Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
(in response to Newton not knowing of relativity) Did you mean gravity or Physics? I think that Einstein fellow was the relativity guy, of course I could be mistaken here too
"Gravity or Physics?" What are you on about? Physics is a branch of science that concerns itself with, among other things, gravity. Your arrogance is misplaced.
Newton formulated some of the basic laws of physics, including gravity, and his insights were such that they stood unchallenged for centuries. Just one problem: Eventually, new information appeared, and it turned out he was only describing an (admittedly major) subset of conditions - when things get really fast, really big or really small, Newton's laws simply no longer hold. (This was Einstein's work, of course.) Newton was wrong.
Does Einstein's work subtract from Newton's? Of course not. Newton made a leap of understanding based on what facts he had.
Same thing with Darwin. Darwin was wrong about a lot of the particulars. He had no genetics, no modern dating techniques, no DNA - he didn't even know for sure whether acquired characteristics could be inherited.
Darwin is not a prophet and his words are not scripture. His basic idea still holds - speciation though inheritance of selected traits.
Quote:
This really does define your complete lack of understanding of the matter in one neat sentence.
Sure.
Quote:
The discovery of both modern man and that of his alleged evolutionary ancestor coexisting is a major hurdle.
Wrong. Whether two species of primate form two distinct evolutionary branches or whether one predates the other really isn't a big deal at all. Sure, some paleontologists will undoubtedly have long arguments over it, but it's not a counterargument against evolution at all.
Quote:
The evolution champions answer this rather devastating information
You still owe an explanation as to why it's "devastating".
Quote:
with their "Island Theory", which postulates that a closed group of ancient humans collected in an area and settled in, which shielded them from the rest of the species and the various elements which drove their relatives evolutionary processes toward modern man. This group just didn't evolve, and therefore remained unchanged .. and interacted with the more evolved species later.
Wow, that's actually a pretty fair understanding of a possible speciation event. I'm impressed.
Quote:
Of course this is such a scientific and sound theory .... NOT. Total hogwash by alleged scientists who'd do ANYTHING to avoid admitting that their entire life's work amounted to nonsense, which is the only conceivable reason for such a ridiculous theory to gain any acceptance whatsoever,
See, this is where you are supposed to come up with a counter-argument, instead of saying "This is just not so" and invent motives for people who formulated the theory. Island genetics is well-known phenomenon and has been observed in nature in any number of instances.
Quote:
especially given the complete absence of ONE SINGLE fossilized example of evolutionary transition ... not one!
Are you aware of, say, Tiktaalik? A nice transition between fish and tetrapod. Please don't disappoint me by saying that it just adds two gaps rather than filling one, because that argument is tiresome.
Quote:
The bottom line is that there is only theory, and no evidence to support it.
In scinece, theory as as good as it gets. And there's tons of evidence. Every time new biological knowledge is uncovered, it fits. Sequencing genomes could have shattered ToE, yet it just ended up confirming what we thought. Sure, some minor adjustments took place in the way we arranged species, but the theory holds. Have you stopped to consider why all the major primates have the gene for vitamin C synthesis broken in the exact same way?
Do you have an alternate explanation for endogenous retroviruses?
Quote:
The earth's estimated age has increased from 2.3 Billion at the turn of the century to 4.6 Billion years today to accommodate more advanced techniques in measuring microbiological species mutation and change,
Wrong. Pure physics.
Quote:
Funny how you are so quick to embrace the idea that "creation" is political, while "evolution" is purely scientific?
Because the stupid people behind the Intelligent Design movement published their intentions. And why is it they fight for ID not in universities, but on local school boards? Wouldn't the biological departments be the place where new scientific insights came from?
Quote:
The entire premise behind evolution was an effort to prove a universal negative, which is impossible to do. That is to prove that God (or a Creator) does not exist ... and here's the proof ... "evolution".
Evolution proves no such thing. Evolution and deism is perfectly able to coexist.
Quote:
I do believe in intelligent design because, for lack of sound evidence to the contrary, ID is the most logical default conclusion.
Yeah. "We can't conceive the complexity of the universe, so we'll just postulate a creator. Problem solved." Did it occur to you that the creator must be more complex than the universe? If you hear a faint hum in the background, it's Occam turning in his grave. ID solves nothing.
Quote:
And you might find it odd that one of Darwin's followers, Sir Arthur Keith, the famous British evolutionary anthropologist and anatomist said,
Why should I give two farts as to what Keith said as long as it wasn't based in science? He's no more an authority on religion than I am. The man was probably a fine anatomist, but he also appears to have been a bit of a whackjob. He's even suspected of having been complicit in the Piltdown man forgery, for heaven's sake.
Quote:
Evolution has lacked scientific evidence from day one, and still does. It's a total bill of goods and a desperate attempt to prove the non-existence of a "Creator", and therefor, by definition, politically motivated,and not of sound science.
Evolution does not speak to the existence of a creator.
Or when they are frustrated with a criminal level of stupidity.
Really because given so much credence to an INVENTED neo-religious sob story should be criminal. Ignorance should be out lawed, especially the kind induced by politial-religious ferocity.
The lack of any evidence in the fossil record showing the transition for this evolution should exist if the theory were true ... and that is according to Darwin, himself. That there isn't a single instance of it, refutes the theory, as well as the other common sense reasons mentioned.
See above post. These things are starring you in the face. There is nothingh complicated about it.
And you are the one who keeps injecting the religious argument here ... this is the diversion used when you have no evidence to support your ridiculous claims.
Intelligent design was INVENTED in the 1980's as a "legal" alternative to teach creationism. Ergo you can't discuss intelligent design without bringing up religion.
No, I'm refuting the validity or applicability of the straw man argument you keep trying to construct. And if EVERYTHING it means to be human is because of that thumb, why are monkeys not human ... they even have opposing digits on the feet as well as their hands?
What's so hard to accept? Human development is due to the thumb. It's really quite simple, and I think fascinating at the same time.
You really don't see how ridiculous you are, do you?
I'm being ridiculous?!? You are the one who insists on ignoring solid scientific facts because it conflicts with some inane religious belief---your pastor probably put on you back in Bible study.
Prove to me God exists! I don't want a belief, I already have that. I want undeniable proof.
You've got me there ... I must admit that I have never been a museum. Been a lot of things in my life, but a museum isn't one of them.
See! Educating yourself will go along way. Although I'm sure you're being sarcastic. Well, I'm not.
Yes .. and I mean seriously ... you obviously don't understand the concept here .... this slow progressive evolution of the millions of species on the planet for millions of years ... and the 100's of millions of fossils collected cannot show the transition of any one of those millions of species ... we're not talking about THE "missing link" we're talking about A MISSING LINK out of millions of missing links that should be there .. as in not one single missing link that would provide evidence that the evolution theory was correct. Now take a deep breath, and get some oxygen to your brain ... this isn't a difficult concept ... you should be able to grasp it.
You still think it's so easy to just stumble onto these things? Out of the billions of years, millions of generations, millions of square miles that would need to be searched, the inpermanence of organisms. Again, we don't need fossil records to prove this, we have traits, genes, DNA, living bodies that ALL cooraberate evolution.
Prove to me there is a God!
This is your expert opinion? It's hard to find .. stuff gets covered up. How F'ing old are you?
I certainly have a higher maturity level than you do!
Only noticeable in retrospective? So there is a retrospective? As in some fossilized record of this transition? Or do you mean noticeable as in we both have friggin thumbs, so ...duh .. we must have evolved from them? We have eyes ... they have eyes ... we have ears they have ears ... there you have it, proof! Is this the BS you believe?
Yes, in retrospective! The process is sooooo slow that its not noticible in the generation. There is about 5 million years between us Homo Sapiens and our primate common ancestor. You do realize there are several dozen human species that have exisited, Cro-Magnon, Neanderthal, Homo Erectus, Homo Sapiens, and several others. Homo Sapiens are the only that exist today, why, because the other species went extinct for various reason, best one I can give is that we, Homo Sapiens had a better survival/evolutionary chance. Take it as a compliment--we are superior beings.
You simply cannot be for real. This is a joke ... fess up. Who put you up to this nonsensical diatribe of insanity?
I think you're actually pissed that someone is questioning your whatever it is,...nonesense, and you can't stand it. Well this is how people learn and mature as individuals.
I'm not going to address the thumb again. You really are obsessed. But the most efficient runner? Not even close to the truth. Walking heal first is more efficient than toe first, but running toe first is FAR MORE EFFICIENT. We sacrifice in the running department, and are one of the LEAST efficient runners because of the heel first walking stability we gain. So you are flat WRONG AGAIN.
HAHA! Ok, well when being chased down by a tiger or something, or hunting for food and water in a hot climate, where you may need to get out of danger quickly, you need to be efficient. I don't think you know what effiency even is. It's the abilty to conserve energy over a longer distance. we run quickly over short spurts of time to move longer distances. Seriously, a four year old would understand this.
Funny, those are my sentiments exactly.
I must admit, I often confuse giraffes and horses and cows, and I'm a Texan!!! But the differences do become apparent when you need a three story ladder to put a halter on a giraffe Sorry, but this is so ridiculous I really didn't know what else to say except ...... DON'T FORGET YOUR MEDS.
Well they are related as you are related to your cousins. Apparently you aren't reading what I'm writing because I've said several times that environment has almost as much to do with evolution as genetics does. Every organism is a product of it's environment. Giraffes live in a completely different environment than cows, but they share a common ancestor, a very distant cousin. A simple comparison is all you need to do. We don't need fossil (although they exist) to show this comparison.
Believe me ... at this point, you're right, I am sticking my fingers in my ears, because I just can't take anymore of your complete utter nonsensical ramblings.
May God grant you education and enlightenment...because he forgot to the first time around.
"Transitional fossils (popularly termed missing links) are the fossilized remains of intermediary forms of life that illustrate an evolutionary transition. They can be identified by their retention of certain primitive (plesiomorphic) traits in comparison with their more derived relatives, as they are defined in the study of cladistics. Numerous examples exist, including those of primates and early humans."
Not so fast there wikipedia ... let's not dance on the surface of this argument and start high fiving ... you're obviously not familiar with the subject, but expert in Google (which defines the majority of "expert opinions" here on CD)
No Fossil Evidence.
It used to be claimed that the best evidence for evolution was the fossil record, but the fact is that the billions of known fossils have not yet yielded a single unequivocal transitional form with transitional structures in the process of evolving.
Quote:
"The known fossil record fails to document a single example of phyletic evolution accomplishing a major morphologic transition. . . ."
(Steven M. Stanley, Macroevolution: Pattern and Process -San Francisco: W.M. Freeman and Co., 1979), p. 39.)
Quote:
"As is now well known, most fossil species appear instantaneously in the fossil record, persist for some millions of years virtually unchanged, only to disappear abruptly. . . ."
(Tom Kemp - Curator of the University Museum at Oxford University. "A Fresh Look at the Fossil Record," New Scientist, December 5, 1985)
Furthermore, many modern evolutionists agree with the following assessment, because the fossil record does more to disprove evolution than it does prove it:
Quote:
"In any case, no real evolutionist . . . uses the fossil record as evidence in favor of the theory of evolution as opposed to special creation. . . ."
(Mark Ridley -Professor of Zoology at Oxford University - "Who Doubts Evolution?" New Scientist)
No Order in the Fossils.
Not only are there no true transitional forms in the fossils; there is not even any general evidence of evolutionary progression in the actual fossil sequences, as submitted by one of the most prominent modern evolutionists Stephen Jay Gould, Professor of Geology at Harvard who says:
Quote:
"I regard the failure to find a clear "vector of progress" in life's history as the most puzzling fact of the fossil record. . . . we have sought to impose a pattern that we hoped to find on a world that does not really display it."
Not only is there no definitive transitional fossil record, the record itself and the timeline is manufactured, and is rather false and misleading. Any slight appearance of an evolutionary pattern in the fossil record has actually been imposed on it by the fact that the rocks containing the fossils have themselves been "dated" by their fossils, when no foundation exists to make those claims.
There is far more to life than a brief overview on wikipedia!
Or when they are frustrated with a criminal level of stupidity.
Really because given so much credence to an INVENTED neo-religious sob story should be criminal. Ignorance should be out lawed, especially the kind induced by politial-religious ferocity.
The lack of any evidence in the fossil record showing the transition for this evolution should exist if the theory were true ... and that is according to Darwin, himself. That there isn't a single instance of it, refutes the theory, as well as the other common sense reasons mentioned.
See above post. These things are starring you in the face. There is nothingh complicated about it.
And you are the one who keeps injecting the religious argument here ... this is the diversion used when you have no evidence to support your ridiculous claims.
Intelligent design was INVENTED in the 1980's as a "legal" alternative to teach creationism. Ergo you can't discuss intelligent design without bringing up religion.
No, I'm refuting the validity or applicability of the straw man argument you keep trying to construct. And if EVERYTHING it means to be human is because of that thumb, why are monkeys not human ... they even have opposing digits on the feet as well as their hands?
What's so hard to accept? Human development is due to the thumb. It's really quite simple, and I think fascinating at the same time.
You really don't see how ridiculous you are, do you?
I'm being ridiculous?!? You are the one who insists on ignoring solid scientific facts because it conflicts with some inane religious belief---your pastor probably put on you back in Bible study.
Prove to me God exists! I don't want a belief, I already have that. I want undeniable proof.
You've got me there ... I must admit that I have never been a museum. Been a lot of things in my life, but a museum isn't one of them.
See! Educating yourself will go along way. Although I'm sure you're being sarcastic. Well, I'm not.
Yes .. and I mean seriously ... you obviously don't understand the concept here .... this slow progressive evolution of the millions of species on the planet for millions of years ... and the 100's of millions of fossils collected cannot show the transition of any one of those millions of species ... we're not talking about THE "missing link" we're talking about A MISSING LINK out of millions of missing links that should be there .. as in not one single missing link that would provide evidence that the evolution theory was correct. Now take a deep breath, and get some oxygen to your brain ... this isn't a difficult concept ... you should be able to grasp it.
You still think it's so easy to just stumble onto these things? Out of the billions of years, millions of generations, millions of square miles that would need to be searched, the inpermanence of organisms. Again, we don't need fossil records to prove this, we have traits, genes, DNA, living bodies that ALL cooraberate evolution.
Prove to me there is a God!
This is your expert opinion? It's hard to find .. stuff gets covered up. How F'ing old are you?
I certainly have a higher maturity level than you do!
Only noticeable in retrospective? So there is a retrospective? As in some fossilized record of this transition? Or do you mean noticeable as in we both have friggin thumbs, so ...duh .. we must have evolved from them? We have eyes ... they have eyes ... we have ears they have ears ... there you have it, proof! Is this the BS you believe?
Yes, in retrospective! The process is sooooo slow that its not noticible in the generation. There is about 5 million years between us Homo Sapiens and our primate common ancestor. You do realize there are several dozen human species that have exisited, Cro-Magnon, Neanderthal, Homo Erectus, Homo Sapiens, and several others. Homo Sapiens are the only that exist today, why, because the other species went extinct for various reason, best one I can give is that we, Homo Sapiens had a better survival/evolutionary chance. Take it as a compliment--we are superior beings.
You simply cannot be for real. This is a joke ... fess up. Who put you up to this nonsensical diatribe of insanity?
I think you're actually pissed that someone is questioning your whatever it is,...nonesense, and you can't stand it. Well this is how people learn and mature as individuals.
I'm not going to address the thumb again. You really are obsessed. But the most efficient runner? Not even close to the truth. Walking heal first is more efficient than toe first, but running toe first is FAR MORE EFFICIENT. We sacrifice in the running department, and are one of the LEAST efficient runners because of the heel first walking stability we gain. So you are flat WRONG AGAIN.
HAHA! Ok, well when being chased down by a tiger or something, or hunting for food and water in a hot climate, where you may need to get out of danger quickly, you need to be efficient. I don't think you know what effiency even is. It's the abilty to conserve energy over a longer distance. we run quickly over short spurts of time to move longer distances. Seriously, a four year old would understand this.
Funny, those are my sentiments exactly.
I must admit, I often confuse giraffes and horses and cows, and I'm a Texan!!! But the differences do become apparent when you need a three story ladder to put a halter on a giraffe Sorry, but this is so ridiculous I really didn't know what else to say except ...... DON'T FORGET YOUR MEDS.
Well they are related as you are related to your cousins. Apparently you aren't reading what I'm writing because I've said several times that environment has almost as much to do with evolution as genetics does. Every organism is a product of it's environment. Giraffes live in a completely different environment than cows, but they share a common ancestor, a very distant cousin. A simple comparison is all you need to do. We don't need fossil (although they exist) to show this comparison.
Believe me ... at this point, you're right, I am sticking my fingers in my ears, because I just can't take anymore of your complete utter nonsensical ramblings.
May God grant you education and enlightenment...because he forgot to the first time around.
You really are a disturbed person!!
I'll let you be with your "opinions", because, quite frankly, this topic is way over your head, as was my rather clear "dig" that zoomed right past, without touching a hair ... ??? The part about you being a Museum, and my response that I have never been a "Museum" ... it's true, I've never been a Museum ... I have been TO Museums, but never been one myself.
This may be a case of attention deficit ... I don't know ... but it is an example (and I'm not making fun or beating you up here) of lack of attention to detail, and subtlety, which doesn't bode well for analyzing complex matters.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Sorry, but this is so ridiculous I really didn't know what else to say except ...... DON'T FORGET YOUR MEDS. 
