Posts by cofty

32

Evolution Gap - Where's the Fur? Redux

by shadow in

i am posting a second topic on this subject since the first one became overrun by snakes.. cofty posted a link to a published paper discussing this topic and referred to the information in it as "facts".

here is my summary of that paper along with comments on it.. one of the opening statements says that:.

two frequently debated aspects of hominin evolution are the development of upright bipedal stance and reduction in body hair.. so for those who believe this is a stupid topic, it is a subject of interest to many stupid people including the authors of the paper referred to by cofty.

cofty

let's say that we believe the arch got there all by itself - Shadow

That would make us superstitious fools - Cofty

yes it would - Shadow

Now you are bailing out the conversation rather than deal with the facts.

32

Evolution Gap - Where's the Fur? Redux

by shadow in

i am posting a second topic on this subject since the first one became overrun by snakes.. cofty posted a link to a published paper discussing this topic and referred to the information in it as "facts".

here is my summary of that paper along with comments on it.. one of the opening statements says that:.

two frequently debated aspects of hominin evolution are the development of upright bipedal stance and reduction in body hair.. so for those who believe this is a stupid topic, it is a subject of interest to many stupid people including the authors of the paper referred to by cofty.

cofty

It is difficult to imagine a more trivial objection to evolution.

Even if every scientist on earth was scratching their bald heads and muttering that they don't have a clue why humans lost their body hair it would not impact the fact of evolution one iota. This whole conversation is just bizarre!

32

Evolution Gap - Where's the Fur? Redux

by shadow in

i am posting a second topic on this subject since the first one became overrun by snakes.. cofty posted a link to a published paper discussing this topic and referred to the information in it as "facts".

here is my summary of that paper along with comments on it.. one of the opening statements says that:.

two frequently debated aspects of hominin evolution are the development of upright bipedal stance and reduction in body hair.. so for those who believe this is a stupid topic, it is a subject of interest to many stupid people including the authors of the paper referred to by cofty.

cofty

No it doesn't. The paper addresses those objections in detail.

32

Evolution Gap - Where's the Fur? Redux

by shadow in

i am posting a second topic on this subject since the first one became overrun by snakes.. cofty posted a link to a published paper discussing this topic and referred to the information in it as "facts".

here is my summary of that paper along with comments on it.. one of the opening statements says that:.

two frequently debated aspects of hominin evolution are the development of upright bipedal stance and reduction in body hair.. so for those who believe this is a stupid topic, it is a subject of interest to many stupid people including the authors of the paper referred to by cofty.

cofty

let's say that we believe the arch got there all by itself

That would make us superstitious fools.

Any naturalistic answer that works excludes supernatural answers. You have posted at least 12 naturalistic answers to your objection. Thermal regulation fits the data very well.

32

Evolution Gap - Where's the Fur? Redux

by shadow in

i am posting a second topic on this subject since the first one became overrun by snakes.. cofty posted a link to a published paper discussing this topic and referred to the information in it as "facts".

here is my summary of that paper along with comments on it.. one of the opening statements says that:.

two frequently debated aspects of hominin evolution are the development of upright bipedal stance and reduction in body hair.. so for those who believe this is a stupid topic, it is a subject of interest to many stupid people including the authors of the paper referred to by cofty.

cofty

The facts are that a paper pointed to by cofty to answer this topic is full of holes as pointed out by other evolutionists

There are no holes in the paper. Not one. It was peer-reviewed and published by the National Academy of Sciences.

There are alternative interpretations of the same data. All of them exclude superstitions. Every one of them is predicated on the fact - that is certain beyond all reasonable doubt - that we descended from hairy ancestors who walked on all fours.

32

Evolution Gap - Where's the Fur? Redux

by shadow in

i am posting a second topic on this subject since the first one became overrun by snakes.. cofty posted a link to a published paper discussing this topic and referred to the information in it as "facts".

here is my summary of that paper along with comments on it.. one of the opening statements says that:.

two frequently debated aspects of hominin evolution are the development of upright bipedal stance and reduction in body hair.. so for those who believe this is a stupid topic, it is a subject of interest to many stupid people including the authors of the paper referred to by cofty.

cofty

Using terms like "stupid" in your posts doesn't make what you want to say - scratchme

Who are you referring to?

32

Evolution Gap - Where's the Fur? Redux

by shadow in

i am posting a second topic on this subject since the first one became overrun by snakes.. cofty posted a link to a published paper discussing this topic and referred to the information in it as "facts".

here is my summary of that paper along with comments on it.. one of the opening statements says that:.

two frequently debated aspects of hominin evolution are the development of upright bipedal stance and reduction in body hair.. so for those who believe this is a stupid topic, it is a subject of interest to many stupid people including the authors of the paper referred to by cofty.

cofty

Here is the point you need to address...

In order to rule out creationism it is not necessary to show the definitive answer to a specific challenge. Let's say you come across a stone arch for the first time in your life. You have no idea how it could be built because it would obviously fall down at every stage until the keystone is in place. Therefore you conclude that god made it. In order to prove that you are wrong I only have to demonstrate one possible naturalistic answer. I might show how it could be built using a wooden scaffold that was then dismantled. It doesn't matter at all if somebody else insists that it was built using a mound of sand and somebody else is certain it was built using a pile of earth. If there are 12 possible solutions that all work then there are 12 reasons why supernatural answers can safely be ignored.

Any naturalistic answer that works proves that supernatural answers are unnecessary.

The same goes for your rather odd objection that the loss of hair contradicts evolution. You have listed 12 reasons - any one of which proves you are resorting to superstitions. Well done!

32

Evolution Gap - Where's the Fur? Redux

by shadow in

i am posting a second topic on this subject since the first one became overrun by snakes.. cofty posted a link to a published paper discussing this topic and referred to the information in it as "facts".

here is my summary of that paper along with comments on it.. one of the opening statements says that:.

two frequently debated aspects of hominin evolution are the development of upright bipedal stance and reduction in body hair.. so for those who believe this is a stupid topic, it is a subject of interest to many stupid people including the authors of the paper referred to by cofty.

cofty

I can't tell you why you would resort to personal attacks

I never do.

maybe you don't consider them personal attacks and others do

Believers and creationists consider attacks on their superstitions as personal attacks. That's their problem.

You just called me and many people lazy

It was a statement of fact. The intellectual laziness of many believers I have encountered on this forum is really astonishing.

see how we're off topic?

Yes, you did that because you don't have any facts.

32

Evolution Gap - Where's the Fur? Redux

by shadow in

i am posting a second topic on this subject since the first one became overrun by snakes.. cofty posted a link to a published paper discussing this topic and referred to the information in it as "facts".

here is my summary of that paper along with comments on it.. one of the opening statements says that:.

two frequently debated aspects of hominin evolution are the development of upright bipedal stance and reduction in body hair.. so for those who believe this is a stupid topic, it is a subject of interest to many stupid people including the authors of the paper referred to by cofty.

cofty

rules of common courtesy are tossed out and attacks fly back and forth so much that any possibility of civil discussion is eliminated - Shadow

Go back and read my 38 threads on the Evolution is a Fact series. Observe the frequent personal attacks and insults I receive from a collection of Jesus' buddies, and then notice that I never retaliate.

Like many people you see vitriol on a thread and lazily assume both sides are as bad as each other.

Why would I resort to personal attacks when I have facts on my side?

32

Evolution Gap - Where's the Fur? Redux

by shadow in

i am posting a second topic on this subject since the first one became overrun by snakes.. cofty posted a link to a published paper discussing this topic and referred to the information in it as "facts".

here is my summary of that paper along with comments on it.. one of the opening statements says that:.

two frequently debated aspects of hominin evolution are the development of upright bipedal stance and reduction in body hair.. so for those who believe this is a stupid topic, it is a subject of interest to many stupid people including the authors of the paper referred to by cofty.

cofty

Yawn