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

Full story: Asheville Citizen-Times

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 ...

Comments (Page 5,391)

Showing posts 107,801 - 107,820 of133,041
|
Go to last page| Jump to page:

“I am Sisyphus”

Since: Nov 07

Location hidden

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#109841
Feb 6, 2013
 
marksman11 wrote:
<quoted text>Well, you make it sound as if even the most well adapted never die. Of course they do, and if years later their fossil is found, it doesn't mean that they weren't the most fit. Even the most fit, die!!<quoted text>True. No ones getting out of here alive:-)

Actually there is a species of sponge that is technically immortal. Of course they get eaten by other animals so still do not really last that long in nature. But they never die of old age.
marksman11

Asheville, NC

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#109842
Feb 6, 2013
 

Judged:

1

1

1

Chimney1 wrote:
<quoted text>
No, I do not think you could continue much further, because you have just about mined out the entire repertoire of frauds in evolution.
You will note that all of these frauds (and Lucy is not a fraud but genuine intermediate as explained below), belong to an early period of the science and were uncovered by biologists themselves. A perfect example of the scientific method at work.
When we had only one or two fossils, Piltdown could be put there as a possible find (though even early on it was treated with suspicion, which you always forget). But what happens over time? More and more evidence is uncovered. Even before radiometric dating conclusively falsified Piltdown, it had become something of a joke as real finds piled up and told a very different story of what really happened in the past. There is now a continuum of fossil finds from apelike Lucy to modern humans. Lucy fits that broader pattern. Piltdown never did.
And FYI, "Nebraska Man" was never taken seriously by the scientific community.
"Many authorities gave Osborn their support. Based on this single tooth, reconstructions of the Nebraska man's head and body were drawn. Moreover, Nebraska man was even pictured along with his wife and children, as a whole family in a natural setting.

All of these scenarios were developed from just one tooth. Evolutionist circles placed such faith in this "ghost man" that when a researcher named William Bryan opposed these biased conclusions relying on a single tooth, he was harshly criticised.

In 1927, other parts of the skeleton were also found. According to these newly discovered pieces, the tooth belonged neither to a man nor to an ape. It was realised that it belonged to an extinct species of wild American pig called Prosthennops. William Gregory entitled the article published in Science in which he announced the truth, "Hesperopithecus: Apparently Not an ape Nor a man. Then all the drawings of Hesperopithecus haroldcooki and his "family" were hurriedly removed from evolutionary literature."

http://antidarwinism.com/evolutionisahoax.htm...
Chimney1 wrote:
<quoted text>

Haeckel was investigated and eventually found wanting, though not completely false.
"A notable case of a scientists using fraudulent material to promote the theory of evolution was the work of German scientist and atheist Ernst Haeckel. Noted evolutionist Stephen Gould wrote the following regarding Ernst Haeckel's work in a March 2000 issue of Natural History:




"Haeckel’s forceful, eminently comprehensible, if not always accurate, books appeared in all major languages and surely exerted more influence than the works of any other scientist, including Darwin…in convincing people throughout the world about the validity of evolution... Haeckel had exaggerated the similarities [between embryos of different species] by idealizations and omissions. He also, in some cases — in a procedure that can only be called fraudulent — simply copied the same figure over and over again.…Haeckel’s drawings never fooled expert embryologists, who recognized his fudgings right from the start. Haeckel’s drawings, despite their noted inaccuracies, entered into the most impenetrable and permanent of all quasi-scientific literatures: standard student textbooks of biology... Once ensconced in textbooks, misinformation becomes cocooned and effectively permanent, because…textbooks copy from previous texts....[W]e do, I think, have the right to be both astonished and ashamed by the century of mindless recycling that has led to the persistence of these drawings in a large number, if not a majority, of modern textbooks!"[1]

http://www.conservapedia.com/Theory_of_Evolut...

“I am Sisyphus”

Since: Nov 07

Location hidden

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#109843
Feb 6, 2013
 
marksman11 wrote:
<quoted text>I disagree. I think he is obcessed. Look at Christopher Hitchins. Debated religion up to his death, knowing he was dying. He could have spent time with his family and loved ones, but his unprovable biases were more important. These people, including Bill Maher are insain, in which Bill Maher owes Donald Trump 5 million dollars for charity. He hasn't paid yet.<quoted text>No, I ain't buying that. Most all evolutionists don't do that and could care less what the "uneducated" ones deem true or false. He has religious biases. I think to him his atheism is more important for him to protect than his biology.<quoted text>There are those who claim Hitler was a Darwinist, and the Great Solution was merely his way of speeding up evolution to it's ultimate conclusion. Did evolution kill 6 million Jews, or a hand full of missguided and derranged Germans? Right, it was the Germans. Same with 911, it wasn't religion that caused 911, it was like the Germans, some misguided and derranged people. If Dawkins can't figure that one out, people need to hand wave him away in the first place.

I have to agree with your last paragraph, at least mainly. However it was specifically fundamentalist religious views (or what was being sold as such) that lead to 911. So here the link to religion is a bit clearer.

“I am Sisyphus”

Since: Nov 07

Location hidden

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#109844
Feb 6, 2013
 
marksman11 wrote:
<quoted text>That is why humans are superior. We can't fly, so we made systems that can fly us around. They don't do that. We are great climbers if we need to be, but we can also fabricate ropes, and suction cups if we need them. Skies to slide on, boats to ride on, and skates to roll on. Teeth? Is their another animal that can fabricate themselves new teeth to replace their old ones? I think superior describes us well, and that isn't a word game. If evolution be true, what haven't other animals evolved the ability to do these things?

"Superior" is one of those relative words that really does not fit here.

Because of our brain size we are a very adaptable species. But not superior.

It is like your misuse of the word "complexity". It is also a word that only works in context and only in a relative sense.
marksman11

Asheville, NC

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#109845
Feb 6, 2013
 

Judged:

1

1

1

Chimney1 wrote:
<quoted text>
As to your final theory of abnormalities...that was the assumption for the very first Neanderthal found! But more kept turning up...and a whole continuum. If they are abnormalities...WHY are there no "normal" i.e. modern skulls from the same periods? Why are there other "abnormal" skulls? Why do the abnormalities, tracked over time, just happen to coincide EXACTLY with a progression from apelike to human form? Nah.
That is just silly.
There is a wrestler named Paul Wright. His wrestling name is The Big Show. He is over 7 feet tall and almost 500lbs. If his fossil was found today, there would be claims of a race of giants. He tag teams at times with a miget that comes to his knee. What would they think about him? See, they could be found side by side and it would mean absolutely nothing. When will you learn that fossils can't support evolution because they can't give you their heritage. All you have is interpretation of a lot of different images and bones, and just like Nebraska man, evolutionists from one tooth can draw a picture of the whole family even though it is the tooth of a pig!!

Level 6

Since: Mar 12

Dubai, UAE

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#109846
Feb 6, 2013
 
marksman11 wrote:
<quoted text>Well, you make it sound as if even the most well adapted never die. Of course they do, and if years later their fossil is found, it doesn't mean that they weren't the most fit. Even the most fit, die!!<quoted text>True. No ones getting out of here alive:-)
Yes, the well adapted die, but we continue to find fossils of their descendants if they were successful.(Translation for you: we find fossils of the same species or species very similar in later strata)

We also know that when the climate changes, or vulcanism or asteroids hit, what was "fit" can be abruptly different after such events. Fitness is a moving target because the environment changes. What is an anteater when the ants are there? Dead.

“I am Sisyphus”

Since: Nov 07

Location hidden

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#109847
Feb 6, 2013
 
marksman11 wrote:
<quoted text>"Many authorities gave Osborn their support. Based on this single tooth, reconstructions of the Nebraska man's head and body were drawn. Moreover, Nebraska man was even pictured along with his wife and children, as a whole family in a natural setting.
All of these scenarios were developed from just one tooth. Evolutionist circles placed such faith in this "ghost man" that when a researcher named William Bryan opposed these biased conclusions relying on a single tooth, he was harshly criticised.
In 1927, other parts of the skeleton were also found. According to these newly discovered pieces, the tooth belonged neither to a man nor to an ape. It was realised that it belonged to an extinct species of wild American pig called Prosthennops. William Gregory entitled the article published in Science in which he announced the truth, "Hesperopithecus: Apparently Not an ape Nor a man. Then all the drawings of Hesperopithecus haroldcooki and his "family" were hurriedly removed from evolutionary literature."
http://antidarwinism.com/evolutionisahoax.htm...
<quoted text>"A notable case of a scientists using fraudulent material to promote the theory of evolution was the work of German scientist and atheist Ernst Haeckel. Noted evolutionist Stephen Gould wrote the following regarding Ernst Haeckel's work in a March 2000 issue of Natural History:

"Haeckel’s forceful, eminently comprehensible, if not always accurate, books appeared in all major languages and surely exerted more influence than the works of any other scientist, including Darwin…in convincing people throughout the world about the validity of evolution... Haeckel had exaggerated the similarities [between embryos of different species] by idealizations and omissions. He also, in some cases — in a procedure that can only be called fraudulent — simply copied the same figure over and over again.…Haeckel’s drawings never fooled expert embryologists, who recognized his fudgings right from the start. Haeckel’s drawings, despite their noted inaccuracies, entered into the most impenetrable and permanent of all quasi-scientific literatures: standard student textbooks of biology... Once ensconced in textbooks, misinformation becomes cocooned and effectively permanent, because…textbooks copy from previous texts....[W]e do, I think, have the right to be both astonished and ashamed by the century of mindless recycling that has led to the persistence of these drawings in a large number, if not a majority, of modern textbooks!"[1]
http://www.conservapedia.com/Theory_of_Evolut...

How about getting your information from serious science or reference sites. Conservapedia and Antidarwinism.com do not qualify as such.

By quoting antiscience sites you are effectively saying that extremists agree with your extreme opinion. Why would normal people care?

“I am Sisyphus”

Since: Nov 07

Location hidden

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#109848
Feb 6, 2013
 
marksman11 wrote:
<quoted text>There is a wrestler named Paul Wright. His wrestling name is The Big Show. He is over 7 feet tall and almost 500lbs. If his fossil was found today, there would be claims of a race of giants. He tag teams at times with a miget that comes to his knee. What would they think about him? See, they could be found side by side and it would mean absolutely nothing. When will you learn that fossils can't support evolution because they can't give you their heritage. All you have is interpretation of a lot of different images and bones, and just like Nebraska man, evolutionists from one tooth can draw a picture of the whole family even though it is the tooth of a pig!!

This is just false. Again it indicates that you don't know how modern science is done.

Level 6

Since: Mar 12

Dubai, UAE

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#109849
Feb 6, 2013
 
marksman11 wrote:
<quoted text>There is a wrestler named Paul Wright. His wrestling name is The Big Show. He is over 7 feet tall and almost 500lbs. If his fossil was found today, there would be claims of a race of giants. He tag teams at times with a miget that comes to his knee. What would they think about him? See, they could be found side by side and it would mean absolutely nothing.
Paul is a rare specimen. So is the midget. In any sample of 1000 people you would be lucky to find one of each. Unless you think that fossilisation especially picks out the freaks, its exceedingly unlikely that the fossils we have are Paul Wright equivalents. They are far more likely ordinary individuals of the time.

We have many specimens of species like Neanderthal, H erectus, and Heidlburgensis. Your argument simply does not wash when we have multiple specimens of a species. To imagine that only the "Paul Wright" equivalents were fossilised and found multiple time is not credible.
marksman11

Asheville, NC

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#109850
Feb 6, 2013
 

Judged:

1

1

1

Chimney1 wrote:
<quoted text>

Economically, I am a conservative and socially a libertarian (nothing like a liberal).
But the Party that would champion these things has got itself so entrenched in the religious fundamentalist whacko core, that its created a false split. Now its supposedly liberal-socialist-pro-science versus conservative-free market-anti-science, and its BS.
I don't think you have it right at all. I think it's more like liberal, socialist,secularists...vs.... .Conservative,capitalist, anti-psuedoscience, theists.
Chimney1 wrote:
<quoted text>
The Founding Fathers were very smart in separating Church from State, and this is just the sort of stupidity they had in mind. They knew religious beliefs were faith based, not rational, whereas issues of public policy and business should be kept on a rational basis.
You are way off the mark here and your biases are showing. Who says religious beliefs aren't rational? Idiots like Richard Dawkins? He's not the authority of truth. Christianity is very rational to those that study it and take it seriously. Just because you reject it doesn't mean it isn't rational. In fact, it could mean that you are not rational. Until scientists can replicate the origin of life, creationism will be rational.
Chimney1 wrote:
<quoted text>
Religion is not a conservative cause. For much of history and in much of the world, religion has been connected to socialist causes. The big champion of free market capitalism, Ayn Rand, is trumpeted by the Tea Party and guys like Paul Ryan, ignoring the fact that ATHEISM was right at the core of her philosophy. You wont find many more anti-religious writings that hers; she leaves Dawkins in the dust.
So? She is like you. Not the norm. She was right about conservatism, and wrong about GOD. You are right about conservatism, and wrong about GOD.(IMHO).
Chimney1 wrote:
<quoted text>
You have been sold a false bill of goods. Evolution is not a liberal cause. Its a scientific theory.
Well, it's definately not a scientific theory. It's more of an atheistic philosophy, and yes there are christians that buy into it. That just tells me that they have a surface faith, and a personality that follows rather than researches. I'm not judging their salvation, only GOD can do that. They can be right about Jesus and go to heaven, and still have been completely wrong about human from non-human evolution.

Level 6

Since: Mar 12

Dubai, UAE

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#109851
Feb 6, 2013
 
marksman11 wrote:
<quoted text>"Many authorities gave Osborn their support. Based on this single tooth, reconstructions of the Nebraska man's head and body were drawn. Moreover, Nebraska man was even pictured along with his wife and children, as a whole family in a natural setting.
All of these scenarios were developed from just one tooth. Evolutionist circles placed such faith in this "ghost man" that when a researcher named William Bryan opposed these biased conclusions relying on a single tooth, he was harshly criticised.
In 1927, other parts of the skeleton were also found. According to these newly discovered pieces, the tooth belonged neither to a man nor to an ape. It was realised that it belonged to an extinct species of wild American pig called Prosthennops. William Gregory entitled the article published in Science in which he announced the truth, "Hesperopithecus: Apparently Not an ape Nor a man. Then all the drawings of Hesperopithecus haroldcooki and his "family" were hurriedly removed from evolutionary literature."
http://antidarwinism.com/evolutionisahoax.htm...
<quoted text>"A notable case of a scientists using fraudulent material to promote the theory of evolution was the work of German scientist and atheist Ernst Haeckel. Noted evolutionist Stephen Gould wrote the following regarding Ernst Haeckel's work in a March 2000 issue of Natural History:

"Haeckel’s forceful, eminently comprehensible, if not always accurate, books appeared in all major languages and surely exerted more influence than the works of any other scientist, including Darwin…in convincing people throughout the world about the validity of evolution... Haeckel had exaggerated the similarities [between embryos of different species] by idealizations and omissions. He also, in some cases — in a procedure that can only be called fraudulent — simply copied the same figure over and over again.…Haeckel’s drawings never fooled expert embryologists, who recognized his fudgings right from the start. Haeckel’s drawings, despite their noted inaccuracies, entered into the most impenetrable and permanent of all quasi-scientific literatures: standard student textbooks of biology... Once ensconced in textbooks, misinformation becomes cocooned and effectively permanent, because…textbooks copy from previous texts....[W]e do, I think, have the right to be both astonished and ashamed by the century of mindless recycling that has led to the persistence of these drawings in a large number, if not a majority, of modern textbooks!"[1]
http://www.conservapedia.com/Theory_of_Evolut...
Sorry, Marksman, but the majority of the above is just creationist propaganda. Nebraska Man was not taken seriously for long if at all and after 35 years extensive evolution reading, I had never even heard of it until Topix. As it is, evolutionary predictions are now backed by scores of hominid fossil finds, and there is a lot more than a tooth or two in most cases.

As for Haeckel, again, claiming he was ever more influential than Darwin or the fossil record is just building a very fake straw man. At best Heackel was only ever supplementary evidence for evolution. Anyway, he was not totally wrong. Embryology still sees the obvious evolutionary parallels in embryonic development that is best explained by the adaptation of an original "fish base" with elaborations occurring later. As Darwin, by the way, predicted, before Haeckel ever did a thing.

Frauds and errors get outed by the process. The fact that your system has no method of fraud detection accounts for millions of Muslims and Mormons running around, for starters.
marksman11

Asheville, NC

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#109852
Feb 6, 2013
 

Judged:

2

2

1

Chimney1 wrote:
<quoted text>
Paul is a rare specimen. So is the midget. In any sample of 1000 people you would be lucky to find one of each. Unless you think that fossilisation especially picks out the freaks, its exceedingly unlikely that the fossils we have are Paul Wright equivalents. They are far more likely ordinary individuals of the time.
We have many specimens of species like Neanderthal, H erectus, and Heidlburgensis. Your argument simply does not wash when we have multiple specimens of a species. To imagine that only the "Paul Wright" equivalents were fossilised and found multiple time is not credible.
I'm just saying, there are exceptions to the norm, and when you have evolutionists finding a pigs tooth and from that tooth drawing the entire family of the non-existant human, then they zeal and exageration must be greeted with extreme skeptisim. And because Evolutionists have had Piltdown, Nebraska Man, Lucy, Haeckles....etc...This extreme skeptisim is warrented.
marksman11

Asheville, NC

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#109853
Feb 6, 2013
 

Judged:

1

1

1

Chimney1 wrote:
<quoted text>
We also know that when the climate changes, or vulcanism or asteroids hit, what was "fit" can be abruptly different after such events. Fitness is a moving target because the environment changes. What is an anteater when the ants are there? Dead.
Do you mean when the ants "aren't" there? I Agree, they are dead, but they have not evolved into something that was not an anteater.

Level 6

Since: Mar 12

Dubai, UAE

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#109854
Feb 6, 2013
 
marksman11 wrote:
I don't think you have it right at all. I think it's more like liberal, socialist,secularists...vs.... .Conservative,capitalist, anti-psuedoscience, theists.
Try this:

Religious / non religious
Science / anti science
Socially conservative / socially liberal
Economically free market / economically socialist

All these things are independent and can occur in any combination in different people. Not only that, but most of these are sliding scales not A or B.

There are many people in the real world who are economic and social conservatives but not religious. This is more evident in democracies that have proportional representation and so several smaller parties with different combinations of the above have to form a coalition to govern.
marksman11

Asheville, NC

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#109855
Feb 6, 2013
 

Judged:

1

1

Chimney1 wrote:
<quoted text>
Sorry, Marksman, but the majority of the above is just creationist propaganda.
Refute the statements, not the source. I think that many of the links you guys post are ridiculous and biased, but I address their statements, not give them a handwave because of the name of the site.
Chimney1 wrote:
<quoted text> Nebraska Man was not taken seriously for long if at all and after 35 years extensive evolution reading, I had never even heard of it until Topix.
It was taught to us in high school as a part of evolution in 1976.
Chimney1 wrote:
<quoted text>
As for Haeckel, again, claiming he was ever more influential than Darwin or the fossil record is just building a very fake straw man. At best Heackel was only ever supplementary evidence for evolution. Anyway, he was not totally wrong. Embryology still sees the obvious evolutionary parallels in embryonic development that is best explained by the adaptation of an original "fish base" with elaborations occurring later. As Darwin, by the way, predicted, before Haeckel ever did a thing.
Then why did Stephen Gould say....

"Haeckel’s drawings, despite their noted inaccuracies, entered into the most impenetrable and permanent of all quasi-scientific literatures: standard student textbooks of biology (p. 44)….Once ensconced in textbooks, misinformation becomes cocooned and effectively permanent, because…textbooks copy from previous texts (p. 45).

Prof. Gould then made this absolutely startling admission:

…[W]e do, I think, have the right to be both astonished and ashamed by the century of mindless recycling that has led to the persistence of these drawings in a large number, IF NOT A MAJORITY, of modern textbooks!(p. 45, emphasis added)

He then goes on to quote a colleague, Michael Richardson of the St. George’s Hospital Medical School in London, who stated,

"I know of at least fifty recent biology texts which use the drawings uncritically" (p. 45).
These facts are both frightening and heartening. They are frightening because they demonstrate the colossal dishonesty of the evolutionary movement, as well as the widespread nature of this dishonesty. However, it is heartening to know that even a militant anti-Creationist such as Dr. Gould would admit in the pages of a respected journal like Natural History that one of the major pieces of evidence for evolution is not only fraudulent, but is shamefully being propagated among the world’s youth to this very day. With hope, this might serve as a wake-up call for people who have been deceived into believing Darwin’s theory as scientific fact beyond the scope of doubt or question."

http://www.creationism.org/caesar/haeckel.htm

Don't hand wave the source. THese are the words of a pramanant evolutionist who is quoted from a scientific journal you can research. Also, please give a link to a genetists that can show me why an embryo would in anyway follow an historical past of distant evolution as it developes? Who came up with that BS? What were claimed as gill slits never were gill slits but pouches that developed into the shoulder and ear mechanics.
Chimney1 wrote:
<quoted text>
Frauds and errors get outed by the process. The fact that your system has no method of fraud detection accounts for millions of Muslims and Mormons running around, for starters.
Changing the subject does not validate or support your views.

Level 6

Since: Mar 12

Dubai, UAE

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#109856
Feb 6, 2013
 
marksman11 wrote:
<quoted text>Do you mean when the ants "aren't" there? I Agree, they are dead, but they have not evolved into something that was not an anteater.
Probably not. Anteaters are extremely fit for anteating but their specialisation makes them vulnerable. Remember I said "superiority" comes down to fitness and adaptability? Anteaters are fit but not adaptable. Reliance on a food source others have difficulty exploiting is a great short term strategy - so long as the food source exists. Which species has more survival potential - the Brown bear who eats almost everything or the Panda who lives on just bamboo?

We have, in spite of your beliefs, many examples of adaptive radiation especially following major catastrophes. It was generally less specialised, adaptable species that formed the base of those radiations.
marksman11

Asheville, NC

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#109857
Feb 6, 2013
 

Judged:

1

1

1

Chimney1 wrote:
<quoted text>

There are many people in the real world who are economic and social conservatives but not religious.
I agree. I had a friend who was a statistics professor at the University of Houston name John Nechworth. He was that way, but he wasn't the norm. I met him in a forum and we were bitter enemies for years until one day the topic shifted from religion to politics, and we became great friend until his death. Still, again, you can be correct about politics, and wrong about GOD.

Level 6

Since: Mar 12

Dubai, UAE

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#109858
Feb 6, 2013
 
marksman11 wrote:
(Dawkins)I think to him his atheism is more important for him to protect than his biology.
I disagree. He would be first to say that even if there turns out to be a God, He used evolution, meaning he puts the biology before the atheism. He has said it, but I do not remember where. In any case, these are individual opinions. You said Dawkins was not "the Authority".

Don't you get it? Of course he is not! He is a human putting forth his views with his reasons, which you can agree with or not.

NOBODY is an unquestioned authority. Ever, in anything. And sorry mate, but I include Jesus in that category.
<quoted text>There are those who claim Hitler was a Darwinist, and the Great Solution was merely his way of speeding up evolution to it's ultimate conclusion. Did evolution kill 6 million Jews, or a hand full of missguided and derranged Germans? Right, it was the Germans. Same with 911, it wasn't religion that caused 911, it was like the Germans, some misguided and derranged people. If Dawkins can't figure that one out, people need to hand wave him away in the first place.
I have a different take. It was acceptance of dogmatic authority that enabled both. Same thing with Stalin, Pol Pot, and Mao, and they were not religious. For me its this dogmatic aspect that enables men to do evil things that is the core issue, and religion is one form of dogmatism but not the only one.

The cure is rational empirical skepticism. That is, nobody and no doctrine is the automatic authority. All claims must be open to critical examination and backed by evidence.
LowellGuy

Lawrence, MA

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#109859
Feb 6, 2013
 
marksman11 wrote:
<quoted text>"Many authorities gave Osborn their support. Based on this single tooth, reconstructions of the Nebraska man's head and body were drawn. Moreover, Nebraska man was even pictured along with his wife and children, as a whole family in a natural setting.
All of these scenarios were developed from just one tooth. Evolutionist circles placed such faith in this "ghost man" that when a researcher named William Bryan opposed these biased conclusions relying on a single tooth, he was harshly criticised.
In 1927, other parts of the skeleton were also found. According to these newly discovered pieces, the tooth belonged neither to a man nor to an ape. It was realised that it belonged to an extinct species of wild American pig called Prosthennops. William Gregory entitled the article published in Science in which he announced the truth, "Hesperopithecus: Apparently Not an ape Nor a man. Then all the drawings of Hesperopithecus haroldcooki and his "family" were hurriedly removed from evolutionary literature."
http://antidarwinism.com/evolutionisahoax.htm...
<quoted text>"A notable case of a scientists using fraudulent material to promote the theory of evolution was the work of German scientist and atheist Ernst Haeckel. Noted evolutionist Stephen Gould wrote the following regarding Ernst Haeckel's work in a March 2000 issue of Natural History:

"Haeckel’s forceful, eminently comprehensible, if not always accurate, books appeared in all major languages and surely exerted more influence than the works of any other scientist, including Darwin…in convincing people throughout the world about the validity of evolution... Haeckel had exaggerated the similarities [between embryos of different species] by idealizations and omissions. He also, in some cases — in a procedure that can only be called fraudulent — simply copied the same figure over and over again.…Haeckel’s drawings never fooled expert embryologists, who recognized his fudgings right from the start. Haeckel’s drawings, despite their noted inaccuracies, entered into the most impenetrable and permanent of all quasi-scientific literatures: standard student textbooks of biology... Once ensconced in textbooks, misinformation becomes cocooned and effectively permanent, because…textbooks copy from previous texts....[W]e do, I think, have the right to be both astonished and ashamed by the century of mindless recycling that has led to the persistence of these drawings in a large number, if not a majority, of modern textbooks!"[1]
http://www.conservapedia.com/Theory_of_Evolut...
You shouldn't need to consult demonstrably dishonest sources to make your case. That you do says everything.

Level 6

Since: Mar 12

Dubai, UAE

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#109860
Feb 6, 2013
 
Dogen wrote:
<quoted text>
"Superior" is one of those relative words that really does not fit here.
Because of our brain size we are a very adaptable species. But not superior.
It is like your misuse of the word "complexity". It is also a word that only works in context and only in a relative sense.
Yes, the word superior is too value laden, but I used it with caution. One can make the case that adaptability and fitness are each elements that can constitute superiority in the evolutionary sense, meaning, "more likely to continue to leave viable offspring and viable daughter species in the long run".

You could also ask, "what range of environments and different conditions can a Chimp survive in, given that Earth is environmentally unstable in the long run?". By this measure, I would wager that the superior species are rats, bats, pigeons, sparrows, brown bears, pigs, ants, and humans, when compared with say chimps, koalas, anteaters, and pandas.

Never forget our old friend Lystrosaurus. Nobody is sure why, but this little genus survived the Permian extinction well 250 million years ago and form 95% of fossils in some strata immediately after.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lystrosaurus

Tell me when this thread is updated: (Registration is not required)

Add to my Tracker Send me an email

Showing posts 107,801 - 107,820 of133,041
|
Go to last page| Jump to page:
Type in your comments below
Name
(appears on your post)
Comments
Characters left: 4000
Type the numbers you see in the image on the right:

Please note by clicking on "Post Comment" 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.

•••
•••
Enter and win $5000
•••
•••