serious blow dealt to theory of evolution

[aserecuba]

EDIT:

"wow, darwin was an idiot. his coined phrase, "survival of the fittest", is terrible! think about it. survival of the fittest. what has he told us?

well first, he never defined "fit." what is fittest? size? nope, the dinosaurs got killed off. intelligence? well humans die everyday, while ants go on living. crap! ooh, i got it. the beings with the best abilities attributing to their survival when compared with other beings INSIDE their race/ecosystem/whatever.

that seems good and all, but look at what i've done (and what darwin did). i've just told you that the beings most likely to survive will survive. that's an empty statement. nothing has been said there. that's like saying things would be different if they hadn't turned out this way. lol. darwin put one over on everyone, and got away with it, all while claiming it as a law of nature. but nothing that can't be broken is a law.

if i say, i hereby declare this law: at all times, people have to be either sitting down or not sitting down. that is coocoo because you can't break my law. you can't break it because it is an empty statement. darwin's law of nature can't be broken because it is an empty statement.

but we'll wave the magic wand of philosophy and allow that we actually did come up with some definition of fitness that was acceptbale, allowing it to be a law. how do we test it? well, we really can't. because it is saying that the fittest survive. so the ones that survived must have been the fittest, right? it is a bit circular. if you assume a law in the beginning, by god you can always get it as a conclusion.

and when you bring this kind of rubbish into social darwinism, it gets even more daffy. it is a law of nature that the fittest survive (socially), so no matter what policies we pass, the fittest will still end up surving. let's say a revolution takes place, and the poor and weak win. now they survive, while the others don't. you wouldn't say they broke the natural law, you would say that they aren't as unfit as you had thought. so again, you can't break the law. and for a workable counterexample, think if we adopted a policy of taking all the money away from the rich and giving it all to the poor. if they say it is a law of nature, the same outcome would have happened no matter what we had done. but now different people are living and dying than before. so you are stuck with two options. either saying the law has been broken, or claiming the fittest still survived, but we had to see who survived to see who was the fittest. either way, you are screwed."


found it at the philosophy forum over at the last free city. interesting.

anyway here is the original post --------------------

Neanderthal theory to sink your teeth into

By Dan Vergano, USA TODAY


A tooth study takes a bite out of the idea that modern humans are related to Neanderthals, researchers report today.


An extinct branch of humanity, Neanderthals lived in Europe as recently as 30,000 years ago. Whether modern humans, slimmer with slightly smaller brains, are their descendants is hotly debated by paleontologists.

In the journal Nature, international scientists led by Fernando Rozzi of CNRS, a Paris-based research institute, report on their analysis of several hundred fossil front teeth from early humans, Neanderthals and modern humans.

Surprisingly, tooth enamel patterns suggest that Neanderthals grew to adult size by age 15, sooner than mankind's more prehistoric precursors and more similar to the development of apes. The researchers call this an "evolutionary reversal" that points to strong differences between Neanderthals and modern humans.

Modern humans moved into Europe at about the same time Neanderthals started to disappear. Differences in the development of tools, climate changes or even conflicts between the two species have been suggested as reasons for the Neanderthals' disappearance after several hundred thousand years of existence.

"What is really important about this work is that it shows that Neanderthals seem to have followed a completely divergent evolutionary path from modern humans," says anthropologist Katerina Harvati of New York University. It indicates that Neanderthals were a different species entirely, she says.

The study says Neanderthals grew up fast, hunted bigger game and died young. Biologist Jay Kelley of the University of Chicago, an expert on primitive human teeth, injects a note of caution in a Nature commentary. Tooth growth reflects development, he says, but biologists generally look at molars, not front teeth.

Despite their dimwitted caveman reputation, Neanderthals had larger brains than modern humans and larger, flatter skulls. Scholars have tried for years to explain why those big brains couldn't help stave off extinction.


goes to show as time passes evolution seems less and less likely, theres just too many gaps.

[quodnomen]

I don't get how this is a problem, Neanderthals and "modern humans" could have very easly evolved from different sub speices of primates. Neanderthals went didn't survive modern humans did.

[BigBoogie]

Originally posted by quodnomen
I don't get how this is a problem, Neanderthals and "modern humans" could have very easly evolved from different sub speices of primates. Neanderthals went didn't survive modern humans did.

I agree.

[aserecuba]

just trying to make a point. that what scientists say about evolution should not be taught in school as fact, until it is proven as such.

if they are so sure of it. why have so many people and scientists tried to fake bones, etc. why the desperation ?. to illustrate a few:

Piltdown man: Found in a gravel pit in Sussex England in 1912, this fossil was considered by some sources to be the second most important fossil proving the evolution of man—until it was found to be a complete forgery 41 years later. The skull was found to be of modern age. The fragments had been chemically stained to give the appearance of age, and the teeth had been filed down!


The most recent and perhaps the most infamous evolution frauds was committed in China and published in 1999 in the journal National Geographic 196:98-107, November 1999. Dinosaur bones were put together with the bones of a newer species of bird and they tried to pass it off as a very important new evolutionary intermediate.





Nebraska man: A single tooth, discovered in Nebraska in 1922 grew an entire evolutionary link between man and monkey, until another identical tooth was found which was protruding from the jawbone of a wild pig. This fossil was part of the evidence entered to substantiate evolution in the famous "Scopes Monkey Trial"


Java man: Initially discovered by Dutchman Eugene Dubois in 1891, all that was found of this claimed originator of humans was a skullcap, three teeth and a femur. The femur was found 50 feet away from the original skullcap a full year later. For almost 30 years Dubois downplayed the Wadjak skulls (two undoubtedly human skulls found very close to his "missing link").


Orce man: Found in the southern Spanish town of Orce in 1982, and hailed as the oldest fossilized human remains ever found in Europe. One year later officials admitted the skull fragment was not human but probably came from a 4 month old donkey. Scientists had said the skull belonged to a 17 year old man who lived 900,000 to 1.6 million years ago, and even had very detail drawings done to represent what he would have looked like.


THE LIE THAT "THE HUMAN EMBRYO HAS GILLS"

This claim rests on a scientific fraud committed by the evolutionist biologist Ernst Haeckel at the beginning of the 20th century. In order to come up with proof of evolution Haeckel created drawings of the embryos of such living things as human beings, chickens and fish and placed them side by side. Yet there were distortions in these images. Today the whole scientific world recognises these as counterfeit. The structure shown as a "gill" by Haeckel is actually the beginning of the middle ear channel, the parathyroid and the thymus glands.

THE LIE THAT "IT HAS BEEN PROVED THAT LIFE COULD HAVE EMERGED BY CHANCE ON THE PRIMITIVE EARTH"
The only evidence cited in evolutionist sources is the 1953 Miller Experiment. Yet no living cell was created in this experiment, just a few amino-acids were synthesised. It is mathematically impossible for amino-acids to form strings in the right sequence by chance and make proteins, and for these to give rise to a cell. Miller's synthesised amino-acids are of no significance, since his experiment used gasses which were not present in the primitive atmosphere on earth

Darwinism maintains that life on earth originated and developed from a single root, subsequently splitting off into branches, like a tree. Evolutionists have struggled to make natural history fit this claim for 150 years. Yet natural history actually paints a diametrically opposed picture. The fossil record shows that there was no "tree of life" and that the basic groups of living things emerged suddenly and at the same time. Almost all the known phyla (basic groups of living things) emerged in the Cambrian period, some 530-520 million years ago



anyway for those interested here.

http://www.darwinismrefuted.com/natu...tory_2_12.html

[Tryco Slatterus]

Nooo

It's a well known fact that we evolved from aliens.

The fact is we came here...Dominated everything on earth evolutionary wise...

And now we are the best.


There are no links showing where we came from....

We just popped up out of nowhere....

Aliens brought us here from Mars when it died out.

[enjoyincubus]

proof that science isnt as bipartisan as everyone believes.

[aserecuba]

but why the frauds in the scientific community. year after year more frauds are exposed. ever wonder that maybe there were never "ape-men" just apes??? where are the transitions in form from one specie to the other? where is the evidence, it should be all around us. species have been "evolving" for 5 billion years and we havent found nothing. just fakes such as that reptile-bird that was faricated in china.

[enjoyincubus]

Originally posted by aserecuba
but why the frauds in the scientific community. year after year more frauds are exposed. ever wonder that maybe there were never "ape-men" just apes??? where are the transitions in form from one specie to the other? where is the evidence, it should be all around us. species have been "evolving" for 5 billion years and we havent found nothing. just fakes such as that reptile-bird that was faricated in china.

and if we are from apes...why are there still apes? why were they stunted during the evolutionary process.

[Tryco Slatterus]

Originally posted by aserecuba
but why the frauds in the scientific community. year after year more frauds are exposed. ever wonder that maybe there were never "ape-men" just apes??? where are the transitions in form from one specie to the other? where is the evidence, it should be all around us. species have been "evolving" for 5 billion years and we havent found nothing. just fakes such as that reptile-bird that was faricated in china.

Very true..There should be a transition from ape to man..There should be ape-men bones all over...and there just are none..

Further backing up my alien theory....

[EAE]

Originally posted by aserecuba
[B]just trying to make a point. that what scientists say about evolution should not be taught in school as fact, until it is proven as such.

If you want schools to teach only absolute truths you're left with just math and english.

[aserecuba]

Originally posted by Tryco Slatterus
Very true..There should be a transition from ape to man..There should be ape-men bones all over...and there just are none..

Further backing up my alien theory....

tycos stop trying to hijack the tread. fact is, no such ape-men have been found. just ape. and the frauds are many.

[quodnomen]

proof is hard to come by for things that take 10's of thousands of years. But it is a sound theory fruit flys are the most obvious example that come to mind. the finchs on the galapagos islands also illustrate this point well where they are all very close to one other but over time changed to meet the needs of the land around them.

[enjoyincubus]

Originally posted by Tryco Slatterus
Very true..There should be a transition from ape to man..There should be ape-men bones all over...and there just are none..

Further backing up my alien theory....

i like this alien theory...lol...

maybe we are an old alien prison planet. they sent all the bad aliens here, and the aliens evolved into us. but the absence of of alien bones kinda shoots a hole in my theory.....

[aserecuba]

Originally posted by quodnomen
proof is hard to come by for things that take 10's of thousands of years. But it is a sound theory fruit flys are the most obvious example that come to mind. the finchs on the galapagos islands also illustrate this point well where they are all very close to one other but over time changed to meet the needs of the land around them.

micro-evolution is there. no doubt about it. hell if you spend too much time in the sun you get darker, but you dont turn into a totally different species. the finches are variations, just as there are hundreds of breeds of dogs.

[quodnomen]

Originally posted by aserecuba
micro-evolution is there. no doubt about it. hell if you spend too much time in the sun you get darker, but you dont turn into a totally different species. the finches are variations, just as there are hundreds of breeds of dogs.

tanning is a character trait, instroducing posion to fruit flies will result in their offsping being immue as well, if you are tan your children don't come out tan. And the finches have been established to have come from a uniform speicies, although i'll have to look up the article to back that statement up.

[aserecuba]

Originally posted by quodnomen
tanning is a character trait, instroducing posion to fruit flies will result in their offsping being immue as well, if you are tan your children don't come out tan. And the finches have been established to have come from a uniform speicies, although i'll have to look up the article to back that statement up.

immune is one thing. they dont turn into horse though do they.?

[quodnomen]

Originally posted by aserecuba
immune is one thing. they dont turn into horse though do they.?

nor should they, evolution says they should adapt to meet their surroundings. If a toxin is introduced that kills those who can't adapt then those you can live on. You don't see evolution in humans as much because we are about assured to live on to an age where reproduction is possilbe (13 or 14) there arn't many things that could improve our chances of that happing.

[BuckWyld]

Originally posted by enjoyincubus
and if we are from apes...why are there still apes? why were they stunted during the evolutionary process.

we did not evolve from todays apes, both apes and humans evolved from a common ancestor, according to the hypothisys

[i]Originally posted by asercuba
micro-evolution is there. no doubt about it. hell if you spend too much time in the sun you get darker, but you dont turn into a totally different species. the finches are variations, just as there are hundreds of breeds of dogs.

tanning is not evolution, it does not change your genetics.

I think part of the problem with this conversation is that people are expecting some thing that is exactly half like an ape and half like a human but it probably never existed, think of it this way you have a group of animals (our common ancestors) and they split up, half go east and half go west over thousands of years the group in the west is subjected to different problems and some die, the ones that dont die have superior genes for that region, and reproduce, now the group in the east has a different set of problems, so the ones that would have survived in the west do not survive in the east, so after thousands of years the two groups are no longer identical, at some point through genetic mutations and the like the two are different enough that they can no longer interbreed and could not have breed with the original species if they still existed, so you now have two new species that are similar to the original species.

[aserecuba]

and the transitional forms like those of water animals that suddenly took to land , allow me:


The first flaw in the evolutionary supposition occurs in respiration. Living creatures are equipped with various mechanisms that make them mostly suitable for the place of their habitation. There is a common requirement of all organisms for life : Oxygen. Oxygen is an indispensable raw material for living cells, because it is used as supply for burning carbohydrates and energy production. Living things get the oxygen from the environment they live in. The oxygen in water is much less than the oxygen in air. The oxygen that is used up by land dwelling animals is in gas form and about 21% of air is composed of oxygen.

A living organism in water is equipped with gills that enable it to use the dissolved oxygen in water. The animals on land, however, use their lungs for the same purpose. Gills and lungs that have totally different structures are two separate mechanisms that assemble oxygen to be useful for the organism’s body. An animal that leaves the water has to make infinite number of changes in its body in order to survive on land. Without these changes, survival on land would be impossible for the animal leaving its sea habitation. For instance, free oxygen in the atmosphere acts like poison for the organisms living in water; however, the contrary is valid for land dwelling animals since oxygen is too limited under water and unusable for respiration.

The point where theory of evolution gets stuck is, how animals possessing gills in water transform through mutation and natural selection into animals which can survive on land by respiration through lungs. It is widely known for a very long time that environmental factors do not give rise to evolution. Therefore, mutations and natural selection are the only causes put forward. Yet, it is really impossible to understand the role of mutation and natural selection in helping a fish to develop a very complicated organ like lungs; keeping in mind that the animal can only survive for a few minutes with an "incomplete" lung when trying to pass over to land…

[aserecuba]

Originally posted by quodnomen
nor should they, evolution says they should adapt to meet their surroundings. If a toxin is introduced that kills those who can't adapt then those you can live on. You don't see evolution in humans as much because we are about assured to live on to an age where reproduction is possilbe (13 or 14) there arn't many things that could improve our chances of that happing.

nor should they???? !!!

last time i checked we came from a 10 inch lemur looking animal, today we are so different its like a fly turning into a bird.

[aserecuba]

a few more questions.

--How did mutations, that occur completely coincidentally and generally with a distortive effect, result in the transition of an already complex system of gills, into another complex and excellent system of lungs?

---To what extent is the Neo-Darwinist theory of evolution assuming a gradualist evolution valid at this point? Is it possible for the lungs to develop gradually in a step by step manner with time? Is it possible to breathe with a premature, %10 completed lung?

----Lungs are not the only problem that arise with transition from sea to land. Sea dwelling organisms are totally different from other organisms on land regarding lenses of the eye, circulation and excretion system, as well as many others. How did these systems undergo evolution by mutation and natural selection?

-----Living things in water do not feel the need to drink water. The main purpose of drinking water is to clean the body from waste materials. Instead of this, seawater constantly circulates in the bodies of marine animals. Consequently, waste materials like ammonia are excluded into the water directly. Yet land animals do not enjoy such a luxury. Scarcity of water reserves result in its deliberate use. Therefore ammonia, which is also a poisonous waste material for organisms on land, is converted into urea by some enzymes activated within their body. For this complex function, kidneys are essential. Is it possible that these kidneys are again a result of good coincidence?


anyone outthere willing to tackle these quetions above.?? just how did those organisms that took to the land were able to survive with 10% completed lung.

[ratmonkey]

Originally posted by aserecuba
but why the frauds in the scientific community. year after year more frauds are exposed. ever wonder that maybe there were never "ape-men" just apes??? where are the transitions in form from one specie to the other? where is the evidence, it should be all around us. species have been "evolving" for 5 billion years and we havent found nothing. just fakes such as that reptile-bird that was faricated in china.

because everyone wants to be famous and known to the world as a great scientist. they weren't frauds made up to benefit the scientific community or prove evolution, they were made up to line the pockets of the fraud.

[BigBoogie]

Originally posted by aserecuba
just trying to make a point. that what scientists say about evolution should not be taught in school as fact, until it is proven as such.

Its not taught as fact, its taught as a theory.

[aserecuba]

Originally posted by BigBoogie
Its not taught as fact, its taught as a theory.

please dont lie to yourself. you know thats bs.

[BigTraps]

Evolution is real and the Earth is not 6,000 years old or whatever all the Bible thumping baptists say it is.

[quodnomen]

Originally posted by aserecuba
and the transitional forms like those of water animals that suddenly took to land , allow me:


The first flaw in the evolutionary supposition occurs in respiration. Living creatures are equipped with various mechanisms that make them mostly suitable for the place of their habitation. There is a common requirement of all organisms for life : Oxygen. Oxygen is an indispensable raw material for living cells, because it is used as supply for burning carbohydrates and energy production. Living things get the oxygen from the environment they live in. The oxygen in water is much less than the oxygen in air. The oxygen that is used up by land dwelling animals is in gas form and about 21% of air is composed of oxygen.

A living organism in water is equipped with gills that enable it to use the dissolved oxygen in water. The animals on land, however, use their lungs for the same purpose. Gills and lungs that have totally different structures are two separate mechanisms that assemble oxygen to be useful for the organism’s body. An animal that leaves the water has to make infinite number of changes in its body in order to survive on land. Without these changes, survival on land would be impossible for the animal leaving its sea habitation. For instance, free oxygen in the atmosphere acts like poison for the organisms living in water; however, the contrary is valid for land dwelling animals since oxygen is too limited under water and unusable for respiration.

The point where theory of evolution gets stuck is, how animals possessing gills in water transform through mutation and natural selection into animals which can survive on land by respiration through lungs. It is widely known for a very long time that environmental factors do not give rise to evolution. Therefore, mutations and natural selection are the only causes put forward. Yet, it is really impossible to understand the role of mutation and natural selection in helping a fish to develop a very complicated organ like lungs; keeping in mind that the animal can only survive for a few minutes with an "incomplete" lung when trying to pass over to land…

Start with this one.. i know a few biologists that could give you a much better explaination but what it comes down to is creatures with lungs can live in water. Mantees are a good example of this. They can survive 20 minutes underwater with the oxygen in their lungs. They do this because as humans we only convert 10percent of the air we breath in into useable oxygen where as mantees convert 90%. Evolution theory says yes we all evolved from water animals but some devoloped lungs and some gills. Both were able to survive in the water. Only lungs were able to survive on land however, as time went on and the need for conversionn rate droped out ability to remain underwater deminished. The evolution of gils and lungs are both possile but as evolution is to be thought of as rolling a 1 billion sided dice for it to happen you'd have to roll say a 514,547. This is why they say it take billions of years for irreversibly complex systems to come into play. (other examples are the human eye which has over 37 parts where if one is lacking it is rendered uselss and offers no advantage.) If you are really curious about lung vs gils in the evolution of animals i can check with my friend like i said he's a marine bio major so i fairly sure he can give a better definition.

[aserecuba]

Originally posted by BigTraps
Evolution is real and the Earth is not 6,000 years old or whatever all the Bible thumping baptists say it is.

wheres the proof. dont that without basis. im posing questions can you answer it.? how did aquatic animals evolve into land animals. you wont be able to . know why? because even scientists cant. here what science says about water to land evolution:

"First lungs, first organs with joints and first five fingered organisms have been formed in oceans as a result of unknown reasons and processes."

"Probably the fins of fish with lungs, gradually changed into amphibian legs in time as they crept over muddy water"

[Tryco Slatterus]

Originally posted by enjoyincubus
i like this alien theory...lol...

maybe we are an old alien prison planet. they sent all the bad aliens here, and the aliens evolved into us. but the absence of of alien bones kinda shoots a hole in my theory.....

We are the aliens...You are misunderstanding what aliens look like...They looked exactly like us...We have always looked the way we do..since we came here from mars.

[BuckWyld]

Originally posted by aserecuba
a few more questions.

--How did mutations, that occur completely coincidentally and generally with a distortive effect, result in the transition of an already complex system of gills, into another complex and excellent system of lungs?

---To what extent is the Neo-Darwinist theory of evolution assuming a gradualist evolution valid at this point? Is it possible for the lungs to develop gradually in a step by step manner with time? Is it possible to breathe with a premature, %10 completed lung?

----Lungs are not the only problem that arise with transition from sea to land. Sea dwelling organisms are totally different from other organisms on land regarding lenses of the eye, circulation and excretion system, as well as many others. How did these systems undergo evolution by mutation and natural selection?

-----Living things in water do not feel the need to drink water. The main purpose of drinking water is to clean the body from waste materials. Instead of this, seawater constantly circulates in the bodies of marine animals. Consequently, waste materials like ammonia are excluded into the water directly. Yet land animals do not enjoy such a luxury. Scarcity of water reserves result in its deliberate use. Therefore ammonia, which is also a poisonous waste material for organisms on land, is converted into urea by some enzymes activated within their body. For this complex function, kidneys are essential. Is it possible that these kidneys are again a result of good coincidence?


anyone outthere willing to tackle these quetions above.?? just how did those organisms that took to the land were able to survive with 10% completed lung.

the basic theory as I understand it, is that some creatures that were in the water little by little spent time on land, escaping predators or looking for food, sort of like how we can hold our breath and go underwater. the ones that could spend more time out of water did better because the compitition on land was not as fierce, cause there were not as many animals there, so they were able to pass their genes on. again i think that you are not looking at it in a long enough time frame, it is not like one day a fish jumped out of the water and by the time it hit the ground it had legs and lungs. this development came over thousands of years and the intermediate stages could probably best be compared to amphibians of today.

[aserecuba]

Originally posted by quodnomen
Start with this one.. i know a few biologists that could give you a much better explaination but what it comes down to is creatures with lungs can live in water. Mantees are a good example of this. They can survive 20 minutes underwater with the oxygen in their lungs. They do this because as humans we only convert 10percent of the air we breath in into useable oxygen where as mantees convert 90%. Evolution theory says yes we all evolved from water animals but some devoloped lungs and some gills. Both were able to survive in the water. Only lungs were able to survive on land however, as time went on and the need for conversionn rate droped out ability to remain underwater deminished. The evolution of gils and lungs are both possile but as evolution is to be thought of as rolling a 1 billion sided dice for it to happen you'd have to roll say a 514,547. This is why they say it take billions of years for irreversibly complex systems to come into play. (other examples are the human eye which has over 37 parts where if one is lacking it is rendered uselss and offers no advantage.) If you are really curious about lung vs gils in the evolution of animals i can check with my friend like i said he's a marine bio major so i fairly sure he can give a better definition.

evolutions says that we evolvode from water. but theres no explanation as to how those that had gills were able to survive outside, for whatever minute period of time.