Atheists & Agnostics

muriel_volestrangler

(102,516 posts)

9. I'm perfectly serious, because I read the thing, and didn't have a kneejerk

Sat Nov 28, 2015, 09:31 AM

Nov 2015

"there must be something wrong with this" reaction.

No, obviously he isn't referring to evolution, because he doesn't talk about it. What he does talk about is "the proliferation of hominids", and "that it would take a lifetime’s training to really evaluate".

"That doesn't mean it's just guesswork and that every possible arrangement and interpretation is equally valid based on out current understanding."

Straw man.

"That doesn't mean that we can't be sure whether Lucy or a Neanderthal is more closely related to modern humans. "

Straw man.

"Compare what science tells us about the human family tree now to what it could tell us 50 years ago and 100 years ago. And then compare that improvement to what any other "way of thinking" can claim."

Straw man.

Hell, you're building up a whole family tree of straw men. What that paragraph says is that we don't have the expertise to evaluate the differences between such hominids, and we have to take the experts' words for it - and they don't have a definite result anyway.

Edit history

Please sign in to view edit histories.

28 replies

= new reply since forum marked as read

Highlight:

Spooked What do we learn about science from a controversy in physics? [View all] Warren Stupidity Nov 2015 OP

What a twit skepticscott Nov 2015 #1

That's not what his point is. Warren Stupidity Nov 2015 #2

Saying that it's "complicated" skepticscott Nov 2015 #4

This^ AlbertCat Nov 2015 #5

"A few blackened Serengei mandibles"?? AlbertCat Nov 2015 #6

But he didn't mention evolution at all muriel_volestrangler Nov 2015 #7

Please tell me you're being sarcastic skepticscott Nov 2015 #8

I'm perfectly serious, because I read the thing, and didn't have a kneejerk muriel_volestrangler Nov 2015 #9

The "proliferation of hominids" skepticscott Nov 2015 #10

No, the proliferation of hominids is not evolution muriel_volestrangler Nov 2015 #11

"But it is a special kind of social activity, one where lots of different human traits— AlbertCat Nov 2015 #14

Who said it was 'news'? It's a book review in the New Yorker muriel_volestrangler Nov 2015 #15

It's a book review in the New Yorker AlbertCat Nov 2015 #17

And you call me 'obtuse'. AlbertCat Nov 2015 #18

I pointed it out because skepticscott had said muriel_volestrangler Nov 2015 #19

The authors pretends that bullshit, strawman arguments are somehow legitimate skepticscott Nov 2015 #21

Yes, you are being deliberately obtuse skepticscott Nov 2015 #20

You said you were loving this; don't throw a tantrum, when you're tiring of your lesson muriel_volestrangler Nov 2015 #22

You still can't grasp the difference between talking about evolution skepticscott Nov 2015 #23

Your simple point was wrong. muriel_volestrangler Nov 2015 #24

The dispute between Bohr and Einstein skepticscott Nov 2015 #25

OK: muriel_volestrangler Nov 2015 #26

No, obviously he isn't referring to evolution, because he doesn't talk about it. AlbertCat Nov 2015 #12

And the dividing line between species, AlbertCat Nov 2015 #13

And that's the point; you can't work out that dividing line from fossils muriel_volestrangler Nov 2015 #16

An interesting bit of philosophistry Yorktown Nov 2015 #3

Well...Science is hardly just a "social activity" Duppers Dec 2015 #27

The scientific method can be derived from statistics. Religious belief violates statistics. DetlefK Dec 2015 #28