Fallacies of Evolution

Africa is warm and dry for the most part so we (meaning our early hominid ancestors) did not need a lot of fur but yes, we still had some while we were dwelling in trees. It was only when we moved to colder climes that we adapted by using the furs of other animals.

Yes, we do have claws and they are more than sufficient for what we needed them for which was peeling the fruit that we were eating in trees and on bushes. They also sufficed for grooming. Likewise our teeth demonstrate an omnivorous diet so we would take advantage of the protein in reptiles, birds and small mammals as well as the diet of fruit.

Yes, we can eat raw meat and still do to this day. However cooking it just made it easier to digest and to preserve it for longer periods.

The earliest tools have been found in Africa around the 3.3 millions years old.

http://www.bbc.com/news/science-environment-32804177

This suggests that it was our precursors who first used tools and that we descended from toolmakers.

So to answer your question the intelligence to make and use tools predated our loss of fur.

 

All creationists, not scientists.

 

Says the believer in an 1859 hypothesis, proffered by an admitted ignoramus who wrote that his "speculations run quite beyond the bounds of true science."

Call these scientists whatever you will. They do not suffer foolishness gladly, and you have to ask yourself how there could be so many tens, or hundreds of thousands of VERY well educated people who reject what you pretend is "the truth."



"To insist, even with Olympian assurance, that life appeared quite by chance and evolved in this fashion, is an unfounded supposition which I believe to be wrong and not in accordance with the facts." (Dr. Pierre-Paul Grasse, University of Paris & past-president of French Academy of Science.)

"It is emphatically the case that life could not arise spontaneously in a primeval soup from its kind." (Dr. A.E Wilder Smith, chemist and former evolutionist)

"The idea of spontaneous generation of life in its present form is therefore highly improbable even to the scale of the billions of years during which prebotic evolution occurred." (Dr. Ilya Prigogine, Nobel Prize winner)

"The complexity of the simplest known type cell is so great that it is impossible to accept that such an object could have been thrown together by some kind of freakish, vastly improbable event. Such an occurrence would be indistinguishable from a miracle." (Dr. Michael Denton, molecular biochemist)

"The probability of life originating from accident is comparable to the probability of the unabridged dictionary resulting from an explosion in a printing shop." (Dr. Edwin Conklin, evolutionist and professor of biology at Princeton University.)

"Hypothesis [evolution] based on no evidence and irreconcilable with the facts....These classical evolutionary theories are a gross over-simplification of an immensely complex and intricate mass of facts, and it amazes me that they are swallowed so uncritically and readily, and for such a long time, by so many scientists without a murmur of protest." (Sir Ernst Chan, Nobel Prize winner for developing penicillin)

 

It would seem most people who dispute evolution have much the same problem comprehending the concept of time. Humans did not lose fur in a day, week, year, or even a thousand of them. Whales did not suddenly appear but gradually became what we see today over hundreds of millions of years. If they could somehow grasp this concept the silly questions would stop and what they call "proof" would be achieved.

 

Those that dispute evolution have an agenda that obstructs comprehension of science.

 

Yeah...God does that to people.

 

A handful of people reject proven science. None of the people you listed are scientists. They are creationists.



"

"[/QUOTE]

 

Yes, it's called Quote Mining.
A favorite tactic of Creationists.
Using Un/DE-contexted quotes to give the impression there are problems with Evolution, even when the quotes are oft from believers in it, or from other small-percent crackpots.

The Quote Mine Project
Or, Lies, Damned Lies and Quote Mines
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/quotes/mine/project.html

Common ones: (including many of yours)
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/quotes/mine/contents.html

Up through #60 of them here, ALL debunked.
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/quotes/mine/part1-4.html

It's a pathetic Failure/excuse for NOT being able to discuss Evo yourself.

Further, you have PLAGIARIZED them from some Creationist website. I say PLAGIARIZED, because using exact quotes, in exact sequence, is a Unique idea/technique.. and there is often No proof they exist except from those websites.

LINK?
Then we can all Laugh.
AIG/Answers in Genesis?
ICR/Institute for Creation Research?
ie, the first quote is from a Young Earth Creationist (6000 yr old earth) 'biologist'! - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Duane_Gish
Garbage.​

 

Of course, if we got all this diversity of 'kinds' in the last 4000 years then that would be superdoopercrevolution on an epic scale.

 

.....or....religion.

 

"Not particularly well suited", eh?

Tell me how smart the blue whale, with the biggest brain of any animal that ever existed, is?
Suppose you had the body of a blue whale (Al Gore comes pretty close), how would you:
a. Build a building
b. Build an aircraft
c. Make a computer
d. Write books and collect them in libraries
e. Write symphonies and listen to them
f. Paint art and present it in museums

As to humans "inventing fire," maybe you've never heard of lightning strikes, starting forest fires.
Maybe you've never seen videos of volcano lava burning down houses and forests.

Your desperation to protect the nonsense of Charles Darwin is showing, and it isn't pretty.

 

If we all worked on the assumption that what is accepted as true is really true, there would be little hope of advance. - Orville Wright

The world's premier scientist, Lord Kelvin, then president of the Royal Society, said in 1895:
"Heavier than air flying machines are impossible."

Two uneducated bicycle mechanics didn't listen to him, did they. You don't get it, rahl. Science is about discovery, not "consensus."

 

It's about discovery yes. We discovered the mechanism which explains the diversity of life on this planet. There is a consensus among scientist regarding that discovery. That it conflicts with your magical sky fairy and it's evil book doesn't alter reality one iota.

 

Prunepicker and ChemEngineer seem determined to confirm their ignorance of the subject.
The only argument the two quote mining clowns are capable of making is"nuh-uh"

 

Don't laugh...on another forum one right winger actually asked why we don't see species morphing before our eyes.

 

oh ffs cut out the misdirection. im not attacking or defending evolution. i think its mostly accurate but we're not getting the whole story.

of course we're more well suited to building than the blue whale, and of course fire existed before humans. but what kept them warm while they were learning to build it themselves?
the blue whale is perfectly suited to its environment. even if it had hands to build with, it has no need *to* build, so theres no reason that it would expend the effort to figure out how.
evolution fails to explain the human developement from furry ape forager to hairless builder and inventor. something happened to us beyond mere mutation and adaptation.

 

BTW evolution and creation are not mutually exclusive. if there is a spiritual element to humans (and i believe there is) then most likely we are multidiminsional interfaces- our physical body in this world, our spirit in snother, both of them linked somehow within our consciousness/soul. Evolution explains the physical prolongued adaptation of our physical bodies and our physical world. creation would be the spiritual explanation of the developement of our consciousness guided by beings (partially or fully) outside our physical realm, outside our ability to measure and test.

Theres no reason we have to choose one or the other. Both could be roughly true (and would make far more sense together, imo).

 

Science is NOT about consensus. When will you EVER learn that? The subject is science. Try to stick to science, will you?
Is that too hard? Obviously it is.

Another fallacy of evolution, the topic of this thread, is currently on television. The Alaskan ground squirrel, hibernates for 8 months, as his temperature falls almost to freezing, his heartbeat and breathing slow to almost negligable. Tell the audience how this came about GRADUALLY, step by Doofus Darwinian step. Science. Try it, for a change.

 

Point taken. I submit that Darwinism, by itself, is fraudulent. Many thousands of very well educated scientists, over a wide variety of beliefs and faiths, agree that random mutations do NOT have the creative capacity its pretenders claim.

 

You had NO answer to my last, Outing/destroying your disgraceful Quote Mining and PLAGIARISM.
No LINK provided even after demanded.
This is Not legitimate posting and Unacceptable.
You must provide Links when something was obviously Copied.
LINK?

As to your latest, and other Constantly used Fallacious technique...
It's Called...
Argument from incredulity
http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Argument_from_incredulity

The argument from incredulity is a Logical Fallacy that occurs when someone decides that something did not happen, because they cannot personally understand how it could happen.

Examples
Creationism

• "Scientists are at a loss to explain the evolution of the platypus by Darwinian evolution. [Unwritten assumption: If it was of a Darwinian origin, scientists should know how it happened]. Therefore, it didn't evolve."

As an example, Creationists Incessantly use some Difficult-to-explain facet of biology as "proof" of a creator. The problem is that, though there is no non-design explanation for how precisely a certain organ could have evolved at the moment, one may be discovered in the future. Contrary to the instincts of many creationists, lack of an explanation does not justify confecting whatever explanation one would prefer. The inexplicable is just that, and does not justify speculation as proof.

Sometimes creationists compute the astronomical odds against a molecule having a certain structure from the simple probability of n atoms arranging themselves so. They gloss over the fact that chemical laws trim most of the extraneous possibilities away. For instance, there are many ways to theoretically arrange hydrogen atoms and oxygen atoms in a molecule, but in reality, most of what forms is H2O. Note that the creationist's fundamental error is not his ignorance of this fact, but his assumption that there is nothing more to know.".."
- - - - - -
Other elucidations of this Fallacy oft used by creationist clowns.
https://www.google.com/search?q=arg.....69i57j0l3.9799j0j7&sourceid=chrome&ie=UTF-8
(Closely related are "Argument from Ignorance" and "God of the Gaps.")

Your Two Goofy Mainstays, now gone.
Any others, be glad to Destroy them too.
​

 

Everyone knows that a big guy in the sky sitting at a drafting table designed that squirrel.

 

Adaptation is the driving force behind evolution! A species continually adapts to its environment until is is not longer the same species. That is the whole crux of evolution and natural selection. If you were take, say a Chevy, and put a Ford engine in it, then a few months later, Ford body and a few more months later, a Ford interior, is it still a Chevy?

 

You would think he would have upgraded to CAD by now.

 

Science is most certainly about consensus.