Rusty's family portraits. The last one is Rusty coming in from a weekend in the Outback.<quoted text>
Education has nothing to do with it
A 4 year old child when presented with the "facts" about evolution could tell its phony nonsense
Visible brow ridges...
Do you mean like this?
Here's the best reconstruction of our ancestor for comparison
Microbiologist Carl Woese is well known as an iconoclast. At 79 years of age, Woese is still shaking things up. Most recently, he stated in an interview with Wired that..."My feeling is that evolution shouldn't be taught at the lower grades. You don't teach quantum mechanics in the grade schools. One has to be quite educated to work with these concepts; what they pass on as evolution in high schools is nothing but repetitious tripe that teachers don't understand."
Since: Sep 08
#123049 Mar 10, 2013
Since: Mar 12
#123050 Mar 10, 2013
If you think the above is in disagreement with the nested hierarchy, then you do not understand the nested hierarchy.
At base its pretty damned simple. When a species is split, eg. through geographical isolation, the two populations will gradually diverge until "sub species" and finally species appear. This is the point at which they have diverged to the degree than interbreeding cannot occur. Darwin spends a great deal of space in his book discussing this along with hybridization and establishing where its possible limits are, etc.
Now, when such a split has occurred, you have a fork in the road - one element of the nested hierarchy. If it happens again to one of the original sub-branches, you have another branch. The whole of life, according to evolution, consists of those branches tracing back ultimately to a common ancestor.
By this process, the ONLY POSSIBLE pattern we will see is a nested hierarchy.
And the only life we have seen which may have violated this pattern includes bacteria (plasmid horizontal gene transfer) and the formation of eukaryotes by the direct absorption of previously independent bacterial organelles, a different process than classic evolution by variation arising within a species.
In complex life, though, the nested hierarchy rules as firmly as ever. It is a CORE prediction of evolutionary theory. Unlike your straw men such as "genetic determinism", "junk DNA", which are NOT core predictions of evolution.
Since: Mar 12
#123051 Mar 10, 2013
Jimbo asked me for a series of gradations and I gave it to him, not ignoring the fact that there is still a great deal of variation today in the angles of slope. However, you are ignoring the point.
The slope (actually, the virtually horizontal aspect) of the Homo erectus profile with the brow ridges dominating is WAY out of whack with any conceivable structure that could pass for human today. If you saw it you would think birth deformity - which is how some of you creationists try to pass off specimens like H erectus. Might have worked if we had only found ONE of them...but we have found many in the range 1.5mya - 300kya , and NO modern humans during that time (although some archaic sapiens in the later half of the erectus period).
Since then we see a gradual increase in the forebrain and verticalisation of the slope, increasing with every step towards the modern. This does not mean everyone today should have the same slope, it means that the norm is more vertical than it was AND the slope has increased by the "small gradations" as Jim demanded.
Since: Mar 12
#123052 Mar 11, 2013
A lot has changed.
Nobody is today suggesting that life emerges spontaneously every five minutes. Scientists are looking for the conditions wherein life or the components of life might arise naturally, and they have made good progress, but they accept that the conditions are not likely to be found in the world today.
However, to remind you yet again, evolution does not rely on abiogenesis. They could verifiably disprove natural abiogenesis TOMORROW and the evidence for evolution and an old earth would STILL be overwhelming an thoroughly compelling. Do you really think that disproof of natural abiogenesis would give ANY credence at all to your collection of fairy tales?
Why can't you understand this?
Since: Mar 12
#123053 Mar 11, 2013
Give it up. One claim from the 1920's, never accepted into the mainstream. Like the trivial inappropriate hand on a wax museum model.
Your feeble attempts to bring evolutionary science down to the level of craven dishonesty exhibited daily by creationist liars is merely the perfect way to contrast the two approaches.
Evolution takes the moral high ground because it has found and revealed errors and fraud. The scientists themselves challenge every claim made, putting it through the wringer of evidential and critical analysis...and that process never ends, even for old finds. Science is geared to produce truth, albeit imperfectly and with some errors remaining for some years, but still it works.
You cannot do that, because of your dogmatic "bible is true coz it sez its true" approach puts blinkers on your rational mind and forces you to lie when reality fails to match your expectations.
Since: Mar 12
#123054 Mar 11, 2013
Here is a more accurate rendering:
1. Abiogenesis... It is irrelevant to ToE correct
2. Non existence of Oort Cloud.. how do you know its nonexistent?
3. Convergence... It is actually "predicted" by the ToE. Correct, by Darwin right from the outset. You said you read Origin...another lie?
4. Chariot wheels in the Red Sea... They must have fallen off an ancient ship. More generally, there are perfectly ordnary explanations without invoking GODDIDIT and there is ancient flotsam on the sea bed all over this region.
5. Failed ERV paradigm... A useless inserted sequence of DNA must have enabled the parasitized host to survive. False characterisation. 99% of ERV's appear to be utterly useless to the host. Finding one or two that have become entwined in useful function does not render the whole "ERV paradigm" invalid.
6. Failure of homology... Let's re-define terminology, so that any homologous outcomes created by non homologous genes is "parallel evolution" merely the convergence argument restated, i.e. already dealt with since Darwin.
7. Probability... Let's just ignore math entirely. We don't. You do. There is no way to apply probability to a system with non-random selection in the way that creationists try to. On the other hand, the existence of the nested hierarchy IS a death blow to arguments against common ancestry because its appearance in any other was WOULD be purely random.
8. Irreducible complexity... IC is an argument that fails from the first principles, as you have no way of knowing and limiting the possible evolutionary pathways to a particular state even in principle.
9. Genetic entropy.... Sanford is a creatard. Nope. Sanford has been refuted, argument by argument, and finally by experimental evidence that shows populations can recover fitness in way that would be ruled out if Sanford's hypothesis was correct.
10. Any challenge to evolution... "Argument from incredulity". The argument from incredulity merely states that just because YOU cannot right now think of how X or Y evolved, does not constitute evidence that it didn't.
So HTS, are you going to keep twisting and distorting what we have said, or will you at least make an effort to be honest? You are not doing yourself any favours with this nonsense.
Since: Mar 12
#123055 Mar 11, 2013
Another distortion. Here it is, corrected:
There are comets, and they do not last millions of years. Granted.
This means either the universe is young
There is a natural source for fresh comets to arise from at times.
Does the existence of an Oort Cloud fit within the known paradigms of gravity and solar system development as we understand them? Why YES! So its not even an extraordinary claim. It's merely a prediction: given the model of stellar development and gravity that we have, the existence of comets today provide the basis of a PREDICTION that an Oort Cloud should exist. By and by, that prediction will be confirmed or falsified.
In the meantime, comets have a plausible source within the current paradigm, so they are certainly not "proof" that the universe is young.
#123056 Mar 11, 2013
The desperation lies firmly on the evolutionist side
This Professor Reiner Protsch von Zieten of anthropology has a lot of explaining to do
He had poor foolish evo-tards duped for 30 years....
He dated a 240 year old skull as 27,400
The skull when examined was actually still stinking
"Anthropology is going to have to completely revise its picture of modern man between 40,000 and 10,000 years ago,"
Another of the professor's sensational finds, "Binshof-Speyer" woman, lived in 1,300 BC and not 21,300 years ago, as he had claimed, while "Paderborn-Sande man" (dated at 27,400 BC) only died a couple of hundred years ago, in 1750.
"It's deeply embarrassing. Of course the university feels very bad about this," Professor Ulrich Brandt, who led the investigation into Prof Protsch's activities, said yesterday. "Prof Protsch refused to meet us. But we had 10 sittings with 12 witnesses.
Are you going to defend this chap with support for his shellac claims?
It would not surprise me at all
Its the usual evo-desperation
Defending the indefensible
What have we here:
Benítez-Bribiesca L, Modiano-Esquenazi M. Ethics of scientific publication after the human stem cell scandal. Arch Med Res. 2006 May;37(4):423-4. PubMed
Another failure for peer review
Don't believe everything you read Chimney
Jump ship now
As regards Piltdown man
It took from 1912 to 1954 to discredit this hoax
This is despite Franz Weldenreich declaring that the jaw was not human in 1923
Worst of all
Piltdown man was cited as evidence by Clarence Darrow in the fake Scopes trial in 1925
Since: Mar 12
#123057 Mar 11, 2013
Darwin also came up with PE from the start - positing variable rates of change depending on the stability of the environment.
Really, you know very little about the book you claim to have read.
Gould merely re-emphasised the original point, adding a bit of self promotional flair to the effort, and recasting the concept according to what is now known about genetics, continental drift, and catastrophic events that have affected the Earth.(All known sources of environmental instability providing grounds for accelerated change in populations)
Lets see some intellectual honesty from you for a change.
#123058 Mar 11, 2013
You're not far off the mark
The Australian Outback is not for the faint hearted
I'm not even allowed in the house after I've been out bush until a hose down in the back yard
I'm pretty chisled and streamlined
And I don't wear furs....
#123059 Mar 11, 2013
Its so worth it...
And I was writing on an iPad and got the quote marks wrong...
AND what was written several hundreds of years before He was born
The Bible is the most reliable book of antiquity
With embarrassingly large amounts of irrefutable evidence from textual criticism, passing both internal and external reliabilty tests, archaeology and other parallel historical accounts
God is about relationship
Do you believe in your mother because of her "general moral message" or because you have experience of her, her real-ness, her extraordinary love?
Such is the reality of relationship with God
Only thing is.....
He will not settle for a phone call every other weekend
He demands your ALL
Check out "When I survey the wondrous cross"
Jesus is the second Adam
Even Adam is referred to as 'son of God'
Jesus claimed to be God
Hence His execution.......which had to occur
Have you read C S Lewis? You should
Another worthwhile text is Josh McDowall's "Evidence that demands a verdict"
No correction WHAT SO EVER is required of the Bible
------I am on an iPad and it's pure misery trying to type with two fingers---but I have taken up my cross.....
You have to appreciate that even Eve understood that the Saviour was to come from her
She said at the birth of Cain..."I have brought forth a man, the Lord"
Her theology was correct......but timing was wrong
You can not put Islam or Buddhism into the same sentence as Christianity
Jesus CLAIMED He is God
His tomb was empty
Creation is as Genesis has described
Like you, I wish we knew more....
The geological column is a necessity for biological evolution to be true
The 'old age' of the universe is quite easily the greatest hoax ever to be perpetuated by man
#123060 Mar 11, 2013
The best evidence for creation is the law of biogenesis
And the young age of the universe
And the absense of transitionals or intermediates in the fossil record.....aka the Cambrian and Edicaran explosions
The absense of innovation by mutations
No life except from life
•Brennecka, G. A., Weyer, S., Wadhwa, M., Janney, P.E., Zipfel, J., and Anbar, A.D.(2010) 238U/235U Variations in Meteorites: Extant 247Cm and Implications for Pb-Pb Dating. Science, v. 327(5964), p. 449-451.
Its a start....
#123061 Mar 11, 2013
Problems with the Oort Cloud--->
No observational support.11 Therefore it’s doubtful that the Oort Cloud should be considered a scientific theory. It is really an ad hoc device to explain away the existence of long-period comets, given the dogma of billions of years.
---Sagan, C. and Druyan, A., Comet, Michael Joseph, London, p. 175, 1985
Collisions would have destroyed most comets: The classical Oort cloud is supposed to comprise comet nuclei left over from the evolutionary (nebular hypothesis) origin of the solar system, with a total mass of about 40 Earths.
But a newer study showed that collisions would have destroyed most of these, leaving a combined mass of comets equivalent to only about one Earth, or at most 3.5 Earths with some doubtful assumptions.
--Bailey, M.E., Where have all the comets gone? Science296(5576):2151–2153, 21 June 2002
The ‘fading problem’: The models predict about 100 times more NICs than are actually observed. So evolutionary astronomers postulate an ‘arbitrary fading function’.
A recent proposal is that the comets must disrupt before we get a chance to see them.
--Levison, H.F. et al., The mass disruption of Oort Cloud comets, Science 296(5576):2212–2215, 21 June 2002
"It seems desperate to propose an unobserved source to keep comets supplied for the alleged billions of years, then make excuses for why this hypothetical source doesn’t feed in comets nearly as fast as it should."
Sayeth Dr Sarfati, physical chemist and NZ chess champ...and creationist, of course
Since: Sep 08
#123062 Mar 11, 2013
Too bad for you that none of those exist.
There is no "law of abiogenesis"
There is no evidence for a young universe. In fact you have to deny all science since and including Isaac Newton to even begin to believe this. Are you in Jimbo's camp on this Rusty? He thinks that gravity is caused by "spin".
I have never even heard of "programmed design". I can assure you there is no scientific theory of it.
The Cambrian and other explosions do not deny the existence of transitional fossils. We have thousands of them. You are falling for a creatard lie if you believe that nonsense.
Rusty, come on. Try harder. This has all been debunked before.
Since: Sep 08
#123063 Mar 11, 2013
I know, it is too much of a challenge for Rusty or for any of the other creatards to find any scientific evidence to support their claims.
So since they in effect admit that they have lost the argument by using only creatard sites for their "science" I propose changing the methodology of the debate a bit.
First off we have won. Yes, I will use easier sources too, but I have on occasion when challenged gone to the actual peer reviewed articles to support my case. And as I said we know the creatards cannot do this. So I propose that we let them quote from their fallacious sources, but we must demand that they both link and quote what they think is the strongest evidence from that article.
Of course quote mining is still wrong. Any quote mining must be shouted down as lying.
Sorry, late at night and rambling a bit.
I only want to change the game a bit.
#123064 Mar 11, 2013
Putting 2 and 2 together and getting 1.97 million years
‘Strictly on the basis of the morphology of the G prints [prints found at a site labelled ‘G’], their makers could be classified as Homo sp. because they are so similar to those of Homo sapiens, but their early date would probably deter many paleoanthropologists from accepting this assignment. I suspect that if the prints were undated, or if they had been given younger dates, most experts would probably accept them as having been made by Homo ….
‘If the prints were produced by a small species of Australopithecus then we must conclude that it had virtually human feet which … were used in a manner indistinguishable from those of slowly walking humans.… The feet that produced the G trails are in no discernible features transitional between the feet of apes … and those of Homo sapiens. They are like small barefoot Homo sapiens.’
---R. H. Tuttle,‘Kinesiological inferences and evolutionary implications from Laetoli bipedal trails G-1, G-2/3 and A’, Leakey and Harris, Ref. 1, Chapter 13.3, pp. 503—523.
"In sum, the 3.5 million year old foot print trails at Laetoli site G resembles those of habitually unshod modern humans. None of their features suggest that the Laetoli hominids were less capable bipeds than we are.
"If the G foot prints were not known to be so old, we would readily conclude that they were made by a member of our genus, Homo"
--Tuttle, R H, The pitted pattern of Laetoli Feet", Natural History, Mar 1990, Pg 64
In terms of accepting the dates of human footprints
This fiasco tells a fine tale or evo-yarn spinning-->
40,000 year old date did not fit the evo-paradigm
Then 250,000 wasn't very nice either
Finally, 1.3 million years was too terrible to contemplate...
"If the features observed on the tuff are indeed footprints, their 1.3 Ma antiquity would be truly remarkable, predating by far any other evidence for human presence in the Americas and in fact predating the evolutionary emergence of Homo sapiens (in Africa) by more than 1 Ma. We conclude that the identification of these features as syn-depositional human footprints is likely erroneous. "
So, guess what?
The evo-story stays
The human foot prints are discarded......
Renne, P. R.; Feinberg, J. M.; Waters, M. R.; Cabrales, J. A.; Castillo, P. O.; Campa, M. P.; Knight, K. B., Age of the Xalnene Ash, Central Mexico and Archeological Implications, American Geophysical Union, Fall Meeting 2005, abstract #U42A-04, Dec 2005
The evo-story stays....
The footprints go....
I thought science was unbiased?
#123065 Mar 11, 2013
Its a law indeed....just look around you
Its pure science
Unlike evo-story yarn spinning
Observable, testable, repeatable...
Show me the airtight cases....should be billions of them...
You have two major explosions
Plenty of soft bodied organisms as well
“Nihil curo de ista tua stulta ”
Since: May 08
#123066 Mar 11, 2013
You called it....quote mine.
It's actually on page 144, and here is the full quote and context, starting on the previous page:
<<begin of original quote>>
"And one might ask why such a distortion of the grosser patterns of the history of life has come about. For it truly seems to me that F. J. Taggart was right all along. The approach to the larger themes in the history of life taken by the modern synthesis continues the theme already painfully apparent to Taggart in 1925: a theory of gradual, progressive, adaptive change so thoroughly rules our minds and imaginations that we have somehow, collectively, turned away from some of the most basic patterns permeating the history of life.<p144> We have a theory that -- as punctuated equilibria tells us -- is out of phase with the actual patterns of events that typically occur as species' histories unfold. And that discrepancy seems enlarged by a considerable order of magnitude when we compare what we think the larger-scale events ought to look like with what we actually find. And it has been paleontologists -- my own breed -- who have been most responsible for letting ideas dominate reality: geneticists and population biologists, to whom we owe the modern version of natural selection, can only rely on what paleontologists and systematic biologists tell them about the comings and goings of entire species, and what the large-scale evolutionary patterns really look like.
"Yet on the other hand, the certainty so characteristic of evolutionary ranks since the late 1940s, the utter assurance not only that natural selection works in nature, but that we know precisely how it works, has led paleontologists to keep their own counsel. Ever since Darwin, as philosopher Michael Ruse (1982) has recently said, paleontology has occasionally played the role of the difficult child. But our usual mien has been bland, and **we have proffered a collective tacit acceptance of the story of gradual adaptive change, a story that strengthened and became even more entrenched as the synthesis took hold. We paleontologists have said that the history of life supports that interpretation, all the while really knowing that it does not.** And part of the fault for such a bizarre situation must come from a naive understanding of just what adaptation is all about. We'll look at some of the larger patterns in the history of life in the next chapter -- along with the hypotheses currently offered as explanations. Throughout it all, adaptation shines through as an important theme; there is every reason to hang on to that baby as we toss out the bathwater. But before turning in depth to these themes, we need to take just one more, somewhat closer, look at the actual phenomenon of adaptation itself: what it is and how it occurs."
<<end of original quote>>
So: Eldredge is agreeing that evolution occurs, and that adaptation via natural selection is real and important. He is saying that (as at 1985) paleontology needed to be more explicitly about the fact that evolution is not slow and steady, but rapid and static in turns. The snippet that is quoted is deliberately chosen to suggest that Eldredge is admitting some deep error in evolutionary biology; but what he is saying is that some biologists have overlooked some data they should factor in, and that we should not expect that evolution will be gradual.
<<end of cut/paste>>
Since: Sep 08
#123067 Mar 11, 2013
This post of yours has all sorts of inaccuracies and other dishonesty in it. Plus your link to your favorite creatard site also has some outright lies.
For example it mentions how as of 2003 that only 600 some Kuiper Belt objects had been discovered. What they did not say gives the lie to their claim. Finding objects in the Kuiper belt is very difficult and uses a new technology. There were only two Kuiper Belt objects discovered in 1993. That means in the next ten years over 600 were discovered. Now that number is more than doubled:
It is true that the Oort cloud is still considered to be hypothetical in science. That means there is some evidence for it but not enough for scientists to be definitely sure about it.
We do have evidence for the Oort cloud. Long period comets follow courses that are consistent with the existence of the Oort cloud. By definition that is evidence for the Oort cloud.
Of course creatards would not recognize scientific evidence if it bit them on the ass.
Since: Sep 08
#123068 Mar 11, 2013
Nope, there is no such law. Who came up with it? What science books can it be found in?
I see nothing but mistakes, outright lies, and dependence upon debunked scientists there. Try finding what you think is the best evidence in that mess. I don't feel like debunking the whole thing. I will debunk your source even though both of us know that it is a worthless lying source.
No, you don't get to call your made up crap "pure science". You have not shown how 'Programmed design" is science in any way. Where the theory of evolution meets all of your challenges.
Nope, you cannot demand evidence until you understand evidence. Both you and How's That for Stupid will not take the basic course. We have linked examples of transitional fossils many times. The fact that you don't recognize them as transitional fossils is only evidence that you don't even know what a transitional fossil would look like.
Again, since life is evolving all of the time all fossils are "transitional". Lucy is an example of a transitional fossil in our heritage. Archeopteryx is an example of a transitional fossil in the dinosaur to bird evolution.
If you have the wrong idea of how evolution works you will have the wrong idea of what a transitional fossil is. You have a lot of learning ahead of you before you can demand anything at all.
As I said you have already been shown to be wrong many times over and we are doing you a favor of discussing anything in creatard.com .
Add your comments below
|Evolution vs. Creation (Jul '11)||10 min||MikeF||115,340|
|Science News (Sep '13)||39 min||Ricky F||2,849|
|The Satanic Character of Social Darwinism||49 min||Chimney1||346|
|Genetic 'Adam' and 'Eve' Uncovered - live science (Sep '13)||51 min||MikeF||350|
|It's the Darwin crowd that lacks the facts in e... (Mar '09)||1 hr||Chimney1||136,419|
|Evolution Theory Facing Crisis||9 hr||DanFromSmithville||224|
|Natural Selection Not The Only Process That Dri... (Jan '14)||Aug 25||reMAAT||20|
Find what you want!
Search Evolution Debate Forum Now