It's the Darwin crowd that lacks the facts in evolution debate

I would like to respond to the letter 'Recent letter offered no examples of Darwinian disingenuousness,' . He responds to an article with, 'He says evolution is 'so riddled with holes,' yet fails to provide a ... Full Story

Level 6

Since: Mar 12

Dubai, UAE

#109467 Jan 31, 2013
marksman11 wrote:
<quoted text>See?That is why the whole thing seems extremely made up, contrived, decieving, and contradictory. We are told that we did not desend from apes
We have ALWAYS maintained that humans evolved from an ape and we still do. We have ALWAYS maintained that the particular ape both we and chimps evolved from would not be like today's chimpanzees, as they have been evolving in the last 7 million years as well.

Its pretty simple if you think about it. Apes evolved from a species of monkey (but not the species we see today, that species is long gone). Yet there are still monkeys. Later, hominids evolved from a species of ape (but not the species we see today, that species is long gone). Yet there are still apes.

And I could go back to any evolutionary book from 10 years, 50 years, or 100 years before today and read essentially the same thing.
"Around 6-7 million years ago, there was a species of ape....[edited for brevity] And today, our own species is literally the "last man standing" of that group of species". Se the contradiction?
Take the ancestral species, Species X. Place it across a large chunk of Africa, 7 million years ago.

Now, as we can observe by the fossil record of the period, we see a climatic change and drying of the eastern part of Africa at that time, when jungles gave way to savanna (but remained as jungles in the wetter western part of the continent).

The population of Species X in the still jungle Western part were separated from those in the Eastern drier part. Being already jungle adapted, the Western population would not change as much. But those in the drier part did change, and adopted bipedalism as one of the first changes which set off a cascade of complementary changes. From then on, what had been Species X continue to diverge into two different branches.

One evolved towards today's Chimps and Bonobos (the ones that stayed in the Western jungles). The other became hominids, step by step transformed into us with many intermediates along the way that we can see in the fossil record.

None of this is contradictory or contrived or deceiving. It is supported by the fossil record, which clearly shows the convergence of hominid to more apelike forms as we go back in time.

Level 6

Since: Mar 12

Dubai, UAE

#109468 Jan 31, 2013
marksman11 wrote:
I thought you guys "DEMAND SCIENTIFIC EVIDENCE BEFORE I'LL BELIEVE IT!!!!"
You are referring to other life in the universe, right? Again you seem to whittle down to two current possible views instead of three:

1. There is life on other planets!

2. There is NO life on other planets!

Yet both views ignore the third, true skeptical position:

3. There may be life on other planets, we see no reason why it should be impossible, but as yet we have no evidence of it. i.e. We do not know.

We could argue all day how LIKELY it is or isn't but we really do not have the data to take a position. That does not mean we DON'T believe there is, or DO believe there is. It only means, we are open to the possibility.

And BTW, I see no reason why your Bible should exclude the possibility, either.

“Turning coffee into theorems”

Since: Dec 06

Trapped inside a Klein Bottle

#109469 Jan 31, 2013
marksman11 wrote:
<quoted text>See?That is why the whole thing seems extremely made up, contrived, decieving, and contradictory. We are told that we did not desend from apes, but that we have a common ancestor, while you tell me, "Around 6-7 million years ago, there was a species of ape....[edited for brevity] And today, our own species is literally the "last man standing" of that group of species". Se the contradiction?
<quoted text>Absolutely no problem.
It only seems contradictory to you because you stick your fingers in your ears and don't listen to the explanations. As has been pointed out on numerous occasions, you refuse to learn.

When it is pointed out to you that there are "modern apes", which we are not descended from, and "extinct apes", some of which we ARE descended from...you ignore the distinction as to which is which. That is because, deep down, you WANT to be confused and not understand. That way you can still claim it sounds contradictory to you.

A sad, sad case of willful ignorance.

“Turning coffee into theorems”

Since: Dec 06

Trapped inside a Klein Bottle

#109470 Jan 31, 2013
Chimney1 wrote:
<quoted text>
You are referring to other life in the universe, right? Again you seem to whittle down to two current possible views instead of three:
1. There is life on other planets!
2. There is NO life on other planets!
Yet both views ignore the third, true skeptical position:
3. There may be life on other planets, we see no reason why it should be impossible, but as yet we have no evidence of it. i.e. We do not know.
We could argue all day how LIKELY it is or isn't but we really do not have the data to take a position. That does not mean we DON'T believe there is, or DO believe there is. It only means, we are open to the possibility.
And BTW, I see no reason why your Bible should exclude the possibility, either.
I see that Marky still displays only 2 state thinking...aka "everything is either black or white".

Sad, really. He has had plenty of exposure to thinking in shades of gray, yet he still can not grasp it. Perhaps it is something that must be learned at a young age and Marky is just too old to make the leap.
The Dude

Birkenhead, UK

#109471 Jan 31, 2013
marksman11 wrote:
GOD can do what GOD wants to do. Your opinion of it is irrelvant.
Funny, I thought God could only do what Markie said it could do. And that meant no evolution no way no how, despite all the scientific evidence to the contrary.
marksman11

Asheville, NC

#109472 Jan 31, 2013
Chimney1 wrote:
<quoted text>
Marksman, it does not matter how many times you repeat this baloney, PE was intrinsic to evolutionary theory from the start. End of story.
However, at the same time, there is nothing wrong scientifically with adding details to a theory if they increase its explanatory power, and the details are in line with observation, testing, and replication. PE certainly is.
So either way, you are wasting your time with this line of attack.
IF so, then it shouldn't be to hard to show me where PE has been observed, tested , and replicated. I'll be waiting.
The Dude

Birkenhead, UK

#109473 Jan 31, 2013
KAB wrote:
<quoted text>
Acknowledgement of the multiple valid interpretation reality is sufficient for now.
You're conflating the Bible with reality.
KAB wrote:
<quoted text>
Please remember this whenever you are inclined to act as if your understanding of a passage is the only valid possibility.
And to borrow Chuck Idemi's phrase: likewise.
marksman11

Asheville, NC

#109474 Jan 31, 2013
Darwins Stepchild wrote:
<quoted text>
It only seems contradictory to you because you stick your fingers in your ears and don't listen to the explanations. As has been pointed out on numerous occasions, you refuse to learn.
When it is pointed out to you that there are "modern apes", which we are not descended from, and "extinct apes", some of which we ARE descended from...you ignore the distinction as to which is which. That is because, deep down, you WANT to be confused and not understand. That way you can still claim it sounds contradictory to you.
A sad, sad case of willful ignorance.
Yeah, I'm ignorant because you guys say that the theory of human from non-human evolution says that we no longer think we are evolved from apes, but we share a common ancester with apes? Oh yeah? Well, what was that common ancester?

answer: an ape!!

And to you, when I say that is contradictory, your reply is, I'm ignorant? Well, you may be right, BUT I AIN'T THAT IGNORANT!!!!
marksman11

Asheville, NC

#109475 Jan 31, 2013
Chimney1 wrote:
<quoted text>
You are referring to other life in the universe, right? Again you seem to whittle down to two current possible views instead of three:
1. There is life on other planets!
2. There is NO life on other planets!
Yet both views ignore the third, true skeptical position:
3. There may be life on other planets, we see no reason why it should be impossible, but as yet we have no evidence of it. i.e. We do not know.
We could argue all day how LIKELY it is or isn't but we really do not have the data to take a position. That does not mean we DON'T believe there is, or DO believe there is. It only means, we are open to the possibility.
And BTW, I see no reason why your Bible should exclude the possibility, either.
I have no problem with anyone believing there is life on other planets. I do have a problem when a physics professor stands in a university or hall giving a science lecture, and concluding Jesus didn't die for you, but stars did, and saying that the universe is huge and rare things happen daily, including life. Then he becomes a liar for science. I hope there is life on other planets, but when the science minded materialists dogmatically say they don't incorporate faith in their philosophy, while lecturing that life orginates all the time in the cosmos, they are no less a liar than Lance Armstrong or Bill Clinton.
marksman11

Asheville, NC

#109476 Jan 31, 2013
Chimney1 wrote:
<quoted text>
We have ALWAYS maintained that humans evolved from an ape and we still do. We have ALWAYS maintained that the particular ape both we and chimps evolved from would not be like today's chimpanzees, as they have been evolving in the last 7 million years as well.
Its pretty simple if you think about it. Apes evolved from a species of monkey (but not the species we see today, that species is long gone). Yet there are still monkeys. Later, hominids evolved from a species of ape (but not the species we see today, that species is long gone). Yet there are still apes.
And I could go back to any evolutionary book from 10 years, 50 years, or 100 years before today and read essentially the same thing.
<quoted text>
Take the ancestral species, Species X. Place it across a large chunk of Africa, 7 million years ago.
Now, as we can observe by the fossil record of the period, we see a climatic change and drying of the eastern part of Africa at that time, when jungles gave way to savanna (but remained as jungles in the wetter western part of the continent).
The population of Species X in the still jungle Western part were separated from those in the Eastern drier part. Being already jungle adapted, the Western population would not change as much. But those in the drier part did change, and adopted bipedalism as one of the first changes which set off a cascade of complementary changes. From then on, what had been Species X continue to diverge into two different branches.
One evolved towards today's Chimps and Bonobos (the ones that stayed in the Western jungles). The other became hominids, step by step transformed into us with many intermediates along the way that we can see in the fossil record.
None of this is contradictory or contrived or deceiving. It is supported by the fossil record, which clearly shows the convergence of hominid to more apelike forms as we go back in time.
To think that the fossil records records that is silly. For one, I don't think anyone really knows much about anything that happened 7 million years ago. We don't even know who built the Great Pyramid a few thousand years ago.2...fossils don't give heritage. All they can do is show that something once existed. 3....interpretations can be wrong, intentionally biased, mistakenly indentified, or executed in biased overkill. What we observe for ever is people giving birth to people, and apes giving birth to apes, and to say otherwise is ok, but it is philosophy and not science.

“Pissing people off since 1949”

Level 8

Since: Apr 08

Seffner, FL

#109477 Jan 31, 2013
marksman11But it is somet wrote:
<quoted text>You shouoldn't see "increasing human and less apelike" at all. We are not decinded from apes according to you guys. That is why they changed that to we both had a "common ancester"......what ever that means. I've never even seen a claim of what that common ancester even was. It's just another one of thos BS claims evolutionists spout out!<quoted text>I see you know even less about perpetual motion than you do evolution.
Hilarious!

“Pissing people off since 1949”

Level 8

Since: Apr 08

Seffner, FL

#109478 Jan 31, 2013
marksman11But it is somet wrote:
<quoted text>Then why won't you admit your faith based beliefs when it is so obvious they exist? You believe that humans evolved from non-humans even though it isn't observable, testable, or replicatable. You believe the scientific interpretation of the fossil record supports human from non-human evolution, even though fossils can not provide info on heredity. You believe that lifeless matter can, without the help of an intelligence produce a mind, consciousness, and the ability to process information and respond to it, to the point of self awareness. You believe all these things, and you have to employ faith to do so.
I can already hear the , "well....not yets".....but the fact is, it requires faith to accept them because these "not yet's" may never occur!!
Blah, blah, blah.

It is an acceptance of logical conclusions based on evidence.

Logic is not faith. Faith is not logic.

“Pissing people off since 1949”

Level 8

Since: Apr 08

Seffner, FL

#109479 Jan 31, 2013
marksman11But it is somet wrote:
<quoted text>"Punctuated equilibrium originated as a logical extension of Ernst Mayr's concept of genetic revolutions by allopatric and especially peripatric speciation as applied to the fossil record. Although some of the basic workings of the theory were proposed and identified by Mayr in 1954,[3] historians of science generally recognize the 1972 paper by Niles Eldredge and Stephen Jay Gould as the foundational document of the new paleobiological research program."
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Punctuated_equil...
From your same reference:
In the fourth edition (1866) of On the Origin of Species Darwin wrote that "the periods during which species have undergone modification, though long as measured in years, have probably been short in comparison with the periods during which they retain the same form."

You remain consistently wrong.

“Pissing people off since 1949”

Level 8

Since: Apr 08

Seffner, FL

#109480 Jan 31, 2013
marksman11 wrote:
<quoted text>See? That doesn't even make sense. We did not decend from apes, but we did from older apes? We both came from a common ancester that looked like a chimp but wasn't an ape.....See? It's really silly Chimney. Surely you can't believe your own words!!<quoted text>
"per·pet·u·al mo·tion
Noun
1.A state in which movement or action is or appears to be continuous and unceasing."
http://hp-notebook.us.msn.com/...
Granted, it had your defintion on the list, but this is the #1 definition, and the one I was referencing, which leaves your post incorrect, and what you stated was indeed perpetual motion.
<quoted text>I think I just proved what I mean.<quoted text>How ironic, wouldn't you say?
Wow. Just freakin wow.

What were you saying earlier, Marky? How you would admit you were wrong when you are wrong? It seems not.

“Pissing people off since 1949”

Level 8

Since: Apr 08

Seffner, FL

#109481 Jan 31, 2013
marksman11 wrote:
<quoted text>You remember that if when you die and you stand before GOD, remind him that he gave you no evidence......ok?
If there is a god, he gave us plenty of evidence. You are the one who chooses to ignore it and you will be the one with some explaining to do.

Level 6

Since: Mar 12

Dubai, UAE

#109482 Jan 31, 2013
marksman11 wrote:
<quoted text>To think that the fossil records records that is silly. For one, I don't think anyone really knows much about anything that happened 7 million years ago.
Really?

So if, in a stratum, fossils of jungle type creatures gave way to fossils of savannah type creatures, it would not be reasonable to conclude that savannah replaced jungle in a region. To reasonable people, it would!

“Pissing people off since 1949”

Level 8

Since: Apr 08

Seffner, FL

#109483 Jan 31, 2013
marksman11 wrote:
<quoted text>No, knowledge grows from observation, testing, and replication. PE was needed to explain the Cambrian Explosion, so it was fabricated, after years of claiming that evolution took vast eons of time, but then when it appeared in the Cambrian that more complex systems were being found without any evidence of a preceding ancestor, that "eons" were no longer tenable, that PE was fabricated. It wasn't discovered, or observed. It was fabricated to support a preconcieved conclusion of an unsupported philosophy.
You've already been proven wrong several times over. Give it up.

“Pissing people off since 1949”

Level 8

Since: Apr 08

Seffner, FL

#109484 Jan 31, 2013
Darwins Stepchild wrote:
<quoted text>
I see that Marky still displays only 2 state thinking...aka "everything is either black or white".
Sad, really. He has had plenty of exposure to thinking in shades of gray, yet he still can not grasp it. Perhaps it is something that must be learned at a young age and Marky is just too old to make the leap.
Marky: "Where's the line??? There has to be a LINE!"

“Pissing people off since 1949”

Level 8

Since: Apr 08

Seffner, FL

#109485 Jan 31, 2013
marksman11 wrote:
<quoted text>Yeah, I'm ignorant because you guys say that the theory of human from non-human evolution says that we no longer think we are evolved from apes, but we share a common ancester with apes? Oh yeah? Well, what was that common ancester?
answer: an ape!!
And to you, when I say that is contradictory, your reply is, I'm ignorant? Well, you may be right, BUT I AIN'T THAT IGNORANT!!!!
Yeah, you really are.

“See how you are?”

Level 5

Since: Jul 12

Earth

#109486 Jan 31, 2013
marksman11But it is somet wrote:
<quoted text>Try again. You make no sense to me.
How typically obtuse.
Almost every single one of your biblical claims has been shown to be erroneous, unsupported or just plain fanciful, but you can't afford to man up and face those inconsistencies because you think your God is offended by... what? Questions, curiosity, investigation? Evidence, answers, knowledge?
In fact, you do not acknowledge or honor God nearly as much as you worship a BOOK. You have been urged over and over again to be honest with yourself and others. Are you such a damaged little puppet of HUMAN CREATED RELIGION that you are constitutionally incapable of discerning righteousness from incorrigibility?

Tell me when this thread is updated:

Subscribe Now Add to my Tracker

Add your comments below

Characters left: 4000

Please note by submitting this form you acknowledge that you have read the Terms of Service and the comment you are posting is in compliance with such terms. Be polite. Inappropriate posts may be removed by the moderator. Send us your feedback.

Evolution Debate Discussions

Title Updated Last By Comments
Evolution vs. Creation (Jul '11) 1 hr Chilli J 116,688
Should evolution be taught in high school? (Feb '08) 2 hr Dogen 173,759
The problem of evil and hate (Oct '13) 3 hr TheHeadlines 335
Difficulty Loading Topix Pages 6 hr Dogen 9
Are there any dinosaur fossils of their genital... 9 hr cris 1
Why are there no dinosaur pen is fossil? 9 hr cris 1
New review critical of "Origins" 16 hr DanFromSmithville 21
•••

Evolution Debate People Search

Addresses and phone numbers for FREE

•••