Evolution vs. Creation

Full story: Best of New Orleans

High school senior Zack Kopplin is leading the fight to repeal the Louisiana Science Education Act of 2008.

Comments (Page 2,839)

Showing posts 56,761 - 56,780 of111,882
|
Go to last page| Jump to page:
anonymous

Franklin, PA

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#60690
Nov 24, 2012
 
DanFromSmithville wrote:
<quoted text>I need to read more on human evolution as this has been an area for which I have shown little interest until the last few years. I can only speak generally about it. I agree, changes in conclusions about a single fossil or lineage, won't bring the theory down, no matter how much some think it will.
In this particular instance, I think reading on Ardipithicus ramidus is a good start.

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

Level 1

Since: Jul 12

Marrickville, Australia

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#60691
Nov 24, 2012
 
anonymous wrote:
<quoted text>
Dirt simple, by the design of the pelvis. Lucy's pelvis clearly suggested bipedalism. You could also use the position of the foramen magnum if it is available.
Oh is that so? It is too bad that bipedalism is not a human trait. If you would ever bother to open the links I provide you would know that.

Indeed you have no idea if apes evolved from a biped, after all knuckle walking is now suggested to have evolved independently twice. There is no point my posting links because I don't believe any of you ever read them. You prefer to remain ignorant because then you can chase your tails all day.

Such a simplistic answer is yet again a demonstration that you have no idea.

Don't forget the Gonna pelvis has thrown the entire wofflely scenario to the rubbish bin again on the back of another single fossil find.

Before erectus supposedly had small brained babes that grew into small brained adults. That supports TOE. Now they have large brained babes grow into small brained adults. There is also another woffly scenraio to speculate as to how that MAY have occured. If this does not demonstrate they actually have no idea what they are saying nothing ever will.

Lucy is not evidence for mankinds evolution from an ape. Lucy has all the hallmarks of a non human ape regardless of bipedalism. Long curved fingers, small brained, 3.5ft tall, no speech, Are you evos now trying to suggest Lucy was an obligate biped with curved fingers or not?

It also means that over 700,000 thousand years Ardi's bipedal ape feet poofed into perfectly human feet with a human gait? Is that what you are suggesting?

Since: Oct 12

Location hidden

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#60692
Nov 24, 2012
 
Charles Idemi wrote:
<quoted text>Heretics?
You are not God to judge.
I don't have to be.

Level 1

Since: Jul 12

Marrickville, Australia

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#60693
Nov 24, 2012
 
DanFromSmithville wrote:
If my grandparents were married in 1928, lived, had children who in turn married and had children of there own, arguing when the marriage occured would not change the fact that they were married and so forth.
Arguing that finding certain fossil evidence at an unexpected time is just the same thing. It may change the timeline, alter where some key events may have taken place but it doesn't destroy the concept of evolution.
For instance, if while looking through family papers I discover a picture of my grandparents wedding dated 1923, that doesn't mean they weren't married. It means that based on the evidence other family members had there is a discrepency in the date the marriage took place. It could be the photo was mislabelled or it is correct. There would be much controversy amongst the family as to which is correct, but none would say that there was no marriage as a result of the new evidence.
It is a simple concept I know, but one that seems to be abused on here as if the abuser was in possession of Thor's hammer. With such, these people gleefully believe they are destroying the foundations of evolution. This is further based on the misconception that science is based on popularity rather than on facts. Evolution is not an accepted theory because it is popular. It is an accepted theory because of the facts.
I invite the open minded, critical thinking, person to watch how radical creationists abuse their ignorance on here daily. Watch them rant on in some illogical manner and then declare themselves the winner of whatever it is they think they won. The names of the characters may change, but the stupidity, ignorance and hubris remain the same.
Oh here we go more blather with no sign of research skills to speak of.

I declare myself one of the winners by default if nothing else.

To this day I have yet to see the majority of you evos post a link to research.

Hubris and woffle are actually unsupported opinion and that is exactly what you provide in every single one of your posts, and hand wave away any attempt to instruct you in this theory you lot know little about.

You are a total waste of space on a debating forum. After the calibre of evo I have come across previously you have nothing to toot your horn about. They would disown you.

Level 9

Since: Sep 08

Everett, WA

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#60694
Nov 24, 2012
 
Yes Mav, you had quite a list of scientists who believe in creation. Of course it really is not fair to include those from before Darwin's time. Before Newton's time there were very few if any scientists that believed in gravity, not the everyday gravity that makes you fall down, I am talking about how Newton extended the concept of gravity to the "heavens".

Anyway back to your list. Yes, very impressive. It is almost as impressive as the scientists in Project Steve:

http://ncse.com/taking-action/project-steve
anonymous

Franklin, PA

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#60695
Nov 24, 2012
 
MazHere wrote:
<quoted text>
Oh is that so? It is too bad that bipedalism is not a human trait. If you would ever bother to open the links I provide you would know that.
Indeed you have no idea if apes evolved from a biped, after all knuckle walking is now suggested to have evolved independently twice. There is no point my posting links because I don't believe any of you ever read them. You prefer to remain ignorant because then you can chase your tails all day.
Such a simplistic answer is yet again a demonstration that you have no idea.
Don't forget the Gonna pelvis has thrown the entire wofflely scenario to the rubbish bin again on the back of another single fossil find.
Before erectus supposedly had small brained babes that grew into small brained adults. That supports TOE. Now they have large brained babes grow into small brained adults. There is also another woffly scenraio to speculate as to how that MAY have occured. If this does not demonstrate they actually have no idea what they are saying nothing ever will.
Lucy is not evidence for mankinds evolution from an ape. Lucy has all the hallmarks of a non human ape regardless of bipedalism. Long curved fingers, small brained, 3.5ft tall, no speech, Are you evos now trying to suggest Lucy was an obligate biped with curved fingers or not?
It also means that over 700,000 thousand years Ardi's bipedal ape feet poofed into perfectly human feet with a human gait? Is that what you are suggesting?
1. I don't know about you but I walk on two legs.
2. I don't see anything about the "Gona Pelvis" that turns Evolution upside down.
3. I STILL don't know if "woffley" or whatever is a real word!
4. Lucy does show a link between humans and our common ancestors by virtue of the fact that she did walk bipedaly.
5. Ardipithicus did not POOF into having modern human feet. 700,000 years is a really long time. Homo Heidelbergensis was still the new kid on the block 700,000 years ago. Besides, those kinds of physiological changes can happen quickly as long as the motivational factors are there. For now, it's thought that Africa was going through some dramatic climate changes that reduced the forestland, compelling the species to adapt to life on the plains.

Everyone on this board has already dismissed incredulity as an argument. The evidence is what the evidence is.

Level 1

Since: Jul 12

Marrickville, Australia

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#60696
Nov 24, 2012
 
anonymous wrote:
<quoted text>
In all honesty, I tend to be skeptical of new announcements in the science community because I expect a bit of self-promotion. When I post, I usually fact-check at Wikipedia where they state that Lucy has leg bones and a partial pelvis which led scientists to their conclusions.
Go ahead and read!
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lucy_%28Australo...
Lucy isn't a cold fusion dud. She's a real and significant discovery.
Oh lovey, the link you provided speaks to Lucys pelvic reconstruction? I wasn't even going to mention that yet. When do you suppose they suddenly realized the need to reconstruct it to have an illiac flare?

If Lucys pelvis is such a great example of a primitive obligate bipedal ape then why do some well credentailled evo scientists provide good research for Lucy being a chimp ancestor? The fact is that now scientists have less idea what the common ancestor may have looked like than ever before.

There is a stack of research into bipeadism going back as far as the orang common ancestor, because they actually have what they believe are orang ancestor fossils, no chimps or gorillas but.

All announcements are new announcements at some time as was mankinds knucklewalking ancestry and as is anything you present that is recent. Your skepticism is not support for much at all.

It is an insult to direct me to a simplistic Wiki site. You are the one that needs to start there.

Level 1

Since: Jul 12

Marrickville, Australia

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#60698
Nov 24, 2012
 
Subduction Zone wrote:
Yes Mav, you had quite a list of scientists who believe in creation. Of course it really is not fair to include those from before Darwin's time. Before Newton's time there were very few if any scientists that believed in gravity, not the everyday gravity that makes you fall down, I am talking about how Newton extended the concept of gravity to the "heavens".
Anyway back to your list. Yes, very impressive. It is almost as impressive as the scientists in Project Steve:
http://ncse.com/taking-action/project-steve
Ok Suds, you can wriggle and squirm as much as you like. The fact is that only evomorons try to maintain that no creationist has appropriate qualifications to have made an informed choice to leave their TOE faith for another.

“I have upset the hand of god”

Level 9

Since: Jan 11

Threats pending

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#60699
Nov 24, 2012
 
MazHere wrote:
<quoted text>
Oh here we go more blather with no sign of research skills to speak of.
I declare myself one of the winners by default if nothing else.
To this day I have yet to see the majority of you evos post a link to research.
Hubris and woffle are actually unsupported opinion and that is exactly what you provide in every single one of your posts, and hand wave away any attempt to instruct you in this theory you lot know little about.
You are a total waste of space on a debating forum. After the calibre of evo I have come across previously you have nothing to toot your horn about. They would disown you.
Here go more personal attacks. I often see those come up when my opponent has been routed.

I am not making any claims. We are talking about your claims. If I am not making any claims, what links would I post to support that?

I figured your response to refuting your abuse of evidence would be something like this. Nothing new, nothing original. I am surprsied you didn't go "nyah, nyah, nyah" "I'm telling my mommy."

“I have upset the hand of god”

Level 9

Since: Jan 11

Threats pending

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#60700
Nov 24, 2012
 
MazHere wrote:
<quoted text>
Ok Suds, you can wriggle and squirm as much as you like. The fact is that only evomorons try to maintain that no creationist has appropriate qualifications to have made an informed choice to leave their TOE faith for another.
What are your qualifications? If they are so great, you won't mind relating them to us.

“I have upset the hand of god”

Level 9

Since: Jan 11

Threats pending

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#60701
Nov 24, 2012
 
anonymous wrote:
<quoted text>In this particular instance, I think reading on Ardipithicus ramidus is a good start.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ardipithecus
Thanks for the recommendation.
anonymous

Franklin, PA

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#60702
Nov 24, 2012
 
MazHere wrote:
<quoted text>
Oh lovey, the link you provided speaks to Lucys pelvic reconstruction? I wasn't even going to mention that yet. When do you suppose they suddenly realized the need to reconstruct it to have an illiac flare?
If Lucys pelvis is such a great example of a primitive obligate bipedal ape then why do some well credentailled evo scientists provide good research for Lucy being a chimp ancestor? The fact is that now scientists have less idea what the common ancestor may have looked like than ever before.
There is a stack of research into bipeadism going back as far as the orang common ancestor, because they actually have what they believe are orang ancestor fossils, no chimps or gorillas but.
All announcements are new announcements at some time as was mankinds knucklewalking ancestry and as is anything you present that is recent. Your skepticism is not support for much at all.
It is an insult to direct me to a simplistic Wiki site. You are the one that needs to start there.
You're grasping at straws. The evidence is what the evidence is. Every little condition that doesn't meet your expectation doesn't prove Creationism.

I don't really need to go to edgy sites because I'm not in that field of study and I really prefer a nice centralized site with well formatted material. If I wanted parsed out tidbits of individual research, I could always pursue the posted sources on Wikipedia or go to other scientific publications.

I'm not the one who's looking to for a reason to disagree with what the vast majority of researchers say.

Level 9

Since: Sep 08

Everett, WA

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#60703
Nov 24, 2012
 
anonymous wrote:
<quoted text>...
The evidence is what the evidence is.
Sadly I already tried to explain to Mav and company what scientific evidence is. They agree with the concept until it is applied to evolution. Then suddenly the blinders go up.

"Scientific evidence is evidence which serves to either support or counter a scientific theory or hypothesis. Such evidence is expected to be empirical evidence and in accordance with scientific method. Standards for scientific evidence vary according to the field of inquiry, but the strength of scientific evidence is generally based on the results of statistical analysis and the strength of scientific controls."

That all looks and seems fine to them until you use the evidence to support the theory of evolution. Then strangely it becomes no evidence at all.

Level 9

Since: Sep 08

Everett, WA

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#60704
Nov 24, 2012
 
MazHere wrote:
<quoted text>
Ok Suds, you can wriggle and squirm as much as you like. The fact is that only evomorons try to maintain that no creationist has appropriate qualifications to have made an informed choice to leave their TOE faith for another.
No Mav, you again did not get the point. The number of creationists is comparable at best to the number of scientists named "Steve". That is used to illustrate how foolishly stupid the claim that "many scientists have left the theory of evolution". Actually very few have. Let's switch it around to see if you understand:

Many scientists have the name "Steve". Actually no, the vast majority of scientists have some other name. The number of scientists with the name "Steve" is probably less than 1% of the total number of scientists.

No disrespect is meant for any scientist with the name of Steve in this post.

Level 9

Since: Sep 08

Everett, WA

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#60705
Nov 24, 2012
 
There will always be some deluded people in any subject. There are people who can actually do science that deny that man went to the Moon in 1969. Does that mean we never went to the Moon? Hardly. And so yes, if you grew up with fairy tales that had been pounded into your brain since birth, and there were supposed severe penalties for not believing those fairy tales, even some scientists who grew up under those conditions would continue to believe the fairy tales.

It is not unreasonable that you can find some scientists that support your silly superstition Mav. Does that make them believable or even competent to discuss your superstition, not in the least.
anonymous

Franklin, PA

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#60706
Nov 24, 2012
 
DanFromSmithville wrote:
<quoted text>What are your qualifications? If they are so great, you won't mind relating them to us.
She seems to like to go to scientific publication sites and misinterpret what is being published. I guess she figures that nobody will read her links so the bluff works.

For the most part, I just don't know how she gets from A to B with her links and since she talks like a trailer court citizen, I don't even ask.

Level 1

Since: Jul 12

Marrickville, Australia

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#60707
Nov 24, 2012
 
anonymous wrote:
<quoted text>
1. I don't know about you but I walk on two legs.
2. I don't see anything about the "Gona Pelvis" that turns Evolution upside down.
3. I STILL don't know if "woffley" or whatever is a real word!
4. Lucy does show a link between humans and our common ancestors by virtue of the fact that she did walk bipedaly.
5. Ardipithicus did not POOF into having modern human feet. 700,000 years is a really long time. Homo Heidelbergensis was still the new kid on the block 700,000 years ago. Besides, those kinds of physiological changes can happen quickly as long as the motivational factors are there. For now, it's thought that Africa was going through some dramatic climate changes that reduced the forestland, compelling the species to adapt to life on the plains.
Everyone on this board has already dismissed incredulity as an argument. The evidence is what the evidence is.
You have 5 points above NONE of which are supported by anything more than "maz is wrong". You simply are disagreeing with me out of ignorance based on your most humble opinion. No links to suportive research to challenge a word I say means you loose by default again.

You lot absolutley have no idea how to support yourselves and you continue to provide proof of that claim.

Here and again, is what support looks like. You keep saying I am wrong but only offer some woffly opinion that could have originated in a comic strip for all I know.

An important finding in this study is that asymptomatic flat-footedness did not characterize the species Au. afarensis, and instead may just describe the foot of one specific female, Lucy. Two other distal tibiae from Hadar, Ethiopia, A.L. 333-6 and A.L. 333-7 (Figure 6), have distinctly human-like anteriorly directed sets to the distal tibia, implying the presence of rearfoot arching. These two individuals are more like the makers of the 3.6 Myr-old Laetoli footprints, argued to have been made by hominins possessing a well-developed longitudinal arch [11] but see [14].

As in humans today, Australopithecus exhibited variation in foot morphology and arch development. Despite having only preserved the talus and two phalanges, we suggest that it is the distal tibia that provides evidence for foot structure in the “Lucy” skeleton. Our findings suggest that this female Au. afarensis possessed an asymptomatic physiologic flatfoot, though two other tibiae from Hadar, Ethiopia suggest the presence of a rearfoot arch in this species. Whether flat-footedness was more common in early hominins will require additional fossil material, and identification of additional skeletal correlates of the longitudinal arch.


http://www.plosone.org/article/info:doi%2F10....

Above is a link to published research that again suggest these researchers are grappling in the dark.

All the woffle above suggests that Lucy is not the maker of the Laetolli footprints and some other ape was. Just look at all the convolutions and conundrums these have had to consider and they all have to consider when speculating. All the woffle above and not one bit of it is actually speaking to any fossil toes. It is based on a couple of sets of footprints and Ardis toes and maybe one metatarsel.

700,000 years is not a long time at all from some ape like a gorilla in Ardi to morph into the human like sketches of Lucy offered to the public today with her human feet and overtly human hairless form? All based on 40% non colocated fossil pieces that were never found with feet.

Level 1

Since: Jul 12

Marrickville, Australia

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#60708
Nov 24, 2012
 
anonymous wrote:
<quoted text>
She seems to like to go to scientific publication sites and misinterpret what is being published. I guess she figures that nobody will read her links so the bluff works.
For the most part, I just don't know how she gets from A to B with her links and since she talks like a trailer court citizen, I don't even ask.
You do not understand my links and are still at the Wiki stage of basic and general knowledge.

I can prove it because all you ever have to offer is unsupported twoddle and ridicule what I bother to provide without any substance.

Level 1

Since: Jul 12

Marrickville, Australia

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#60709
Nov 24, 2012
 
Subduction Zone wrote:
There will always be some deluded people in any subject. There are people who can actually do science that deny that man went to the Moon in 1969. Does that mean we never went to the Moon? Hardly. And so yes, if you grew up with fairy tales that had been pounded into your brain since birth, and there were supposed severe penalties for not believing those fairy tales, even some scientists who grew up under those conditions would continue to believe the fairy tales.
It is not unreasonable that you can find some scientists that support your silly superstition Mav. Does that make them believable or even competent to discuss your superstition, not in the least.
Oh shut up and stop wasting space.

Defend this stupid little ape of yours that you want to talk about or has that become to burdensome for you as well.

You prefer to hear yourself twoddle on than look at the research I provide.

You lot have no intension of discussin the debate. All you wnat to do is hear yourselves prattle on.

Level 3

Since: Sep 11

Location hidden

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#60710
Nov 24, 2012
 
MazHere wrote:
<quoted text>
The point being of course that I can supply links that you can ridicule without any more than your woffly opinion.
I understand perfectly well what I am talking about.
After our discussions in relation to junk dna I would say that absolutely none of you evos here know what you are talking about. That point has been well established.
You lot of idiots also whine when support is not supplied and then whine when research is supplied under the guise of quote mining.
The whole lot of you are nothing more than confused morons that have absolutely no idea what a considered debate should look like.
If you challenge what I say, then articulate an appropriate response with research that states otherwise, as opposed to the above vague woffle that means nothing other than in your opinion you disagree.
This is not hard in the evolutionary world because one can find conflicting and contradictory findings on the same thing, such is the beauty of evolutionary science. eg junk dna or no junk dna, Lucy is an obligate biped or no she isn't, bipedalism is solely a human trait or it isn't, Neanderthsal interbred with homo sapiens and no they didn't, erectus could talk or no they couldn't. You lot certianly know how to keep your eggs in more than one basket!
Are you a troll? That's the only explanation at this point that would explain how inexplicably oblivious you are to, well, everything. You still have yet to understand anything that has been said to you. A few questions:

1) Why do you keep going on about "junk" dna? It does not affect the TOE. Find one reputable source that claims that the fact that more of our genome is functional than previously thought invalidates, or even casts doubt on the TOE.

2) Why do you keep pointing out that the TOE changes over time to accommodate new observations? How is that a bad thing? It's *good* that scientists alter their conclusions based on the evidence, instead of cherry picking evidence to support their conclusions, which is the definition of "creation science."

3) How have you still not realized what a big mistake you made about chromosome 2? I told you to educate yourself before attempting to respond to me, but you stuck with your tired old strategy of copy/pasting everything without actually understanding what you're talking about. Let me explain it to you again, since you still haven't gotten it.

This is one of the passages you copy/pasted:

"Such sequences are also present In the human centromere (the middle of the chromosome), but at one point the order changes abruptly to 5'-CCCTAA-3', the reverse complement of the standard pattern, as predicted by a telomere to telomere fusion of ancestral ape-like chromosomes."

You claimed this as "proof" for your assertion that chromosome 2 is not a fusion. You said that this shows that "sequences... run counter to predicted in the fusion model." Now, if you had followed my advice and learned a little bit about this subject, you wouldn't have made such a grievous error. This supports *my* assertion, not yours, and the fact that you even posted it shows how little you understand what you're talking about.

The reason is supports fusion is really quite simple, and I thank you for providing such a compelling piece of evidence for fusion. This sequence (5'-CCCTAA-3) is the reverse complement of the standard pattern - which is what you would expect to find in a fusion. Get it? Probably not, or you wouldn't have posted evidence for me.

Other things you would expect to find in a fusion are vestigal telomeres - and there are 2 middle of chromosome 2,(they are usually on the ends) and a vestigal centromere (there is an extra centromere, 2 total, and both are in between each set of telomeres).

Additionally, chromosome 2 shares nearly identical dna with the two corresponding chimpanzee chromosomes that would eventually combine to form it.

Are you gonna actually respond, or spam some more?

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

Add to my Tracker Send me an email

Showing posts 56,761 - 56,780 of111,882
|
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
•••
•••