I may have discovered the best evidence for evolution

[Split Rock]

I don't have the article with me but here a quote from it:
" Awash in this flood of fresh insights, scientists have to revise virtually every chapter of the human saga, from the dawn of humankind to the triumph of Homo sapiens over the Neandertals and other archaic species."

We are always revising... that's what scientists do with new information. What do you guys do with new information (anything since the bible was written)? You ignore it.

 

[Smidlee]

We are always revising... that's what scientists do with new information. What do you guys do with new information (anything since the bible was written)? You ignore it.

One of the things bought out in the Dover trial years ago was how useless homology is to evolution. You get different trees according to which features you focus on. It's constantly is changing because it is based on human opinion (storytelling) more than on facts.

 

[Paul of Eugene OR]

Of course I'm referring to the interpretations of those fossils and not the fossils themselves. They are lined up as if to mean something which is a little misleading.

I don't have the article with me but here a quote from it:
" Awash in this flood of fresh insights, scientists have to revise virtually every chapter of the human saga, from the dawn of humankind to the triumph of Homo sapiens over the Neandertals and other archaic species."

Revising in the sense of extending and having greater insight, not in the sense of invalidating all that has ever gone before.

 

[Paul of Eugene OR]

One of the things bought out in the Dover trial years ago was how useless homology is to evolution. You get different trees according to which features you focus on. It's constantly is changing because it is based on human opinion (storytelling) more than on facts.

Mere assertion. Cite examples.

 

[PsychoSarah]

Revising in the sense of extending and having greater insight, not in the sense of invalidating all that has ever gone before.

 

[Dizredux]

Dizredux

Gosh, someone had better tell the Paleontologists about this as they seem to be blissfully unaware that the fossil evidence doesn't support evolution.

Smidlee

they already know this

I don't remember anything about this on Science Daily News. Those pesky Paleontologists just refuse to admit that everything they have studied is wrong. Shame on them.

Diz

Geneticists are another group you need to break the news to as they too seem to be rather unaware that evolution has been destroyed.

You have a lot of work ahead of you, best get busy.

Smidlee

It has been known for a long time when something is proven wrong in science it will slowly correct itself one funeral at a time.

Right, professional geneticists just don't understand that they are wrong in what they study. The sheer effrontery of those rascals.

It is clear that the demise of evolutionary theory is imminent. Just ask Smidlee, he knows.

Perhaps we can ask Morton to add this to his list.


The Imminent Demise of Evolution:

Demise of Evolution?

So who are we going to believe, the people who have studied this all of their professional careers or Smidlee. The answer is obvious, Smidlee of course.

The mind boggles.

Dizredux

 

[Smidlee]

So who are we going to believe, the people who have studied this all of their professional careers or Smidlee. The answer is obvious, Smidlee of course.

The mind boggles.

Dizredux

Thinks of it this way. The odds of me being right over the people with "professional careers" is a lot better than there was this mythological creature that had two offspring, one eventually went to Harvard the other went ape.

 

[Paul of Eugene OR]

Thinks of it this way. The odds of me being right over the people with "professional careers" is a lot better than there was this mythological creature that had two offspring, one eventually went to Harvard the other went ape.

There's a few nitpicks with your carciture of the theory of evolution.

a) The common ancestral species of gorillas and men did not have offspring that had to go on to become an ape, it was already an ape.

b) The lines from the common ancestral species did not arrive at modern humans and modern gorillas in a single generation, but gradually over thousands and thousands of generations

c) The odd of it happening are, actually, certainty. Here we are, and the fact of a common ancestral species has been proven.

d) Why do you think that being a professional scientist is a handicap to understanding anything?

 

[Dizredux]

Thinks of it this way. The odds of me being right over the people with "professional careers" is a lot better than there was this mythological creature that had two offspring, one eventually went to Harvard the other went ape.

What on earth are you talking about?

Dizredux

 

[Smidlee]

c) The odd of it happening are, actually, certainty. Here we are, and the fact of a common ancestral species has been proven.

'Here we are' is in present tense. Now the past is a total different story. The idea man had a common ancestral with an ape is far from being proven. Now you may accept it by faith. That is the assumption that needs to be proven.

 

[EternalDragon]

What on earth are you talking about?

Dizredux

 

[Bungle_Bear]

There are millions of examples of an ancestral form? Where?

Oh, hang on. It's a modern chimpanzee, isn't it? And there aren't millions of those, either.

Creationist dishonesty strikes again.

 

[FreedByte]

This is great evidence that you don't know how evolution works. You say "there are millions of these" with an arrow pointing to an ancestor, but that's not true. Our common ancestor with chimpanzees doesn't exist anymore.

 

[Shemjaza]

There never were millions of them. Small populations living mostly areas of Africa with lots of predators and scavengers. So we have less individual remains, but still many examples of each species.

What's your explanation?

 

[Queller]

hahahahahaahahahahahahah!!!!!!!!! Now you have to show that thing coming from a rock.

This is literally what they believe, very sad.

Yes that is what YECs literally think evolution claims.

Too bad they are wrong.

 

[EternalDragon]

There are millions of examples of an ancestral form? Where?

Oh, hang on. It's a modern chimpanzee, isn't it? And there aren't millions of those, either.

Creationist dishonesty strikes again.

A chimpanzee is a chimpanzee which will give birth to...you guessed
it. More chimpanzees!

This is not planet of the apes.

 

[Bungle_Bear]

A chimpanzee is a chimpanzee which will give birth to...you guessed
it. More chimpanzees!

Are you admitting that your picture is incorrect? Or are you saying the creature in the picture is not a chimpanzee?

This is not planet of the apes.

In the movie adaptation that picture comes from it is. Which planet do you think the movie is set on?

Of course in the original book, La Planète des Singes, it isn't. I suspect, though, that you are trying to make a different point. And your point fails.

 

[FreedByte]

A chimpanzee is a chimpanzee which will give birth to...you guessed
it. More chimpanzees!

This is not planet of the apes.

You do understand that evolution takes place over extremely large periods of time, right? So yes, every chimpanzee gives birth to chimpanzees, but those chimpanzees are not identical to their parents. Over time, the traits of those chimpanzees that survive will become more common in the overall chimpanzee population.

 

[Shemjaza]

A chimpanzee is a chimpanzee which will give birth to...you guessed
it. More chimpanzees!

Okay, what's your explanation?

Do you have a point with your graphics, or are you just throwing any old thing that agrees with you and hope one sticks?

 

[EternalDragon]

You do understand that evolution takes place over extremely large periods of time, right? So yes, every chimpanzee gives birth to chimpanzees, but those chimpanzees are not identical to their parents. Over time, the traits of those chimpanzees that survive will become more common in the overall chimpanzee population.

Are you describing The Planet of the Apes movie script?