that fashion.
However if you would like to confirm a creator, you are going to need to adhere to the scientific process with demonstrable repeatable and reviewed evidence.
If you have some form of demonstrable and repeatable proof of the existence of a creator, and thus, his source as the origin of human life, I'd be very interested to hear it.
As an advocate of creationism I believe trying to apply scientific theory to prove creationism goes against the entire dogma of the christian church, which underlies the basis of faith and not scientific evidence. Scientists have moved the goalposts to a very narrow definition (scientific theory) that cannot satisfy the scientific argument for Creationism. You already know this however. We both know this. What I want to ask you is why should we only stick with the Scientific Theory to prove Creationism?
Because science works.
Scientists have not "moved the goalposts". Scientific method has always been the scientific method, requiring the same practices, proofs, and review as always. Up to now, creationism has lacked the kind of testable, repeatable, demonstrable, evidence and findings to have the scientific method applied to it.
Understand that I am not here to criticize or belittle your beliefs, you are free to believe as you see fit. Also understand that I am not trying to disprove the existence of a creator by applying evolutionary biology to anthropology, it is simply where all our current evidence points us to as the truth, and so it is the methodology which we use.
Im fine with their possibly being a creator, Im also fine with that not being scientifically faslifiable, but understand that the possible existence of a creator, and the scientific method are mutually exclusive until such time as sufficiently testable hypothesis, data and evidence about the creator is forthcoming.
So again all I ask is, if you have the kind of testable, demonstrable proof that might be used to prove the existence of a creator, scientifically, bring it forward. If not, why even ask the scientists who are simply operating under the framework they have achieved with functional testable scientific findings? They have nothing to do with one another.
F A M, your argument is a red herring, also, you are creating a evolution/creationism false dichotomy.
i mean cmon boyo
Interesting observation anon, however if you were smart you would know that simply supposedly identifying "logical fallacies" by itself is not enough to discredit the argument, or even dismiss that the fallacy itself was not without any intellectual merit, also
>God created monkeys to evolve into humans!
Pretty heretical F A M
Very well made post anon, since you know your stuff you'll also know you pose upon me an impossible task, all I can offer if my unshakable faith in an intelligent design, and at the very least the shadow of doubt within me that cannot dismiss the idea of an intelligent designer... to say the very least.
It is this very faith which I cannot demonstrate scientifically that can never satisfy your question. Science is a very beautiful thing that has helped improve the lives of billions, but used in the wrong way can lead a person astray
Very nice having this discussion with you anon
>God created monkeys to evolve into humans!
Humans did not evolve from monkeys. As you seem lucid and trying to make an intelligent point, I would caution you against using this in future debates because it is incorrect, and is not what is being asserted by evolutionary biology.
>all I can offer if my unshakable faith in an intelligent design
I have no problems with your faith and I hope it brings you joy and happiness. However your faith or beliefs are not sufficient for scientific inquiry.
>It is this very faith which I cannot demonstrate scientifically that can never satisfy your question.
I am not asking for evidence of your faith, I am asking for testable evidence to research the potential of a creator. If you are claiming your faith, itself, is evidence, let me tell you about my belief.
I am personally of the belief that the current understanding of bifacial stone tools is completely false. The current assumption is that a complex stone tool (say, a clovis spearhead) was created from the beginning with the end tool in mind, all at once.
I do not believe this is the case, and that the tool was created over time, as pieces of sharp stone were required, slowly working up to a final piece.
There is some testable material here, there have been points found mid-creation with blood and butchery marks, there's the anecdotal evidence of actually sitting down and making a stone tool.
However since this is a soft science and it's very difficult to categorically prove that this is true with falsifiable data (were trying to prove the nebulous, possible, intent of 14,000 year old hunter gatherers), it is a belief.
Since I cannot provide the testable and demonstrable proof of this, it remains a belief. I firmly hold this belief, but I also recognize I cannot base other scientific inquiry upon this belief until I can prove it.
So goes the existence of a creator. If you can't prove it, you can't use it for other scientific inquiry (such as anthropology).
Very well, and I assert that I do not need to frame my advocacy of creationism in Scientific Theory to prove that it exists, on the flip side I do not find the scientific assertion of the theory of evolution to not be enough to satisfy my question on the existence of the possibility of evolution. The theory of an intelligent designer does not require scientific evidence to prove that it indeed, exists because you cannot see or feel but simply have faith in that it is true.
well, as another anon pointed out, I will caution you against creating a false dichotomy between evolution and creation. They are not necessarily mutually exclusive. More importantly though, I believe we are operating under different definitions of both 'true' and 'prove'.
I am not saying your faith does not exist, or that you do not believe it. I am not saying that there is NOT a creator. I am saying that in order to categorically prove the existence of a creator, to the scientific community, you will need to do so with the scientific method. If your belief is enough to sustain you, that's fine. However that is only sufficient for your own beliefs (same as my belief in bifacial stone tool creation). Categorical truths, and proof, are by necessity: demonstrable repeatable and testable.
It's fine to have personal beliefs, or things which you find to be 'true' even if they lack evidence or credibility. It is another thing entirely to use these assumptions as evidence to support an assertion you are making to other people.
Other anthropologists are fine with my belief about bifacial tools as long as I do not do other scientific work simply assuming it to be a true fact.
If you want to believe something, it does not require proof, if you want to prove something as demonstrably real and true (especially to science), you do require proof.
>disprove the possibility of a god or god-like deity, better yet prove evolution actually exists
Nobody force anybody to believe in evolution. Theory of evolution is only the most decent and accurate regarding the facts we have in hand. We don't need to prove it. Instead it will surely be adjusted when new and unexpected facts will arise from scientific inquiries. On the other hand, facts tend to dismiss the possibility of a god or god-like deity. This possibility may bring you comforting psychological support, it doesn't make it true for other people.
That's a good point. I've taken anthropology classes and I can verify that they do assume evolution. Reminds me of something I discovered recently related to evolution: The main story people want us to believe is that 4-6 million years ago, humans didn't exist, and that we had a common ancestor with a chimpanzee. They say that this "wan't a chimp" but that it also "wasn't a human." So that means it would have to have features of both. The problem is, chimpanzees don't have features of both, and humans don't have features of both. If humans and chimps don't have features of both, then how could the common ancestor have features of both? That means either humans evoluved from chimps, or chimps evolved from humans. Obviously since humans are more advanced than chimps, the humans must have "evolved" from chimps. However, if chimps evolted into humans, then how are there still chimps? According to evolution, birds evolved from dinosaurs, therefore there are no dinosaurs left. If humans evolved from chimps, then IT MAKES NOT SENSE FOR THERE TO BE ANY CHIMPS
>I don't understand evolution
>chimpanzees don't have features of both, and humans don't have features of both
>According to evolution, birds evolved from dinosaurs, therefore there are no dinosaurs left
Nope technically birds are literally dinosaurs.
This has to beg the question, why do so many scientists believe in evolution? Even though many scientists do NOT believe in it, there is still a significant percent that does. If you think about it, the darwinists have the same evidence as us, but we can come to different conclusions because we don't have the bias of darwinism. Darwinism is the biased assumption that Richard Darwin had all the correct ideas about life science, based on the fact that he was a leading scientist of the time (the 19th century). Actually, Darwin wasn't even a real scientist, he just drew pictures and made stuff up on a boat, but the darwinists don't want to hear that. The bias of darwinism makes many people deluded into thinking that the evidence always points in favor of THEIR view, even though to an unbiased person that would not be the case. But the delusional/biased people aren't the only ones that make up believers in evolution. Since evolutionists have a monopoly on the media and on education, they are able to brainwash (for lack of a better word) aspiring students. That is how some people can continue to be deluded. However, science teachers also dismiss any evidence against evolution a priori, and even refuse to discuss it at all. Many students end up thinking that the only evidence out there is evidence IN FAVOR of evolution, and they're just ignorant of the facts that go against the mainstream theory.
think about it: what features do humans have in common with chimpanzees? the answer is zero. yes, there are five fingers but as you know that's not enough evidence to prove they are the same feature.
what I want to know is why is mainstream science so opposed to questioning perspectives like this? There are a lot of people who are questioning the evidence in favor of common descent with modification, but we all know that teachers and scientists aren't interested in discussing the facts, they're interested in advancing their own agenda. The problem is, many students aren't satisfied with just being told "this is correct, you just have to accept it and ignore the holes in it." I don't want a theory full of "holes," I want one full of "wholes." If evolution can't explain why chimpanzees and humans can be extant together, even when they're supposed to be genetically related by a common ancestor, and that's the cornerstone of the theory, then why should we be expected to believe it? It's a sad symptom of the state of science when there are tens of thousands of "darwinism apologists" in our classrooms, and there are only a handful of dissenters (some of whom get blacklisted or imprisoned for questioning the consensus).
if you think about it, the common ancestor between humans and spiders actually isn't physically possible. Just think about the number of legs it would have had. Spiders have eight legs, humans have two, so you might think the common ancestor should have had 5 legs. However, the human-spider ancestor would have t o have had the features of the common ancestor of MAMMALs, not just humans. Since humans have 2, and other mammals have 4, then the number for the mammal ancestor would be 3. The spider-human ancestor would be (8+3)/2, which is 5.5. The human-spider ancestor would have to have had 5.5 legs, which is not a possible number of legs. If you have half a leg, it's not really a leg. You can have 5 legs, you can have 6 legs, but you can't have 5.5 legs. I think this means humans and spider would not have had a common ancestor, so they are from separate lineages in a family tree. Spiders might be the brother-in-law, and humans would be the brothers
On the other hand, spiders have eight eyes. Humans have 2 eyes, and so do mammals. That means the spider-human acnestor will have had 5 eyes, just like you would expect. If spiders had 7 eyes, it would not work. However, this seems to actually be evidence in FAVOR of a common acnestor between spiders and humans/all mamals. There is another test for common ancestry, which is to look at the dna. If two species are descended from a common ancestor, then you would expect to see the same sequences of dna in both species. However, the spider genome has not been found to be identical to human dna in that respect, which is a result AGAINST relationship. The same is true for chimpanzees. If you look at chimpanzee dna, it may be similar in some places, but that's because it needs to do similar things (regulate bloodflow, make white blood cells, etc). In fact, humans have not been found, contrary to evolutionary prediciton, to have the same dna as ANY species whose dna has been thoroughly investigated.
The Catholic Church has officially recognized that the theory of evolution and the bible do not contradict each other. It was god who steered and controlled the random chance which provides the resources on which natural selection acts.
If you aren't Catholic you are a heathen, a blasphemiser and wrong.
All I'm saying is if you identify common ancestors based on shared features, whether that's DNA matching or morphological traits, then you can't account for spiders and human relationship. You're making the claim that legless invertebrates/shrimps are the common ancestor of humans and spiders. Ok, so 300 million years ago, some shrimp got isolated and underwent speciation. Then later maybe another group of shrimp branched off. The original shrimp population remained unchanged. Ok, as unlikely as that is, even if it were the case, it still doesn't explain how spiders have 8 legs and humans have 2 legs. The common ancestor of humans are mammals, which have 4 legs, so if you compare humans and mammals, their common ancestor had to have had 3 legs in order to be the simplest amount of change between each species. However, if you apply the same comparative method to spiders and mammals, you see that it's impossible to have a common ancestor with that number of legs. Adding shrimp in there just makes things even more difficult, because the common ancestor of humans and spiders now also has to have a common ancestor with a shrimp, which has I-don't-know-how-many legs, so you'll get an even more bizarre fraction number of legs.
The common ancestor would have likely been more 'worm' like, with one branch evolving a notochord followed by a true spine, in some fish type form, pic related. also look at Tunicates, while mature they are immobile filter feeders, but their larvae are mobile.
>The earliest unequivocal species of tunicate appeared in the fossil record in the early Cambrian period. Despite their simple appearance and very different adult form, their close relationship to the vertebrates is shown by the fact that during their mobile larval stage, they possess a notochord or stiffening rod and resemble a tadpole
Basically, evolution has difficulty predicting the correct number of appendages, specifically legs, present in ancestral forms of certain species. First, consider an example in which "evoltion" is capable of the predictsion of one correct estimation of leg count. For example, pigs and humans common ancestors. The evaluation criterion for whether the predictsion of the estimation is viable has to be within the definition of the leg domain. This is possible because a leg is defined as a discrete unit; you can't have half a leg and still be a leg. Therefore, if the number of legs predicted does not represent a discrete number of legs, then the prediction is invalid. Therefore, because frogs have 4 legs and humans have 2 legs, the nubmer of legs predicted is valid. (4+2)/2=3. However, what about humans and tripod fish? This ancestor would have had to have had 2.5 legs, which is invalid. This does not even bring up the issue of extrapolation to common ancestors of common ancestors (what about the common ancestor of humans/mammals and insects?), or the issue of ill-defined leg sets, like those of the "vestigial pelvic" bones of whales, and purpotedly also in serpentine creatures.
If we have a designer/creator he certainly wasn't intelligent.
Examples: wisdom teeth need to be removed, appendix does nothing except occassionally endanger our lives, and the nerves that control your throat goes down to the heart then back up rather than straight from the brain/spine.
If god is such a bad engineer, idk why he should be followed senpai.
it's an interesting possibility, but note that one ancient species with 0 legs does not imply that the ultimate common ancestor has 0 legs. with these kinds of things, there's no way of knowing whether the old species like the one you mentioned is actually the exact species that gave descent to all its purported descendants. for example, it is more likely that this species is only peripherally related to humans and spiders, and was rather related to the common ancestor of humans and spiders instead of being THE exact common ancestor. for this reason, such a discoverey introduces the new issue of a 0-legged ancestor into the average. first we can find the # of legs for the human-speider ancestor (assuming binary branching evolutioniary history), and then add that in with the 0-legged ancestor. this gives us 5 legs for the human-spider ancestor, and then 2.5 legs for the human-spider-worm common ancestor, which is not a valid leg number, unless you consider fractional legs to indicate some kind of vestigial developmentations.
Actually, this raises an interesting point, one about which i never thought about beofre. Assume the truth of the whale-pelvic-bone hypothesis, and then consider the consequences "evolutionarily."
it seems reasonable that the center of gravity of the whale would certainly lower it to the ground during its expansion over many generations, therefore it is likely that to compensate for its enormous girth it would take to the water as the result of Adaptation/adaptions. However, interestingly, this creates one small problem for the calculations of the truth values of the number of legs for the mammal family. If whales do actually belong to said family according to the lineage described, then what is the number of legs that they do have? Is it zero or is it 1? Whales obviously do not have legs in the traditional sense of the word, but in this case a radical reanaliysis of the facts seems to warrant an altered understanding of the notion "leg." therefore, wouldn't it be logical to propose a leg ennumeration system in which flippers and hip bones together constitute one single leg? In this case, the correct predicted number of legs for the mammal ancestor should be 1+2+4/3, which is 3.5. Unfortunately, If I'm interpreting the data correctly, this result does not bode well for the inclusion of whales into the mammal family.
>Actually, this raises an interesting point, one about which i never thought about beofre. Assume the truth of the whale-pelvic-bone hypothesis, and then consider the consequences "evolutionarily."
>it seems reasonable that the center of gravity of the whale would certainly lower it to the ground during its expansion over many generations, therefore it is likely that to compensate for its enormous girth it would take to the water as the result of Adaptation/adaptions. However, interestingly, this creates one small problem for the calculations of the truth values of the number of legs for the mammal family. If whales do actually belong to said family according to the lineage described, then what is the number of legs that they do have? Is it zero or is it 1? Whales obviously do not have legs in the traditional sense of the word, but in this case a radical reanaliysis of the facts seems to warrant an altered understanding of the notion "leg." therefore, wouldn't it be logical to propose a leg ennumeration system in which flippers and hip bones together constitute one single leg? In this case, the correct predicted number of legs for the mammal ancestor should be 1+2+4/3, which is 3.5. Unfortunately, If I'm interpreting the data correctly, this result does not bode well for the inclusion of whales into the mammal family.
Do you think this is in any way valid? Honestly, you got me hook, line, and sinker! I can't look away!
The problem with anthopology is the same problem with all other social sciences. It's dominated by commies.
>Margaret Mead writes a lot of wishful thinking bullshit about Samoa
>is considered a classic of anthropology
>Napoleon Chagnon works hard in his studies in South America to understand indigenous cultures
>is purged by the the American Anthropological Association because it didn't fit their left-wing bias
And that's one of the greatest anthropologists alive. Imagine what they don't do with small fish.
>In this case, the correct predicted number of legs for the mammal ancestor should be 1+2+4/3, which is 3.5. Unfortunately, If I'm interpreting the data correctly, this result does not bode well for the inclusion of whales into the mammal family.
you have to realize that the facts are the facts. If you look at the data, 100% of species are thought to be descant from a common acnestor. if you look at the dna you'll realize that the genes are all aligned in a certain way. however, you have to realize, DNA is an informational system. slightly more formally, "'DNA'"==[["INFORMATION"]]. however, that information can't "evolve" per say, but it has to come from somewhere, but not by the means of evolution biologically speaking. so if it comes about from some other source, you can speculate all you want, but it takes some empirical research to really demonstrate a CONVINCING origin. and that's just it. it's all in our minds. the idea of information. it doens't "exist" in the natural universe. biologically speaking, evolution can't "evolved," from itself(or from nothing), because it doesn't "exist"! however, as soon as this realization is made it has more reaching implications unto the rest of evolutionairy theory. therefore, if the concept of informational quality in DNA structures is introduced by humans, then so is the "narrative" process of evoltion throughout history. so it doesn't make any sense to talk about one species evolting into another diachronically, it only makes sense to talk about them in the most synchronic sense of the concept. as soon as you abstract away from these things, you realize that the entire dialogue of evolution can be arbitrarialized into a number of facets which aren't necessary for the procedure to take place, if at all, including "single common ancestor" theory.
quite the contrary my good lad, what a fine day to be dissertating at such a pleasantry of a question. this discernment is quiet unfortunately inccorrect as ever before has anyone seen, for it is quiet unlikely that such a question be ramificationable in the not-so-distant forthcomings; As you are undoubtedly salient, evolution has never been ascendantly validated, and therefore is not such as would most likely be considered in the upper eschelon of scientific inquirey as "true science." Though it may be the case that in such a day and age such as this, many do accept it as thus; lamentaciously; the various evidentialities of evolutionary "science" (requiring that it be called such is a misnomer; unfortunately) are the result of might we call a CONSPIRATION of the upper classes of under-educated scientists [of the 19th centuries]. Keep in mind that an animal such as an aardvark is said to have existed AFTER the time of an animalistic creature such as a Trilobyte. However, bear in mind the word-initial letters in each case. Aardvark: "A," trilobytte ("T"). If the trilobite existed prior to the aardvark, then why does aardvark begin with a letter prior to the first letter of trilobyte? If evolution were indeed most EFFICEINT, wouldn't the names of animals begin with the first letter of hte alphabet, then working it's way through to the later letters? we do not find this patter exant among those animals who exist supercilliously today.
DNA can be, and often is, copied with small mistakes. When DNA is copied to use in the beginning cells of a baby, these altered cells make differences from the parents. Over many generations, these differences pile up. Ones with differences that benefit the creature in getting to the age of reproduction, and then reproducing, are more likely to survive, thus making it into the next generation. The opposite happens for differences that make a creature less suited for its environment. These differences, over many generations, each adding a few more, end up turning one creature into another. Remember, this stuff happens over millions to billions of years. Also remember, creatures do not observe their environment, then change based on it, the process is more like stumbling around in the dark. At least, that's my understanding of the subject.
You obviously have no idea how the scientific methodology works, you living fossile of a person.
If you are a Christian, as I am, the evolution theory doesn't have to dismiss your belief in the creator, but literally not even Vatican or Pope himself claim the Creation is literal in 2016.
Most dominant belief is that God dictacted the evolution and influened it to improve the world and in that process the mankind is the final and highest achievement. I find this to be completely reasonable thinking from a standpoint of a Christian. Nature is truly a miracle and it inspires the thoughts of higher divine entity responsible for it. Hell, somebody could start a Church of Evolution. But look around you, bones and structures quite literally are popping out of the ground in the people's gardens and they're older than the supposed date of Creation. Remains of primates and prehistorical animals obviously suggest on the fact that humans and other beings improved over time.
This is moronic. The mammal-ancestor proto-rat had four LIMBS. Due to evolution, some branches of that proto-rat ended up going back to an aquatic enviroment, where their limbs gradually disappeared/became fins. A different branch went to become primates, where the front limbs became arms