format_quote Originally Posted by
Wa7abiScientist
you are a pro-evolutionist? Please demonstrate to me live evidence of humans emerging from their ancestors. I would like to see step by step changes in fossils which capture every graded minute change that was required for humans to emerge from their primitive primate ancestors.
Mutation rates are slow and it will take millions of years? Fine. Develop a system that speeds up evolution yet mimics nature. And then demonstrate. Till then, its just a belief.
I'm not pro anything. I was just pointing out what evolution says in answer to his statement.
How can you possibly expect a step by step proof for change? Evolution suggests millions of changes. You cannot expect all this proof to be discovered in less than a century, if at all.
format_quote Originally Posted by
Wa7abiScientist
Yes why not, after all those changes happened right? Now you will call this misplaced skepticism? Right? Something which you cant answer, even though it could be answered if there was evidence, you then call it "radical skepticism?" A strong claim needs a strong proof.
Fossils provide a direct observation of what happened in the past. I value fossil evidence to be of higher credibility than genetic evidence. Genetic evidence only points to similarity, not descent. "similarities in monkeys and humans genome are greater than the differences." So? That does not necessitate descent.
Why should it necessitate descent? The theory does not say we are descended from monkeys. Both monkeys are humans branch off from a common ancestor.
Not everything which happened can be proven. Not everything which dies leaves a fossil.
Lastly, I just want to say that I am not heavily sided one way or the other. I'm just pointing out the basic answers to the things he was saying in order to prevent this thread from being one sided. Berlinski also says things which are unsubstatiated and irrelevant... like "there was a liberal attitude between mathematicians" - does he know all mathematicians?, "a group of mathematicians", "a group of physicists", etc. How is this relevant? There are plenty of mathematicians and physicists who do accept the theory. Its like me telling you I know a group of lawyers who accept quantum mechanics. Thats fair enough but it doesn't lend weight to the argument, because (a) even though they are smart people they not in the field, and (b) you cannot judge an argument or belief by how many people accept it.