This steaming pile of denier garbage only "gets a pass" because of deference to a "major religion". None of us would spend even one ounce of energy if, for instance, someone started a thread saying his houseplants told him electromagnetic theory is wrong. But, because these zombie-god worshippers have a disordinate amount of political power, we feel it necessary to breathe life into this embarrassing nonsense by trying to engage it with reason and evidence. Screw that. It deserves the same dismissal and mockery as the idea that talking houseants say electromagnetic theory is wrong, and for exactly the same reasons.
Then, there's the issue of Which/Witch religion At least 75% of believers are necessarily wrong even if one is right/stepped in it. So they should beat the hell out of each other, and first decide who/what is "god" before they even debate Atheists on the merits. They argue for 'god', myopically thinking it's their's, but (they too) Disbelieve 99% of them. Of course, Which/Witch god they believe in is a 95% a Geocultural Accident of Birth, NOT a discernible truth. Mecca:: Muslim Alabama: Christian Tel Aviv: Jew Delhi:: Hindu Haiti:: Voodoo etc If you grow up on an isolated Island you might figure out Evolution, but Jesus and the NT have to be INDOCTRINATED, as do Hindu's Elephant God (Ganesh), etc, etc, etc `
I don't have enough information to make any additional comments. You present a snake, with 2 appendages that you assert are 'legs!', but there is no anatomical or genetic evidence for this. Then you assert they are 'exactly the same position!' as a lizards legs, but with no evidence or anatomical comparison. You seem to believe this instance 'proves evolution!', but it raises more questions, a few of which i mentioned. There are similarities in all living things, but that does not prove universal common descent. 'Correlation does not imply causation'.
Yes, i understand the beliefs, that you assert here. But this is a thread for evidence, not assertions. I cannot rebut assertions, only dismiss them. Plausibility is not evidence.
I will be glad to do that, if that is your desire. I am handicapped already, outnumbered, and my posts distorted or ignored, so what is another here or there? I'll give you the last word, then comply with your request. The writer definitely believed in evolution, and was only refuting the belief that the appendix was vestigial .. that it had no current function. Since there is evidence to the contrary, now, that claim cannot be made. That was the point of my rebuttal, not that evolutionists everywhere are becoming creationists because of the appendix..
It is clear the data and evidence you require cannot be produced to your satisfaction so producing Xrays of bone structure in snakes or leg bones in whales is pointless. As no one can make a dog into a fish on demand in your living room any further attempts at education are mental masturbation and will be fruitless waste. Enjoy you purposeful ignorance and know you are pitied in laughter.
You often reply to my posts with ad hom and distortions or caricatures of my points. Your 'advice', is mostly patronizing nonsense that has no bearing on the debate. Why not try science and reason? Why the dependency on ad hom, ridicule, and distortions for the Believers in UCD? No debate. No counter arguments presented. False accusation, distortion of my posts.. Repeating your assertions, that are based on faulty assumptions is not a valid argument. I made my points several times, based on actual posts, studies, and comments, but you reject that for your own personal interpretation of this study. There is not more to say, if you will not read the study and quote the parts that support your assumptions. I've read it, quoted it, and made logical rebuttals based on the facts and reasoning. I cannot rebut assertions, beliefs, or impressions. There has to be factual evidence and reasoning to have a rebuttal.
Completely false, there is both. And it is incumbent upon a rational adult to educate himself on such an idea before opening his mouth about it. You abdicate your responsibility as a person with a functioning brain to make such ignorant rants.
Did you even read my post buddy? I made no attempt to present evidence for evolution. I was simply informing you how evolutionists use the e coli experiment. Again, I am not attempting to present evidence for evolution, I am trying to correct you in your false notion that the e coli experiment is being used as evidence of speciation and common descent. That is not how we evolutionists are using the study and I'd appreciate it if you stop repeating this refuted claim over and over again. You even quoted the actual author of the e coli study correcting another researcher who falsely believed the study was an example of speciation.
This is not belief. It is hypothesis based on observations of anatomy. Do you know what beliefs are? Do I need to explain the difference between Religion, Philosophy, and Science too?
Yes, that is how i read your posts, repeatedly. But you are mistaken, regarding this study, and how it has been trumpeted by evolutionists IN THIS FORUM, and IN OTHER REPORTS using the same data set. You keep asserting that this is not the case, and that this study means something else to evolutionists, when a cursory reading of the posts in this forum, the peripheral studies, and some peer reviews clearly say otherwise. Why is this a point of dispute? Read the studies, if you don't believe me. Or, believe what you want about it. But you are not going to convince me with repeated assertions.
A brief note about fossils: The fossil record clearly shows life forms that are extinct. We NO LONGER have that variability. You cannot assume that the life forms in the fossil record were all there were.. they were just the ones that couldn't evade the mudslide or deluge that buried them. It is an unproven & unprovable assumption that the 'snapshot' of a particular strata contains ALL the examples of life from that time. How could it? What compelling argument would make us think that the fossils in a particular stratum contain every variation of life form in existence at that time? All it shows is some forms that are lost. Some are still around, with variation, but many are lost forever.
Well, those evolutionists are just non-scientists on the internet who are simply wrong. There are misunderstandings of scientific studies everywhere on the internet and someone somewhere on the internet is going to misunderstand every evolution-related research available. Why do you keep focusing on weak arguments from people on the internet instead of the main arguments used by scientists? Why when you addressed the e coli experiment did you only attack the internet theory that this was speciation rather than addressing the real purpose of the experiment which tries to show new abilities evolving from mutation? Do you want to keep arguing against every dumb internet misconception out there or actually refute the theory of evolution by addressing the actual scientists?
No person on the planet makes things claim. You are wise to make up stuff to argue against, as your arguments against claims scientists actually make have failed spectaculary.
Well, claiming a lack of "proof" is ALWAYS the case. There is no proof of the theory of relativity, for example. There are experiments that fail to falsify relativity. Theories are always only the best explanation we have for "how" questions. With evolution, it remains the best explanation for what we find in the biological record as well as what we see through our best microscopes that watch the processes necessary for change. What exists in support of evolution is far far more than plausibility.
He excels at muddying the water; but paleontology doesn't appear to be high on his list of knowledgeable subjects.
7th grade science textbook: https://tusd.learning.powerschool.com/ango/lifescience2013-2014/cms_page/view/13773599 Enjoy!
Precisely He does not believe a trail of Millions Fossils in the right strata, DNA regresssion analysis, etc And if you have good enough evidence, he'll put you on Ignore, as he HAD to with me. The "Full Ostrich" solution. What would usfan would require as proof. OK?
First of all, please offer one example in which a attack you personally. Secondly, I am sorry you find my advice is patronizing, but I firmly stand by what I said and would give it to even allies who were abusing the ignore button (especially to allies since I want them to succeed). Finally, while I admit I do occasionally ridicule the beliefs of those who ignore science and logic in favor of mythology and pseudo-science, I did not distort your posts. Please show me where I have distorted your post.
Enjoy the show with your heckling comrades, while you pretend denial. I'm tired of bickering with unscientific minded indoctrinees. Ignore my posts all you want. I'll debate the subject, but I'm tired of lies, hysteria, and fallacies. You can heckle with your buddies and disrupt all you want. But if anyone wants to debate the science, I'll be here.
No, it is a belief. You have no empirical evidence for this, but it all rests on assumptions of plausibility. Loudly asserting your opinions is not an evidentiary debate.
More on neanderthal, since many people still believe, falsely, that they were a 'subspecies!' of man, or a missing link.. for a long time paleoanthropologists have viewed Neanderthals as too dull and too clumsy to use efficient tools, never mind organize a hunt and divvy up the game. Fact is, this site, along with others across Europe and in Asia, is helping overturn the familiar conception of Neanderthals as dumb brutes. Recent studies suggest they were imaginative enough to carve artful objects and perhaps clever enough to invent a language. Neanderthals, traditionally designated Homo sapiens neanderthalensis, were not only human but also, it turns out, more modern than scientists previously allowed. In the minds of the European anthropologists who first studied them, Neanderthals were the embodiment of primitive humans, subhumans if you will, says Fred H. Smith, a physical anthropologist at LoyolaUniversity in Chicago who has been studying Neanderthal DNA. They were believed to be scavengers who made primitive tools and were incapable of language or symbolic thought.Now, he says, researchers believe that Neanderthals were highly intelligent, able to adapt to a wide variety of ecologicalzones, and capable of developing highly functional tools to help them do so. They were quite accomplished. source Neanderthals were human. They buried their dead, used tools, had a complex social structure, employed language, and played musical instruments. Neanderthal anatomy differences are extremely minor and can be for the most part explained as a result of a genetically isolated people that lived a rigorous life in a harsh, cold climate. https://www.smithsonianmag.com/science-nature/rethinking-neanderthals-83341003/ Since drawing about 60% of neanderthal dna, a lot has been discovered about them. They interbred with homo sapien. ~ 2 Billion people have neanderthal genes in them.. mostly european & asian. What does this tell us? They were the same species. Separate species cannot interbreed. They were merely a 'tribe' of humans that had unique physical features.. like many tribes today. Their genetic 'line' can be traced. They did not evolve separately, nor were they a distinct hominid species. They just 'looked different' than whatever normal 'homo sapiens' looked like. This was a problem for those in the evolution field. We were suspicious of the result, Reich says. We found signals of mixture and then worked very hard to make them go away. He tried for a year, to no avail. Finally, Reich and his colleagues had no choice but to conclude that Neanderthals had mated with humans. They estimated that the DNA of living Asians and Europeans was (on average) 2.5 percent Neanderthal. source We are spoon fed these kinds of images from infancy.. They are the result of a creative mind, but not anything that can be called science.Evolutionists are so desperate to validate their 'theory' that the fall victim too easily to any scammer or self seeking con man looking to make a name for himself. Instead of trying to force the data into the theory, why not try something novel? Use the scientific method. Let the data speak for itself, rather than distorting it into some philosophical propaganda.
