PDA

View Full Version : Evolutionist lies: Transitional Fossils in the Hominid Fossil Record



semitope
09-12-2012, 08:50 PM
Said it before that what the public is told is differnet from what is reality. These evolutionists are religious zealots presenting a front to influence public opinion. You might even call them a cult and a cult in science is a no -no

http://intelligentdesign.podomatic.com/entry/2012-09-12T17_53_42-07_00


On this episode of ID the Future, listen to a short segment of a recent presentation Casey Luskin gave on the hominid fossil record. While popular media often reports that the fossil record is complete and conclusive, the technical scientific literature reveals this to be false. In actuality, human-like fossils and ape-like fossil are clearly distinct from one another, and the so-called transitional fossil record is highly fragmented. If Casey's talk sparks your interest, be sure to read Chapter 3 of Science and Human Origins.

btw there is no way modern man is an old species.

TruKnight
09-12-2012, 09:24 PM
I feel bad for the evolutionists in a way, they know they are wrong, but they have made too many documentaries and written too many books in the other direction to admit it now and be exposed as frauds. real science was long ago replaced by the cult of darwin.

JFizzle23
09-12-2012, 09:28 PM
I've done a good deal of research into this and while evolution can't be completely proven, it's definitely a FAR better explanation than anything else.

Chit, even going to wikipedia(lol) gives a decent amount of proof to support the homo lineage.

EDIT: Modern man is extremely young in regards to our planet/the universe. We're roughly 100k years old. If my memory serves correct.

frankenstein78
09-12-2012, 09:52 PM
http://i.imgur.com/w75tC.gif




http://cdn.memegenerator.net/instances/250x250/18432588.jpg


I ran across the entire United States today. My purple unicorn was cheering me on the entire way with encouraging words. Don't believe me? Why don't you have faith?

Maiar
09-12-2012, 09:53 PM
fuk it converting to christianity then

A-GAME
09-12-2012, 09:55 PM
http://i47.tinypic.com/be6nv7.jpg

semitope
09-12-2012, 10:39 PM
I've done a good deal of research into this and while evolution can't be completely proven, it's definitely a FAR better explanation than anything else.

Chit, even going to wikipedia(lol) gives a decent amount of proof to support the homo lineage.

EDIT: Modern man is extremely young in regards to our planet/the universe. We're roughly 100k years old. If my memory serves correct.

good deal of research? I find that hard to believe. What did you do, read talkorigins?

Faust24
09-12-2012, 11:00 PM
I seen on either history channel or discovery channel and they were showing how chromaguns, neanterhals and some other pre human all inter breeded. Alot of scientist said it wasn't possible and with dna they showed that actually some people do have dna of neantherthals which was before said impossible. Alot of scientist said it would be like mixing a lion and a tiger that the offspring would not me able to breed, but they are wrong.

Personally I believe in adaptations I mean that pretty solid but evolution.... I will leave that to pokemon.


Ps. Can someone explain evolution to me. Lets say my son evolves and becomes a OptimusHomosapien how would he have children he would have to mate with a human chick, so then his kids would be a half evolution and a half person. Then his kids would have to mate with more humans so wouldn't his super dna eventually tapper out? Like the only way it could work is if to evolutions happen at the same time then they meet and have babies, or if his evolutionary dna takes over and forces evolution on his children (which wouldn't that allow us to have human babies with primates)

PaulG
09-12-2012, 11:40 PM
Fossils in appearance don't mean as much as the information they can produce. A tooth can provide alot of information. There is plenty of migration data that suggests a path or history of man through tracing back our mothers heritage of mitochondrial DNA to South East Africa. Not to mention fossils arn't exactly the easiest things to find since the location of African primates lack the geology to produce good fossils. Either way, there is plenty of bones being analyzed for its DNA and you could say well, that fossil wasn't human... and we can show you that that fossil did bread with humans and is a part of current human gene pool now.


New single strand sequencing technique reveals...(evolution) ...;migration, genetic heritage, in desinova and human history by pulling DNA from stone.

Specifically, the new technology has brought about the ability to sequence heavily fragmented DNA. That, a small fossil of a pinky bone was analyzed, in which a surprising discover occured. That, this fossil was non-homosapien, or neanderthal in siberia.

This is the Second time we humans have been able to uncover evidence of migration of genetic heritage. In this fossil, the bone is so small, that it cannot be carbon dated... Before, mtDNA dating was debated as a significantly accurate. With the ability to sequence DNA in this new way, we're able to cross reference the average time a mutation occurs in DNA, by analyzing and comparing the amount of changes in DNA over time. This allows us to find a more accurate date on the time periods in which Desinova walked the Earth.

Interestingly enough, the findings suggest that Desinova did breed with modern humans, just like neanderthals did, perhaps pretty heavily. Some South Pacific Islanders are discovered to have traces of Desinova as a result.

The technology is said have great potential for future improvements, that there are many more fossils of great decay ready to be examined.
Source:
http://www.scientificamerican.com/article.cfm?id=denisovan-genome
Listen to an NPR report here.
http://www.npr.org/player/v2/mediaPlayer.html?action=1&t=1&islist=false&id=160302659&m=160338577

Of course this doesn't conflict with the Bible. God created the Earth in a few days for man, anything could of happened during those days including rapid induced abiogenesis and evolution of man from the dirt of the Earth. It fits very well, in a modern understanding of the world.

smithtris
09-12-2012, 11:50 PM
my god OP and anyone who believes him is dumb as ****. so evolution is a scam? really? we dnt need a transitional fossil to provide strng support for the evolution of homo sapiens sapiens( no the repetition isnt a typo phaggot). for starters, we will probably never find a fossil and be able to say THIS IS EXACTLY WHEN HUMANS AS WE KNOW THEM CAME TO BE. molecular clock evidence is a great tool as well, but you probably have no ****ing clue what that is. so tell me op, you believe modern humans were created and put on earth by god and then all these other human precursor fossils are just there for no reason? And the evolutionary tree leading to humans isnt anagenetic.

smithtris
09-12-2012, 11:53 PM
I seen on either history channel or discovery channel and they were showing how chromaguns, neanterhals and some other pre human all inter breeded. Alot of scientist said it wasn't possible and with dna they showed that actually some people do have dna of neantherthals which was before said impossible. Alot of scientist said it would be like mixing a lion and a tiger that the offspring would not me able to breed, but they are wrong.

Personally I believe in adaptations I mean that pretty solid but evolution.... I will leave that to pokemon.



Ps. Can someone explain evolution to me. Lets say my son evolves and becomes a OptimusHomosapien how would he have children he would have to mate with a human chick, so then his kids would be a half evolution and a half person. Then his kids would have to mate with more humans so wouldn't his super dna eventually tapper out? Like the only way it could work is if to evolutions happen at the same time then they meet and have babies, or if his evolutionary dna takes over and forces evolution on his children (which wouldn't that allow us to have human babies with primates) saying you believe in adaptations and not evolution is going full retard. i believe in weeks but not years. speciation occurs when a significant amount of adaptations accumulate over time

GrokTheCube
09-13-2012, 12:14 AM
I feel bad for the evolutionists in a way, they know they are wrong, but they have made too many documentaries and written too many books in the other direction to admit it now and be exposed as frauds. real science was long ago replaced by the cult of darwin.Make sure you tell that to your doctor when he wants to give you vancomycin rather than penicillin to treat a severe MRSA infection. Clearly, MRSA doesn't exist. Just a conspiracy by all those evil liberal scientists to keep people from believing in God.

lucious
09-13-2012, 12:15 AM
get a life semitope

smithtris
09-13-2012, 12:30 AM
Make sure you tell that to your doctor when he wants to give you vancomycin rather than penicillin to treat a severe MRSA infection. Clearly, MRSA doesn't exist. Just a conspiracy by all those evil liberal scientists to keep people from believing in God.

this

guyver79
09-13-2012, 12:59 AM
Semitope, its a personal question, but, have you ever had sex?

I can understand if you don't want to answer, but sex is a very important part of evolution!

Also I don't think I've ever read that anyone has ever claimed the fossil record is complete!

So your post says the popular media claims it is but science claims it isn't? What's the point of your post again semierect?

You know you could always get of your ass and check out transitional fossils in any museum for yourself?

Just for the record near where I live is abundant with fossils, not so long ago a 130 million year crocodile fossil was found.

That's right crocodiles on the south coast of England!

lucious
09-13-2012, 01:17 AM
Semitope, its a personal question, but, have you ever had sex?

I can understand if you don't want to answer, but sex is a very important part of evolution!

Also I don't think I've ever read that anyone has ever claimed the fossil record is complete!

So your post says the popular media claims it is but science claims it isn't? What's the point of your post again semierect?

You know you could always get of your ass and check out transitional fossils in any museum for yourself?

Just for the record near where I live is abundant with fossils, not so long ago a 130 million year crocodile fossil was found.

That's right crocodiles on the south coast of England!

This is what I'm wondering. Most trolls keep at it until theyre negged into oblivion, and simply leave having had their fun.


semitope is something else though-for someone to get negged as badly as he does, rack up thousands of posts repeating the same nonsense over and over, it leads one to the conclusion he is seriously mentally ill or an absolute loser who needs his groceries home delivered because his crippling social phobias prevent him from going to the store

Meatros
09-13-2012, 04:58 AM
good deal of research? I find that hard to believe. What did you do, read talkorigins?

Semitope, the self proclaimed youtube educated creationist is bashing someone else for reading.

Funny.

AbusiveParents
09-13-2012, 05:33 AM
I seen on either history channel or discovery channel and they were showing how chromaguns, neanterhals and some other pre human all inter breeded. Alot of scientist said it wasn't possible and with dna they showed that actually some people do have dna of neantherthals which was before said impossible. Alot of scientist said it would be like mixing a lion and a tiger that the offspring would not me able to breed, but they are wrong.

Personally I believe in adaptations I mean that pretty solid but evolution.... I will leave that to pokemon.


Ps. Can someone explain evolution to me. Lets say my son evolves and becomes a OptimusHomosapien how would he have children he would have to mate with a human chick, so then his kids would be a half evolution and a half person. Then his kids would have to mate with more humans so wouldn't his super dna eventually tapper out? Like the only way it could work is if to evolutions happen at the same time then they meet and have babies, or if his evolutionary dna takes over and forces evolution on his children (which wouldn't that allow us to have human babies with primates)

I once thought that my jimmies were eternal, but now they are so ****ing rustled by this thread, and this post. There is just so, so much wrong with it that to even begin to correct it would take all night. Looks like it's off to sleep, then off to the lab tomorrow to continue with my genetics project - I guess my life is apparently a lie!

B.O.L.A.
09-13-2012, 06:24 AM
The fossil record could never be "complete and conclusive." Requiring or expecting this in order to take a position one way or the other is retarded. You don't need every skeletal change over the past 2 million years documented to understand we didn't fall out of the sky into some garden with apple trees and serpents. It's kind of amusing how blatant this double standard is amongst religious fanatics....they require no evidence or proof to support their "faith" and at the same time expect unrealistic levels of proof for any and every potential alternative explanation just to consider it. Do they not see the double standard? Brainwashing at its finest.

Apeus
09-13-2012, 06:38 AM
I seen on either history channel or discovery channel and they were showing how chromaguns, neanterhals and some other pre human all inter breeded. Alot of scientist said it wasn't possible and with dna they showed that actually some people do have dna of neantherthals which was before said impossible. Alot of scientist said it would be like mixing a lion and a tiger that the offspring would not me able to breed, but they are wrong.

Personally I believe in adaptations I mean that pretty solid but evolution.... I will leave that to pokemon.


Ps. Can someone explain evolution to me. Lets say my son evolves and becomes a OptimusHomosapien how would he have children he would have to mate with a human chick, so then his kids would be a half evolution and a half person. Then his kids would have to mate with more humans so wouldn't his super dna eventually tapper out? Like the only way it could work is if to evolutions happen at the same time then they meet and have babies, or if his evolutionary dna takes over and forces evolution on his children (which wouldn't that allow us to have human babies with primates)


You can't spell and you don't believe in evolution.

How did you even manage to turn your computer on and type that post?

Harbinger
09-13-2012, 06:39 AM
The fossil record could never be "complete and conclusive." Requiring or expecting this in order to take a position one way or the other is retarded. You don't need every skeletal change over the past 2 million years documented to understand we didn't fall out of the sky into some garden with apple trees and serpents. It's kind of amusing how blatant this double standard is amongst religious fanatics....they require no evidence or proof to support their "faith" and at the same time expect unrealistic levels of proof for any and every potential alternative explanation just to consider it. Do they not see the double standard? Brainwashing at its finest.

Athiest FOOL!!!! It wasn't an apple!!! The apple was just METAPHOR every day you athiest show your ignorance!

Meatros
09-13-2012, 06:53 AM
You can't spell and you don't believe in evolution.

How did you even manage to turn your computer on and type that post?

The majority of people who do not believe in common descent do not understand it. So when there is a person who 'sounds' intelligent and is expressing similar beliefs to what the ignorant person believes, they are going to go along with the person who sounds intelligent (note the anti-science Semitope who is hyper-skeptical towards anything put forth by modern science, yet he gullibly swallows every line by his creationist overlords. Is there an article from them he doubts? Probably not).

Typically the 'professional' creationists have gone through the motions of acquiring a degree in science, but they do not actually publish their outlandish beliefs - or even attempt to get them published. They get their doctorate and then go about misinforming gullible and scientifically ignorant Christians (example here (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JCP0SimA-vA&feature=g-user-u)).

Out of, say, 10,000 articles a year dealing with biology, there are maybe 15 by creationists which attempt to 'express doubt' on some point in evolutionary theory. I don't think they've actually even tried to publish anything related to an actual theory of intelligent design. This is because there isn't one.

Creationism depends on trying to undermine evolutionary theory (witness Semitopes' threads, none of them put forth a viable theory of intelligent design).

It's a farce and a waste of time. If they were serious, they would be putting forth a theory on intelligent design and not putting forth blogs.

209vaughn
09-13-2012, 07:34 AM
Semitope please respect the atheists religious beliefs.

semitope
09-13-2012, 07:39 AM
Fossils in appearance don't mean as much as the information they can produce. A tooth can provide alot of information. There is plenty of migration data that suggests a path or history of man through tracing back our mothers heritage of mitochondrial DNA to South East Africa. Not to mention fossils arn't exactly the easiest things to find since the location of African primates lack the geology to produce good fossils. Either way, there is plenty of bones being analyzed for its DNA and you could say well, that fossil wasn't human... and we can show you that that fossil did bread with humans and is a part of current human gene pool now.



Of course this doesn't conflict with the Bible. God created the Earth in a few days for man, anything could of happened during those days including rapid induced abiogenesis and evolution of man from the dirt of the Earth. It fits very well, in a modern understanding of the world.

don't care what it conflicts with. Would love it if you guys stopped bringing up religion every time.





Personally I believe in adaptations I mean that pretty solid but evolution.... I will leave that to pokemon.


Ps. Can someone explain evolution to me. Lets say my son evolves and becomes a OptimusHomosapien how would he have children he would have to mate with a human chick, so then his kids would be a half evolution and a half person. Then his kids would have to mate with more humans so wouldn't his super dna eventually tapper out? Like the only way it could work is if to evolutions happen at the same time then they meet and have babies, or if his evolutionary dna takes over and forces evolution on his children (which wouldn't that allow us to have human babies with primates)

they don't say it works like that. They have to construct the story in such a way that it is imaginable. Tiny changes over lots of time and all the problems are overcome...

No7
09-13-2012, 07:41 AM
in on ridiculous semitope thread where he slams evolution with crappy arguments while providing no evidence for id and calling normal, educated people sheeple

semitope
09-13-2012, 07:43 AM
Semitope, the self proclaimed youtube educated creationist is bashing someone else for reading.

Funny.

this isn't even smart enough to be called idiotic


saying you believe in adaptations and not evolution is going full retard. i believe in weeks but not years. speciation occurs when a significant amount of adaptations accumulate over time

Actually, you are the one going full retard to think that kind of progression applies to everything. I believe in getting fat and therefore I must also believe in growing to the size of a building? I believe in getting skinny, therefore I believe in vanishing? Your logic fails miserably. A sensible person would try to demonstrate that adaptations do lead to macroevolution, rather than just claiming they do. Evidence shows they do not.


Make sure you tell that to your doctor when he wants to give you vancomycin rather than penicillin to treat a severe MRSA infection. Clearly, MRSA doesn't exist. Just a conspiracy by all those evil liberal scientists to keep people from believing in God.

Methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus is biology, not evolution.


The majority of people who do not believe in common descent do not understand it. So when there is a person who 'sounds' intelligent and is expressing similar beliefs to what the ignorant person believes, they are going to go along with the person who sounds intelligent (note the anti-science Semitope who is hyper-skeptical towards anything put forth by modern science, yet he gullibly swallows every line by his creationist overlords. Is there an article from them he doubts? Probably not).

Typically the 'professional' creationists have gone through the motions of acquiring a degree in science, but they do not actually publish their outlandish beliefs - or even attempt to get them published. They get their doctorate and then go about misinforming gullible and scientifically ignorant Christians (example here (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JCP0SimA-vA&feature=g-user-u)).

Out of, say, 10,000 articles a year dealing with biology, there are maybe 15 by creationists which attempt to 'express doubt' on some point in evolutionary theory. I don't think they've actually even tried to publish anything related to an actual theory of intelligent design. This is because there isn't one.

Creationism depends on trying to undermine evolutionary theory (witness Semitopes' threads, none of them put forth a viable theory of intelligent design).

It's a farce and a waste of time. If they were serious, they would be putting forth a theory on intelligent design and not putting forth blogs.

I'm actually disappointed in you for this post. Cultist much?

Apeus
09-13-2012, 08:02 AM
semitope, have you ever read any books on the evidence for evolution or do you only read anti-evolution blogs?

Meatros
09-13-2012, 08:02 AM
this isn't even smart enough to be called idiotic

Yet it's true, unless you've read any actual science books on evolutionary theory since I last brought this up. Have you? If so, which ones?


I'm actually disappointed in you for this post. Cultist much?

No you aren't - this is the typical bilge you respond to me with. What I've said is true, doubly so in your case.



Unless you've discovered an actual scientific theory of intelligent design? Have you?




Didn't think so.

Meatros
09-13-2012, 08:04 AM
semitope, have you ever read any books on the evidence for evolution or do you only read anti-evolution blogs?

A few months ago I asked him something similar and IIRC, he said that he wasn't much of a reader and couldn't come up with any books. He also admitted something like this on his blog, which I think he took down.

In short, he gets his 'knowledge' from anti-evolution blogs (none of which he ever seems to disagree with) and youtube vids.

semitope
09-13-2012, 09:09 AM
Yet it's true, unless you've read any actual science books on evolutionary theory since I last brought this up. Have you? If so, which ones?


Rather not waste my time on evolutionist books ( I don't read novels). I don't know why you guys think this is a good line of argument. I have demonstrated more knowledge about this theory than most of you who defend it. There is no argument you will bring that I have not read or heard and my issues with the theory are deeper than what you propose to support it.


semitope, have you ever read any books on the evidence for evolution or do you only read anti-evolution blogs?

I've never read any ID books either. All I have are science journals/magazines and online reading from various sites (talk origins, evolutionist blogs, etc.). Didn't I post some time before with an article I saw from science journals/mags I was subscribed to? Sheesh you people are just grabbing for anything now.

The real issue is my background in human biology tho. No way to reconcile what I have seen there with a natural process.


A few months ago I asked him something similar and IIRC, he said that he wasn't much of a reader and couldn't come up with any books. He also admitted something like this on his blog, which I think he took down.

In short, he gets his 'knowledge' from anti-evolution blogs (none of which he ever seems to disagree with) and youtube vids.

Books are not the only source of information. To try to deny this is to be a complete moron, which I guess you are pretty close to at this point

Meatros
09-13-2012, 09:17 AM
Rather not waste my time on evolutionist books ( I don't read novels). I don't know why you guys think this is a good line of argument. I have demonstrated more knowledge about this theory than most of you who defend it. There is no argument you will bring that I have not read or heard and my issues with the theory are deeper than what you propose to support it.

Bingo - you've done no actual studying. As to argument - it's not an argument against ID or creationism, you are erecting a strawman. You have not shown that you have more knowledge about this theory than anyone here. The majority of your posts are C&Ps and when you do actually weigh in, it's with sardonic quips, not actual material.

You aren't very good at C&Ping relevant material either (I reference the twin nested hierarchy, which you've tried to tackle twice and failed both times by posting irrelevant material). In order to show your incompetence, one needs only to read what you actually write. In order to understand why you are so painfully ignorant, we need to understand how you were educated.

It turns out, you weren't. Your 'education' is skimming online reading.



I've never read any ID books either. All I have are science journals/magazines and online reading from various sites (talk origins, evolutionist blogs, etc.).

Hence why you are a chitty ID proponent.



The real issue is my background in human biology tho. No way to reconcile what I have seen there with a natural process.

No, that's not the real issue either - your posts demonstrate no real background in human biology. Your posts demonstrate a layman's level of knowledge on biology.

You only think you have more because you think you are part of the crowd in the 'know', the same way truthers or birthers or various other conspiracy theorists are in the know. You use the same sort of rhetoric too (with the worldview biases and appeals to vague conspiracies to keep id out of science and all that clap trap).

Meatros
09-13-2012, 09:19 AM
Books are not the only source of information. To try to deny this is to be a complete moron, which I guess you are pretty close to at this point

No, they aren't the only source of information, but it's pretty telling that you haven't even bothered to read one book on the subject, don't you think?

Of course you'd disagree, all the famous doctors, scientists, etc, got all their knowledge from online blogs, just as you did....Right?

newtmiscer
09-13-2012, 09:26 AM
I seen on either history channel or discovery channel and they were showing how chromaguns, neanterhals and some other pre human all inter breeded. Alot of scientist said it wasn't possible and with dna they showed that actually some people do have dna of neantherthals which was before said impossible. Alot of scientist said it would be like mixing a lion and a tiger that the offspring would not me able to breed, but they are wrong.

Personally I believe in adaptations I mean that pretty solid but evolution.... I will leave that to pokemon.


Ps. Can someone explain evolution to me. Lets say my son evolves and becomes a OptimusHomosapien how would he have children he would have to mate with a human chick, so then his kids would be a half evolution and a half person. Then his kids would have to mate with more humans so wouldn't his super dna eventually tapper out? Like the only way it could work is if to evolutions happen at the same time then they meet and have babies, or if his evolutionary dna takes over and forces evolution on his children (which wouldn't that allow us to have human babies with primates)

dear god how can some people be so retarded? Evolution takes (on average) hundreds of thousands to millions of years to take affect. It goes hand and hand with the process of natural selection, in which the best quality organisms suited for the environment pass on their genes, while the 'losers' die out. In this way, animals evolve into a more 'successful' being over time. And lol, you don't believe in evolution and the very next sentence you ask to have it explained

lasher
09-13-2012, 09:28 AM
Ps. Can someone explain evolution to me. Lets say my son evolves and becomes a OptimusHomosapien how would he have children he would have to mate with a human chick, so then his kids would be a half evolution and a half person. Then his kids would have to mate with more humans so wouldn't his super dna eventually tapper out? Like the only way it could work is if to evolutions happen at the same time then they meet and have babies, or if his evolutionary dna takes over and forces evolution on his children (which wouldn't that allow us to have human babies with primates)

http://www.pigskinbuzz.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/04/jaguars-fan-gif.gif

Is this post real life?

aRCaNEbrah
09-13-2012, 09:32 AM
just heard the talk linked above and his main arguments for his theory are flawed: seperating fossil remains in two different categories is fundamentally wrong. what he deems as ape fossils and human fossils are one in the same. his argument that we have few fossils for a certain species means we can't make claims about it are ridiculous. rofl at him calling what evolutionary anthropologists do as spinning fairy tales how ironic. and for some of the species that we do have LOTS OF FOSSIL evidence for we have enough information to prove ID wrong with any number of species present on the planet and not just of our own lineage. claiming that we dont have enough data to say "we dont know if they were upright walking" is bogus and is a disgraceful thing to say about people who know anatomy and biology far better than he does.

his arguments against the ardipithecus find are mind boggling stupid. just because her pelvis after 4.4 million years had the consistency of "irish stew" being so breakable and mangled doesn't change the fact that we can draw conclusions about her bipedalism and design from other fossil evidence found and not just using the pelvis (which we can still do because the pelvis clearly has the signs for a facultative bipedal mammal).

yes we can make inferences on just a few teeth or half a mandible. knowing how the body works is fundamental to the understanding of evolution and clearly this guy is missing it. just because he cant make conclusions of extinct species based on certain fossil evidence doesn't mean people who spend their lives doing it can't and wont. what technical literature does he ****ing read jesus i'd love to know.

we have missing links. we know neanderthal are smarter than the public thinks no one is doubting that anymore and he troops it like its the holy grail that early scientists thought wrong. cool, science is out to disprove theories not prove them. how did i get sucked into another semitope discussion on evolution and ID? guess its my own fault

semitope
09-13-2012, 09:32 AM
No, they aren't the only source of information, but it's pretty telling that you haven't even bothered to read one book on the subject, don't you think?

Of course you'd disagree, all the famous doctors, scientists, etc, got all their knowledge from online blogs, just as you did....Right?

21st century. Go figure.

I don't really care to engage you on this new psychosis of yours. You can take your "thou shall read books to know anything" and shove it. There is enough information out there and in various formats to not need to be brainwashed by any particular person over a few hundred pages.

semitope
09-13-2012, 09:37 AM
just heard the talk linked above and his main arguments for his theory are flawed: seperating fossil remains in two different categories is fundamentally wrong. what he deems as ape fossils and human fossils are one in the same. his argument that we have few fossils for a certain species means we can't make claims about it are ridiculous. rofl at him calling what evolutionary anthropologists do as spinning fairy tales how ironic.

they are one and the same why?

He said what they tell the public is different from what is in the literature.




his arguments against the ardipithecus find are mind boggling stupid. just because her pelvis after 4.4 million years had the consistency of "irish stew" being so breakable and mangled doesn't change the fact that we can draw conclusions about her bipedalism and design from other fossil evidence found and not just using the pelvis (which we can still do because the pelvis clearly has the signs for a facultative bipedal mammal).

yes we can make inferences on just a few teeth or half a mandible. knowing how the body works is fundamental to the understanding of evolution and clearly this guy is missing it. just because he cant make conclusions of extinct species based on certain fossil evidence doesn't mean people who spend their lives doing it can't and wont. what technical literature does he ****ing read jesus i'd love to know.

we have missing links. we know neanderthal are smarter than the public thinks no one is doubting that anymore and he troops it like its the holy grail that early scientists thought wrong. cool, science is out to disprove theories not prove them. how did i get sucked into another semitope discussion on evolution and ID? guess its my own fault

He claims that the evidence is so bad that there really is no real conclusion. You are willing to come to conclusions on bad evidence because its a theory you want to believe. Real scientists would not hold such stubborn views with this kind of crappy evidence.

No7
09-13-2012, 09:39 AM
21st century. Go figure

if im reading correctly

you just admitted that youre fukin retarded and dont know anything about human origins but you still feel like you should be important because the internet lets you say whatever you want

Meatros
09-13-2012, 09:43 AM
21st century. Go figure.

And what, no one reads books anymore? If you think you can become an expert in the field of biology without reading a book or an ebook, I'd love to see how this is so. Even your heroes at the discovery institute read books.

I'm seriously SMH at this nonsense of yours.



I don't really care to engage you on this new psychosis of yours. You can take your "thou shall read books to know anything" and shove it. There is enough information out there and in various formats to not need to be brainwashed by any particular person over a few hundred pages.

Books are part of the conspiracy, is that what you are saying?

Would you trust a doctor who had never read a medical book to dispense life and death medical advice for you?

Meatros
09-13-2012, 09:46 AM
Oh and apparently Semitope read on a website one time about psychosis, so now he feels qualified to say he's as much of an expert as a professional psychologist. The only difference is that the professional psychologist has that fancy 20th century 'book learning' under his belt, which is completely unnecessary - why all you need is access to the intrawebs and web MD and you can be just as much of an expert.

StarFox
09-13-2012, 09:59 AM
lol @ Faust24

Dude, take a couple of anthropology labs at the institute of higher learning of your choice. I don't claim to have more than a basic understanding of evolution, but I promise that taking a primate anthropology lab where you get hands on experience with fossils and a slightly more in-depth explanation of evolutionary trees will help you to never draft up scenarios like the one in that question ever again.

Unless you are afraid of being "ZOMG brainwashed by teh scientists!!!1!11", in which case ignore this post.

semitope
09-13-2012, 10:02 AM
And what, no one reads books anymore? If you think you can become an expert in the field of biology without reading a book or an ebook, I'd love to see how this is so. Even your heroes at the discovery institute read books.

yeah people read books, but a growing number of people read blogs, articles etc online. And their books are often digital as well. Why tho... are we still on this? You still haven't realized you have no point here or ... damn... I am being trolled.


I'm seriously SMH at this nonsense of yours.

you are? I just sprained my neck because of vigorous smh-ing




Books are part of the conspiracy, is that what you are saying?

books are often a massive dose of a single perspective. Regardless of the topic. I see no reason to consider them essential, but I guess evolutionists do when they are feeling threatened. Lots of these tactics in your arsenal.


Would you trust a doctor who had never read a medical book to dispense life and death medical advice for you?

?? yes. Seriously, are u really getting senile on me? Does it really matter where he got his knowledge from?

semitope
09-13-2012, 10:03 AM
lol @ Faust24

Dude, take a couple of anthropology labs at the institute of higher learning of your choice. I don't claim to have more than a basic understanding of evolution, but I promise that taking a primate anthropology lab where you get hands on experience with fossils and a slightly more in-depth explanation of evolutionary trees will help you to never draft up scenarios like the one in that question ever again.

Unless you are afraid of being "ZOMG brainwashed by teh scientists!!!1!11", in which case ignore this post.

did you ever question what they told you or were you fully prepared to accept whatever? What if they said all this was wrong, would you then rise up in revolt? That question should reveal to you where your mind is.

aRCaNEbrah
09-13-2012, 10:21 AM
so what exactly are you doubting that we come from a common ancetor with chimpanzees?

are you saying that members of our Homo lineage are in fact not ancestoral to us but that we were created like how we are today?

what kind of evidence would be sufficient to you to prove what the overwhelmingly majority of scientifically literate people consider fact already?

what kind of a world would we have today if ID is true? what kind of a world would we have today if evolution is true? which is more likely responsible for the outcome and diversity of life we have today that can also explain the fossil record, and the distribution of animal life throughout the world

Apeus
09-13-2012, 10:33 AM
did you ever question what they told you or were you fully prepared to accept whatever? What if they said all this was wrong, would you then rise up in revolt? That question should reveal to you where your mind is.

You want people to do what you refuse to do yourself.

What a hypocrite.

Meatros
09-13-2012, 10:34 AM
yeah people read books, but a growing number of people read blogs, articles etc online. And their books are often digital as well. Why tho... are we still on this? You still haven't realized you have no point here or ... damn... I am being trolled.

Please aware me of the University that hands out PhD's that refers students solely to blogs and online articles as opposed to books or ebooks.

We are still on this because it shows exactly why you are ignorant of evolution, remember? You see, when you read actual books, you tend to develop a longer attention span - because you have to have a fairly good attention span to get through 100+ pages. When you only read blogs or articles, your attention span shortens, which explains why I'm bring this up to you again, when I explained why in post 31:

"In order to understand why you are so painfully ignorant, we need to understand how you were educated.
It turns out, you weren't. Your 'education' is skimming online reading. "


you are? I just sprained my neck because of vigorous smh-ing

I can only smile at this - of course you are, books are part of the conspiracy.


books are often a massive dose of a single perspective.

How would you know? You don't read them!

Books can be a collection of differing views, by multiple authors, you know.

Or...I guess, you wouldn't know this since you don't read them...


Regardless of the topic. I see no reason to consider them essential, but I guess evolutionists do when they are feeling threatened. Lots of these tactics in your arsenal.

Yes, no need to get comprehensive knowledge on a subject when a two page article fills in the details you need to dismiss experts who have spent their lives studying the topic.

BTW - I don't feel threatened by you. As you can certainly tell by my posts to you, I don't take you seriously. The fact is, I don't really see much of a point in reading what you post. You don't contribute anything valuable to the discussion and it's clear that you don't actually understand the subject well enough to provide any substantial criticisms of it (as I referenced earlier). Shoot, at one point you thought I was personally insulting you when I said that you were appealing to ignorance - remember?


?? yes. Seriously, are u really getting senile on me? Does it really matter where he got his knowledge from?


You would trust such a doctor? Okay, find one then.

My bet is that this is bravado though, you know that there is no such doctor.

A-GAME
09-13-2012, 10:40 AM
http://i46.tinypic.com/302swly.jpg

Renegade83
09-13-2012, 10:46 AM
LOL another ****ty thread by the online blog reading semidope.

Rune
09-13-2012, 10:46 AM
and not a single scientific credential was had... brb lawyers know more about this stuff than people who actually deal with it frequently


it's quite amusing how taken into the charlatan propaganda you get.

aRCaNEbrah
09-13-2012, 10:46 AM
did you ever question what they told you or were you fully prepared to accept whatever? What if they said all this was wrong, would you then rise up in revolt? That question should reveal to you where your mind is.

science is out to disprove science thats just the nature of the business. any theory that is promoted is constantly scrutinized for its claims and the great thing about evolution is that there are so many lines of evidence to prove its role on shaping our world, that merely trying to discredit one line of evidence (ie. fossil evidence according to the link) is not enough to disprove evolution.

is there no limit to what people will think if it is prefaced by the ineptitude of reason combined with the ignorance of logic.

semitope
09-13-2012, 10:53 AM
Please aware me of the University that hands out PhD's that refers students solely to blogs and online articles as opposed to books or ebooks.

never said they did, but it's not essential to read books to know things. I'm done with this foolish topic. Really doesn't matter to me. Read your evolution novels, I will read just the science.



science is out to disprove science thats just the nature of the business. any theory that is promoted is constantly scrutinized for its claims and the great thing about evolution is that there are so many lines of evidence to prove its role on shaping our world, that merely trying to discredit one line of evidence (ie. fossil evidence according to the link) is not enough to disprove evolution.

is there no limit to what people will think if it is prefaced by the ineptitude of reason combined with the ignorance of logic.

not when it comes to evolution. Try to disprove it or even question it and you are a heretic.

I probably should read a book instead of 'attending' this


We just wanted to alert you that the Coursera "Introduction to Genetics and Evolution" course in which you registered (taught by Prof. Mohamed Noor at Duke University) is slated to begin on October 10, 2012. It will be 10 weeks long.

Please mark your calendars to visit the site. We'll send a reminder when the date draws nearer, too.

right?

209vaughn
09-13-2012, 11:00 AM
Why do so many of you spend so much time debating semitope? Just seems odd considering how certain you all are.

Harbinger
09-13-2012, 11:01 AM
Why do so many of you spend so much time debating semitope? Just seems odd considering how certain you all are.

why not?

209vaughn
09-13-2012, 11:03 AM
why not? IDK about anyone else but I have a lot on my plate IRL. Only have the time for a half dozen or so one liners througout the R/P, sports and video game sections. I wouldn't spend one second debating someone whether or not the New York Yankees won the Super Bowl for example.

basement iron
09-13-2012, 11:04 AM
OP is a perfect example that belief comes first, reasons for the belief come second, and lastly every and all conflicting data ignored...ad nauseum.

Meatros
09-13-2012, 11:13 AM
never said they did, but it's not essential to read books to know things.

If it's not essential, then please aware me of the University that hands out PhD's that refers students solely to blogs and online articles as opposed to books or ebooks.


I'm done with this foolish topic. Really doesn't matter to me. Read your evolution novels, I will read just the science.

You are done with it because you can't counter it and it's making you look really bad.

Also, you don't actually read the science, you read online blogs and articles, remember? Or do you have a subscription to Nature or another Scientific journal (if so, which one) that I am unaware of?


not when it comes to evolution. Try to disprove it or even question it and you are a heretic.

If you'd read the books you'd realize this is grossly mistaken. Huge revolution in the middle of the 20th century demonstrates you are incorrect here.


I probably should read a book instead of 'attending' this

Yes, you probably should.

My guess is that this professor will assign you a book to read.

Good luck on passing the course without reading though!


Note: Isn't it funny that you just now registered for this course, even though you have already made up your mind about the subject?

209vaughn
09-13-2012, 11:18 AM
Note: Isn't it funny that you just now registered for this course, even though you have already made up your mind about the subject?

B/c not everyone has there minds made up when deciding to dedicate their lives to studying evolution? Whether or not the theory is completey true, partially true or not true - one things for certain is there is a HUGE amount of artificial selection among biologists (or any field for that matter). People who choose to study the subject typical have some sort of prior belief or faith in the subject they choose to study.

Meatros
09-13-2012, 11:38 AM
B/c not everyone has there minds made up when deciding to dedicate their lives to studying evolution?

What do you mean? Are you suggesting that Semitope is on the fence about evolution or are you saying that Semitope is on the fence with regard to dedicating his life to studying evolution? I don't think either is the case.


Whether or not the theory is completey true, partially true or not true - one things for certain is there is a HUGE amount of artificial selection among biologists (or any field for that matter).

The only selection among biologists that I can discern is that the people who go into the subject are intensely interested in biology, not necessarily the truth of evolutionary theory. The only person I'm aware of who went into it based on the truth of evolutionary theory is Jonathan Wells. He went into it specifically to try to refute it.


People who choose to study the subject typical have some sort of prior belief or faith in the subject they choose to study.

Not necessarily - people who are interested in biology typically get bachelors and masters in biology. By the time they are able to specialize in evolutionary biology they've had a substantial education (not faith or belief) in the subject matter. In fact, to my knowledge, it's only at the PhD level that you can specialize in evolutionary biology.

guyver79
09-13-2012, 11:47 AM
Hey semi, i think you missed my post, i'll ask again, have you ever had sex?

Renegade83
09-13-2012, 11:54 AM
Hey semi, i think you missed my post, i'll ask again, have you ever had sex?

I would hope not, that would mean he had the opportunity to procreate and the world doesn't need any more idiots like semidope.

209vaughn
09-13-2012, 11:56 AM
What do you mean? Are you suggesting that Semitope is on the fence about evolution or are you saying that Semitope is on the fence with regard to dedicating his life to studying evolution? I don't think either is the case.



The only selection among biologists that I can discern is that the people who go into the subject are intensely interested in biology, not necessarily the truth of evolutionary theory. The only person I'm aware of who went into it based on the truth of evolutionary theory is Jonathan Wells. He went into it specifically to try to refute it.



Not necessarily - people who are interested in biology typically get bachelors and masters in biology. By the time they are able to specialize in evolutionary biology they've had a substantial education (not faith or belief) in the subject matter. In fact, to my knowledge, it's only at the PhD level that you can specialize in evolutionary biology.

I dont think Semitope is on the fece about anything, clearly he's taken a position.

You certainly paint a rosey picture of human behavior. :)

Meatros
09-13-2012, 12:01 PM
I dont think Semitope is on the fece about anything, clearly he's taken a position.

You certainly paint a rosey picture of human behavior. :)

Heh, bolding mine.

In any event, all I'm saying is that - from what I can tell (anecdotal, yes) people go into biology because they love biology, not necessarily because they are interested in evolutionary theory. Some are, but I would wager that most aren't interested in that. What interests them is the plethora of life. That's what attracts them to get degrees in biology - then their interest can be focused after years of learning how life operates and changes, which would drive them to phd's in evolutionary biology. To my knowledge, it's not the money that drives biologists, it's not some prior faith, it's the love of biology.

209vaughn
09-13-2012, 12:11 PM
Heh, bolding mine.

In any event, all I'm saying is that - from what I can tell (anecdotal, yes) people go into biology because they love biology, not necessarily because they are interested in evolutionary theory. Some are, but I would wager that most aren't interested in that. What interests them is the plethora of life. That's what attracts them to get degrees in biology - then their interest can be focused after years of learning how life operates and changes, which would drive them to phd's in evolutionary biology. To my knowledge, it's not the money that drives biologists, it's not some prior faith, it's the love of biology.

LOL yes i mean he's (not) on the fence, not on the feces.

semitope
09-13-2012, 12:20 PM
Note: Isn't it funny that you just now registered for this course, even though you have already made up your mind about the subject?

I didn't just register. Been registered since 209vaughn or Harbinger or whoever first post a thread about it.

semitope
09-13-2012, 12:22 PM
OP is a perfect example that belief comes first, reasons for the belief come second, and lastly every and all conflicting data ignored...ad nauseum.

because i don't believe what you believe. Right?

lasher
09-13-2012, 12:22 PM
I didn't just register. Been registers since 209vaughn or Harbinger post a thread about it.

dangit, I just got that email too. Gonna be a busy fall, I'm already in three other classes ...

Spartacus777
09-13-2012, 12:23 PM
Fossils in appearance don't mean as much as the information they can produce. A tooth can provide alot of information. There is plenty of migration data that suggests a path or history of man through tracing back our mothers heritage of mitochondrial DNA to South East Africa. Not to mention fossils arn't exactly the easiest things to find since the location of African primates lack the geology to produce good fossils. Either way, there is plenty of bones being analyzed for its DNA and you could say well, that fossil wasn't human... and we can show you that that fossil did bread with humans and is a part of current human gene pool now.



Of course this doesn't conflict with the Bible. God created the Earth in a few days for man, anything could of happened during those days including rapid induced abiogenesis and evolution of man from the dirt of the Earth. It fits very well, in a modern understanding of the world.

This last part. I actually agree with PaulG here.

Meatros
09-13-2012, 12:24 PM
I didn't just register. Been registers since 209vaughn or Harbinger post a thread about it.

My point was that your mind was already made up about it. The larger point was that I suspect the teacher will assign you some books to read. What will you do then?

Perhaps I'm getting ahead of myself though - is this a college course?

guyver79
09-13-2012, 12:28 PM
I would hope not, that would mean he had the opportunity to procreate and the world doesn't need any more idiots like semidope.

Well there is that, but because sex plays such a big role in evolution, i was wondering if semitope had experienced it first-hand (or just by his own hand! boom, boom!) but serious, semitope do you understand how sex works?

semitope
09-13-2012, 12:51 PM
Well there is that, but because sex plays such a big role in evolution, i was wondering if semitope had experienced it first-hand (or just by his own hand! boom, boom!) but serious, semitope do you understand how sex works?

how old are u again? 16?

Jesse_l_g
09-13-2012, 12:53 PM
The fossil record could never be "complete and conclusive." Requiring or expecting this in order to take a position one way or the other is retarded. You don't need every skeletal change over the past 2 million years documented to understand we didn't fall out of the sky into some garden with apple trees and serpents. It's kind of amusing how blatant this double standard is amongst religious fanatics....they require no evidence or proof to support their "faith" and at the same time expect unrealistic levels of proof for any and every potential alternative explanation just to consider it. Do they not see the double standard? Brainwashing at its finest.

Op, Why ignore this post?

GregariousWolf
09-13-2012, 12:57 PM
You can take your "thou shall read books to know anything" and shove it. There is enough information out there and in various formats to not need to be brainwashed by any particular person over a few hundred pages.

LOL

Who needs science books when I can look at YouTube vids!

TH3SHR3DD3R
09-13-2012, 01:01 PM
While popular media often reports that the fossil record is complete and conclusive

So let me get this straight.

1. Popular media says the fossil record is complete and conclusive
2. The source says Evolutionary Science disagrees
3. Evolutionary Science does, in fact, disagree
4. ???
5. Therefore Evolutionary Science is lying

I don't know what you're on about here, semitope. Clearly your problem is with the popular media and not Evolutionary Science. The latter can hardly be blamed for the actions of the former.

semitope
09-13-2012, 01:37 PM
LOL

Who needs science books when I can look at YouTube vids!

or science journals, or blogs run by scientists, or any of the plethora of information sources on the internet. But, I understand if you only use youtube videos. There are some decent lectures etc. there

semitope
09-13-2012, 01:38 PM
So let me get this straight.

1. Evolutionist scientists tell public media the fossil record is complete and conclusive
2. The source says Evolutionary Science disagrees
3. Evolutionary Science does, in fact, disagree
4. ???
5. Therefore Evolutionary Science is lying to the public

I don't know what you're on about here, semitope. Clearly your problem is with the popular media and not Evolutionary Science. The latter can hardly be blamed for the actions of the former.

fixed.

semitope
09-13-2012, 01:42 PM
Op, Why ignore this post?

didn't see it.

1. this is science, not religion (or so you claim). We do need sufficient evidence to link these things.

2. Even if I were to agree that "religious fanatics" require no evidence or proof to support their faith, it would not be a double standard. As was said in 1, this is science, not religion. Do you expect to hold an apple to the same standards you hold an orange to?

A shame that the religious are the ones trying to preserve scientific integrity while evolutionists are trying to construct a religion out of science.

GregariousWolf
09-13-2012, 01:52 PM
or science journals, or blogs run by scientists, or any of the plethora of information sources on the internet. But, I understand if you only use youtube videos. There are some decent lectures etc. there

I'm going to go out on a limb and claim you can't really be educated unless you read books.

jaybeedee
09-13-2012, 01:56 PM
fixed.

Uncanny how the same creationist mindset when it comes to confusing popular media with scientists is so similar to climate change deniers.

JFizzle23
09-13-2012, 02:08 PM
http://www.pigskinbuzz.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/04/jaguars-fan-gif.gif

Is this post real life?
Honest to god my exact reaction...no way that post is serious.

Spaghetti Beans
09-13-2012, 02:20 PM
Humans, small domestic cats, sausage dogs weren't around millions of years ago. Where did they come from? Species come and go and don't for one second tell me that a god places them on earth every couple thousand years.

I have a vagina

TH3SHR3DD3R
09-13-2012, 04:32 PM
fixed.

Source, please.

inb4 find it yourself, conspiracy, blinders, bias and bears, oh my. I've Googled several different combinations of the words 'fossil' and 'record' and 'complete'. So far, no evolutionary science website makes this claim, nor links or directs me to a body of work that makes this claim, nor links me to an individual that makes this claim.

So do I go ahead and say you're outright lying to support your radically biased worldview agenda, or do I go ahead and say you're talking out of your depth?

TH3SHR3DD3R
09-13-2012, 04:34 PM
or science journals, or blogs run by scientists, or any of the plethora of information sources on the internet. But, I understand if you only use youtube videos. There are some decent lectures etc. there

Hey, here's a crazy idea: where is a science journal, blogs run by scientists, or any of the plethora of information sources on the internet . . . that provide an experiment to test design in nature?

floppyflaps
09-13-2012, 04:35 PM
http://i125.photobucket.com/albums/p75/jalamb86/roflbot.jpg

lucious
09-13-2012, 06:49 PM
since when do blogs constitute reliable information? Anyone can say anything on a blog. you need a properly peer reviewed article to support any scientific claim.


"but....but....but.....its der goobermint! Dey conspire against ID!!!!!". Yeah whatever, invent a conspiracy, lie, post propaganda.....anything to keep the farce going. Get a life bro.

semitope
09-13-2012, 08:37 PM
Source, please.

inb4 find it yourself, conspiracy, blinders, bias and bears, oh my. I've Googled several different combinations of the words 'fossil' and 'record' and 'complete'. So far, no evolutionary science website makes this claim, nor links or directs me to a body of work that makes this claim, nor links me to an individual that makes this claim.

So do I go ahead and say you're outright lying to support your radically biased worldview agenda, or do I go ahead and say you're talking out of your depth?

Go find it yourself.

hint: http://www.amazon.com/Science-Human-Origins-Ann-Gauger/dp/193659904X/ref=sr_1_1?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1347059789&sr=1-1&keywords=science+and+human+origins


Humans, small domestic cats, sausage dogs weren't around millions of years ago. Where did they come from? Species come and go and don't for one second tell me that a god places them on earth every couple thousand years.

I have a vagina

I'm agnostic about the time lines. Ha

semitope
09-13-2012, 08:39 PM
since when do blogs constitute reliable information? Anyone can say anything on a blog. you need a properly peer reviewed article to support any scientific claim.


"but....but....but.....its der goobermint! Dey conspire against ID!!!!!". Yeah whatever, invent a conspiracy, lie, post propaganda.....anything to keep the farce going. Get a life bro.

anyone indeed. But they are automatically discredited, regardless of who they are, simply because they are using a blog as their medium.

inb4 wikipedia link to argue for evolution.

guyver79
09-13-2012, 09:37 PM
how old are u again? 16?

Sorry semitope, I think you've forgot to answer my question, otherwise you've answered me with a question, I will try again, have you had sex?

It's such an important factor of evolution, I was wondering, if you've had it?

Do you understand what happens during sex and where babies come from?

Again it seems personal, but its all relevant to the thread.


Just wondering if you've experienced genetic variation first hand?

smithtris
09-13-2012, 10:04 PM
don't feed the troll brahs


he might evolve into a mod

smithtris
09-13-2012, 10:07 PM
because i don't believe what you believe. Right?

Not even close..."the good thing about science is that it's true whether or not you believe in it." Phaggot.

lucious
09-13-2012, 10:09 PM
anyone indeed. But they are automatically discredited, regardless of who they are, simply because they are using a blog as their medium.

inb4 wikipedia link to argue for evolution.

anonymous blogs and youtube videos cannot substantiate a claim. Anyone can make a youtube vid claiming anything, 9/11 conspriacy, aliens, chi's, chakras etc.

If someone wrote a blog claiming to have rectified quantum physics and relativity, noone would believe it. Noone should believe it either, because it is just a random claim with no evidence or proper peer review. What would you say if he said "buut.....but......but.....der gooberminet!!!!!!conspiracy!!!" Youd write him off along with the billions of others of homemade websites on the net.

TH3SHR3DD3R
09-14-2012, 04:59 AM
Go find it yourself.

hint: http://www.amazon.com/Science-Human-Origins-Ann-Gauger/dp/193659904X/ref=sr_1_1?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1347059789&sr=1-1&keywords=science+and+human+origins

So if I buy and read this book, I will find a pro-evolution source, backed the Theory of Evolution, and evolutionary scientists and biologists, that claims that the fossil record is complete and conclusive? If your answer to this is anything other than 'yes,' then at best you have made a claim that you cannot substantiate and at worst you are outright lying.

The best thing for you to do right now is to admit that none of the above entities I have listed says what you say they do.

Meatros
09-14-2012, 05:15 AM
or science journals, or blogs run by scientists, or any of the plethora of information sources on the internet. But, I understand if you only use youtube videos. There are some decent lectures etc. there

What actual science journals do you read?

My guess is that you don't.


You feel competent enough to criticize scientists who have studied the subject their entire life, even though you have not read a single book on the subject and my guess, no actual scientific journals either. My guess is that by 'scientific journal' you mean an intelligent design magazine. Am I correct?

What scientific journals do you read or have subscriptions to?

Again, I find it amazing that you haven't read a single book on the subject. To me, that's going out of the way not to read. I'm seriously amazed. Is your attention span that short? It boggles my mind that you think you can be fully informed on such a complex subject from only reading one or two page articles (maybe 30 at the most).

Meatros
09-14-2012, 05:26 AM
Go find it yourself.

hint: http://www.amazon.com/Science-Human-Origins-Ann-Gauger/dp/193659904X/ref=sr_1_1?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1347059789&sr=1-1&keywords=science+and+human+origins

You admit you don't read books, yet you have the gall to tell someone else to read one? How do you know that this book claims the fossil record is complete - you haven't read it! Further, this book is written by scientists who do not accept evolution:


Evidence for a purely Darwinian account of human origins is supposed to be overwhelming. But is it? In this provocative book, three scientists challenge the claim that undirected natural selection is capable of building a human being, critically assess fossil and genetic evidence that human beings share a common ancestor with apes, and debunk recent claims that the human race could not have started from an original couple.

How is a book about this supposed to support the idea that scientists think the fossil record is complete, the people writing the book obviously don't believe this! This book is put out by the discovery institute and in the preview, the authors say that the fossil evidence is 'sketchy at best'.

WTF?

You either didn't understand what The Shredder was asking for or you didn't really look at the book your recommended. Is this the kind of 'research' you do?

Meatros
09-14-2012, 05:29 AM
So if I buy and read this book, I will find a pro-evolution source, backed the Theory of Evolution, and evolutionary scientists and biologists, that claims that the fossil record is complete and conclusive? If your answer to this is anything other than 'yes,' then at best you have made a claim that you cannot substantiate and at worst you are outright lying.

The best thing for you to do right now is to admit that none of the above entities I have listed says what you say they do.

It's not a pro-evolution source and it doesn't make the claim that Semitope is saying it does. It's clear he either misunderstood what you were asking for or didn't bother to check what he was recommending. You can read the first few pages of the book through the preview and it's overwhelmingly clear that it's Christian creationist bilge - if the big banner of the discovery institute across the top of the book didn't make that clear.

TH3SHR3DD3R
09-14-2012, 06:02 AM
It's not a pro-evolution source and it doesn't make the claim that Semitope is saying it does. It's clear he either misunderstood what you were asking for or didn't bother to check what he was recommending. You can read the first few pages of the book through the preview and it's overwhelmingly clear that it's Christian creationist bilge - if the big banner of the discovery institute across the top of the book didn't make that clear.

To be honest, I glanced at the cover and nothing more. It was very effective at, in those few seconds, convincing me that maybe there was something scientific to it; if it really were scientific, then I doubt very much that it would be making the claim that the fossil record is complete and conclusive. It is only people with an anti-evolution (read: anti-science) agenda that ever make such claims, that anyone that supports evolutionary theory is saying that the fossil record is complete and conclusive.

I'm trying to be . . . professional here, but this thread demonstrates a lot about semitope and his motives. It is a basic understanding of evolutionary theory that the fossil record is simply not complete. That semitope would even make such a claim to the opposite effect is damning. And now, caught in an obtuse lie, he refuses to back down. Instead he obfuscates, dodges and performs mental gymnastics in a desperate bid to back this nonsense up.

Meatros, you are one of the elite debaters on this board, yet I see your tone and temperament change when you deal with semitope. I want you to know that I understand why, and I don't blame you.

Meatros
09-14-2012, 06:48 AM
To be honest, I glanced at the cover and nothing more. It was very effective at, in those few seconds, convincing me that maybe there was something scientific to it; if it really were scientific, then I doubt very much that it would be making the claim that the fossil record is complete and conclusive. It is only people with an anti-evolution (read: anti-science) agenda that ever make such claims, that anyone that supports evolutionary theory is saying that the fossil record is complete and conclusive.

Yes I could see why - a cursory scan wouldn't tell you much - even looking at the thumbnail cover it's easy to miss the Discovery Institute Press. I did the first time I looked at it. It was only after I read a bit of the preview that I checked the cover again.



I'm trying to be . . . professional here, but this thread demonstrates a lot about semitope and his motives. It is a basic understanding of evolutionary theory that the fossil record is simply not complete. That semitope would even make such a claim to the opposite effect is damning. And now, caught in an obtuse lie, he refuses to back down. Instead he obfuscates, dodges and performs mental gymnastics in a desperate bid to back this nonsense up.

I agree with you here. He does this sort of thing consistently. I believe in a thread that 209 posted a while back, I linked to some egregious examples as to why I thought that Semitope was problematic.



Meatros, you are one of the elite debaters on this board, yet I see your tone and temperament change when you deal with semitope. I want you to know that I understand why, and I don't blame you.

Yes, I agree that my tone/temperament does . Over the months I've vacillated with taking him seriously and with not taking him seriously. I thought about this last night and I saw a connection between with how he posts and how a 9/11 truther posted here recently. There was a thread on 9/11 where the OP started off by referring to people as sheep, blinded, ignorant, etc and then the OP tried to make his/her case. In that thread, I said something to the effect that the OP automatically puts people on the defensive and that the gut reaction is to just troll back. There was another truther in that thread who took a more civil approach and I discussed the issue with him a bit before bowing out (I do not have the knowledge to really talk to the issue) - I told him that I respected his tone and how he conducted himself in the thread, even though I disagreed.

Semitope, more often than not, conducts himself as the OP in the truther thread does. His posts are not about informing people, they are about baiting and belittling people. He doesn't debate the issue (at least, not what I would describe as the majority of the time), he C&Ps and then tries to get on the perch of being the only one who is not blind to the issues, all the while belittling everyone with screeds about 'worldview biases' and that sort of thing. To cap it off, it appears that he hasn't really spent any time actually studying the issue. He's so passionate about evolution (it's falsehood), yet he hasn't committed himself to reading a single book on the subject (from either a creationist or an evolutionist, on his blog, at one point, he mentioned how he didn't like reading and that youtube videos filled him in - or something to that effect). When I questioned YECism 10+ years ago, I read plenty of books, blogs, articles and so on about evolution, the age of the earth, etc. Albeit, initially it was only from creationist sources, but eventually (and almost accidentally) I was introduced to logical fallacies and books by evolutionists. I put serious time in researching, discussing, and formulating my opinion. Whereas I don't get the sense, at all, that Semitope has done anything remotely similar. Instead, he reads evolutionnews and his method of debate is to google terms into a creationist website and post whatever he thinks sounds close enough (again, I reference my discussions with him on the twin nested heirarchy). Yet, he presents himself as this expert, who knows better than the people who have put years into the research. He belittles them. So his tone, his posts, are insulting and condescending for a plethora of reasons.

I don't have a problem with his views or views that differ from mine. I can have a rational discussion with someone who wants to have a rational discussion and leave it at that. Semitope doesn't want to have a rational discussion about evolution. To his credit, I will say, I remember briefly talking about some philosophical subject with him and it was cordial and, quite frankly, a nice change of pace. I even repped him for it. I think it was about cosmology (time?). So I know he's capable of such conversations - it's entirely baffling to me that he doesn't approach all his conversations like how he approached the philosophical one with me.

lasher
09-14-2012, 06:55 AM
Yes, I agree that my tone/temperament does . Over the months I've vacillated with taking him seriously and with not taking him seriously. I thought about this last night and I saw a connection between with how he posts and how a 9/11 truther posted here recently. There was a thread on 9/11 where the OP started off by referring to people as sheep, blinded, ignorant, etc and then the OP tried to make his/her case. In that thread, I said something to the effect that the OP automatically puts people on the defensive and that the gut reaction is to just troll back. There was another truther in that thread who took a more civil approach and I discussed the issue with him a bit before bowing out (I do not have the knowledge to really talk to the issue) - I told him that I respected his tone and how he conducted himself in the thread, even though I disagreed.

Semitope, more often than not, conducts himself as the OP in the truther thread does. His posts are not about informing people, they are about baiting and belittling people. He doesn't debate the issue (at least, not what I would describe as the majority of the time), he C&Ps and then tries to get on the perch of being the only one who is not blind to the issues, all the while belittling everyone with screeds about 'worldview biases' and that sort of thing. To cap it off, it appears that he hasn't really spent any time actually studying the issue. He's so passionate about evolution (it's falsehood), yet he hasn't committed himself to reading a single book on the subject (from either a creationist or an evolutionist, on his blog, at one point, he mentioned how he didn't like reading and that youtube videos filled him in - or something to that effect). When I questioned YECism 10+ years ago, I read plenty of books, blogs, articles and so on about evolution, the age of the earth, etc. Albeit, initially it was only from creationist sources, but eventually (and almost accidentally) I was introduced to logical fallacies and books by evolutionists. I put serious time in researching, discussing, and formulating my opinion. Whereas I don't get the sense, at all, that Semitope has done anything remotely similar. Instead, he reads evolutionnews and his method of debate is to google terms into a creationist website and post whatever he thinks sounds close enough (again, I reference my discussions with him on the twin nested heirarchy). Yet, he presents himself as this expert, who knows better than the people who have put years into the research. He belittles them. So his tone, his posts, are insulting and condescending for a plethora of reasons.

I don't have a problem with his views or views that differ from mine. I can have a rational discussion with someone who wants to have a rational discussion and leave it at that. Semitope doesn't want to have a rational discussion about evolution. To his credit, I will say, I remember briefly talking about some philosophical subject with him and it was cordial and, quite frankly, a nice change of pace. I even repped him for it. I think it was about cosmology (time?). So I know he's capable of such conversations - it's entirely baffling to me that he doesn't approach all his conversations like how he approached the philosophical one with me.


http://i1.kym-cdn.com/photos/images/original/000/392/685/a9c.png








































http://cdn3.sbnation.com/profile_images/186786/trollface_tiny.jpg

Meatros
09-14-2012, 06:58 AM
Haha, I would rep you if I wasn't on recharge.

Edited to add: TLDR

Ultimately the certainty without anywhere near the education/argumentation and the condescension/insults seem to have a deleterious effect on me taking him seriously. Some presuppositionalists (a lot of them, but not the one on this board that I'm aware of - IAMRED - I find him, wrong, but thoughtful)/truthers/etc also act this way.

semitope
09-14-2012, 07:23 AM
So if I buy and read this book, I will find a pro-evolution source, backed the Theory of Evolution, and evolutionary scientists and biologists, that claims that the fossil record is complete and conclusive? If your answer to this is anything other than 'yes,' then at best you have made a claim that you cannot substantiate and at worst you are outright lying.

The best thing for you to do right now is to admit that none of the above entities I have listed says what you say they do.

huh?

You will find that the literature contradicts what is presented to the public

lasher
09-14-2012, 07:29 AM
Haha, I would rep you if I wasn't on recharge.

Edited to add: TLDR

Ultimately the certainty without anywhere near the education/argumentation and the condescension/insults seem to have a deleterious effect on me taking him seriously. Some presuppositionalists (a lot of them, but not the one on this board that I'm aware of - IAMRED - I find him, wrong, but thoughtful)/truthers/etc also act this way.

Hah! Good ol' RED. One of my favorite Jimmy Rustlers. The level of rage he induces in anyone that can't keep up with him is hilarious.

semitope
09-14-2012, 07:32 AM
To be honest, I glanced at the cover and nothing more. It was very effective at, in those few seconds, convincing me that maybe there was something scientific to it; if it really were scientific, then I doubt very much that it would be making the claim that the fossil record is complete and conclusive. It is only people with an anti-evolution (read: anti-science) agenda that ever make such claims, that anyone that supports evolutionary theory is saying that the fossil record is complete and conclusive.

I'm trying to be . . . professional here, but this thread demonstrates a lot about semitope and his motives. It is a basic understanding of evolutionary theory that the fossil record is simply not complete. That semitope would even make such a claim to the opposite effect is damning. And now, caught in an obtuse lie, he refuses to back down. Instead he obfuscates, dodges and performs mental gymnastics in a desperate bid to back this nonsense up.

Meatros, you are one of the elite debaters on this board, yet I see your tone and temperament change when you deal with semitope. I want you to know that I understand why, and I don't blame you.

twilight zone. Well for one thing it's not whether or not its complete, its whether or not it's adequate for the conclusions. That is the issue. The public is told that it is, yet the actual science says it is not. Its not even just the public that is fooled because other scientists not directly involved buy the crap. One guy makes a wild assumption about a tooth and everybody who doesn't know better buys it.

Meatros, you sure say a lot while saying nothing. Is your only defence to constantly try to paint your opponent in a bad light? It's funny you talk about fallacies all this time and yet your only defence ends up being one. What is the point of maintaining this line of attack? Is it that you think members of this forum are idiots and unsophisticated to the point that such arguments would have sway on their conclusions? You've demonstrated such contempt for members here before with how you choose to approach disagreements, so I would not be surprised if that is your thinking now as well. I mean, I think you're crazy, but do you see me obsessing over it?

Whatever, I cannot stop you and I cannot help the less intelligent ones who pay attention to you.

Meatros
09-14-2012, 07:36 AM
Hah! Good ol' RED. One of my favorite Jimmy Rustlers. The level of rage he induces in anyone that can't keep up with him is hilarious.

That's never been my experience with him, as I said, I find him articulate and able to express his arguments without condescension or derision.

Which, as a presuppositionalist (not your standard one, his views do differ significantly in some respects), is almost unique in my experience. Of course, that could just be my anecdotal experience with presuppositionalists talking.

aRCaNEbrah
09-14-2012, 07:38 AM
huh?

You will find that the literature contradicts what is presented to the public

No it doesn't. Only your literature which is comprised of that amazon link to a pro-ID book. no **** if you buy a pro ID book you're gonna get arguments against naturalistic evolution and arguments for ID. your issue is that you think there is some big conspiracy theory going on when its really just science being science.

All truth passes through three stages. First, it is ridiculed. Second, it is violently opposed. Third, it is accepted as being self-evident. semitope is stuck somewhere between 1 and 2

Anthro/bio major here in my last semester of undergrad. i run into people like semitope all the time and its funny how illogical their arguments truly are. if you need to look anywhere but molecular biology for evidence of evolution by natural selection, there really is no evidence we can show you that will change your mind. this whole religion of science argument is bull**** we dont resort to faith and scripture as evidence like some creationists/ID supporters.

http://www.amazon.com/Humankind-Emerging-Edition-Bernard-Campbell/dp/0205423809

i know you dont read books but this one sure is thorough

lasher
09-14-2012, 07:39 AM
That's never been my experience with him, as I said, I find him articulate and able to express his arguments without condescension or derision.

Which, as a presuppositionalist (not your standard one, his views do differ significantly in some respects), is almost unique in my experience. Of course, that could just be my anecdotal experience with presuppositionalists talking.

That's because you can keep up with him. He isn't very kind to those that don't.

charizardbrah
09-14-2012, 07:41 AM
lol how many times does semitope have to be proven wrong then never refute and plug his ears saying "LALALLA CANT HEAR YOU" before he stops making these crazy christian threads

this has been going on for like 2 years, and he still wont give up

Loctus
09-14-2012, 07:44 AM
Claim CC050:

All hominid fossils are fully human or fully ape.
Response:

There is a fine transition between modern humans and australopithecines and other hominids. The transition is gradual enough that it is not clear where to draw the line between human and not.

Intermediate fossils include

Australopithecus afarensis, from 3.9 to 3.0 million years ago (Mya). Its skull is similar to a chimpanzee's, but with more humanlike teeth. Most (possibly all) creationists would call this an ape, but it was bipedal.
Australopithecus africanus (3 to 2 Mya); its brain size, 420-500 cc, was slightly larger than A. afarensis, and its teeth yet more humanlike.
Homo habilis (2.4 to 1.5 Mya), which is similar to australopithecines, but which used tools and had a larger brain (650-cc average) and less projecting face.
Homo erectus (1.8 to 0.3 Mya); brain size averaged about 900 cc in early H. erectus and 1,100 cc in later ones. (Modern human brains average 1,350 cc.)
A Pleistocene Homo sapiens which was "morphologically and chronologically intermediate between archaic African fossils and later anatomically modern Late Pleistocene humans" (White et al. 2003, 742).
A hominid combining features of, and possibly ancestral to, Neanderthals and modern humans (Bermudez de Castro et al. 1997).

And there are fossils intermediate between these (Foley 1996-2004).

Creationists themselves disagree about which intermediate hominids are human and which are ape (Foley 2002).

There is abundant genetic evidence for the relatedness between humans and other apes:
Humans have twenty-three chromosome pairs; apes have twenty-four. Twenty-two of the pairs are similar between humans and apes. The remaining two ape chromosomes appear to have joined; they are similar to each half of the remaining human chromosome (chromosome 2; Yunis and Prakash 1982).
The ends of chromosomes have repetitious telomeric sequences and a distinctive pretelomeric region. Such sequences are found in the middle of human chromosome 2, just as one would expect if two chromosomes joined (IJdo et al. 1991).
A centromere-like region of human chromosome 2 corresponds with the centromere of the ape chromosome (Avarello et al. 1992).
Humans and chimpanzees have innumerable sequence similarities, including shared pseudogenes such as genetic material from ERVs (endogenous retroviruses; Taylor 2003; Max 2003).
Links:

Foley, Jim. 1996-2004. Fossil hominids: The evidence for human evolution. http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/homs/

Drews, Carl, 2002. Transitional fossils of hominid skulls. http://www.theistic-evolution.com/transitional.html
References:

Avarello, R., A. Pedicini, A. Caiulo, O. Zuffardi, M. Fraccaro, 1992. Evidence for an ancestral alphoid domain on the long arm of human chromosome 2. Hum Genet 89(2): 247-249.
Bermudez de Castro, J. M. et al., 1997. A hominid from the Lower Pleistocene of Atapuerca, Spain: Possible ancestor to Neandertals and modern humans. Science 276: 1392-1395.
Foley, Jim, 1996-2003. (see above)
Foley, Jim, 2002. Comparison of all skulls, http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/homs/compare.html
IJdo, J. W., A. Baldini, D. C. Ward, S. T. Reeders and R. A. Wells, 1991. Origin of human chromosome 2: an ancestral telomere-telomere fusion. Proceedings of the National Academy of Science USA 88(20): 9051-9055. http://www.pnas.org/cgi/reprint/88/20/9051.pdf
Max, Edward E., 2003. Plagiarized errors and molecular genetics. http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/molgen/
Taylor, D. M. 2003. Alignment of Chimp_rp43-42n4 against human chromosome 15. http://www-personal.umich.edu/~lilyth/erv/ See also Taylor, D. M. 2003 (Jun 3). Re: Evolutionary Misconceptions on Evolution. http://www.google.com/groups?as_umsgid=75200cbc.0306031846.50b2bda5%40po sting.google.com
White, Tim D. et al., 2003. Pleistocene Homo sapiens from Middle Awash, Ethiopia. Nature 423: 742-747.
Yunis, J. J. and O. Prakash, 1982. The origin of man: a chromosomal pictorial legacy. Science 215: 1525-1530.
Further Reading:

Johanson, D. C., and B. Edgar, 1996. From Lucy to Language. New York: Simon and Schuster.

Leakey, M. and A. Walker, 1997. Early hominid fossils from Africa. Scientific American 276(6) (June): 74-79.

Tattersall, Ian, 1995. The Fossil Trail. New York: Oxford.

http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CC/CC050.html

semitope
09-14-2012, 07:49 AM
No it doesn't. Only your literature which is comprised of that amazon link to a pro-ID book. no **** if you buy a pro ID book you're gonna get arguments against naturalistic evolution and arguments for ID. your issue is that you think there is some big conspiracy theory going on when its really just science being science.

All truth passes through three stages. First, it is ridiculed. Second, it is violently opposed. Third, it is accepted as being self-evident. semitope is stuck somewhere between 1 and 2

Anthro/bio major here in my last semester of undergrad. i run into people like semitope all the time and its funny how illogical their arguments truly are. if you need to look anywhere but molecular biology for evidence of evolution by natural selection, there really is no evidence we can show you that will change your mind. this whole religion of science argument is bull**** we dont resort to faith and scripture as evidence like some creationists/ID supporters.

I hope people notice how these guys are when it comes to ID books. TH3SHR3DD3R brushed it off right away and yet these guys are on me for not reading their books. He asked for a source and I gave it. The book has a million references that you can use for research and then you can see if what the literature says fits with what you've been told.

I don't think there is a widespread conspiracy. At most I think some individuals aren't completely honest, in their public discussions, about the underlying views that support their acceptance of the theory. Some are. Seen evolutionists admit that they accept the theory because of their materialism and not on the evidence. Unfortunately this thing is one big mess. We have people like you who are so sure of the theory, and are an atheist (i presume) but you don't have what it takes to connect the dots and are apparently incapable of proper critical thought. Yet, here you are so sure of "people like semitope".

The really sad thing is how the darwinists insulate themselves from reality by immediately stereotyping and rejecting views counter to what they've been lead to believe. Makes it hard to get anywhere. It's always "QQ you're a creationist"


No there is no evidence you can show me that will change my mind. At least, not the evidence you care to show. I want much more than a tooth in some dirt to think a natural process can produce what I have seen in biology over so many years. I am no fool and I have no metaphysical need for any conclusion. Provide the evidence and don't expect me to make leaps of logic to see if your way.

You have no idea how practical I am. If there was a valid reason to be an atheist, to believe in evolution or any other thing, I would have no choice but to do so.

TH3SHR3DD3R
09-14-2012, 07:52 AM
huh?

You will find that the literature contradicts what is presented to the public

Presented to the public by whom? If popular media presents material in a certain way, this in no way reflects on the way the original source presented it, unless they are in agreement. Therein lies the rub. Your OP dictated that popular media by itself presents the fossil record a specific way - read: complete and conclusive - and that the scientific literature disagrees with the way the popular media presents it.

I honestly don't know if this is true; as it stands, I have seen creationist/Intelligent Design/religious sources CLAIM that evolutionary entities make the claim that the fossil record is complete and conclusive . . . but I have yet to see a pro-evolution source make this claim. I'm also unaware of popular media presenting the fossil record as complete and conclusive. I'm not really sure that anybody but anti-evolution sources with an agenda are making the claim that anyone is saying the fossil record is complete and conclusive.

Ultimately, you're the one making the positive claim that someone is saying something. You are the one that must present evidence. I have absolutely no work to do in this regard.


Well for one thing it's not whether or not its complete, its whether or not it's adequate for the conclusions. That is the issue.

Actually, the issue from post one has been whether or not someone is presenting the fossil record as complete and conclusive. What you're doing right now is called shifting the goal posts. But I'll play along: the science IS conclusive. The fossil record suggests that evolution is real. In order to say otherwise, one would have to lie about what the fossil record says. One would have to lie about evolution.

Meatros
09-14-2012, 07:53 AM
twilight zone. Well for one thing it's not whether or not its complete, its whether or not it's adequate for the conclusions. That is the issue. The public is told that it is, yet the actual science says it is not. Its not even just the public that is fooled because other scientists not directly involved buy the crap. One guy makes a wild assumption about a tooth and everybody who doesn't know better buys it.

Against my better judgment, let's do a little review:
In post 73 (http://forum.bodybuilding.com/showthread.php?t=148113523&p=948298293&viewfull=1#post948298293), Shredder is responding to this:

While popular media often reports that the fossil record is complete and conclusive


So let me get this straight.

1. Popular media says the fossil record is complete and conclusive
2. The source says Evolutionary Science disagrees
3. Evolutionary Science does, in fact, disagree
4. ???
5. Therefore Evolutionary Science is lying

I don't know what you're on about here, semitope. Clearly your problem is with the popular media and not Evolutionary Science. The latter can hardly be blamed for the actions of the former.

You 'fix' it in post 75 (http://forum.bodybuilding.com/showthread.php?t=148113523&p=948315143&viewfull=1#post948315143).

Your fix includes the bolded assertions:


So let me get this straight.

1. Evolutionist scientists tell public media the fossil record is complete and conclusive
2. The source says Evolutionary Science disagrees
3. Evolutionary Science does, in fact, disagree
4. ???
5. Therefore Evolutionary Science is lying to the public

I don't know what you're on about here, semitope. Clearly your problem is with the popular media and not Evolutionary Science. The latter can hardly be blamed for the actions of the former.

Post 81 (http://forum.bodybuilding.com/showthread.php?t=148113523&p=948399073&viewfull=1#post948399073), Shredder calls you out on your bolded assertions, asking for a source, clearly from an 'evolutionist scientist telling the public media that the fossil record is complete and conclusive'.

Post 85 (http://forum.bodybuilding.com/showthread.php?t=148113523&p=948519133&viewfull=1#post948519133), you post a link to a creationist book, where the authors on the first few pages state that the fossil record is not complete.

Post 91 (http://forum.bodybuilding.com/showthread.php?t=148113523&p=948646003&viewfull=1#post948646003), Shredder attempts to confirm with you that this book will present evolutionists who say the fossil record is complete and conclusive (per your assertions in post 75).

Now, after your source is discovered to be a creationist book, you state:

twilight zone. Well for one thing it's not whether or not its complete, its whether or not it's adequate for the conclusions. That is the issue. The public is told that it is, yet the actual science says it is not. Its not even just the public that is fooled because other scientists not directly involved buy the crap. One guy makes a wild assumption about a tooth and everybody who doesn't know better buys it.

Twilight zone indeed. You have not backed up your prior claims and you are trying to pawn it off as though this was never the issue.

Where is the public being told that the fossil record is complete and comprehensive?


Meatros, you sure say a lot while saying nothing. Is your only defence to constantly try to paint your opponent in a bad light?

Says you.

Above I just pointed out how you didn't follow your own assertions.


It's funny you talk about fallacies all this time and yet your only defence ends up being one. What is the point of maintaining this line of attack? Is it that you think members of this forum are idiots and unsophisticated to the point that such arguments would have sway on their conclusions? You've demonstrated such contempt for members here before with how you choose to approach disagreements, so I would not be surprised if that is your thinking now as well. I mean, I think you're crazy, but do you see me obsessing over it?

What fallacy am I committing here Semitope?

As to the members of this forum, I clearly do not think they are idiots or unsophisticated. On the contrary, I think you do - I think you believe that anyone who accepts evolution is a gullible rube who swallows 'evolutionist lies'. What other member here have I demonstrated such contempt for? Please be specific.



Whatever, I cannot stop you and I cannot help the less intelligent ones who pay attention to you.

Bolding mine.

Ah yes, it's clearly *I* who think the members of this forum are 'idiots' and 'unsophisticated'.

bigkarl
09-14-2012, 07:53 AM
are people still arguing with nuts who don't believe in evolution?

TH3SHR3DD3R
09-14-2012, 07:54 AM
I hope people notice how these guys are when it comes to ID books. TH3SHR3DD3R brushed it off right away and yet these guys are on me for not reading their books. He asked for a source and I gave it. The book has a million references that you can use for research and then you can see if what the literature says fits with what you've been told.

I will read this book if you can guarantee me that it provides a link to a pro-evolution source that dictates that the fossil record is complete and conclusive. This is what your OP says; this is what I have been demanding from post one.

Meatros
09-14-2012, 07:55 AM
That's because you can keep up with him. He isn't very kind to those that don't.

Maybe - but to his credit, I do recall one argument of his that I did not keep up with very well. I believe I had to ask him a few times to clarify what he was talking about. He was kind with me. :-)

Then again, I don't typically do the scorched earth 'theists are all idiots' routine that some other atheists here do.

Meatros
09-14-2012, 07:59 AM
I hope people notice how these guys are when it comes to ID books. TH3SHR3DD3R brushed it off right away and yet these guys are on me for not reading their books. He asked for a source and I gave it.

He asked you for a pro-evolutionist source. This is what was under contention. The fact that you referenced an ID book means that you either didn't check out the book very carefully or you were not clear with what he was asking.

Also, the Shredder didn't brush it off - in fact, his follow up post was to confirm with you that the book was a pro evolutionist book which stated the fossil record was complete.

As to ID books, I've read them and I'm sure others have here as well. In fact, there was a very good book, with authors from both sides, that I would recommend. I believe it was called 'debating design'. The editors were Michael Ruse and William Dempski (if I recall correctly).

semitope
09-14-2012, 08:00 AM
A wild talkorigins quote appears.

Creationwiki, I choose you!

Creationwiki uses "Wall of Text"



Claim CC050::
All hominid fossils are fully human or fully ape.
Source: No source given.

CreationWiki response:
Note: The dates used by Talk.Origins are based on uniformitarian dating methods and are invalid if the Genesis Flood occurred. (Talk.Origins quotes in blue)


1. There is a fine transition between modern humans and australopithecines and other hominids. The transition is gradual enough that it is not clear where to draw the line between human and not.

This is not true. This claim is based mainly on a comparison of skulls, most of which are just incomplete fragments. Even those that are nearly complete are broken into pieces and have had to be reassembled. This has allowed evolutionary presuppositions to get in the way. When these fossils are evaluated without assuming evolution, the alleged smooth transition goes away.

Evolutionists place a large emphasis on cranial capacity (brain size) and if that is the primary comparison then there is no solid gap, but that is not surprising since living gorillas can have a cranial capacity as high as 752cc and living humans go as low as 1100cc.[1] This leaves a gap of only 348cc difference, so it would not take much more variation on both sides for them to meet.

It further needs to be noted that there is more to the line between ape and human than cranial capacity or even skull morphology. There are numerous other skeletal differences that do not show up when all one has is a skull.


Intermediate fossils include

Australopithecus afarensis, from 3.9 to 3.0 million years ago (Mya). Its skull is similar to a chimpanzee's, but with more humanlike teeth. Most (possibly all) creationists would call this an ape, but it was bipedal.

The description of Australopithecus afarensis having more human-like teeth than a chimpanzee is a little like saying a station wagon is more truck like than a sedan. The fact is that Australopithecus afarensis teeth were still ape-like.

The claim that Australopithecus afarensis was bipedal is out of date. A study of their wrist showed that they had the same wrist anatomy as knuckle-walking apes. Furthermore, their skeletal anatomy showed that they walked with a stooped gait, similar to knuckle-walking chimps. This shows that,rather than being bipedal, Australopithecus afarensis was a knuckle-walker.

Reference: New evidence: Lucy was a knuckle-walker


Australopithecus africanus (3 to 2 Mya); its brain size, 420-500 cc, was slightly larger than A. afarensis, and its teeth yet more humanlike.

The brain size of Africanus is within the upper limits of a chimpanzee. The only way the teeth of africanus teeth seem to be more human-like than those of afarensis is that africanus had smaller canine teeth and the back top teeth were farther apart. Otherwise the teeth of both have the same size and shape.


Homo habilis (2.4 to 1.5 Mya), which is similar to australopithecines, but which used tools and had a larger brain (650-cc average) and less projecting face.

The comparison of Homo habilis to australopithecines is accurate since all indications are that the best Homo habilis fossils are australopithecines and not the same species. As for the tools associated with Homo habilis, it turns out that they are not associated with Homo habilis fossils but have simply been "dated" to the alleged time frame of habilis. Furthermore, none of the reasonably complete Homo habilis skulls have a cranial capacity greater than 600cc and the rest are too fragmented for positive identification. However, all of their cranial capacities are with in the upper limits of gorillas.
Finally, Homo habilis is no longer considered a human ancestor, having been relegated to a side branch.


Homo erectus (1.8 to 0.3 Mya); brain size averaged about 900 cc in early H. erectus and 1,100 cc in later ones. (Modern human brains average 1,350 cc.)

Most creationists believe that Homo erectus was human but probably highly degenerative. The use of cranial capacity averages is a little deceptive. While it does show a general trend, it hides the fact that one of the "oldest" homo erectus fossils has one of the highest cranial capacities. (Fossil OH 9, cranial capacity 1065, "date" 1.5 ma. This fits the degenerative model perfectly.) If the cranial capacity of Homo erectus was the result of a degenerative condition, those with the smaller brains would be the most degenerate, and as such they would also tend to be shorter-lived. So if the correct timing of the Homo erectus fossils were only a few generations, one would expect the more degenerative ones to be the oldest and the less degenerative ones to be the youngest, with anomalies such as fossil OH 9.
Finally, Homo erectus is no longer considered a human ancestor, having been relegated to a side branch.


A Pleistocene Homo sapiens which was "morphologically and chronologically intermediate between archaic African fossils and later anatomically modern Late Pleistocene humans".

A hominid combining features of, and possibly ancestral to, Neanderthals and modern humans.


Since all of these are human the presence of intermediates is no surprise.


And there are fossils intermediate between these.

Since Homo erectus, Homo sapiens and Neanderthals are all human beings, intermediates would be no surprise, since they are all descended from the same ancestors and would probably be interfertile. Furthermore, being the same genus, it is likely all australopithecines were descended from the same ancestors and probably interfertile, so intermediates would also be no surprise. So the question is: is there a clear gap between the genus homo and the genus Australopithecus?

Having shown that the so-called Homo habilis fails to provide the necessary link, we are left with only a small number of fossils to consider.

Homo rudolfensis is represented by several fossils but only skull KNM ER 1470 is reasonably intact. KNM ER 1470 has a cranial capacity of 775cc which is within the lowest range of both Homo ergaster and Homo erectus, both of which are fully human. The KNM ER 1470 skull has definite human features, and it looks as though in reconstructing this fossil the face was needlessly angled ten to twenty degrees away from the rest of the skull, making it look less human than it really is.

Next comes a group of fossils from Dmanisi, in Georgia of the former USSR. Three skulls were found at this site.

The first two are skulls D2880 and D2282. Both fit the morphology of homo ergaster and are classified as such, making them human. Skull D2880 has a cranial capacity of 775cc which is within the limits of homo ergaster. Skull D2282, however, is surprisingly small with a cranial capacity of only 650cc. While a human with such a small cranial capacity is surprising, it is not totally unexpected, based on the model that Homo ergaster and Homo erectus suffered from some form of degeneration. The fact that the only significant difference between D2282 and other Homo ergaster skulls is its size supports the degeneration model.

The third skull, designated D2700, has a cranial capacity of only 600cc and like the other two was classified as Homo ergaster and thus it was human. While smaller than D2282, D2700 was a juvenile whose adult cranial capacity would have been about 650cc making it comparable to D2282. Given the fact that D2282 and D2700 were found in the same area, there is a good likelihood that D2700 was the child of D2282.

Reference: Dmanisi Paleoanthropology - Dmanisi hominids
Reference: The Rolex Awards: an excavation shedding light on early human evolution, D. Lordkipanidze
Reference: Old Man of Georgia

So while the their brains were are on the extreme small end of the human kind, all four were clearly human. The fossils next down the line are clearly apes, so Talk.Origins' so-called fine transition does not exist.


2. Creationists themselves disagree about which intermediate hominids are human and which are ape

Some disagreement has occurred about some individual finds, but this is nothing more than an information problem. Evolutionists guard their pet skulls like treasure. Most evolutionists don't even get a chance to study them firsthand, so a creationist does not stand a chance. Only one creationist, Dr. Jack Cuozzo, has had such an opportunity and that was only with a few Neanderthal skulls. As a rule, creation scientists need to rely on what they can get from evolutionary sources for information on these skulls. Sometimes that has lead to misunderstandings about just how human the individuals were. This is particularly true of older finds such as Java man and Peking man.


3. There is abundant genetic evidence for the relatedness between humans and other apes:

However the same evidence can also point to a common designer. If you start with the assumption that all life on Earth had a common ancestor, then yes the genetic similarities between humans and apes would suggest a close relationship. Similarly, if you assume that life arose from unintelligent natural causes then the genetic similarities between humans and apes would strongly suggest a common ancestor. However, if the only relationship between humans and apes is a common designer, then the genetic similarities are to be expected.

The closest comparison would be computer programming, since the genetic code is basically the programming of biology. In writing computer programs it is very common for programmers to reuse the same code to do the same job. If you had two similar programs written by the same programmer, it highly likely that you would find probably find that the programing code is virtually identical, in both sequence and placement.

Note that Talk.Origins' says "humans and other apes", so Talk.Origins is implying that humans are apes. This type of wording reveals their bias.


Humans have twenty-three chromosome pairs; apes have twenty-four. Twenty-two of the pairs are similar between humans and apes. The remaining two ape chromosomes appear to have joined; they are similar to each half of the remaining human chromosome.

The ends of chromosomes have repetitious telomeric sequences and a distinctive pretelomeric region. Such sequences are found in the middle of human chromosome 2, just as one would expect if two chromosomes joined.
Other than evolution there are at least two other possible explanations for this data.

Humans were genetically engineered by God or some other intelligent entity using ape DNA as starting point. This would be consistent with the programmer analogy, since programmers often modify existing programs to produce new ones. The two ape chromosomes could have been stitched together as evidence of the genetic engineering.

More likely humans were originally created with 24 pairs of chromosomes, and the two of them joined at some point. The most likely time from a Biblical perspective would have been during the fall.

From a naturalistic perspective, such chromosome joining is difficult to explain; it would likely cause problems reproducing unless you had at least one mating couple with the joined chromosomes.


A centromere-like region of human chromosome 2 corresponds with the centromere of the ape chromosome.

This is to be expected if both were created by the same designer.


Humans and chimpanzees have innumerable sequence similarities, including shared pseudogenes such as genetic material from ERVs (endogenous retroviruses).

semitope
09-14-2012, 08:01 AM
These too are evidence for design, when one understands how viruses fit in to the design scheme. If viruses were designed as a DNA transfer system intended to aid adaptability, then this is to be expected. Such a virus would not insert themselves totally randomly, but in a location dictated by the existing genetic code. The result is that even unrelated organisms with similar DNA would tend to get such viruses in the same location. Furthermore, deterioration caused by mutations would make it likely that insertions would become more random over time.

Reference: Genetic Variability by Design
Reference: Gene Hi-Jacking - The Role of Genetic Transformation
Reference: Did God Make Pathogenic Viruses?


This interpretation is supported by studies showing that at least

The present results indicate that there are highly specific integration patterns for each endogenous retrovirus that do not readily relate to their sequence or particle classification. Each host genome may utilize these elements for contrary, and possibly beneficial functions.

Integration site preferences of endogenous retroviruses.

Replication of retroviruses and retrotransposons depends on selecting a favorable chromosomal site for integration of their genomic DNA. Different retroelements meet this challenge by targeting distinctive chromosomal regions. Despite these differences, recent data hints at a common targeting mechanism-tethering of integration complexes to proteins bound at favorable sites.

Targeting survival: integration site selection by retroviruses and LTR-retrotransposons.

Talkorigins Quote fainted

http://creationwiki.org/All_hominid_fossils_are_fully_human_or_fully_ape

Loctus
09-14-2012, 08:07 AM
Dude, the creationwiki is arguing with sentences like "Humans were genetically engineered by God or some other intelligent entity using ape DNA as starting point." and "The dates used by Talk.Origins are based on uniformitarian dating methods and are invalid if the Genesis Flood occurred"

I mean, really?

Really?

It must be kinda nice to argue about stuff and be allowed to use caveats like "If God did x and y then we can assume that z..."

Meatros
09-14-2012, 08:10 AM
Dude, the creationwiki is arguing with sentences like "Humans were genetically engineered by God or some other intelligent entity using ape DNA as starting point." and "The dates used by Talk.Origins are based on uniformitarian dating methods and are invalid if the Genesis Flood occurred"

I noticed that as well.

That said - and I could be wrong here - but I thought that you didn't think there was a global flood, Semitope. Or do you now think there was one?

semitope
09-14-2012, 08:17 AM
He asked you for a pro-evolutionist source. This is what was under contention. The fact that you referenced an ID book means that you either didn't check out the book very carefully or you were not clear with what he was asking.

Also, the Shredder didn't brush it off - in fact, his follow up post was to confirm with you that the book was a pro evolutionist book which stated the fossil record was complete.

As to ID books, I've read them and I'm sure others have here as well. In fact, there was a very good book, with authors from both sides, that I would recommend. I believe it was called 'debating design'. The editors were Michael Ruse and William Dempski (if I recall correctly).

I guess I misunderstood the brute. Complete and conclusive is what the public is fed I thought he was asking what the truth is. Complete is relative, conclusive is what you all believe. The easy way to know if the public thinks the evidence is 'complete' and conclusive is to ask yourselves what you've been told and what you believe. I didn't think he needed a source for that but he may not actually have access to his own mind.. so...

Complete is basically thinking you have a proper sequence. A trend that you can easily draw between fossils to us. It doesn't have to be complete in the sense that you have everything possible under the sun, but a somewhat complete sequence that demonstrates what you have concluded. In that sense, what you hear is that the fossil evidence does demonstrate the conclusions, but in the literature its supposedly all over the place. I wouldn't say you can't use the word complete at all, because they could claim a certain number of intermediates and say they've found all of them (even if all they have is the equivalent of a fraction of a phalanx in each case.)

I don't know if the book references the public claims about the fossil record. I know it references the scientific literature.

to summarize for the smaller minds, its 'complete' in the sense that intermediates are claimed to have been found, demonstrating evolutionary sequences. ....

... crap, is this another example of your obsession with nitpicking at words?

semitope
09-14-2012, 08:20 AM
Dude, the creationwiki is arguing with sentences like "Humans were genetically engineered by God or some other intelligent entity using ape DNA as starting point." and "The dates used by Talk.Origins are based on uniformitarian dating methods and are invalid if the Genesis Flood occurred"

I mean, really?

Really?

It must be kinda nice to argue about stuff and be allowed to use caveats like "If God did x and y then we can assume that z..."

I consider talk origins the evolutionist equivalent of creationwiki. If its all you guys have, then I am sorry.

Meatros
09-14-2012, 08:30 AM
I guess I misunderstood the brute. Complete and conclusive is what the public is fed I thought he was asking what the truth is. Complete is relative, conclusive is what you all believe.

Stop, please, just stop and slow down a second:

1. Where is the public being fed that the fossil record is complete and conclusive?
2. Complete is not 'relative' and it's not what any evolutionist that I'm aware of believes. That claim - at least without any further clarification from you - seems nonsensical on the face of it.
3. I'm not sure what you mean by 'conclusive' in this context. The fossil evidence is one bit of evidence in a mountain of other evidence that supports common descent. By itself it is not 'conclusive' with respect to evolutionary theory - the theory of evolution concerns why genetic pools change over time. With this definition in mind, it should be obvious why the fossil evidence alone is not conclusive of why this occurs.


The easy way to know if the public thinks the evidence is 'complete' and conclusive is to ask yourselves what you've been told and what you believe. I didn't think he needed a source for that but he may not actually have access to his own mind.. so...

I have not been told that the fossil evidence is complete or conclusive. You seem think that I and others (and presumably yourself) have been told this. Where have you been told this?


Complete is basically thinking you have a proper sequence. A trend that you can easily draw between fossils to us. It doesn't have to be complete in the sense that you have everything possible under the sun, but a somewhat complete sequence that demonstrates what you have concluded. In that sense, what you hear is that the fossil evidence does demonstrate the conclusions, but in the literature its supposedly all over the place. I wouldn't say you can't use the word complete at all, because they could claim a certain number of intermediates and say they've found all of them (even if all they have is the equivalent of a fraction of a phalanx in each case.)

This definition of complete is your definition and you should clarify prior to using it. I do not think this definition is even agreed on by evolutionists. We have a tentative line of fossils which may or may not be related to modern man. To be related to modern man we would need definitive evidence that the fossils were in a direct line to us - as opposed to their cousins or a different species entirely that is related to the fossil we have.


I don't know if the book references the public claims about the fossil record. I know it references the scientific literature.

I'm curious, how do you know this?


to summarize for the smaller minds, its 'complete' in the sense that intermediates are claimed to have been found, demonstrating evolutionary sequences. ....

Again, I marvel at your prior characterization of me, that *I* am the one who thinks the members of this forum are 'idiots' and 'unsophisticated'.

aRCaNEbrah
09-14-2012, 08:41 AM
We have people like you who are so sure of the theory, and are an atheist (i presume) but you don't have what it takes to connect the dots and are apparently incapable of proper critical thought. Yet, here you are so sure of "people like semitope".

The really sad thing is how the darwinists insulate themselves from reality by immediately stereotyping and rejecting views counter to what they've been lead to believe. Makes it hard to get anywhere. It's always "QQ you're a creationist"

No there is no evidence you can show me that will change my mind. At least, not the evidence you care to show. I want much more than a tooth in some dirt to think a natural process can produce what I have seen in biology over so many years. I am no fool and I have no metaphysical need for any conclusion. Provide the evidence and don't expect me to make leaps of logic to see if your way.

You have no idea how practical I am. If there was a valid reason to be an atheist, to believe in evolution or any other thing, I would have no choice but to do so.

I was not always an atheist. I grew up in a conservative jewish household being brainwashed my entire life until i could think for myself. saying i dont have the critical thought to connect to dots can be just as easily applied to you. we both think that we are right in our accounts of what it is happening except the only major difference is that you say whats in bold. what is bolded is essentialy the opposite of what the scientific method tries to promote. there should always be evidence that can change your mind, if we find some planet tomorrow in a far off system with 0 gravity associated with it you better believe that our laws on gravity will change. why can't a tooth be enough to prove the existence of hominin speceis with dentition patterns easily recognizable in the fossil record? don't discount evidence you haven't even seen, thats the definition of ignorance in a nutshell.

your last sentence has me confused. are you doubting evolution takes place at all? or are you only doubting the processes by which it occurs? atheists dont believe there is enough evidence to prove the existence of a divine creator let alone a creator who hears prayers, cares about who you sleep with, and in what position etc.

semitope
09-14-2012, 08:47 AM
here comes the word dance. Where the evolutionist refuses to accept english words as having any sort of variation in their meanings and insists on doing a painful toe mashing dance. If you do not think the fossil record is 'complete' and 'conclusive' then you would not ever use it as an argument for the theory. It's useless if all you think you have is a disjointed mess. This applies to those who posted skull series here in the past. They obviously think that is complete and conclusive in some sense. If you do not think the evidence that strong from the fossil evidence then, really, I cannot understand why you are convinced by the theory.

I know because the book has been discussed over and over and over by both evolutionists and ID proponents.

sigh


con·clu·sive
adjective /kənˈklo͞osiv/  /-ziv/ 

(of evidence or argument) Serving to prove a case; decisive or convincing
- conclusive evidence
- the findings were by no means conclusive

(of a victory) Achieved easily or by a large margin



com·plete
adjective /kəmˈplēt/ 
completer, comparative; completest, superlative

Having all the necessary or appropriate parts
- a complete list of courses offered by the college
- no wardrobe is complete this year without culottes

(of all the works of a particular author) Collected together in one volume or edition
- the complete works of Shakespeare

Entire; full
- I only managed one complete term at school

Having run its full course; finished
- the restoration of the chapel is complete

(often used for emphasis) To the greatest extent or degree; total
- a complete ban on smoking
- their marriage came as a complete surprise to me

Skilled at every aspect of a particular activity; consummate
- these articles are for the compleat mathematician

what is necessary or appropriate to come to the conclusion that they have come to? They claim they have all that is necessary.


nec·es·sar·y
adjective /ˈnesəˌserē/ 

Required to be done, achieved, or present; needed; essential
- members are admitted only after they have gained the necessary experience
- it's not necessary for you to be here

Determined, existing, or happening by natural laws or predestination; inevitable
- a necessary consequence

(of a concept, statement, judgment, etc.) Inevitably resulting from or produced by the nature of things, so that the contrary is impossible

(of an agent) Having no independent volition


The fossil evidence is one bit of evidence in a mountain

Maybe. Yet people work in separate fields and are convinced by different things. We talking anthropology here


an·thro·pol·o·gy
noun /ˌanTHrəˈpäləjē/ 

The study of humankind, in particular

The comparative study of human societies and cultures and their development

The science of human zoology, evolution, and ecology


and another thing. the theory isn't just an idea, it's supposedly practically demonstrated in the history of the planet. So saying "the theory of evolution concerns why genetic pools change over time. With this definition in mind, it should be obvious why the fossil evidence alone is not conclusive of why this occurs. " is not getting you anywhere. The fossil evidence is essential to bring the theory into reality.

semitope
09-14-2012, 08:54 AM
I was not always an atheist. I grew up in a conservative jewish household being brainwashed my entire life until i could think for myself. saying i dont have the critical thought to connect to dots can be just as easily applied to you. we both think that we are right in our accounts of what it is happening except the only major difference is that you say whats in bold. what is bolded is essentialy the opposite of what the scientific method tries to promote. there should always be evidence that can change your mind, if we find some planet tomorrow in a far off system with 0 gravity associated with it you better believe that our laws on gravity will change. why can't a tooth be enough to prove the existence of hominin speceis with dentition patterns easily recognizable in the fossil record? don't discount evidence you haven't even seen, thats the definition of ignorance in a nutshell.

your last sentence has me confused. are you doubting evolution takes place at all? or are you only doubting the processes by which it occurs? atheists dont believe there is enough evidence to prove the existence of a divine creator let alone a creator who hears prayers, cares about who you sleep with, and in what position etc.

don't care about your pass bro. I am me now and I think now. I don't need to burden myself with any attachments to any ideals I have not reasoned on my own. I figured someone would use that sentence by itself to try arguing something. THough I expected it to come a week or month from now, not so soon. You ignored everything that came after. gj. You post entirely in response to that one sentence

and you quote hitchens in your last sen... serious wth. u guys are all brainwashed by these horsemen. Did you even realize what you were doing?

Meatros
09-14-2012, 08:57 AM
here comes the word dance. Where the evolutionist refuses to accept english words as having any sort of variation in their meanings and insists on doing a painful toe mashing dance. If you do not think the fossil record is 'complete' and 'conclusive' then you would not ever use it as an argument for the theory. It's useless if all you think you have is a disjointed mess. This applies to those who post skull series here in the past. They obviously think that is complete and conclusive in some sense. If you do not think the evidence that strong from the fossil evidence then, really, I cannot understand why you are convinced by the theory.

Wow, you really are missing my point aren't you? I'm not disputing that words have different meanings. What I was saying is that you were using the words in a manner that other people (evolutionists in particular) do not use them. I was not saying that I refused to accept your use of words - in fact, I said if you were going to stray from how they are commonly understood, you should make it known how you are using them prior to making a bunch of assertions about what evolutionists say about them.

You still have not provided any evidence to back up what you have said that evolutionists have said to mislead the public. You are evading that.

That aside, you seem confused on evolutionary theory and common descent. The fossil record is evidence for common descent. It's difficult to see how it is evidence for evolutionary theory. Do you understand the distinction?

Further, even with common descent, it's not the only evidence we have - what is conclusive is the multiple strains of evidence which all converge to support common descent. This is why I said the twin nested hierarchy was such a strong argument for common descent. It's not one piece of evidence.


I know because the book has been discussed over and over and over by both evolutionists and ID proponents.

Where?

Let's see some links. Further, how do you know that these proponents were correct in the substance of the book? Perhaps they are like you, taking other people's word for the contents of the book? Further, when there is a disagreement about the contents of the book, who do you side with - the evolutionist or the creationist?


what is necessary or appropriate to come to the conclusion that they have come to? They claim they have all that is necessary.

Where? Let's see exactly what they are claiming.


Maybe. Yet people work in separate fields and are convinced by different things. We talking anthropology here

I would say that people may give more weight to different pieces of evidence, but the explanatory power of the theory is what is convincing, not any particular piece of evidence.

209vaughn
09-14-2012, 09:03 AM
Again... If semitope (and those who believe god directly created) is just a big idiot, why waste soooo much time debating him?

StarFox
09-14-2012, 09:20 AM
did you ever question what they told you or were you fully prepared to accept whatever? What if they said all this was wrong, would you then rise up in revolt? That question should reveal to you where your mind is.

Uhhh, yeah, I had several questions. Not because I was suspicious of the already surmounting evidence that supports the ToE and setting out with the intention of disproving it, but because I was genuinely interested in how survival of the fittest allowed for certain traits to be passed on while simultaneously nixing others, leading to the eventual rise of new species and the decline of others. You know what my university did? They provided students with the opportunity to utilize laboratory space to analyze actual fossil casts, comparing bones of different species with common ancestors to see similarities and differences, such as specialized dentition in skulls. They didn't force anything down my throat, they merely showed me tangible evidence that allowed me to form my own views, which (shocker) align with those of proponents of the ToE.

And lol @ "revolt", why the fukk would I (or anybody else, for that matter) "rise up in revolt" if emerging research came to show that the theory of evolution was flawed, or even flat out impossible? Scientists don't claim to know everything, and nobody is saying that evolution is a fact. There is a myriad of evidence which supports it, but it's still a THEORY. If experts in the field one day discovered that the way we have framed evolution up to this point is incorrect in some way, I'm not gonna be angry about it...but unlike you, I don't think they are all involved in a world-wide conspiracy designed to troll the masses.

TH3SHR3DD3R
09-14-2012, 09:38 AM
here comes the word dance. Where the evolutionist refuses to accept english words as having any sort of variation in their meanings and insists on doing a painful toe mashing dance. If you do not think the fossil record is 'complete' and 'conclusive' then you would not ever use it as an argument for the theory.

Stopped right there.

If there were no fossil record, evolution would still be an observable fact. Evolutionary theory does not rely on the existence of the fossil record to explain evolution. The missing links in the fossil record do not detract from the existence of evolution one bit. Ergo, the fossil record does not have to be complete, or even to exist at all, because the findings on evolution are conclusive regardless of the fossil record. As such, only bits and pieces of the fossil record are necessary to support the Theory of Evolution.

TH3SHR3DD3R
09-14-2012, 09:42 AM
Again... If semitope (and those who believe god directly created) is just a big idiot, why waste soooo much time debating him?

I don't think such people are idiots and I debate with them because I seek the truth.

It is, however, highly likely that semitope is a troll. Nonetheless, I use him as a dull, broken stone to sharpen tiny, insignificant nicks on my debate sword. Even the tiniest mar can destroy an otherwise powerful weapon.

Loctus
09-14-2012, 09:45 AM
No there is no evidence you can show me that will change my mind.


One morning, a man awoke convinced he had died during the night. Since he was awake, it was clear he had become a zombie. He told his wife about this state of affairs.

"You're not a zombie," she said.

"I am a zombie," he answered.

"What makes you think so?" she asked.

"Don't you think zombies know when they are zombies?" he answered.

Realizing she wasn't persuading him, she called his mother and told her what was going on. "Let me speak to him," she said.

When the man took the phone, she said, "I'm your mother. Wouldn't I know if I gave birth to a zombie?"

"You didn't. I just became a zombie last night."

"I didn't raise my son to be a zombie, or to think he's a zombie," his mother said.

"Doesn't matter. I'm still a zombie."

Later, his wife tried getting help from their minister. "You're not a zombie," the minister said. "Probably just going through a mid-life crisis."

"Zombies don't have mid-life crises," the man said.

The minister recommended a psychiatrist. The psychiatrist said, "So you think you're a zombie?"

"Think? You're kidding," the man said. "Know. I know I am a zombie."

"Tell me," the psychiatrist asked, "do zombies bleed?"

"Of course not. We're the living dead. We don't bleed!"

"Watch this," the psychiatrist said. He took a pin and pricked the man's finger.

A small drop of blood welled up. "There," the psychiatrist said, "what do you think of that?"

The man stared at his finger and said nothing for a few minutes. "Well, what do you know," the man said after a while. "I'll be damned. Zombies do bleed!"

semitope
09-14-2012, 10:08 AM
Wow, you really are missing my point aren't you? I'm not disputing that words have different meanings. What I was saying is that you were using the words in a manner that other people (evolutionists in particular) do not use them. I was not saying that I refused to accept your use of words - in fact, I said if you were going to stray from how they are commonly understood, you should make it known how you are using them prior to making a bunch of assertions about what evolutionists say about them.

You still have not provided any evidence to back up what you have said that evolutionists have said to mislead the public. You are evading that.

That aside, you seem confused on evolutionary theory and common descent. The fossil record is evidence for common descent. It's difficult to see how it is evidence for evolutionary theory. Do you understand the distinction?

fossil evidence is important for macroevolution. Common descent is neither here nor there. If we were only concerned with hominins and claimed one evolved int oanother, we would need the fossil evidence to be strongly convinced. You are the one trying to mix things up.

Ronald Wetherington testimony before Texas State Board of Education (January 21, 2009). Original recording on file with author, SBOECommt-FullJan2109B5.mp3, Time Index 1:52:00-1:52:44.


Where?

Let's see some links. Further, how do you know that these proponents were correct in the substance of the book? Perhaps they are like you, taking other people's word for the contents of the book? Further, when there is a disagreement about the contents of the book, who do you side with - the evolutionist or the creationist?

Disagreement? I would side with the people who wrote it obviously. They actually have their reputation on the line for the book and are responsible. Not that I have seen any disagreement.

where?

https://www.google.com/search?q=science+and+human+origins&rlz=1C1_____en-gbJM478JM478&sugexp=chrome,mod=16&sourceid=chrome&ie=UTF-8#hl=en&rlz=1C1_____en-gbJM478JM478&sclient=psy-ab&q=%22science+and+human+origins%22&oq=%22science+and+human+origins%22&gs_l=serp.3..35i39j0i7j0l2.7431.8533.0.8952.2.2.0. 0.0.0.87.169.2.2.0.les%3B..0.0...1c.1.fZPr7mkBOHg&pbx=1&bav=on.2,or.r_gc.r_pw.r_qf.&fp=e6673951c63a7e5d&biw=1680&bih=925

The podcast mentions the example of a professor in anthropology testifying before the Texas SBOE stating Human evolution has "arguably the most complete sequence of fossil succession of any mammal in the world. No gaps. No lack of transitional fossils... So when people talk about the lack of transitional fossils or gaps in the fossil record, it absolutely is not true. And it is not true specifically for our own species"

He said many more things. it exists as a recording http://curricublog.wordpress.com/2009/01/21/tx-sboe-science-hearings/


Where? Let's see exactly what they are claiming.

see above

what do you believe about the fossil evidence for human evolution?






I would say that people may give more weight to different pieces of evidence, but the explanatory power of the theory is what is convincing, not any particular piece of evidence.

anthropology

semitope
09-14-2012, 10:21 AM
http://i82.photobucket.com/albums/j247/semitope/Capture-53.png

the turds

Loctus
09-14-2012, 10:21 AM
OP, do you think that Homo Erectus were human or not human? If human; did they have souls? Same question but with Neanderthals too

semitope
09-14-2012, 10:37 AM
OP, do you think that Homo Erectus were human or not human? If human; did they have souls? Same question but with Neanderthals too

they were gay pigeons. All of them. And we all know gays dont have souls

lee4
09-14-2012, 10:47 AM
i'm beginning to feel sorry for you OP. i think this goes beyond creationist debate.

semitope
09-14-2012, 11:06 AM
i'm beginning to feel sorry for you OP. i think this goes beyond creationist debate.

It is a complete waste of time for sure. This issue isn't one of those that many of you are free to think deeply about.

TH3SHR3DD3R
09-14-2012, 11:14 AM
It is a complete waste of time for sure. This issue isn't one of those that many of you are free to think deeply about.

Employing ad hominems. You're definitely winraring the debate now!

Loctus
09-14-2012, 11:25 AM
they were gay pigeons. All of them. And we all know gays dont have souls

It was actually a serious question that I'm interested in getting a creationists answer on. I had no back-thought with it and there was no "haHA! you just said that..." to follow a serious answer to it from you

jaybeedee
09-14-2012, 11:33 AM
I would say that people may give more weight to different pieces of evidence, but the explanatory power of the theory is what is convincing, not any particular piece of evidence.

I think it's more an indication of the multiple of lines of evidence converging on evolution, across different fields of study.

Meatros
09-14-2012, 11:36 AM
fossil evidence is important for macroevolution. Common descent is neither here nor there. If we were only concerned with hominins and claimed one evolved int oanother, we would need the fossil evidence to be strongly convinced. You are the one trying to mix things up.

Ronald Wetherington testimony before Texas State Board of Education (January 21, 2009). Original recording on file with author, SBOECommt-FullJan2109B5.mp3, Time Index 1:52:00-1:52:44.

?

I seriously do not understand how you are using the terms 'macroevolution' and 'common descent' here. Fossil evidence is a piece of evidence, it is not the end all of evidence. As I stated earlier, the explanatory scope of evolutionary theory with regard to the various strands of evidence is what is compelling. It is not just the fossil evidence - as Shredder points out, even scrapping fossils entirely, we still have enough evidence to arrive at evolutionary theory. In fact, the fossil evidence for common descent has only grown since Darwin's time.


Disagreement? I would side with the people who wrote it obviously. They actually have their reputation on the line for the book and are responsible. Not that I have seen any disagreement.

You said the book had been discussed by both parties, not the authors - but regardless - where did you read their material?


The podcast mentions the example of a professor in anthropology testifying before the Texas SBOE stating Human evolution has "arguably the most complete sequence of fossil succession of any mammal in the world. No gaps. No lack of transitional fossils... So when people talk about the lack of transitional fossils or gaps in the fossil record, it absolutely is not true. And it is not true specifically for our own species"

Did you actually listen to his testimony? As will be clear with the below, you did not. Most likely you relied on creationist blogs to do your reading/listening for you. It's found here: http://curricublog.files.wordpress.com/2009/01/wetherington.mp3

As to what he said, it seems that he is comparing the fossils for human evolution to the fossils for other mammals. He says 'most' complete of any mammal, not that it's complete. As to transitional fossils and gaps, from the context he's saying there are no saltation style leaps between the fossils we have. This is not the same thing as saying that we have a fossil for every species in our direct evolutionary pathway - again, I think this is clear when he states 'most complete' - further around minute 13, he says that we are constantly expanding our fossil evidence and that we have 16 or 17 species (minute: 13.30-13:40) and that it continues to be expanded. So your interpretation of what he's saying is wrong - if we are constantly finding new species by his own admission, then he cannot be saying we have a complete history of our ancestors (indeed, your quote shows that this is not what he says). At around minute 14-15 he says that what the fossils for humans show is the gradual change that Darwin was talking about. So it's clear what he means is that we have enough fossils to show the succession, not all the fossils of all the species of our ancestors - he cannot be saying that if he is also saying that we are constantly finding new hominid species.

At 22:04 he specifically says "obviously we do not have representatives for every generation, so there will always be gaps". At 23:20, he says that the term missing link is something that the media uses, but science doesn't, because if you have species one and species three, and you find species two, you have created two more missing links (between species one and species two and between species two and species three). He then says that the fossil record (for man) is becoming more and more complete every year. At 24:28 he says there will always be 'gaps'. At 24:35 he compares it to the person asking him questions' ancestry, saying if you go back a few generations there will be gaps. At 25:10 he says that the fossil evidence shows the nature of the transition.

So, again, when he says we have 'arguably the most complete sequence' he's saying that the best fossil succession we have is for hominid's descent. He's not saying what you, or rather, your source says:

While popular media often reports that the fossil record is complete and conclusive, the technical scientific literature reveals this to be false.

In short, if you or your source is relying on Wetherington's court statement to support the contention that the popular media (or all evolutionary scientists as you say) report that the fossil record is complete and conclusive you are misrepresenting Wetherington and you need to come up with another source.

It should be easy if 'the popular media' is saying it. So let's see your evidence.


He said many more things. it exists as a recording http://curricublog.wordpress.com/200...ence-hearings/

This is a link to several sound files. Did you actually listen to any of them?


see above

what do you believe about the fossil evidence for human evolution?

You still haven't linked to where scientists are misinforming the public - you've linked to testimony in a court case and it doesn't support your contention. Please provide links for where evolutionists are misinforming the public on this topic.

To further illustrate what Wetherington is talking about with regard to fossil hominids, I wrote the following here (creationist stumpers (http://www.allyourfaitharebelongtous.com/content.php?page=view_article.php%3FarticleID%3D16 )):


And finally we come to the Skull Challenge:

Below are some legitmate transitional hominid fossils taken from Talk Origins [7]. How does creationist theory explain them?

http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/comdesc/images/hominids2.jpg

Above is a picture of skull fossils, over millions of years that shows our evolution from a primate ancestor. How does creationism explain this picture? In the picture above, creationists must tell us which skulls are monkey skulls and which are hominid skulls. They must do so and tell us through what objective means did they come to their conclusion. An explanation must come from them from the ‘Creationist theory’ or else it is a bankrupt theory.

Evolution explains this morphology perfectly, however creationism can’t objectively account for them. Furthermore there is no objective means to establish a clear cut off point for a different ‘kind’.

In fact, according to this Talk Origins page, creationists have tried to give an account-only to contradict each other! On the same page is a graph comparing the opinions below the text comment:

"As this table shows, although creationists are adamant that none of these are transitional and all are either apes or humans, they are not able to tell which are which. In fact, there are a number of creationists who have changed their opinion on some fossils. They do not even appear to be converging towards a consistent opinion. Gish and Taylor both used to consider Peking Man an ape and 1470 a human, but now Gish says they are both apes, and Taylor says they were both humans. Interestingly, widely differing views are held by two of the most prominent creationist researchers on human origins, Gish and Lubenow. Bowden, who has also written a book on human evolution, agrees with neither of them, and Mehlert, who has written a number of articles on human evolution in creationist journals, has yet another opinion, as does Cuozzo in his 1998 book on Neandertals. Cuozzo has taken the most extreme stance yet for a young-earth creationist, saying that even H. erectus fossils (in which he includes the Turkana Boy) should not be considered human. (Old-earth creationist Hugh Ross takes an even more extreme stance, claiming that not even Neandertals should be classified as human.)

It could be pointed out that evolutionists also disagree on how fossils should be classified, which species they belong to, etc. True enough. But according to evolutionary thinking, these fossils come from a number of closely related species intermediate between apes and humans. If this is so, we would expect to find that some of them are hard to classify, and we do.
Creationists, on the other hand, assert that apes and humans are separated by a wide gap. If this is true, deciding on which side of that gap individual fossils lie should be trivially easy. Clearly, that is not the case."[8]

[7] and [8] refer to sources which I list in my link above.



anthropology

?

I'm sorry, what does this mean, in context?


On another note, do you believe in a global flood or not?

guyver79
09-14-2012, 11:40 AM
It is a complete waste of time for sure. This issue isn't one of those that many of you are free to think deeply about.

Then provide an alternative and let's have a serious discussion about it then.

There's been many threads where atheists and theists have had intresting and civil debates.

I'd be intrested in a basic understanding of ID from your point of veiw if nothing more than to understand where you're coming from for future discussions and debates, otherwise t's just boring and you're trolling, not that it seems to bother you, but hasn't it ever occurred to you why after 4000+ posts your only just hovering above red, yet other theists are repped often and well respected even if their beliefs aren't?

You're obviously thick skinned and more than happy to get bashed for 5+ pages for your views on toe, but you seem reluctant to post anything on actual ID, almost as it seems for, ironically, fear of ridicule!

So forget evolution, let's hear some theory of ID, which should be a stand alone theory completely indifferent to TOE, it should stand alone as theory and not based solely on trying to pick holes in evolution.

Some evidence?

Fossil records, not picking holes and pointing out gaps, but fossils that support ID, young earth geology, at what point does design get implemented into the raw materials for life, what would a designer make organic life out of and when ect....

ID isn't taken seriously when it tries to pick holes in a well understood scientific theory, instead it does itself no favours and makes ID'er look like they don't understand the scientific method.

GregariousWolf
09-14-2012, 12:15 PM
No there is no evidence you can show me that will change my mind.

Of course not. You're not here to learn anything. You are here to proselytize.

TH3SHR3DD3R
09-14-2012, 12:15 PM
So forget evolution, let's hear some theory of ID, which should be a stand alone theory completely indifferent to TOE, it should stand alone as theory and not based solely on trying to pick holes in evolution.

I would be interested in seeing this as well.

Meatros
09-14-2012, 12:20 PM
For some reason my picture disappeared from my post. It can be found here: http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/comdesc/section1.html#morphological_intermediates_ex3

semitope
09-14-2012, 12:58 PM
played only the testimony. What you said he said is what the OP argues against, not a complete record (which apparently, to him, is having every generation). He was also telling them that irreducible complexity was refuted. yet another lie.

The easy solution is the question I asked. What do people here think the state of the fossil evidence for human evolution is? The effect of how the media presents the evidence is cumulative. You have places like new york times, the natural history of museum etc present a conclusive front rather than representing the uncertainty

If I were to use a source on his testimony, that you consider creationist, it would be this one

http://www.discovery.org/a/9961

enjoy

stop asking stupid questions. Do you really think its now impossible to find information about a book online? Pandas Thumb and other evolutionist blogs, evolutionnews.org, the amazon page for the book has discussions, there is at least one lengthy review of it from a phd student etc. you can be annoying when you go full retard.

I just realized I'm defending someone else's choice of words. I did try to explain what was meant though.



On another note, do you believe in a global flood or not?

wth? I should have known that you only kept talking about fallacies because you were a walking, talking fallacy factory.

semitope
09-14-2012, 01:02 PM
Of course not. You're not here to learn anything. You are here to proselytize.

and another one does it. So predictable.

JFizzle23
09-14-2012, 01:02 PM
ITT: arguing about the only logical conclusion we can draw as to how we got here.

It may or may not be true. I understand that. And I currently believe in evolution as it makes sense and has enough evidence to back itself up. What other explanation do you have for how we got here?

PaulG
09-14-2012, 01:06 PM
The easy solution is the question I asked. What do people here think the state of the fossil evidence for human evolution is?

The same reason forensics can determine if you're the father of a child, or whom your great great great grandmother is. Bones themselves are neat and all, very ancient Darwinist when not looking deeper. But, we can extract information from bones to find heritages, which furthers a more detailed analysis of evolution.

It may be a few hundred years that we will beable to sequence dinosaurs from stones their fossilized in, the technology is getting so good.

BeefyMcNasty
09-14-2012, 01:11 PM
Would love it if you guys stopped bringing up religion every time.

Isn't religion the very reason you have a vendetta against evolution? You do all this because evolution goes against the bibles incestual account of how life spawned on earth. All your motives are religious, so religion is fair game in every one of your posts.

Meatros
09-14-2012, 01:12 PM
played only the testimony. What you said he said is what the OP argues against, not a complete record (which apparently, to him, is having every generation).

Let's review, your link states this:
While popular media often reports that the fossil record is complete and conclusive, the technical scientific literature reveals this to be false. In actuality, human-like fossils and ape-like fossil are clearly distinct from one another, and the so-called transitional fossil record is highly fragmented.

The bolded portion has not been evidenced. This is not what Wetherington said and he specifically made pains to argue against this. So this is false, despite your attempt to finagle out of it.

The underlined portion is a vague opinion - if the author is suggesting that the fossil record doesn't support a clear transition of hominid fossils, then the author is clearly mistaken - as the Skull Challenge aptly demonstrates. If the author is suggesting that there are 'gaps' between species, well, that's trivial as Wetherington explains.


He was also telling them that irreducible complexity was refuted. yet another lie.

This is your unevidenced opinion either support it or retract it.


The easy solution is the question I asked. What do people here think the state of the fossil evidence for human evolution is? The effect of how the media presents the evidence is cumulative. You have places like new york times, the natural history of museum etc present a conclusive front rather than representing the uncertainty

I'd say the state is better than we should expect, given how difficult it is for something to fossilize.

Your point about how the media presents the evidence is unevidenced and ambiguous, either support it or retract it.


If I were to use a source on his testimony, that you consider creationist, it would be this one

"consider creationist"? Do you not consider it a creationist source? Further, I provided a direct link to his testimony, it did not demonstrate what you or your link claimed.


enjoy

stop asking stupid questions. Do you really think its now impossible to find information about a book online? Pandas Thumb and other evolutionist blogs, evolutionnews.org, the amazon page for the book has discussions, there is at least one lengthy review of it from a phd student etc. you can be annoying when you go full retard.


Ah, I take you seriously, I refute your claims and you hurl insults (bolded).

The fact is your source was shown to be dishonest and you were shown to have not listened to the testimony. In fact, you seem to admit - in this post - that you just now listened to the testimony.

As to what I was asking for, I asked where you read it. Not where it could be read. You are now casting up red herrings.


I just realized I'm defending someone else's choice of words. I did try to explain what was meant though.

Yet you didn't post a direct link. Perhaps it's because your 'interpretation' of what was said would be different? Just like your OP's source for this massive media conspiracy to present 'evolutionist lies', of which you've produced zero evidence.


wth? I should have known that you only kept talking about fallacies because you were a walking, talking fallacy factory.

This is avoidance. One of your prior posts disregards evidence because the said evidence doesn't take into account a global flood (or did you not read what you actually posted earlier in this thread?). So do you believe in a global flood?

If you don't, then obviously you don't trust your creationistwiki source.

Meatros
09-14-2012, 01:17 PM
Since I'm on a roll of busting up Semitopian falsehoods, I'll remind him that he forgot to answer the skull challenge. Let's remember, he believes his source, which states:

In actuality, human-like fossils and ape-like fossil are clearly distinct from one another

Okay, then Semitope should have no problem with the skull challenge:

Below are some legitimate transitional hominid fossils taken from Talk Origins [7]. How does creationist theory explain them?

http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/comdesc/images/hominids2.jpg
Picture found here (http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/comdesc/section1.html#morphological_intermediates_ex3) if image doesn't display.

Above is a picture of skull fossils, over millions of years that shows our evolution from a primate ancestor. How does creationism explain this picture? In the picture above, creationists must tell us which skulls are monkey skulls and which are hominid skulls. They must do so and tell us through what objective means did they come to their conclusion. An explanation must come from them from the ‘Creationist theory’ or else it is a bankrupt theory.

Evolution explains this morphology perfectly, however creationism can’t objectively account for them. Furthermore there is no objective means to establish a clear cut off point for a different ‘kind’.

In fact, according to this Talk Origins page, creationists have tried to give an account-only to contradict each other! On the same page is a graph comparing the opinions below the text comment:

"As this table shows, although creationists are adamant that none of these are transitional and all are either apes or humans, they are not able to tell which are which. In fact, there are a number of creationists who have changed their opinion on some fossils. They do not even appear to be converging towards a consistent opinion. Gish and Taylor both used to consider Peking Man an ape and 1470 a human, but now Gish says they are both apes, and Taylor says they were both humans. Interestingly, widely differing views are held by two of the most prominent creationist researchers on human origins, Gish and Lubenow. Bowden, who has also written a book on human evolution, agrees with neither of them, and Mehlert, who has written a number of articles on human evolution in creationist journals, has yet another opinion, as does Cuozzo in his 1998 book on Neandertals. Cuozzo has taken the most extreme stance yet for a young-earth creationist, saying that even H. erectus fossils (in which he includes the Turkana Boy) should not be considered human. (Old-earth creationist Hugh Ross takes an even more extreme stance, claiming that not even Neandertals should be classified as human.)

It could be pointed out that evolutionists also disagree on how fossils should be classified, which species they belong to, etc. True enough. But according to evolutionary thinking, these fossils come from a number of closely related species intermediate between apes and humans. If this is so, we would expect to find that some of them are hard to classify, and we do.
Creationists, on the other hand, assert that apes and humans are separated by a wide gap. If this is true, deciding on which side of that gap individual fossils lie should be trivially easy. Clearly, that is not the case."[8]

Meatros
09-14-2012, 01:19 PM
What other explanation do you have for how we got here?

There is no other scientific explanation currently. Lysenkoism and lamarkianism are no longer viable.

TH3SHR3DD3R
09-14-2012, 01:30 PM
inb4 and after semitopian obfuscation.

semitope
09-14-2012, 02:14 PM
Since I'm on a roll of busting up Semitopian falsehoods

you aren't on a roll. You're just insisting you are right no matter what. Nothing I am saying is really getting through. I answered your question, but you really need to stop asking stupid questions. Where was the book discussed? I have to document everything I read for you now? seriously.

You didn't show the source to be dishonest, you showed that you could interpret what was said differently. His statements about gaps was not one that represented the situation accurately. He wasn't even really saying there were actual gaps and he certainly did not convey any doubt about the fossil record for human evolution. Weird that you are saying this considering he did say there were no gaps twice before talking about the gaps-that-aren't-really-gaps. I expect you to colour it pink so meh.


This is avoidance. One of your prior posts disregards evidence because the said evidence doesn't take into account a global flood (or did you not read what you actually posted earlier in this thread?). So do you believe in a global flood?

it was a quote and i already addressed why I post it. you are being a pain. I'm not expecting you to suddenly see it differently so I have to be trying to figure out what is meaningful to reply to and what isn't.

Skull challenge? Why should i take it on myself to start guessing at this?

Personally, fossils are just dead things. A man can have a skull the shape of any of those and still be a man. You have to understand that what I am doing here is thinking in a context. My reasons for rejecting this theory are not fossil related. I am criticizing the darwinian paradigm from the perspective of one who might consider fossil evidence pivotal, should they not have another reason to reject the theory (information, facts of biology etc etc.) I really have no reason to be sorting skulls. *shrug*

semitope
09-14-2012, 02:17 PM
ITT: arguing about the only logical conclusion we can draw as to how we got here.

It may or may not be true. I understand that. And I currently believe in evolution as it makes sense and has enough evidence to back itself up. What other explanation do you have for how we got here?

are you looking for a materialist explanation or are you open to anything else? There is no doubt that ID is a far better explanation of what we observe than evolution. The problem comes in when we place artificial limitations on science and limit where we can go based on the evidence.

semitope
09-14-2012, 02:18 PM
In reply to all of meatros' posts in this thread


Executive Summary

At the January 21, 2009 experts’ hearing to review the draft TEKS, SMU anthropologist Ronald Wetherington confidently assured the Texas State Board of Education that there were no weaknesses in Darwinian evolution for students to learn about. Yet as the following review documents, Dr. Wetherington in his testimony frequently misstated or exaggerated the scientific evidence for his position, and he made repeated outright errors in what he told the Board. Dr. Wetherington’s inaccurate testimony reflects the unfortunate tendency of some members of the “evolution lobby” to offer unsubstantiated arguments to public officials that they would never make to their professional colleagues.

Misstatements and outright errors by Dr. Wetherington included:

insisting that scientists don’t use the term “missing link” (they do).
identifying rodents as a vertebrate class (they aren’t).
asserting that all vertebrates appeared in the past 65 million years (they didn’t).
asserting that the Cambrian explosion of life took “at least 25 million years,” and that it does not record the appearance of many animal phyla (leading paleontologists disagree).
claiming that Hox genes do not accumulate mutations, or are not thought to evolve by accumulating mutations (wrong on both counts).
misrepresenting the scientific evidence for human evolution and transitional forms, ignoring expert opinions in his own field that run counter to his own and making gross generalizations about supposed transitional forms that are not supported by the fossil record.
making scientifically unsubstantiated claims about the evolution of the eye.
overstating the case for genetic and biochemical evolution.
asserting that the debate over irreducible complexity “is over” even though he admitted he is not an expert in this field, and he seems unaware of the scientific evidence that contradicts his position.
Dr. Wetherington’s one-sided and error-ridden testimony is a good example of why it is so important for students to be encouraged to critically examine the weaknesses as well as strengths of scientific explanations, especially on controversial issues like Darwinian evolution where some in the scientific community have adopted the role of lobbyists rather than even-handed educators.

Scientific Errors and Misstatements in Prof. Wetherington’s Testimony

A. Error about the Term “Missing Link”

Prof. Wetherington asserted to the Board that “[t]he term missing link is something that the media uses but science doesn’t,” when in fact the term “missing link” is found in many scientific journals and mainstream publications by scientists, including journals such as Science, Nature, Paleobiology, and the American Journal of Physical Anthropology, and journals and publications issued by the U.S. National Academy of Sciences. Here is just a sampling of mainstream scientific articles that use the term “missing link” in the context of evolutionary intermediates and the fossil evidence for evolution:

Edward O. Wilson, “Discovery of a Missing Link,” pg. 15 in National Academy of Sciences, Teaching About Evolution and the Nature of Science (National Academy Press, 1998).
William A. Oliver, Jr., “The Relationship of the Scleractinian Corals to the Rugose Corals,” Paleobiology, Vol. 6, No. 2. (Spring, 1980), pp. 146-160.
Jeheskel Shoshani, Robert C. Walter, Michael Abraha, Seife Berhe, Pascal Tassy, William J. Sanders, Gary H. Marchant, Yosief Libsekal, Tesfalidet Ghirmai, and Dietmar Zinner, “A proboscidean from the late Oligocene of Eritrea, a ‘missing link’ between early Elephantiformes and Elephantimorpha, and biogeographic implications,” Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, Vol. 103: 17296–17301 (Nov. 3, 2006).
Stern, J. T. & Susman, R. L. “The locomotor anatomy of Australopithecus afarensis,” American Journal of Physical Anthropology, Vol. 60, 279-317 (1983).
Ann Gibbons, “Java Skull Offers New View Of Homo erectus,” Science, Vol. 299:1293 (Feb. 28, 2003).
Timothy Rowe, Richard A. Ketcham, Cambria Denison, Matthew Colbert, Xing Xu, Philip J. Currie, “The Archaeoraptor forgery,” Nature, Vol. 410:539-540 (March 29, 2001).

semitope
09-14-2012, 02:19 PM
GO ahead and refute these point by point please. Otherwise you are not someone worth listening to.


B. Misrepresentation of the Timing of the Cambrian Explosion

Prof. Wetherington insisted to the Board that “the Cambrian explosion took place over at least 25 million years, perhaps longer,” when in fact various leading experts on the Cambrian explosion have concluded that it took less than 10 million years. Robert Carroll stated in an authoritative review article in the leading journal Trends in Ecology and Evolution (TREE) that the Cambrian explosion took less than ten million years:

The most conspicuous event in metazoan evolution was the dramatic origin of major new structures and body plans documented by the Cambrian explosion 10,11. Until 530 million years ago, multicellular animals consisted primarily of simple, soft-bodied forms, most of which have been identified from the fossil record as cnidarians and sponges. Then, within less then 10 million years, almost all of the advanced phyla appeared, including echinoderms, chordates, annelids, brachiopods, molluscs and a host of arthropods. The extreme speed of anatomical change and adaptive radiation during this brief time period requires explanations that go beyond those proposed for the evolution of species within the modern biota.1
Likewise, an article in the journal Development by three Cambrian explosion experts explains that, “The Cambrian explosion is named for the geologically sudden appearance of numerous metazoan body plans (many of living phyla) between about 530 and 520 million years ago, only 1.7% of the duration of the fossil record of animals.”2 Another article in a major evolution journal states that “recent geological investigations suggest that the Cambrian explosion may have occurred with a period of only 5-10 million years.”3 At the very least, this shows evidence of a scientific controversy over length of the Cambrian explosion that Wetherington did not acknowledge.

C. Misrepresentation of the Phyla Appearing during the Cambrian Explosion

Prof. Wetherington insinuated that the Cambrian explosion does not record the appearance of many animal phyla, stating that “People talk about the vast number of phyla that appear that the Cambrian explosion” but then objecting that “In fact, there are two phyla that dominate the entire record.” The truth is that experts have found that nearly 70% (19 out of 28) of the known living animal phyla for which we have a fossil record make their first appearance in the Cambrian, as can be seen in the list below:

Phyla Known from the Precambrian: 3 Phyla (possibility of a fourth):
Cnidaria4
Porifera5
Gelatinosa (lower Cambrian)
Nuda

Phyla that Appear in the Cambrian: 19 Phyla
Annelida6
Arthropoda7
Brachiopoda8
Chaetognatha9
Chordata10
Coeloscleritophora11
Ctenophora12
Echinodermata13
Halkieriida14
Hemichordata15
Hyolitha16
Mollusca17
Nematoda18
Onychophora19
Phoronida20
Pogonophora21
Priapula22
Tardigrada23
Tardipolypoda24

Phyla that Appear in Later Geologic Periods: 6 Phyla
Ordovician: Bryozoa/Ectoprocta25
Devonian: Echiura26
Pennsylvanian: Nemertina27
Jurassic: Entoprocta28
Tertiary: Nematomorpha,29 Rotifera.30

Phyla With No Known Fossil Record: 12 Phyla
Acanthocephala,31 Cycliophora,32 Dicyemida, Gastrotricha,33 Gnathostomulida,34 Kinoryncha,35 Loricifera,36 Orthonoectida, Pentastoma,37 Placozoa,38 Platyhelminthes,39 Sipuncula.40
D. Errors about Taxonomy, Classification, and Vertebrate History

Prof. Wetherington’s testimony included other errors about taxonomy, classification, and vertebrate history. He claimed that in the early Tertiary period “every vertebrate that we know emerged,” when the truth is that vertebrates extend back long before the Tertiary period. He also wrongly claimed that “the major classes, rodentia, mammalian, etcetera, emerged and diversified during this period of time,” when in fact rodentia is not a class (it’s an order of mammals) and all vertebrate classes predate the Tertiary period (including all classes of fish, and all tetrapod classes such as mammalia, amphibia, reptilia, and aves). Wetherington gave the board patently inaccurate information about the fossil record of vertebrates. Indeed, what Wetherington failed to disclose is that there are vertebrate fish in the Cambrian explosion, for which there are no known evolutionary precursors whatsoever.41

E. Errors about Hox Genes and Evolution

Prof. Wetherington assured the Board that “we can say, that what we know about basic genes that are responsible for biological form, the so-called Hox genes, do not require mutations to change from one kind of animal to another.” But, as many textbooks explain, “The origin of genetic variation is mutation,”42 and so it is preposterous for Wetherington to suggest that Hox genes could lead to evolution without some form of mutation. Wetherington’s outlandish statement notwithstanding, Darwinian biologists themselves certainly claim it is through mutations that Hox genes produce evolution.43 The problem with this claim is that mutations in Hox genes are usually harmful to organisms, making the mutations an unlikely mechanism for major evolutionary change. This was pointed out in an article in Nature:

Homeotic mutations that reshuffle parts do happen, and sometimes they may have led to fixation of real evolutionary novelties, but this does not mean that such changes are implied in the majority of speciations. In fact, macromutations of this sort are probably frequently maladaptive, in contrast to the vast number of past and present species-not to mention the fact that morphological differences between related species can be minute.44
In this case, Wetherington is doubly-wrong: contrary to his claim, mutations in Hox genes most certainly are claimed as a mechanism of evolution, but this proposed evolutionary mechanism has been criticized as unlikely because such “macromutations” are typically harmful to an organism.

semitope
09-14-2012, 02:19 PM
falsifying your claims... continued


F. Misrepresentations of the Evidence for Human Evolutionary Origins

Prof. Wetherington asserted that when it comes to human evolution, we have “arguably the most complete sequence of fossil succession of any mammal in the world. No gaps. No lack of transitional fossils. … So when people talk about the lack of transitional fossils or gaps in the fossil record, it absolutely is not true.” Though this is supposed to be Wetherington’s area of expertise, again we see him dramatically overstating the evidence as well as failing to acknowledge counter-opinions by experts within his own field.

Wetherington mentioned by name only three allegedly transitional fossil species. However, the quality of these alleged “transitional fossils” leaves much to be desired and their status as human ancestors is in fact disputed by some paleontological data.

The first fossil mentioned by Wetherington was Sahelanthropus tchadensis. But this fossil (also called the “Toumai skull”) is known only from one skull and some jaw fragments, and one leading researcher said “I tend towards thinking this is the skull of a female gorilla.”45 Wetherington bluffed when he told the TSBOE that we know this fossil qualifies as a transitional form leading to humans. Indeed, leading paleoanthropologists have warned in the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences (USA) that tooth and and skull bones alone are insufficient to properly classify or understand a hominid species:

Rather, our results show that the type of craniodental characters that have hitherto been used in hominin phylogenetics are probably not reliable for reconstructing the phylogenetic relationships of higher primate species and genera, including those among the hominins.46
Another bluff from Wetherington came when he claimed that “Every fossil we find reinforces the sequence that we had previously supposed to exist rather than suggesting something different.” But in fact this Toumai skull, first published in 2002, provides an excellent counterexample to his wildly false assertion. Commenting on the Toumai skull in the journal Nature, leading paleoanthropologist Bernard Wood began an article by observing, “A single fossil can fundamentally change the way we reconstruct the tree of life. He goes on to state:

If we accept these as sufficient evidence to classify S. tchadensis as a hominid at the base, or stem, of the modern human clade, then it plays havoc with the tidy model of human origins. Quite simply, a hominid of this age should only just be beginning to show signs of being a hominid. It certainly should not have the face of a hominid less than one-third of its geological age. Also, if it is accepted as a stem hominid, under the tidy model the principle of parsimony dictates that all creatures with more primitive faces (and that is a very long list) would, perforce, have to be excluded from the ancestry of modern humans.47
In other words, if we accept the Toumai skull as the stem ancestor of humans, as Professor Wetherington does, then many other alleged hominid species—including the other species mentioned by Wetherington that are discussed below—could not be counted as ancestors of humans.

Professor Wetherington stated that it “is not true” that there are gaps in the fossil record for the origin “for our own species, rather than for some others,” but paleoanthropological expert Wood states that fossils like this show “compelling evidence that our own origins are as complex and as difficult to trace as those of any other group of organisms.”48 Indeed, Harvard zoologist Richard Lewontin wrote in 1995 that

When we consider the remote past, before the origin of the actual species Homo sapiens, we are faced with a fragmentary and disconnected fossil record. Despite the excited and optimistic claims that have been made by some paleontologists, no fossil hominid species can be established as our direct ancestor.49
Again, it is clear that Wetherington is bluffing to claim there are “no gaps” in the fossil evidence for human evolution. If the Toumai skull represents a transitional fossil which allegedly plugs a “gap” and doesn’t “play havoc” with the proclaimed human evolutionary tree, then the evidence for human evolution must be quite weak indeed.

Wetherington next mentioned Ardipithecus as an alleged transitional form leading to humans—but this fossil too has highly fragmented remains, and has been called a hominid primarily on the basis of some of its teeth.50 Its extremely fragmented remains prevent paleoanthropologists from determining much about this species, including questions such as whether it walked upright.51 Paleoanthropologist Tim White has called the record of early hominids from this period, “a black hole in the fossil record,”52 and the few fossils that are known are based upon limited remains wherein it is not possible to make firm conclusions about these fossils.53

Despite the questions about Ardipithecus, Wetherington claimed that it “became Australopithecus afarensis 4 million years ago.” He based this claim (presumably) upon a paper by Tim White in 2006, but this paper starts by admitting that “The origin of Australopithecus, the genus widely interpreted as ancestral to Homo, is a central problem in human evolutionary studies. Australopithecus species differ markedly from extant African apes and candidate ancestral hominids such as Ardipithecus, Orrorin and Sahelanthropus.”54 And the evidence that allegedly made one species intermediate was its “masticatory robusticity" (in other words, its ability to chew harder stuff). This does not make for an impressive evolutionary scheme, and again this claim is based entirely upon reconstructed tooth fragments which, as noted, have been highly criticized by leading paleontologists as a form of data on which to base claims of hominid Phylogenetic relationships.55

And what about Australopithecus? Australopithecus literally means “Southern Ape,” and despite Wetherington’s claim that there is “no lack of transitional fossils,” there is a stark lack of intermediates between the ape-like australopithecines and the genus Homo. Indeed, in 2004 in his book What Makes Biology Unique?: Considerations on the Autonomy of a Scientific Discipline, the leading evolutionary biologist Ernst Mayr stated: "The earliest fossils of Homo, Homo rudolfensis and Homo erectus, are separated from Australopithecus by a large, unbridged gap. How can we explain this seeming saltation? Not having any fossils that can serve as missing links, we have to fall back on the time-honored method of historical science, the construction of a historical narrative."56

Contrary to Wetherington’s claims that the basic evolutionary hypothesis about the human lineage is never being altered, a 1999 article in Science by leaders in paleoanthropology found that Homo habilis should be classified as an australopithecine,57 and an article titled “African fossils paint messy picture of human evolution” reported that how new fossil finds prevented Homo habilis from being part of our family tree:

The old theory was that the first and oldest species in our family tree, Homo habilis, evolved into Homo erectus, which then became us, Homo sapiens. But those two earlier species lived side-by-side about 1.5 million years ago in parts of Kenya for at least half a million years, Leakey and colleagues report in a paper published in Thursday's journal Nature. In 2000 Leakey found an old H. erectus complete skull within walking distance of an upper jaw of the H. habilis, and both dated from the same general time period. That makes it unlikely that H. erectus evolved from H. habilis, researchers said.58
With habilis removed from our direct ancestry, what exactly is the direct ancestor of Homo linking back to the australopithecines? Two paleoanthropologists wrote in Nature in 2005 that we don’t know the direct ancestor of our genus Homo:

[An early form of Homo] marks such a radical departure from previous forms of Homo (such as H. habilis) in its height, reduced sexual dimorphism, long limbs and modern body proportions that it is hard at present to identify its immediate ancestry in east Africa. Not for nothing has it been described as a hominin “without an ancestor, without a clear past.”59
Likewise, an article in the Journal of Human Evolution stated:

The anatomy of the earliest H. sapiens sample indicates significant modifications of the ancestral genome and is not simply an extension of evolutionary trends in an earlier australopithecine lineage throughout the Pliocene. In fact, its combination of features never appears earlier...60
These authors said the origin of Homo required “a genetic revolution” where “no australopithecine species is obviously transitional.” One commentator said this shows a “big bang theory” of human origins because “[t]he first members of early Homo sapiens are really quite distinct from their australopithecine predecessors and contemporaries.”61

Contrary to this data, Wetherington asserted in his testimony that the origin of our species represents “a gradualistic evolutionary change,” despite the fact that there are clear gaps in the record. Indeed, one paper in the Journal of Human Evolution found that the origin of key features of our genus Homo was anything but gradual: “It appears from the hominid fossil record of pelvic bones that two periods of stasis exist and are separated by a period of very rapid evolution corresponding to the emergence of the genus Homo.”62

In contrast to these tentative admissions from paleoanthropologists, Wetherington makes firm and dogmatic statements that dramatically overstate the fossil evidence for human origins. Compare Wetherington’s dogmatic assertions to the following comment by an editor of Nature: “Fossil evidence of human evolutionary history is fragmentary and open to various interpretations.”63 Clearly Wetherington misrepresented the completeness of the evidence for human evolution, and there are indeed many gaps in the record of human origins.

this one is about fossils. Still not sure why on earth you maintained that he wasn't overstating the science when his own words are right there.

lee4
09-14-2012, 02:20 PM
It is a complete waste of time for sure. This issue isn't one of those that many of you are free to think deeply about.


it has nothing to do with "thinking deeply".


the way you disprove evolution is to recreate its supporting experiments and show that you do not obtain the same results.

which demonstrable claim supporting evolution have you done that to...ever??? post the vid, please.


i'm sorry, go back to "convincing" the world it's wrong...rather than demonstrating it.

semitope
09-14-2012, 02:20 PM
G. Overstatement of the Scientific Evidence for Eye Evolution

Charles Darwin marveled at the complexity of the eye, admitting in a letter that “the eye...gives me a cold shudder.” Darwin ultimately chose to believe that the eye could be explained by numerous successive slight modifications, and Wetherington echoed Darwin’s arguments in his testimony, stating: “The complex eye, we know now, has intermediate stages. … [W]hat we find is in the seawaters today, there are animals that have only eyespots, with a retina that detects light. There are others that have a retina plus a lens but nothing else. There are others that have a cornea that covers over but not a lens. So we have all of these individual components having a function independently of others which the idea of irreducible complexity denies.” But Wetherington grossly overstated the state of the scientific data and thinking regarding the evolution of the eye.

First, Wetherington’s evolutionary scheme requires at its beginning an eyespot, and he seems to assume that this is easy to evolve. But Wetherington ignores the advice of the staunchly pro-evolution biologist Sean B. Carroll who cautions regarding such eyespots: “But do not be fooled by these eyes’ simple construction and appearance. They are built with and use many of the ingredients used in fancier eyes.”64 Likewise, after reviewing some of the basic biochemistry underlying the processes that allow vision, biochemist Michael Behe (responding to evolutionary biologist Richard Dawkins) observes: “Remember that the ‘light-sensitive spot’ that Dawkins takes as his starting point requires a cascade of factors including 11-cis retinal and rhodopsin, to function. Dawkins doesn’t mention them.”65 Nor did Wetherington.

Second, like many Darwinist accounts of the evolution of the eye, Wetherington’s evolutionary scheme lacks details, ignores biochemical complexity, and requires significant evolutionary jumps in eye morphology. It is not, as Darwin put it, a scheme of “fine gradations.” Like many other evolutionary schemes for the evolution of the eye, it invokes the sudden appearance of a light-sensitive spot, a lens, and a cornea. But where did these parts suddenly come from? Of course the subsequent addition of each of these features could increase visual acuity. But he has not accounted for how they arose in the first place.

When pressed for documentation of his evolutionary scheme of the eye, Wetherington alluded to the book Darwin’s Gift To Science and Religion, which, when read closely, confirms that evolutionists lack anything like an evolutionary explanation for the origin of the eye.66 This book starts with a “light-sensitive spot,” stating, “Some multicellular animals exhibit light-sensitive spots on their epidermis,”67 but of course it provides no explanation for the origin of that light-sensitive spot. Moreover, this book had no example of Wetherington’s claimed “cornea that covers over but not a lens” stage.

Rather, the book simply asserts that, “Further steps—the deposition of pigment around the spot, configuration of cells into a cuplike shape, thickening of the epidermis leading to the development of a lens, development of muscles to move the eyes and nerves to transmit optical signals to the brain—gradually led to the highly developed eyes of vertebrates and celphalopod (octopuses and squids) and to the compound eyes of insects.”68 This explanation, however, is extremely vague, and shows no appreciation for the biochemical complexity of these visual organs. For example, regarding the configuration of cells into a cuplike shape, Michael Behe asks (responding to Richard Dawkins on the same point):

And where did the “little cup” come from? A ball of cells—from which the cup must be made—will tend to be rounded unless held in the correct shape by molecular supports. In fact, there are dozens of complex proteins involved in maintaining cell shape, and dozens more that control extracellular structure; in their absence, cells take on the shape of so many soap bubbles. Do these structures represent single-step mutations? Dawkins did not tell us how the apparently simple “cup” shape came to be.69

Wetherington and his sources provide no explanation. It’s no wonder Wetherington cited this book as his reference: like his own testimony, it provides only a vague description of eye anatomy with no regard whatsoever for the complexity of the underlying biochemical processes that underlie vision. Mathematician David Berlinski has assessed the alleged “intermediates” for the evolution of the eye and observes that the transmission of nervous signals from the eye comprise an integrated system that is not amenable to stepwise evolution:

Light strikes the eye in the form of photons, but the optic nerve conveys electrical impulses to the brain. Acting as a sophisticated transducer, the eye must mediate between two different physical signals. The retinal cells that figure in Dawkins' account are connected to horizontal cells; these shuttle information laterally between photoreceptors in order to smooth the visual signal. Amacrine cells act to filter the signal. Bipolar cells convey visual information further to ganglion cells, which in turn conduct information to the optic nerve. The system gives every indication of being tightly integrated, its parts mutually dependent. The very problem that Darwin's theory was designed to evade now reappears. Like vibrations passing through a spider's web, changes to any part of the eye, if they are to improve vision, must bring about changes throughout the optical system. Without a correlative increase in the size and complexity of the optic nerve, an increase in the number of photoreceptive membranes can have no effect. A change in the optic nerve must in turn induce corresponding neurological changes in the brain. If these changes come about simultaneously, it makes no sense to talk of a gradual ascent of Mount Improbable. If they do not come about simultaneously, it is not clear why they should come about at all. The same problem reappears at the level of biochemistry. Dawkins has framed his discussion in terms of gross anatomy. Each anatomical change that he describes requires a number of coordinate biochemical steps. “[T]he anatomical steps and structures that Darwin thought were so simple,” the biochemist Mike Behe remarks in a provocative new book (Darwin’s Black Box), “actually involve staggeringly complicated biochemical processes.” A number of separate biochemical events are required simply to begin the process of curving a layer of proteins to form a lens. What initiates the sequence? How is it coordinated? And how controlled? On these absolutely fundamental matters, Dawkins has nothing whatsoever to say.70
Nor does Wetherington, nor the book he cites, nor any other evolutionist have any idea about the details of eye evolution. Wetherington makes vague allusions to evolutionary accounts for the origin of the eye but he has not actually shown how the eye could arise, in Darwin’s words, via “numerous successive slight modifications.”


Semitope uses "walls of text". The above is interesting

TH3SHR3DD3R
09-14-2012, 02:21 PM
Definitively in after semitopian obfuscation.

All of your qualms with the ToE do not evidence for ID make.

BeefyMcNasty
09-14-2012, 02:21 PM
semitope uses "walls of text"

qft

semitope
09-14-2012, 02:22 PM
my brain hurts listening to evolutionists talk. Doing it right now. I just want to get in their heads to find out why on earth they are ignoring all the road signs. They are almost always atheists tho.


H. Overstatement of the Evidence for Genetic and Biochemical Evolution

During his testimony, Prof. Wetherington claimed that with the modern discovery of genetic and biochemical basis for variation, “evolution by natural selection became an even better and even more complete explanation by utilizing and incorporating genetics.” But the truth is that the more we have learned about genetics and biochemistry, the less Darwinism has succeeded as an explanation for the origin of biological complexity.

Lehigh University biochemist Michael Behe has pointed out that Darwin assumed that the cell was like a primitive blob of protoplasm that could easily evolve new biological functions. As Behe explains, “To Darwin, then, as to every other scientist of the time, the cell was a black box. ... The question of how life works was not one that Darwin or his contemporaries could answer.”71 But could such integrated complexity evolve in a stepwise, Darwinian fashion? Behe recalls that in Origin of Species, Darwin admitted that if “any complex organ existed which could not possibly have been formed by numerous, successive, slight modifications, my theory would absolutely break down.”72 According to Behe, “by opening the ultimate black box, the cell,” modern biochemistry “has pushed Darwin's theory to the limit.”73

Modern technology has allowed biochemists to open Darwin’s “black box,” revealing a micro-world of mind-boggling complexity. Even leading proponents of evolution have acknowledged this complexity. The more we discover about the cell, the more we are learning that it functions like a miniature factory, replete with motors, powerhouses, garbage disposals, guarded gates, transportation corridors, and most importantly, CPUs. The central information processing machinery of the cell runs on a language-based code composed of irreducibly complex circuits and machines: The myriad enzymes used in the process that converts the genetic information in DNA into proteins are themselves created by the process that converts DNA into proteins.

The problem for Darwinists is obvious: The simplest cell won’t function unless this basic machinery is intact, so how does such complexity evolve via a “blind” and “undirected” Darwinian process of numerous, successive, slight modifications? The simplest cell requires hundreds of genes, numerous complex biological machines and biochemical pathways, and blind natural selection acting on random mutations has failed to provide Darwinian explanations for how basic cellular biochemistry might have evolved.

Five years after Behe published his book Darwin’s Black Box, biochemist Franklin Harold conceded in an Oxford University Press monograph that “there are presently no detailed Darwinian accounts of the evolution of any biochemical or cellular system, only a variety of wishful speculations.”74 Likewise, two leading biologists admitted in the journal Annual Review of Genomics and Human Genetics:

Domain shuffling aside, it remains a mystery how the undirected process of mutation, combined with natural selection, has resulted in the creation of thousands of new proteins with extraordinarily diverse and well-optimized functions. This problem is particularly acute for tightly integrated molecular systems that consist of many interacting parts, such as ligands, receptors, and the downstream regulatory factors with which they interact. In these systems, it is not clear how a new function for any protein might be selected for unless the other members of the complex are already present, creating a molecular version of the ancient evolutionary riddle of the chicken and the egg.75
Indeed, there are severe doubts among scientists about whether modern genetics can even provide the raw materials needed to generate biological complexity through an evolutionary process. One study recently published in the journal Genetics attempted to rebut Professor Behe with regards to biochemical evolution within species with shorter generation times (like fruit flies)76 but nonetheless acknowledged that when dealing with longer-lived organisms like humans:

Our previous work has shown that, in humans, a new transcription factor binding site can be created by a single mutation in an average of 60,000 years, but, as our new results show, a coordinated pair of mutations that first inactivates a binding site and then creates a new one is very unlikely to occur on a reasonable timescale.77
This mathematical study found that the amount of time to simply generate a new binding site via evolutionary processes “for humans with a much smaller effective population size, this type of change would take > 100 million years.” Since humans have existed at most for a few million years, it would seem that Darwinian evolution has an unmovable obstacle in its way. As molecular biologist Douglas Axe observed when commenting on this recent Genetics paper:

Do you see the problem? On the one hand we’re supposed to believe that the Darwinian mechanism converted a proto-insect into a stunning array of radically different life forms (termites, beetles, ants, wasps, bees, dragonflies, stick insects, aphids, fleas, flies, mantises, cockroaches, moths, butterflies, etc., each group with its own diversity) well within the space of 400 million years. But on the other hand, when we actually do the math we find that a single insignificant conversion of binding sites would reasonably be expected to consume all of that time. The contrast could hardly be more stark: The Darwinian story hopes to explain all the remarkable transformations within 400 million years, but the math shows that it actually explains no remarkable transformation in that time. If that doesn’t call for a serious rethink, it’s hard to imagine what would.78
Even if some scientists believe that neo-Darwinian evolution can explain genetic and biochemical evolution, there are other scientists who feel it is failing to provide such explanations. Professor Wetherington wants to censor from students any mention of their viewpoints, pretending there is no scientific debate on this topic.

semitope
09-14-2012, 02:23 PM
I. Misrepresentation of the Controversy over Irreducible Complexity

Prof. Wetherington dogmatically asserted that biochemist Michael Behe’s arguments about irreducible complexity have been refuted, claiming: “That debate is over” because “the evidence for irreducible complexity had been satisfactorily falsified.” Clearly, this debate is not over since there are scientific publications that have supported Behe’s notions of irreducible complexity, including:

W.-E. Lönnig, “Dynamic genomes, morphological stasis and the origin of irreducible complexity,” Dynamical Genetics, Pp. 101-119 (2004).
W.-E. Lönnig & H. Saedler, “Chromosome Rearrangements and Transposable Elements,” Annual Review of Genetics, Vol. 36:389-410 (2002).
Richard A. Watson, Compositional Evolution (MIT Press, 2006).
Michael J. Behe and David W. Snoke, “Simulating Evolution by Gene Duplication of Protein Features That Require Multiple Amino Acid Residues,” Protein Science, Vol. 13: 2651-2664 (2004).
Michael J. Behe, “Reply to My Critics: A Response to Reviews of Darwin’s Black Box: The Biochemical Challenge to Evolution,” Biology and Philosophy, Vol. 16: 685–709, (2001).
Michael J. Behe, “Self-Organization and Irreducibly Complex Systems: A Reply to Shanks and Joplin,” Philosophy of Science, Vol. 67:155-162 (March 2000).
Michael J. Behe and David W. Snoke, “A response to Michael Lynch,” Protein Science, Vol. 14:2226-2227 (2005).
Michael J. Behe, “Irreducible complexity: obstacle to Darwinian evolution,” in Debating Design: From Darwin to DNA, Pp. 352-370 (Cambridge University Press, 2004)
Wolf-Ekkehard Lönnig, Kurt Stüber, Heinz Saedler, Jeong Hee Kim, “Biodiversity and Dollo’s Law: To What Extent can the Phenotypic Differences between Misopates orontium and Antirrhinum majus be Bridged by Mutagenesis?,” Bioremediation, Biodiversity and Bioavailability, Vol. 1:1-30 (2007).
Stephen C. Meyer, “The origin of biological information and the higher taxonomic categories,” Proceedings of the Biological Society of Washington, Vol. 117(2):213-239 (2004).
Granville Sewell, “A Mathematician’s View of Evolution,” The Mathematical Intelligencer, Vol 22 (4) (2000).
Scott A. Minnich & Stephen C. Meyer, “Genetic Analysis of Coordinate Flagellar and Type III Regulatory Circuits in Pathogenic Bacteria,” in Proceedings of the Second International Conference on Design & Nature, Rhodes Greece (2004).
Ø. A. Voie, “Biological function and the genetic code are interdependent,” Chaos, Solitons and Fractals, Vol 28(4): 1000-1004 (2006).
Michael J. Katz, Templets and the Explanation of Complex Patterns (Cambridge U. Press 1986).
Evelyn Fox Keller, “Developmental Robustness,” Annals of the New York Academy of Sciences, Vol. 981:189 (2002).
There is another bluff from Wetherington that must be called. Wetherington specifically claimed that irreducibly complex biochemical features like the bacterial flagellum have been explained via evolution. Yet when pressed with the question, “What is the origin of the bacterial flagellum then?” Wetherington answered with an unimpressive response, stating; “I don’t know the intricate biochemistry of the flagellum and its motor and the acid driving mechanism and the type-three secretory apparatus and so forth.”

Wetherington thinks he is expert enough to proclaim “the debate is over,” but he doesn’t even know the details of the flagellar system and cannot explain its evolutionary origin. It seems that Wetherington seeks to dogmatically impose his own viewpoint rather than acknowledging that some experts feel differently than he does.

Indeed, Wetherington’s citation of the type three secretory apparatus (T3SS) in no way refutes the irreducible complexity of the flagellum.

First, some biologists have concluded that that the T3SS could not have been a precursor to the flagellum.79 Second, even if the speculative scenario cited by Wetherington turned out to be true, it would not be sufficient to prove a Darwinian explanation for the origin of the flagellum because there is still a huge leap in complexity from a T3SS to a flagellum. The unresolved challenge that the irreducible complexity of the flagellum continues to pose for Darwinian evolution is starkly summarized by William Dembski:

At best the T[3]SS represents one possible step in the indirect Darwinian evolution of the bacterial flagellum. But that still wouldn’t constitute a solution to the evolution of the bacterial flagellum. What’s needed is a complete evolutionary path and not merely a possible oasis along the way. To claim otherwise is like saying we can travel by foot from Los Angeles to Tokyo because we’ve discovered the Hawaiian Islands. Evolutionary biology needs to do better than that.80
Dembski’s critique is apt because it recognizes that critics (like those cited by Wetherington) wrongly characterize irreducible complexity as focusing on the non-functionality of sub-parts. Conversely, Behe properly tests irreducible complexity by assessing the plausibility of the entire functional system to assemble in a step-wise fashion, even if sub-parts can have functions outside of the final system.81 The “leap” required by going from one functional sub-part to the entire functional system is indicative of the degree of irreducible complexity in a system.82 Indeed, a recent review article in Nature Reviews Microbiology concedes that “the flagellar research community has scarcely begun to consider how these systems have evolved.”83 Clearly there is room for debate on this topic, but Wetherington—who admits he’s not an expert on this subject—wants to shut down debate.

Wetherington claims that the “strength of Darwin’s theory is that continually since 1859, new evidence has confirmed and expanded his basic ideas” but molecular biologist Douglas Axe feels differently:

The truth of the matter, much to the chagrin of contemporary biology, is that Darwin’s theory should have been laid to rest some time ago. It certainly deserved all the interest it generated in its day, but at some later point that interest was transformed from the critical kind to the credulous kind. Regrettably, that change took hold before the most conclusive data came to light.84
During his testimony, Professor Wetherington asserted that there are no weaknesses in Darwinian evolution, even claiming that “through the union of molecular biology and embryology … the scientific consensus surrounding evolutionary theory continues to be strengthened.” Clearly, Wetherington told only one side of the story and is not disclosing the fact that some scientists feel modern biology has uncovered a world that vastly outstrips the creative power of neo-Darwinian evolution.

J. Conclusion

Since appearing at the experts’ hearing in January, Prof. Wetherington has continued his record of egregious misrepresentations and misstatements, asserting that there are no weaknesses in evolution, and insinuating that no one has raised any legitimate weaknesses in evolution to the Board. In reality, Board members heard testimony in January from three experts in the fields of biology, chemistry, and philosophy of science who discussed a number of significant weaknesses in modern Darwinian theory. One of these experts, a biology professor, discussed in detail his own research on the limits of the Darwinian mechanism of selection and mutation in bacteria. Texas students and parents deserve better than to have their science education standards dictated by a partisan of Darwinism such as Prof. Wetherington, whose own repeated misstatements show he is more interested in shielding Darwinian evolution from critical inquiry than he is in accurate science education.

References Cited:

[1.] Robert L. Carroll, “Towards a new evolutionary synthesis,” Trends in Ecology and Evolution, Vol. 15:27-32 (January, 2000).

[2.] James W. Valentine, David Jablonski and Douglas H. Erwin, “Fossils, molecules and embryos: new perspectives on the Cambrian explosion,” Development, Vol. 126, 851-859 (1999).

[3.] Michael A. Bell, “Origin of the metazoan phyla: Cambrian explosion or proterozoic slow burn,” Trends in Ecology and Evolution, Vol. 12:1-2 (January 1, 1997).

[4.] J. W. Valentine et al., “Fossils, Molecules, and Embryos: New Perspectives on the Cambrian Explosion,” Development, Vol. 126 (1999): 851–59; R. S. Boardman, A. H. Cheetham, and A. J. Rowell, eds., Fossil Invertebrates (Palo Alto, Calif: Blackwell Science, 1987); S. C. Morris, "The Cambrian 'Explosion': Slow-fuse or Megatonnage?," Proceedings of the U. S National Academy of Sciences, Vol. 95 (2000): 4426-29.

[5.] J. W. Valentine et al., “Fossils, Molecules, and Embryos: New Perspectives on the Cambrian Explosion,” Development, Vol. 126 (1999): 851–59; S. C. Morris, "The Cambrian 'Explosion': Slow-fuse or Megatonnage?," Proceedings of the U. S National Academy of Sciences, Vol. 95 (2000): 4426-29.

[6.] J. W. Valentine et al., “Fossils, Molecules, and Embryos: New Perspectives on the Cambrian Explosion,” Development, Vol. 126 (1999): 851–59; S. C. Morris, "The Cambrian 'Explosion': Slow-fuse or Megatonnage?," Proceedings of the U. S National Academy of Sciences, Vol. 95 (2000): 4426-29; J. Y. Chen and G. Q. Zhou, “Biology of the Chengjiang Fauna,” in The Cambrian Explosion and the Fossil Record, ed. J. Y. Chen, Y. N. Change, and H. V. Iten, Bulletin of the National Museum of Science, no. 10 (Taichung, 1997), 11-105.

[7.] J. W. Valentine et al., “Fossils, Molecules, and Embryos: New Perspectives on the Cambrian Explosion,” Development, Vol. 126 (1999): 851–59; S. C. Morris, "The Cambrian 'Explosion': Slow-fuse or Megatonnage?," Proceedings of the U. S National Academy of Sciences, Vol. 95 (2000): 4426-29; J. Y. Chen and G. Q. Zhou, “Biology of the Chengjiang Fauna,” in The Cambrian Explosion and the Fossil Record, ed. J. Y. Chen, Y. N. Change, and H. V. Iten, Bulletin of the National Museum of Science, no. 10 (Taichung, 1997), 11-105.

meatros please respond

semitope
09-14-2012, 02:23 PM
[8.] J. W. Valentine et al., “Fossils, Molecules, and Embryos: New Perspectives on the Cambrian Explosion,” Development, Vol. 126 (1999): 851–59; R. S. Boardman, A. H. Cheetham, and A. J. Rowell, eds., Fossil Invertebrates (Palo Alto, Calif: Blackwell Science, 1987); J. Y. Chen and G. Q. Zhou, “Biology of the Chengjiang Fauna,” in The Cambrian Explosion and the Fossil Record, ed. J. Y. Chen, Y. N. Change, and H. V. Iten, Bulletin of the National Museum of Science, no. 10 (Taichung, 1997), 11-105; E. N. K. Clarkson, Invertebrate Paleontology and Evolution, 4th ed. (Malden, Mass.: Blackwell Science, 1998).

[9.] S. Conway Morris, The Crucible of Creation: The Burgess Shale the Rise of Animals (New York: Oxford University Press, 1998); J. Y. Chen and D. Y. Huang, ”A Possible Lower Cambrian Chaetognath (Arrow Worm),” Science, 4 October 2002, 187.

[10.] J. W. Valentine et al., “Fossils, Molecules, and Embryos: New Perspectives on the Cambrian Explosion,” Development, Vol. 126 (1999): 851–59; R. S. Boardman, A. H. Cheetham, and A. J. Rowell, eds., Fossil Invertebrates (Palo Alto, Calif: Blackwell Science, 1987); S. C. Morris, "The Cambrian 'Explosion': Slow-fuse or Megatonnage?," Proceedings of the U. S National Academy of Sciences, Vol. 95 (2000): 4426-29.

[11.] J. Y. Chen and G. Q. Zhou, “Biology of the Chengjiang Fauna,” in The Cambrian Explosion and the Fossil Record, ed. J. Y. Chen, Y. N. Change, and H. V. Iten, Bulletin of the National Museum of Science, no. 10 (Taichung, 1997), 11-105; S. Conway Morris, The Crucible of Creation: The Burgess Shale the Rise of Animals (New York: Oxford University Press, 1998).

[12.] J. W. Valentine et al., “Fossils, Molecules, and Embryos: New Perspectives on the Cambrian Explosion,” Development, Vol. 126 (1999): 851–59; S. C. Morris, "The Cambrian 'Explosion': Slow-fuse or Megatonnage?," Proceedings of the U. S National Academy of Sciences, Vol. 95 (2000): 4426-29; J. Y. Chen and G. Q. Zhou, “Biology of the Chengjiang Fauna,” in The Cambrian Explosion and the Fossil Record, ed. J. Y. Chen, Y. N. Change, and H. V. Iten, Bulletin of the National Museum of Science, no. 10 (Taichung, 1997), 11-105.

[13.] J. W. Valentine et al., “Fossils, Molecules, and Embryos: New Perspectives on the Cambrian Explosion,” Development, Vol. 126 (1999): 851–59; R. S. Boardman, A. H. Cheetham, and A. J. Rowell, eds., Fossil Invertebrates (Palo Alto, Calif: Blackwell Science, 1987); S. C. Morris, "The Cambrian 'Explosion': Slow-fuse or Megatonnage?," Proceedings of the U. S National Academy of Sciences, Vol. 95 (2000): 4426-29.

[14.] S. C. Morris, "The Cambrian 'Explosion': Slow-fuse or Megatonnage?," Proceedings of the U. S National Academy of Sciences, Vol. 95 (2000): 4426-29; S. Conway Morris, The Crucible of Creation: The Burgess Shale the Rise of Animals (New York: Oxford University Press, 1998).

[15.] J. W. Valentine et al., “Fossils, Molecules, and Embryos: New Perspectives on the Cambrian Explosion,” Development, Vol. 126 (1999): 851–59; R. S. Boardman, A. H. Cheetham, and A. J. Rowell, eds., Fossil Invertebrates (Palo Alto, Calif: Blackwell Science, 1987); S. C. Morris, "The Cambrian 'Explosion': Slow-fuse or Megatonnage?," Proceedings of the U. S National Academy of Sciences, Vol. 95 (2000): 4426-29.

[16.] R. S. Boardman, A. H. Cheetham, and A. J. Rowell, eds., Fossil Invertebrates (Palo Alto, Calif: Blackwell Science, 1987); J. Y. Chen and G. Q. Zhou, “Biology of the Chengjiang Fauna,” in The Cambrian Explosion and the Fossil Record, ed. J. Y. Chen, Y. N. Change, and H. V. Iten, Bulletin of the National Museum of Science, no. 10 (Taichung, 1997), 11-105.

[17.] J. W. Valentine et al., “Fossils, Molecules, and Embryos: New Perspectives on the Cambrian Explosion,” Development, Vol. 126 (1999): 851–59; R. S. Boardman, A. H. Cheetham, and A. J. Rowell, eds., Fossil Invertebrates (Palo Alto, Calif: Blackwell Science, 1987); S. C. Morris, "The Cambrian 'Explosion': Slow-fuse or Megatonnage?," Proceedings of the U. S National Academy of Sciences, Vol. 95 (2000): 4426-29.

[18.] S. C. Morris, "The Cambrian 'Explosion': Slow-fuse or Megatonnage?," Proceedings of the U. S National Academy of Sciences, Vol. 95 (2000): 4426-29.

[19.] J. W. Valentine et al., “Fossils, Molecules, and Embryos: New Perspectives on the Cambrian Explosion,” Development, Vol. 126 (1999): 851–59.

[20.] J. W. Valentine et al., “Fossils, Molecules, and Embryos: New Perspectives on the Cambrian Explosion,” Development, Vol. 126 (1999): 851–59; J. Y. Chen and G. Q. Zhou, “Biology of the Chengjiang Fauna,” in The Cambrian Explosion and the Fossil Record, ed. J. Y. Chen, Y. N. Change, and H. V. Iten, Bulletin of the National Museum of Science, no. 10 (Taichung, 1997), 11-105.

[21.] R. S. Boardman, A. H. Cheetham, and A. J. Rowell, eds., Fossil Invertebrates (Palo Alto, Calif: Blackwell Science, 1987); S. C. Morris, "The Cambrian 'Explosion': Slow-fuse or Megatonnage?," Proceedings of the U. S National Academy of Sciences, Vol. 95 (2000): 4426-29.

[22.] J. W. Valentine et al., “Fossils, Molecules, and Embryos: New Perspectives on the Cambrian Explosion,” Development, Vol. 126 (1999): 851–59; R. S. Boardman, A. H. Cheetham, and A. J. Rowell, eds., Fossil Invertebrates (Palo Alto, Calif: Blackwell Science, 1987); J. Y. Chen and G. Q. Zhou, “Biology of the Chengjiang Fauna,” in The Cambrian Explosion and the Fossil Record, ed. J. Y. Chen, Y. N. Change, and H. V. Iten, Bulletin of the National Museum of Science, no. 10 (Taichung, 1997), 11-105.

[23.] J. W. Valentine et al., “Fossils, Molecules, and Embryos: New Perspectives on the Cambrian Explosion,” Development, Vol. 126 (1999).

[24.] J. W. Valentine et al., “Fossils, Molecules, and Embryos: New Perspectives on the Cambrian Explosion,” Development, Vol. 126 (1999): J. Y. Chen and G. Q. Zhou, “Biology of the Chengjiang Fauna,” in The Cambrian Explosion and the Fossil Record, ed. J. Y. Chen, Y. N. Change, and H. V. Iten, Bulletin of the National Museum of Science, no. 10 (Taichung, 1997), 11-105.

[25.] J. W. Valentine et al., “Fossils, Molecules, and Embryos: New Perspectives on the Cambrian Explosion,” Development, Vol. 126 (1999): 851–59; R. S. Boardman, A. H. Cheetham, and A. J. Rowell, eds., Fossil Invertebrates (Palo Alto, Calif: Blackwell Science, 1987); S. C. Morris, "The Cambrian 'Explosion': Slow-fuse or Megatonnage?," Proceedings of the U. S National Academy of Sciences, Vol. 95 (2000): 4426-29; J. Y. Chen and G. Q. Zhou, “Biology of the Chengjiang Fauna,” in The Cambrian Explosion and the Fossil Record, ed. J. Y. Chen, Y. N. Change, and H. V. Iten, Bulletin of the National Museum of Science, no. 10 (Taichung, 1997), 11-105.

[26.] R. S. Boardman, A. H. Cheetham, and A. J. Rowell, eds., Fossil Invertebrates (Palo Alto, Calif: Blackwell Science, 1987).

[27.] J. W. Valentine et al., “Fossils, Molecules, and Embryos: New Perspectives on the Cambrian Explosion,” Development, Vol. 126 (1999): 851–59; R. S. Boardman, A. H. Cheetham, and A. J. Rowell, eds., Fossil Invertebrates (Palo Alto, Calif: Blackwell Science, 1987).

[28.] J. W. Valentine et al., “Fossils, Molecules, and Embryos: New Perspectives on the Cambrian Explosion,” Development, Vol. 126 (1999): 851–59.

[29.] J. W. Valentine et al., “Fossils, Molecules, and Embryos: New Perspectives on the Cambrian Explosion,” Development, Vol. 126 (1999): 851–59.

[30.] J. W. Valentine et al., “Fossils, Molecules, and Embryos: New Perspectives on the Cambrian Explosion,” Development, Vol. 126 (1999): 851–59.

[31.] J. W. Valentine et al., “Fossils, Molecules, and Embryos: New Perspectives on the Cambrian Explosion,” Development, Vol. 126 (1999): 851–59; R. S. Boardman, A. H. Cheetham, and A. J. Rowell, eds., Fossil Invertebrates (Palo Alto, Calif: Blackwell Science, 1987).

[32.] P. Funch, and R. M. Kristensen, “Cycliophora Is a New Phylum with Affinities to Entoprocta and Ectoprocta,” Nature 378 (1995): 711–14.

[33.] J. W. Valentine et al., “Fossils, Molecules, and Embryos: New Perspectives on the Cambrian Explosion,” Development, Vol. 126 (1999): 851–59; R. S. Boardman, A. H. Cheetham, and A. J. Rowell, eds., Fossil Invertebrates (Palo Alto, Calif: Blackwell Science, 1987).



am I doing it right?

semitope
09-14-2012, 02:25 PM
Why am I doing this? Because your tactic of asking a bunch of irrelevant questions and setting onto every little pointless point is annoying and needs to stop. You make no effort to understand other positions and infuse subtle character insults into everything.


[34.] J. W. Valentine et al., “Fossils, Molecules, and Embryos: New Perspectives on the Cambrian Explosion,” Development, Vol. 126 (1999): 851–59; R. S. Boardman, A. H. Cheetham, and A. J. Rowell, eds., Fossil Invertebrates (Palo Alto, Calif: Blackwell Science, 1987).

[35.] J. W. Valentine et al., “Fossils, Molecules, and Embryos: New Perspectives on the Cambrian Explosion,” Development, Vol. 126 (1999): 851–59; R. S. Boardman, A. H. Cheetham, and A. J. Rowell, eds., Fossil Invertebrates (Palo Alto, Calif: Blackwell Science, 1987).

[36.] J. W. Valentine et al., “Fossils, Molecules, and Embryos: New Perspectives on the Cambrian Explosion,” Development, Vol. 126 (1999): 851–59.

[37.] R. S. Boardman, A. H. Cheetham, and A. J. Rowell, eds., Fossil Invertebrates (Palo Alto, Calif: Blackwell Science, 1987).

[38.] J. W. Valentine et al., “Fossils, Molecules, and Embryos: New Perspectives on the Cambrian Explosion,” Development, Vol. 126 (1999): 851–59.

[39.] J. W. Valentine et al., “Fossils, Molecules, and Embryos: New Perspectives on the Cambrian Explosion,” Development, Vol. 126 (1999): 851–59.

[40.] J. W. Valentine et al., “Fossils, Molecules, and Embryos: New Perspectives on the Cambrian Explosion,” Development, Vol. 126 (1999): 851–59.

[41.] Shu et al., “Lower Cambrian vertebrates from south China,” Nature, Vol. 402:42-46 (Nov 4, 1999).

[42.] David Savada, H. Craig Heller, Gordon H. Orians, William K. Purves, David M. Hillis, Life: The Science of Biology, pg. 494 (8th Ed., Sinaer Associates, 2008).

[43.] Victoria E. Prince and F. Bryan Pickett, “Splitting Pairs: The Diverging Fates of Duplicated Genes,” Nature Reviews Genetics, Vol. 3:827-837 (Nov. 2002).

[44.] Eörs Szathmáry, “When the means do not justify the end” (Book review of Sudden Origins: Fossils, Genes, and the Emergence of Species by Jeffrey H. Schwartz, Wiley: 1999), in Nature, Vol. 399:745 (June 24, 1999) (emphasis added).

[45.] Quoting Dr. Brigitte Senut, also stating “One of Dr Senut's colleagues, Dr Martin Pickford, who was in London this week, is also reported to have told peers that he thought the new Chadian skull was from a ‘proto-gorilla’. “ See “Skull find sparks controversy” (July 12, 2002) at http://news.***.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/2125244.stm

[46.] Mark Collard and Bernard Wood, "How reliable are human phylogenetic hypotheses?," Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, Vol. 97(9):5003–5006 (April 25, 1999).

[47.] Bernard Wood, “Hominid revelations from Chad,” Nature, Vol. 418:133-135 (July 11, 2002) at http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v418/n6894/full/418133a.html (emphasis added).

[48.] Bernard Wood, “Hominid revelations from Chad,” Nature, Vol. 418:133-135 (July 11, 2002) at http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v418/n6894/full/418133a.html (emphasis added).

[49.] Richard C. Lewontin, Human Diversity, p. 163 (Scientific American Library: New York NY, 1995).

[50.] Y. Haaile-Selassie, “Late Miocene hominids from the Middle Awash, Ethiopia,” Nature, Vol. 412:178-181 (July 12, 2001).

[51.] See Figure 2, Bernard Wood, “Hominid revelations from Chad,” Nature, Vol. 418:133-135 (July 11, 2002) at http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v418/n6894/full/418133a.html

[52.] A. Gibbons, “In Search of the First Hominids,” Science, 295:1214-1219 (February 15, 2002).

[53.] See Figure 2, Bernard Wood, “Hominid revelations from Chad,” Nature, Vol. 418:133-135 (July 11, 2002) at http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v418/n6894/full/418133a.html

[54.] Tim D. White et al., “Asa Issie, Aramis and the origin of Australopithecus,” Nature, Vol. 440:883-889 (April 13, 2006).

[55.] Mark Collard and Bernard Wood, "How reliable are human phylogenetic hypotheses?," Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, Vol. 97(9):5003–5006 (April 25, 2009).

[56.] Ernst Mayr, What Makes Biology Unique?: Considerations on the Autonomy of a Scientific Discipline, pg. 198 (Cambridge University Press, 2004).

[57.] Bernard Wood and Mark Collard, "The Human Genus," Science, Vol. 284:65-71 (April 2, 1999).

[58.] Associated Press, “African fossils paint messy picture of human evolution; who was our ancestor's ancestor?,” International Herald Tribune, at http://www.iht.com/articles/ap/2007/08/08/america/NA-GEN-US-Human-Evolution.php

[59.] Robin Dennell & Wil Roebroeks, “An Asian perspective on early human dispersal from Africa,” Nature, Vol. 438:1099-1104 (Dec. 22/29, 2005) (internal citations removed) (emphasis added).

[60.] Hawks, J., Hunley, K., Sang-Hee, L., Wolpoff, M., “Population Bottlenecks and Pleistocene Evolution,” Journal of Molecular Biology and Evolution, 17(1):2-22 (January, 2000).

[61.] “New study suggests big bang theory of human evolution,” (January 10, 2000) at http://www.umich.edu/~newsinfo/Releases/2000/Jan00/r011000b.html

[62.] F. Marchal, “A New Morphometric Analysis of the Hominid Pelvic Bone,” Journal of Human Evolution, Vol. 38:347-365 (2000).

[63.] H. Gee, “Return to the planet of the apes,” Nature, Vol. 412:131-132 (July 12, 2001).

[64.] Sean B. Carroll, The Making of the Fittest: DNA and the Ultimate Forensic Record of Evolution, pg. 197 (W. W. Norton, 2006).

[65.] Michael J. Behe, Darwin’s Black Box: The Biochemical Challenge to Evolution, pg. 38 (Free Press, 1996).

[66.] Private correspondence shared by a student who contacted Dr. Wetherington and asked for his references on this point.

[67.] Francisco J. Ayala, Darwin’s Gift to Science and Religion, pg. 145 (Joseph Henry Press, 2007).

[68.] Francisco J. Ayala, Darwin’s Gift to Science and Religion, pg. 146 (Joseph Henry Press, 2007).

[69.] Michael J. Behe, Darwin's Black Box: The Biochemical Challenge to Evolution, pg. 15 (Free Press, 1996).

[70.] David Berlinski, “Keeping an Eye on Evolution: Richard Dawkins, a relentless Darwinian spear carrier, trips over Mount Improbable. Review of Climbing Mount Improbable by Richard Dawkins (W. H. Norton & Company, Inc. 1996),” in The Globe & Mail (November 2, 1996) at http://www.discovery.org/a/132

[71.] Michael J. Behe, Darwin's Black Box: The Biochemical Challenge to Evolution, pgs. 9-10 (Free Press, 1996).

[72.] Charles Darwin, Origin of Species (1859), Chapter 6, available at http://www.literature.org/authors/darwin-charles/the-origin-of-species/chapter-06.html

[73.] Michael J. Behe, Darwin's Black Box: The Biochemical Challenge to Evolution, pg. 15 (Free Press, 1996).

[74.] Franklin M. Harold, The Way of the Cell: Molecules, Organisms and the Order of Life, pg. 205 (Oxford University Press, 2001).

[75.] Joseph W. Thornton and Rob DeSalle, “Gene Family Evolution and Homology: Genomics Meets Phylogenetics,” Annual Review of Genomics and Human Genetics, Vol. 1:41–73 (2000).

[76.] Michael Behe wrote a rebuttal on these points, at Michael J. Behe, "Waiting Longer for Two Mutations," Genetics, Vol. 181:819-820 (2009).

[77.] Rick Durrett and Deena Schmidt, “Waiting for Two Mutations: With Applications to Regulatory Sequence Evolution and the Limits of Darwinian Evolution,” Genetics, Vol. 180: 1501–1509 (November 2008).

[78.] Douglas Axe, “Bold Biology for 2009,” (Feb. 1, 2009) at http://biologicinstitute.org/2009/02/01/bold-biology-for-2009

[79.] The lack of a fossil record for biological molecules makes it difficult to even assess this question. Milton H. Saier, Jr., “Evolution of Bacterial Type III Protein Secretion Systems,” Trends in Microbiology, Vol. 12:113 (2004).

[80.] William A. Dembski, “Rebuttal to Reports by Opposing Expert Witnesses, pg. 52, http://www.designinference.com/documents/2005.09.Expert_Rebuttal_Dembski.pdf (May 14, 2005) (emphasis added).

[81.] Casey Luskin, International Society for Complexity, Information, and Design Archives, “Do Car Engines Run on Lugnuts? A Response to Ken Miller & Judge Jones’s Straw Tests of Irreducible Complexity for the Bacterial Flagellum,” at http://www.iscid.org/papers/Luskin_EngineLugnuts_042706.pdf

[82.] Michael J. Behe, “A Response to Critics of Darwin’s Black Box,” pg. 17, http://www.iscid.org/papers/Behe_ReplyToCritics_121201.pdf

[83.] Mark J. Pallen & Nicholas J. Matzke, “From The Origin of Species to the Origin of Bacterial Flagella,” Nature Reviews Microbiology, Vol. 4:784 (Nat. Pblg. Group 2006).

[84.] Douglas Axe, “Bold Biology for 2009,” (Feb. 1, 2009) at http://biologicinstitute.org/2009/02/01/bold-biology-for-2009

I expect your report by tomorrow morning, or you are not a person worth paying attention to and have been thoroughly refuted in everything. Cough and I just refuted you.

Loctus
09-14-2012, 02:27 PM
Next up: semitope argues against the theory that matter is composed of atoms

semitope
09-14-2012, 02:29 PM
it has nothing to do with "thinking deeply".


the way you disprove evolution is to recreate its supporting experiments and show that you do not obtain the same results.

which demonstrable claim supporting evolution have you done that to...ever??? post the vid, please.


i'm sorry, go back to "convincing" the world it's wrong...rather than demonstrating it.

what experiments? oh dear. This is frustrating. You are one of those that thinks microevolution = macro right? were you the one I replied to before about how ridiculous that idea was?

semitope
09-14-2012, 02:31 PM
Next up: semitope argues against the theory that matter is composed of atoms

another problem is how closed you guys are to the unconventional. You brush things off because they do not fit the norm you've been fed all your life even though you have no intellectual basis of your own to do so.

Juicy-
09-14-2012, 02:34 PM
zi8FfMBYCkk

TH3SHR3DD3R
09-14-2012, 02:34 PM
Domain shuffling aside, it remains a mystery how the undirected process of mutation, combined with natural selection, has resulted in the creation of thousands of new proteins with extraordinarily diverse and well-optimized functions. This problem is particularly acute for tightly integrated molecular systems that consist of many interacting parts, such as ligands, receptors, and the downstream regulatory factors with which they interact. In these systems, it is not clear how a new function for any protein might be selected for unless the other members of the complex are already present, creating a molecular version of the ancient evolutionary riddle of the chicken and the egg.

Irreducible complexity logical fallacy.

I just picked that paragraph entirely at random, read it, and within the first sentence knew what I was dealing with.

Putting that aside for the moment, evolutionary theory doesn't state that all of this is random and undirected. Evolution acts according to natural laws, the laws pf physics, the laws of nature. It is apparent that evolutionary processes take place; what is not apparent is why, and I'm not aware of a cohesive, conclusive agreement between evolutionary practitioners on the why of it all. There is no assumption in evolutionary theory that the cosmological argument or the existence of universes being reborn is not true; evolution acts according to the laws of reality, and we can but observe it in action.

If the laws of reality include divine intervention then so be it. If they don't, then so be it as well. In either case, evolution is only occurring according to the laws it must obey.

If your whole problem with the ToE is that it supports some sort of materialist, atheist worldview, semitope, then I'm afraid you're wrong and all of your 'work' here is for naught.

TH3SHR3DD3R
09-14-2012, 02:36 PM
another problem is how closed you guys are to the unconventional. You brush things off because they do not fit the norm you've been fed all your life even though you have no intellectual basis of your own to do so.

If this is true, then why have we been asking you for an experiment with which to test your claims?

Rune
09-14-2012, 02:36 PM
Next up: semitope argues against the theory that matter is composed of atoms

he hasn't done any arguing, that would require him to actually think.

he's much more comfortable spewing forth every thing he can find on various discover institute blogs/websites.

jaybeedee
09-14-2012, 02:39 PM
qft

Was ineffective. I don't think he understands that simply quoting walls of text does not an argument make.

jaybeedee
09-14-2012, 02:42 PM
The first thing I saw: "Prof. Wetherington dogmatically asserted that biochemist Michael Behe’s arguments about irreducible complexity have been refuted, claiming: “That debate is over” because “the evidence for irreducible complexity had been satisfactorily falsified.” "

The only mistake Dr Wetherington makes is not pointing out that irreducible complexity is a failure of an argument because it is contingent on the proponents of the argument to demonstrate that something could not possibly have evolved, and it is not something which has been done. It's basically an argument from incredulity at its core, which renders it fallacious from the very beginning.

lee4
09-14-2012, 02:54 PM
what experiments? oh dear. This is frustrating. You are one of those that thinks microevolution = macro right? were you the one I replied to before about how ridiculous that idea was?

in bold...you have no idea.

just for future reference...when you have to create your own definitions in order to argue against them because the definitions your opponent gives you don't fit your agenda, you've already lost.

hell, i'll even go your way. you apparently concede "micro-evolution" as you call it. now, provide demonstrable experiments that allow for the "micro-evolution" that must have occurred at a rate to justify an earth 6,000 years old. i'll wait right here.

just to get ya started...there are about 34,000 kinds of spiders. the ark was what, 4500 years ago supposedly? that comes down to almost two new species created every 90 days, under my hypothetical concession that all species appeared yesterday (which they didn't, but i'm giving you as much room as possible).

http://www.uwgb.edu/biodiversity/biota/arthropods/Arachnids/#DiversitySpiders

wings_unhinged
09-14-2012, 02:58 PM
I feel bad for the evolutionists in a way, they know they are wrong, but they have made too many documentaries and written too many books in the other direction to admit it now and be exposed as frauds. real science was long ago replaced by the cult of darwin.

Wow.

semitope
09-14-2012, 03:06 PM
in bold...you have no idea.

just for future reference...when you have to create your own definitions in order to argue against them because the definitions your opponent gives you don't fit your agenda, you've already lost.

hell, i'll even go your way. you apparently concede "micro-evolution" as you call it. now, provide demonstrable experiments that allow for the "micro-evolution" that must have occurred at a rate to justify an earth 6,000 years old. i'll wait right here.

just to get ya started...there are about 34,000 kinds of spiders. the ark was what, 4500 years ago supposedly? that comes down to almost two new species created every 90 days, under my hypothetical concession that all species appeared yesterday (which they didn't, but i'm giving you as much room as possible).

http://www.uwgb.edu/biodiversity/biota/arthropods/Arachnids/#DiversitySpiders

why 6000 years?

Renegade83
09-14-2012, 03:53 PM
why 6000 years?

LOL more ****ty posts by semidope. stop posting please

BeefyMcNasty
09-14-2012, 04:47 PM
why 6000 years?

Lets just see how silly you really are. Which of the following statements do you resonant with more.


1.) The earth is less than 10,000 years old.

2.) The earth is billions of years old.

GregariousWolf
09-14-2012, 04:49 PM
another problem is how closed you guys are to the unconventional. You brush things off because they do not fit the norm you've been fed all your life even though you have no intellectual basis of your own to do so.

Dude, you never actually say anything. All you do is copy and paste **** from Discovery Institute.

GregariousWolf
09-14-2012, 04:50 PM
Lets just see how silly you really are. Which of the following statements do you resonant with more.


1.) The earth is less than 10,000 years old.

2.) The earth is billions of years old.

I bet you reps he doesn't give you a straight answer.

semitope
09-14-2012, 05:04 PM
Lets just see how silly you really are. Which of the following statements do you resonant with more.


1.) The earth is less than 10,000 years old.

2.) The earth is billions of years old.

did you mean to say resonate? That requires some sort of emotion or feeling, right? Or giving at least a bit of a damn. Well, I would have to say neither

semitope
09-14-2012, 05:05 PM
Dude, you never actually say anything. All you do is copy and paste **** from Discovery Institute.

and what you quoted was obviously copy pasted from the DI.

TH3SHR3DD3R
09-14-2012, 05:16 PM
did you mean to say resonate? That requires some sort of emotion or feeling, right? Or giving at least a bit of a damn. Well, I would have to say neither

It also means to evoke images or memories, not just emotions. You could just say you don't know, which would be honest, instead of dodging and obfuscating. If you don't really give a damn, then you wouldn't be here. And yet here you are.

semitope
09-14-2012, 05:17 PM
It also means to evoke images or memories, not just emotions. You could just say you don't know, which would be honest, instead of dodging and obfuscating. If you don't really give a damn, then you wouldn't be here. And yet here you are.

why isn't "neither" enough? Why is "neither" dodging and obfuscating?

Meatros
09-14-2012, 05:19 PM
you aren't on a roll. You're just insisting you are right no matter what. Nothing I am saying is really getting through. I answered your question, but you really need to stop asking stupid questions. Where was the book discussed? I have to document everything I read for you now? seriously.

You aren't refuting or even attempting to refute (in some cases) what I'm saying. At best you are simply asserting that I'm wrong (like you are doing here). You didn't answer my questions - you ignored the bulk of them. In fact, look at your response here - in one sentence you are saying that you answered my question, yet in the next you ask if you have to document everything you read. I'm SMH. Seriously man?

Look, you put forth a book that you didn't read and then said you read on some website somewhere where the author discussed it. How you expect anyone to have any confidence in this is beyond me. Certainly the converse is not true, if I said that I read something where behe (for instance) admitted that IC concepts were bunk, you'd want to see where I'd read it wouldn't you?

You have a double standard - it's laughable when you are also the one preaching about how everyone else is blinded by dogma and fooled by evolutionary liars. Instead of actually presenting the evidence, you are asking us to trust you.

Is this real life? Srs?


You didn't show the source to be dishonest, you showed that you could interpret what was said differently. His statements about gaps was not one that represented the situation accurately. He wasn't even really saying there were actual gaps and he certainly did not convey any doubt about the fossil record for human evolution. Weird that you are saying this considering he did say there were no gaps twice before talking about the gaps-that-aren't-really-gaps. I expect you to colour it pink so meh.


What I showed is that the source you listed didn't represent what Wetherington actually said. I pointed to specific places where he stated the opposite of what your source said. I'd say this indicates that your source was dishonest - I suppose you would say that your source was just being loose with truthiness, right? I mean, it's not like you castigate evolutionists for being dishonest.

Oh wait, this entire thread is about that. This entire thread is an attempt to smear evolutionists as liars because of a distortion of what Wetherington said.

Let's recap - you specifically said this:


Evolutionist scientists tell public media the fossil record is complete and conclusive

your evidence was what Wetherington said.

Two things:

1. Wetherington was not telling 'the public media' this, he was testifying to this.
2. He did not say that the fossil record was complete and conclusive. In fact, he was only specifically talking about the hominid fossil record. Had you listened to what he actually said, you would know this.

I'm guessing that you expected people to not actually listen to the audio. To bad that I did, since I pointed out the following:


At 22:04 he specifically says "obviously we do not have representatives for every generation, so there will always be gaps". At 23:20, he says that the term missing link is something that the media uses, but science doesn't, because if you have species one and species three, and you find species two, you have created two more missing links (between species one and species two and between species two and species three). He then says that the fossil record (for man) is becoming more and more complete every year. At 24:28 he says there will always be 'gaps'. At 24:35 he compares it to the person asking him questions' ancestry, saying if you go back a few generations there will be gaps. At 25:10 he says that the fossil evidence shows the nature of the transition.

Let's remember that your source said this:

On this episode of ID the Future, listen to a short segment of a recent presentation Casey Luskin gave on the hominid fossil record. While popular media often reports that the fossil record is complete and conclusive, the technical scientific literature reveals this to be false. In actuality, human-like fossils and ape-like fossil are clearly distinct from one another, and the so-called transitional fossil record is highly fragmented. If Casey's talk sparks your interest, be sure to read Chapter 3 of Science and Human Origins.

You later attempted to represent Wetherington as saying only this:

The podcast mentions the example of a professor in anthropology testifying before the Texas SBOE stating Human evolution has "arguably the most complete sequence of fossil succession of any mammal in the world. No gaps. No lack of transitional fossils... So when people talk about the lack of transitional fossils or gaps in the fossil record, it absolutely is not true. And it is not true specifically for our own species"

Completely ignoring his clarifying comments that I noted above - you know, where he specifically says he was talking about the fossil record showing the nature of transition, instead of a complete fossil record (which is the contention you were supposed to be supporting).

You clearly didn't listen to the entire audio of his testimony. You are clearly trying to spin what he said. It doesn't support what you need it to support. Period.

Now, is this dishonesty on your part? Yeah, I think you are being dishonest. I think I caught you, slapped your hand, and now pride is holding you back from admitting that you were wrong.


it was a quote and i already addressed why I post it. you are being a pain. I'm not expecting you to suddenly see it differently so I have to be trying to figure out what is meaningful to reply to and what isn't.

I know, holding you accountable for what you spew is 'being a pain'. Do you accept a global flood or not?

Simple question - obfuscation by Semitope.


Skull challenge? Why should i take it on myself to start guessing at this?

If you wish to be intellectually honest, you should - BTW - why should you 'guess'? You agree with the source you posted, don't you?

Or are you now suggesting that this is not true:

In actuality, human-like fossils and ape-like fossil are clearly distinct from one another, and the so-called transitional fossil record is highly fragmented.

The reality is that you don't read the majority of the 'responses' that you post to people. You find the first source you can and you post it. Admit it.


Personally, fossils are just dead things. A man can have a skull the shape of any of those and still be a man. You have to understand that what I am doing here is thinking in a context. My reasons for rejecting this theory are not fossil related. I am criticizing the darwinian paradigm from the perspective of one who might consider fossil evidence pivotal, should they not have another reason to reject the theory (information, facts of biology etc etc.) I really have no reason to be sorting skulls. *shrug*

If this is your attitude then wtf are you doing posting the OP?

You are not thinking in context. You are not actually thinking about these things - to do so you would mean that you analyze the evidence yourself. You do not do this - you simply take what creationists say, because they are creationists. You have no regard to whether or not they agree with your views (again, do you believe in a global flood? my prediction is you won't answer this direct question).

You are not criticizing the Darwinian paradigm because you do not understand it. You do not understand it because you do not put the effort in to understand it. You do not read books and you do not read or listen to both sides. You swallow whatever creationist garbage you need to in order to respond to any given point, regardless of the presuppositions that creationist garbage depends on.

Meatros
09-14-2012, 05:20 PM
are you looking for a materialist explanation or are you open to anything else? There is no doubt that ID is a far better explanation of what we observe than evolution. The problem comes in when we place artificial limitations on science and limit where we can go based on the evidence.

More dishonesty.

Semitope, how many times have we asked you for a theory of ID?

You are simply talking out of your azz.

Meatros
09-14-2012, 05:24 PM
In reply to all of meatros' posts in this thread

I suggest people do themselves a favor and actually listen to his testimony themselves. This is a step that Semitope clearly did not do. He now has egg on his face.

Notice that none of these 'errors' that Semitope points to actually regard what he was trying to say that Wetherington was saying? Instead he's quoting creationists who are nitpicking some of the other stuff Wetherington said.

Seriously Semitope. I put in a lot of effort here to take you and your sources seriously and you simply shrug and ignore it.

Meatros
09-14-2012, 05:29 PM
GO ahead and refute these point by point please. Otherwise you are not someone worth listening to.

No, let's stick to one subject at a time - you are using the rhetorical strategy called the 'gish gallop'. Before we continue, I would like you to formally concede that you were mistaken in your OP and subsequent posts about what 'scientists' are misinforming the media about and about what Wetherington said with regard to the hominid fossil record.

Your 'falsifying of my claims' are laughable red herrings attempting to distract from what is actually under contention (notice that none of your C&P deals with the topics we have been discussing? If you didn't, please point to the post where I mentioned the Sahelanthropus tchadensis.).


The skull challenge still awaits you Semitope.

Either answer it or concede. Stop throwing up red herrings.

Meatros
09-14-2012, 05:31 PM
my brain hurts listening to evolutionists talk. Doing it right now. I just want to get in their heads to find out why on earth they are ignoring all the road signs. They are almost always atheists tho.

Funny, when have you actually done this? You didn't listen to Wetherington's testimony, you relied on a creationist interpretation of it and you accepted it as gospel and you were shown to be wrong.

So what 'evolutionist talk' are you listening to?

Meatros
09-14-2012, 05:39 PM
Why am I doing this?

I think it's clear - you were shown to be wrong in your OP and with what was being discussed. You are now embarrassed and trying to distract from the topic at hand.



Because your tactic of asking a bunch of irrelevant questions and setting onto every little pointless point is annoying and needs to stop.

Ah, irrelevant questions, you mean like questioning the assumptions of your sources? I guess no one should have listened to what Wetherington said, right! We should have all just accepted your quote of his which was stripped of context, eh? We should all have ignored what he also said which clarified what he was talking about - and subsequently showed that your source was mistaken.


You make no effort to understand other positions and infuse subtle character insults into everything.

This is complete b.s. Semitope - not only did I go out of my way to listen to the material behind the quote, something you didn't do, I detailed the exact moments in the audio where Wetherington clarified his statements.

As to 'subtle character insults', now you are playing the martyr? After suggesting repeatedly that this forum is composed of idiots (if they disagree with you, that is)?

Are you serious?



I expect your report by tomorrow morning, or you are not a person worth paying attention to and have been thoroughly refuted in everything. Cough and I just refuted you.

You expect my 'report' on a bunch of red herring, yet you admit that you won't pay attention to it - just like you didn't pay attention to what Wetherington actually said, right? I showed your source to have been mistaken (if not out right dishonest), so there is no point in going through the other red herrings to show they are similarly false. Why should I?

You won't believe me anyway since I'm not a creationist and you won't listen to the source material itself since it's from an evolutionist.

A rational and intellectually honest person would have admitted that they were mistaken, you are neither of these things - clearly. Instead you attempt to obfuscate.

Meatros
09-14-2012, 05:41 PM
did you mean to say resonate? That requires some sort of emotion or feeling, right? Or giving at least a bit of a damn. Well, I would have to say neither

There is no chance he does this - he wouldn't even take a stance on a global flood, despite the fact that one of his 'refutations' depends on it!

BeefyMcNasty
09-14-2012, 05:43 PM
I bet you reps he doesn't give you a straight answer.

I would never take that bet...because....oh ****, see below.


did you mean to say resonate?

I did mean resonate. I'm very drunk right....now.

azstrengthcoach
09-14-2012, 05:46 PM
Said it before that what the public is told is differnet from what is reality. These evolutionists are religious zealots presenting a front to influence public opinion. You might even call them a cult and a cult in science is a no -no

http://intelligentdesign.podomatic.com/entry/2012-09-12T17_53_42-07_00



btw there is no way modern man is an old species.


That's funny because I've taken evolutionary biology and I was never taught the fossil record is complete

semitope
09-14-2012, 05:49 PM
That's funny because I've taken evolutionary biology and I was never taught the fossil record is complete

what do you mean by complete?

Meatros, stop dodging and obfuscating. Give me a straight answer

Meatros
09-14-2012, 06:02 PM
what do you mean by complete?

Hilarious. Now Semitope demands a definition of 'complete' as though people could mean it in different ways... Yet when creationists accuse evolutionists of using the term, those evolutionists must mean that the fossil record is complete and conclusive, that there are no gaps in the fossil record and that all forms have been found.

That's a double standard Semitope.



Meatros, stop dodging and obfuscating. Give me a straight answer

Okay, you were shown to be wrong, repeatedly, and now you are weaseling. Happy?

It's funny since you are demanding a straight answer to... what, exactly? Is whatever you are asking for actually on topic? You know, does it relate to the media reporting that the fossil record is complete and conclusive? You know... the topic of the thread?

semitope
09-14-2012, 06:09 PM
Hilarious. Now Semitope demands a definition of 'complete' as though people could mean it in different ways... Yet when creationists accuse evolutionists of using the term, those evolutionists must mean that the fossil record is complete and conclusive, that there are no gaps in the fossil record and that all forms have been found.

simply asking what he means by it. I don't know what creationists mean so I guess I would ask them too.


That's a double standard Semitope.



Okay, you were shown to be wrong, repeatedly, and now you are weaseling. Happy?

It's funny since you are demanding a straight answer to... what, exactly? Is whatever you are asking for actually on topic? You know, does it relate to the media reporting that the fossil record is complete and conclusive? You know... the topic of the thread?

more dodging and obfuscating. Give me a straight answer please.

Meatros
09-14-2012, 06:11 PM
Here's what happened: I took Semitope seriously, I dug into the claims he made and that of his source. I listened to what Wetherington actually said and showed that Semitope (and his source) were distorting what he said (pointing out to the minute where he said the opposite in some cases). What's Semitopes response to this? A wall of text that nit picks some other irrelevant things that Wetherington said.

Also, I pointed out that Wetherington didn't say this to the 'public media' at all. He said these things to the Texas board of education.

So not only have I shown Semitope's only source for his claim that "Evolutionist scientists tell public media the fossil record is complete and conclusive" not to have actually said what he says they said, I also showed how his only source wasn't telling the public media this.

What's Semitope do? Does he dispute any of this? Does he counter with a transcript or pointing to a specific minute of Wetherington where he supports Semitopes version of events?

No, Semitope does none of this. He ignores this completely, saying that it's just stupid questions and then he C&Ps a wall of text that he probably hasn't read that doesn't address any of this.

On top of all this he has the unmitigated nerve to say that I'm dodging and obfuscating.

flairon
09-14-2012, 06:12 PM
Said it before that what the public is told is differnet from what is reality. These evolutionists are religious zealots presenting a front to influence public opinion. You might even call them a cult and a cult in science is a no -no

http://intelligentdesign.podomatic.com/entry/2012-09-12T17_53_42-07_00



btw there is no way modern man is an old species.

"modern" man isn't an old species. Thats where the whole 'evolution' thing comes in

Meatros
09-14-2012, 06:14 PM
simply asking what he means by it. I don't know what creationists mean so I guess I would ask them too.

Hilarious, you don't even know what your own sources mean by it, yet you feel confident enough to declare that an evolutionist lies about the hominid fossil record.



more dodging and obfuscating. Give me a straight answer please.

Do you know what those words mean? Do you know what question you are asking a straight answer to?

My guess is 'no' on both accounts, especially since I specifically asked you what you wanted a straight answer to.

More hilarity from a flailing and out of his depth Semitope. Let me guess, it's because of my worldview that you don't know what question you are asking me.

Right?

semitope
09-14-2012, 06:33 PM
"modern" man isn't an old species. Thats where the whole 'evolution' thing comes in

what do you mean by old?

Meatros
09-14-2012, 06:37 PM
what do you mean by old?

http://cdn.styleforum.net/c/cb/cb0adf89_what-do-you-mean-you-people.jpeg

flairon
09-14-2012, 06:39 PM
what do you mean by old?
what do you mean by modern?

209vaughn
09-14-2012, 06:54 PM
You guys are still discussing this! oh lawd lol.

BeefyMcNasty
09-14-2012, 07:00 PM
what do you mean by modern?


What do you mean by "you mean?"

JFizzle23
09-14-2012, 07:43 PM
You guys are still discussing this! oh lawd lol.
This.

I'm more surprised OP is still green. lol

lucious
09-14-2012, 08:42 PM
why even bother having a discussion with semitope? He wont read any sources or evidence anyone provides because the goobermint conspires against him.


He should just be banned for trolling.

Meatros
09-15-2012, 08:16 AM
why even bother having a discussion with semitope? He wont read any sources or evidence anyone provides because the goobermint conspires against him.


He should just be banned for trolling.

He doesn't even read/listen to his own sources as this thread demonstrates.

TH3SHR3DD3R
09-15-2012, 08:59 AM
You guys are still discussing this! oh lawd lol.

And you're still discussing how we're still discussing this lol

Dude, you gotta let this one go. Free country, people get to waste time for any reason they deem worthwhile. It's not your problem.

lasher
09-15-2012, 09:01 AM
And you're still discussing how we're still discussing this lol

Dude, you gotta let this one go. Free country, people get to waste time for any reason they deem worthwhile. It's not your problem.

Meta discussions about the discussions we shouldn't be discussing.

209vaughn
09-15-2012, 09:02 AM
And you're still discussing how we're still discussing this lol

Dude, you gotta let this one go. Free country, people get to waste time for any reason they deem worthwhile. It's not your problem.

I gotta let this one go? Im not even participating. Just made a harmless comment.

semitope
09-15-2012, 09:16 AM
He doesn't even read/listen to his own sources as this thread demonstrates.

you're a bit of a liar aren't u?

Anyway, respond to my posts or remain irrelevant

semitope
09-15-2012, 09:18 AM
why even bother having a discussion with semitope? He wont read any sources or evidence anyone provides because the goobermint conspires against him.


He should just be banned for trolling.

ITT lucious is a conspiracy theorist about conspiracy theorists.

funny

Meatros
09-15-2012, 02:56 PM
you're a bit of a liar aren't u?

Anyway, respond to my posts or remain irrelevant

I'm no liar Semitope. I provided evidence and you implicitly confirmed that you only listened to wetheringons testimony after I pointed out that your source essentially quote mined it to make it appear as though he was taking a position he obviously didn't. I provided the time stamps and you have yet to refute them. Further in a sad attempt to refute someone you quoted creation wiki, which you clearly didn't read since it presupposes a global flood as a means of answering the problem. I say you didn't read it because I point blank asked you if you accepted a global flood and you seem to think that's not relevant. I can only SMH. I think I now understand why you can't handle books Semitope, you don't have the attention span. You can't even keep up with the conversation (you couldn't even answer my question of what question you wanted me to answer, I think you forgot!).

As for relevancy, you make me smile - I'm on topic here, you are attempting to take us off topic into some bizarre diatribe about nitpicking some other points that wetheringon said. How are they remotely relevant to what we are actually discussing?

In short, as I pointed out (and you've ignored) you are putting forth red herrings to distract from the fact that the OP was shown to be wrong. Man up and admit you were wrong, thread over.

TH3SHR3DD3R
09-15-2012, 03:00 PM
I gotta let this one go? Im not even participating. Just made a harmless comment.

I'm just saying, dude. I never get why you make these comments. Not trying to hate.

Stizzel
09-17-2012, 04:59 AM
Said it before that what the public is told is differnet from what is reality. These evolutionists are religious zealots presenting a front to influence public opinion. You might even call them a cult and a cult in science is a no -no

http://intelligentdesign.podomatic.com/entry/2012-09-12T17_53_42-07_00



btw there is no way modern man is an old species.

Came in expecting a horrible and obviously pro ID source, semitope delivers.

guyver79
09-17-2012, 06:01 AM
Semitope, just out of curiosity, when do you think a large species, say an elephant for example spontaneously appeared out of thin air, as you know their are millions of extinct species, so when one species dies out, another completely unrelated although genetically and structurally similar must burst out of thin air and take its place?

Has this ever been observed?

So "poof!" dinosaurs are gone then "poof!" god magics completely unrelated birds?

What is the creationists theory on what animals are made out of?

You've said before you believe in adaption to a point, what are the limits to these adaptions and what are these biological "barriers" that prevent evolution?