Evolution??

When the evidence is regarded scientifically, as opposed to emotionally, it is clear that the theory of evolution no longer has any validity and it is doubtful whether it ever did have validity. Observing a single phenomena, such as natural selection, and extrapolating it to be a theory of everything, without having corroborative evidence, is a viewpoint that is destined to be proved irresponsible in the long term. The corporate/science community makes many such self-serving theory, as is evidenced by their endorsement of the equally illogical "Big Bang!", "Black Hole", "String Theory", "Super String Theory", "Infinite Density" and a host of others. The corporate/science maxim, which really is the corporate/government maxim, is that the bigger the lie, the greater the believeability. This is based on the theory that the more people don't understand something, the likelier it is that they will accept it if people in responsible positions pay tribute to it. The corporate/government learned how to use this propaganda by using the Big Lie Theory, or the BLT as it is commonly referred to, early in the century from Robert Lansing, who was Woodrow Wilson's secretary of state. Hitler then used that propaganda method to great effect, and it is in continued use in modern time. Darwinian Theory of Evolution is just another sad product of that immoral method of indoctrinating society for political gain.

If scientific evidence is regarded on it's merit, it clearly shows that evolution as a theory of everything cannot possibly be true. The earliest known evidence of our type of human is Cro-Magnon and it dates from 30,000 year ago. The next closest hominid fossil evidence is Neanderthal and they have their last remains dated to just a few thousand year before Cro-Magnon first appeared. The next closest is Skhul V and they are last dated to 90,000 year ago. The Skhul V's and the Neanderthal's have similar structure to each other but they do not share those similarities with Cro-Magnon. They have thick brows, prognathic facial bones, wide angular cheek bones and a low cranium. The Cro-Magnon has a high, vaulted cranium, a very large brain, a skull that is proportionately different than all the previous hominids, a non-prognathic face, and an overall skeletal structure that is significantly lighter than all previous hominids. These differences are so clearly defined that any amateur can tell that the Cro-Magnons and the Neanderthals are not from the same phylogenic family.

For comparison purposes, the Cro-Magnon, Skhul V and Neanderthal can be viewed at the Smithsonian Institution website I will link to below. The Cro-Magnon 1 is us, the Le Moustier is Neanderthal, and the Skhul V is self explanatory;

http://www.mnh.si.edu/anthro/humanor...ha/catalog.htm

The Skhul V and the Neanderthals, which are dated to the same time period, leave a very few thousand year between the disappearence of them from the face of the earth and the appearence of our type of hominid. Evolution theorists leave virtually no natural selective time for them to change into the seven thousand different type of us on this planet. Each of our race of human is genetically different from all the others and that is proven and recorded science, as is evidenced by the Human Genome Project of which Stanford Professor Neil Risch is world renowned. There is no way for the evolutionists to refute that data and there is no way for them to explain how Neanderthals changed into the seven thousand diferent types of us in less than ten thousand year when all their previous models have evolutionary change taking tens of million of year.

when the evidence is regarded by someone who has problems understanding the article he uses as evidence against evolution, i'm not surprised the conclusion he reaches is illogical.

if you'd actually looked at the phylogenetic tree from the site you linked to, you'd see that neanderthals and homo sapiens diverge from a common ancestor, homo heidelbergensis, homo sapiens didn't evolve from neanderthals. This is a common misunderstanding amongst creationists who don't understand the theory they disagree with.

BTW, were did 7000 come from, your posterior, or someone elses?

If you'd actually read the article by risch, you'd realise that it shows that there are distinct differences in allele frequencies between subpopulations of humans, not "distinct" new genes. It isn't a problem for evolution at all, but then, you wouldn't know that because;

replace accept with reject.

the other mistake you make is assuming that the first appearance of a fossil represents the first appearance of that organism on the earth, an erroneus assumption, as evidenced by the fact that mitochondrial molecular clocks show mitochondrial eve appeared about 100,000 years ago

__________________
'Facts do not cease to exist because they are ignored.'
(Aldous Huxley)

  John, before you go on your little anti-science rants, perhaps it would be a good idea to check your concepts.

  Black Holes exist. They've been spotted (tiny massive objects do effect other masses in the area). One grad student, in fact, is pretty sure he's got nice shots of a black hole eating a star.

  String Theory is like the standard model. It's a way of explaining the behavior and interactions of particles. It can expand out into brane theory, but they're still waiting on any real confirmation there.

   Super Strings are physical objects. They're like black-holes, in a way. None have been spotted, so a better phrase is "theoretical objects".

   So, you've tried together a known object, a model competing with the Standard Model, and a proposed object.

   You apparantly think they're similiar for some reason. Why?

 

Why is it so hard to get evolutionists to engage in a discussion about their favorite subject? Maybe it is because they know nothing about it and are just parroting what they have been told to believe by the people who shaped their beliefs.

Evolutionists always say that their belief is based on a common ancestor. They say that the common ancestor emigrated out of Africa. From there the common ancestor changed into seven thousand different races that we now have on the planet, each of which has different loci clusters of gene that prove they are pure breeds and not cross breeds which do not have the distinct loci clusters of the pure breeds. The Human Genome Project confirms this but the evolutionists prefer not to regard science anymore ever since it started proving their theory wrong.

To get back to their common ancestor emigrating out of Africa, how did the common ancestor change into seven thousand different race and leave no record of any of those race anywhere? (The number seven thousand race of human, by the way, is from the catalogue of races which is found in any modern library in the reference section) The record of ancient hominids on this planet is referenced in my previous post in the link to the Smithsonian Institution and if you regard the record you will see there are only a couple of dozen different categories and that the only human among them is the Cro-Magnon. Evolutionists are fond of saying that all of us different type of humans evolved over a long period of time and that is why there can be so many different race of us now. But the fossil record shows that our type of human first appeared only 30,000 year ago. The previous types of hominid are what the evolutionists say changed into us, and if that is their position then they have to explain how they changed into us and give a time frame. If they can't do that, which the evidence proves they can't, then they are not being scientific and are just mouthing off to try and sound smart when they really don't know much about evolution at all.

Some of the posters to this thread have repeatedly used disparaging language to try and reinforce their position, to no avail. I'm not interested in their childish insults, which I ignore for the foolishness which it is. I am interested in a real discussion and it seems apparent that the evolutionists are not the ones capable of arguing successfully for their stated belief. I've heard lots about books I should read or review, but I'm quite sure I've read more book than all the posters to this thread combined. If evolutionists believe in their theory, then this is their opportunity to defend it in a rational manner without the childish rhetoric. I don't really expect any evolutionists to defend their theory in a rational way, because I know that the theory itself is bogus and that the scientific evidence doesn't exist to support it.

If there are any evolutionists out there who think they can defend their theory rationally, without the bombast...well.....I'm waiting.

John MacNeil - you're obviously a newcomer. What you're proposing is nothing new. Why should we come on and just start spewing our beliefs? "Evolutionary Theory 101." The people on this board who believe the theory of evolution approach topics as they come up, as a quick search through the forum's archives would show. You've spent a lot of words here attacking people who accept evolution.

What did the pot say to the kettle?

__________________

Well...isn't that insightful. Proposing that evolutionists regard the scientific evidence is nothing new ...and that they won't make any effort to defend their amateurish theory. I thought so! It's much easier to spout unrealistic dogma than it is to defend it, as is always seen from evolutionists. They will never discuss the pertinent scientific evidence because that is when the phonyness of their theory is most apparent. They will stoop to insults, obfuscation and even claim senority, anything to avoid having to deal with reality. When you deal with reality and have to regard scientific evidence, then you have to think things through instead of just parroting the dogma.

How amusing! And how enlightening! From now on it will be so easy to have evolutionists on the defensive, and on the run. All that needs to be done is ask how the Neanderthals and the Skhul V's turned into all the different us in less than 10,000 year. The evolution of hominids, according to the Smithsonian Institution, occurred step by step and each step is represented by a different type of skull in their photographic display. Each succeeding skull is an evolutionary step, according to them, right up until Neanderthal and Skhul V which are the last ones to look primitive until we are represented. Their claim must be that the two latest model of Neanderthal types, since the Skhul V is very similar to Nenderthal, changed into 7,000 different kind of us in less than 10,000 year, when they claim all other evolutionary
species change takes millions of year.

The evolutionists claim that they can classify life on this planet from several billion year ago, yet when they are questioned about life organization from a mere 30,000 year ago, they are lost. The most recent evidence should be the easiest to analyze, yet they refuse to talk about it because their evolution theory doesn't work in that age category. There is actually plenty of evidence that shows their theory of evolution is not practical and when they are confronted with any of it they disengage from the discussion or resort to obfuscation.

John MacNeil, I hereby award you member number 3 in the "All Scientists are Stupid Liars" club.

I also hear talk of a new "I'm Smarter Than Any Dang Scientist" club. Don't be surprised if you get a call.

Now, LiveFreeOrDie, that is an entirely inappropriate response. If you feel the need to express yourself in a way that denigrates my logic, or my character, why don't you channel that intellectual energy into explaining the evolutionary transition from Neanderthal to Cro-Magnon? That way you can raise your own self esteem and reputation among the forum's members (especially the evolutionists) and convert me into a believer of evolution. But, of course, that is impossible because the genetic data nor the fossil record prove such transition or association. So I suppose your post is based on emotionalism, or lack of knowledge, or a combination of both.

As for all scientists believing in evolution, where did you acquire that idea? You seem to infer that if a scientist doesn't believe in evolution then the scientist isn't a scientist. Evolution is just a theory, not a fact. If people aren't allowed to entertain any other theory than evolution, then is that science?

Why on earth would he do that? Cro-Magnons didn't evolve from Neanderthals, nor do evolutionary theorists currently believe this is the case according to the very link you have provided above!

I believe this to be reason to doubt your ability to comprehend what you read, personally.

I'll denigrate your logic the the best extent of my ability, thank you. Not that it takes that much effort...

You are probably a person a fine character. You just don't know beans about evolution.

Why should I devote any energy to explaining something that no one thinks happened?

My reputation is what it is. I won't change who I am just to please people.

Stop making such foolish statements. The fossil record and the genetic data both strongly support evolution.



Where did I ever say any such thing?

Ditto.

Relativity is just a theory, not a fact.
Quantum mechanics is just a theory, not a fact.
The Bohr model of the atom is just a theory, not a fact.
Plate tectonics is just a theory, not a fact.
So what?

You can entertain any old theory you want. Just don't complain when people ask you for evidence to support it.