Creationists caught lying for their religion - quote bombing

[The Barbarian]

The theory of evolution is a farce, it's just a code word for Darwinism, it predicts nothing:

Hmm... let's see... predictions of evolutionary theory...

"Fitness tends to increase in a population over time".... Verified
"At one time, there were dinosaurs with feathers".... Verified
"There must have been transitionals between ungulates and whales" ... verified
(this one also verified for salamanders and frogs, apes and humans, wasps and ants, cockroaches and termites, fish and tetrapods, (very long list)
"The family tree first notices by Linnaeus will be verified by genetics"... verified
"Evolution of useful new traits is by random mutation and natural selection"... verified

Would you like to see some more, or more detail for the ones I've shown you?

"The big picture is that we're perhaps 98 percent identical in our sequences to gorillas. So that means most of our genes are very similar, or even identical to, the gorilla version of the same gene," said Chris Tyler-Smith, a geneticist at Wellcome Trust. (Gorillas More Related to People Than Thought, Genome Says. National Geographic)
It's not 98%, there is no conceivable way this can be reconciled to the research and yet experts are content to make the same erroneous statement endlessly.

From the study...
"Although [70 percent] of the human genome is indeed closer to chimpanzees, on average, a sizable minority of 15 percent is in fact closer to gorillas, and another 15 percent is where chimpanzees and gorillas are closest," said geneticist Aylwyn Scally, a study co-author also at the Wellcome Trust.

Which is precisely what you'd expect if humans and chimps were most closely related, and they both had a common ancestor, which had a common ancestor with gorillas.

 

[The Barbarian]

Barbarian asks:
But you can't tell us which textbook it is? How is that?

I don't care which book. A book or some books. You search the internet, they are there.

If you don't even know that it's true, why are you claiming it is true?

 

[juvenissun]

I’ve take college level geology courses. I know the earth is old . There is that better

That is where the problem is. College level geology only teaches old earth. You need a graduate level understanding to cast doubt on that teaching.

 

[juvenissun]

Barbarian asks:
But you can't tell us which textbook it is? How is that?



If you don't even know that it's true, why are you claiming it is true?

If you do not do the search, then leave it. I don't need to show you anything.

 

[The Barbarian]

Barbarian asks:
But you can't tell us which textbook it is? How is that?
If you don't even know that it's true, why are you claiming it is true?

If you do not do the search, then leave it.

Just wondering why you made the claim without knowing whether it was true or not.

I don't need to show you anything.

No, you don't need to show me anything.

 

[mark kennedy]

Hmm... let's see... predictions of evolutionary theory...

"Fitness tends to increase in a population over time".... Verified

And decreased, and neutral...you think that's an actual point?

"At one time, there were dinosaurs with feathers".... Verified

There were dinosaurs with feathers, I should care why?

"There must have been transitionals between ungulates and whales" ... verified
(this one also verified for salamanders and frogs, apes and humans, wasps and ants, cockroaches and termites, fish and tetrapods, (very long list)

I'm still wondering what this has to do with comparative genomics.

"The family tree first notices by Linnaeus will be verified by genetics"... verified

The a priori assumption first articulated by Lamarck was repeated by Darwin.

Lamarck was the first man whose conclusions on the subject excited much attention. This justly celebrated naturalist first published his views in 1801; he much enlarged them in 1809 in his "Philosophie Zoologique", and subsequently, 1815, in the Introduction to his "Hist. Nat. des Animaux sans Vertebres". In these works he up holds the doctrine that all species, including man, are descended from other species. He first did the eminent service of arousing attention to the probability of all change in the organic, as well as in the inorganic world, being the result of law, and not of miraculous interposition.(Darwin On the Origin of Species)​

"Evolution of useful new traits is by random mutation and natural selection"... verified

Nonsense, most adaptive traits don't come from genetic mutations, disease and disorder do. Adaptive traits as the result of a spontaneous mutation are exceedingly rare.

Would you like to see some more, or more detail for the ones I've shown you?

You haven't said diddly squat.

From the study...
"Although [70 percent] of the human genome is indeed closer to chimpanzees, on average, a sizable minority of 15 percent is in fact closer to gorillas, and another 15 percent is where chimpanzees and gorillas are closest," said geneticist Aylwyn Scally, a study co-author also at the Wellcome Trust.

Which is precisely what you'd expect if humans and chimps were most closely related, and they both had a common ancestor, which had a common ancestor with gorillas.

What you would expect is there to be chimpanzee ancestors in the fossil record, the sum total is 3 maybe 4 teeth. Then there are dozens, if not hundreds of human ancestors, most of which look like chimpanzees.

You kill me barbie, but gotta love the fact you still keep putting this kind of pedantic rhetoric out there. Shine on you crazy diamond.

 

[mark kennedy]

Barbarian asks:
But you can't tell us which textbook it is? How is that?
If you don't even know that it's true, why are you claiming it is true?



Just wondering why you made the claim without knowing whether it was true or not.



No, you don't need to show me anything.

Dude seriously, there is no text book, that was hyperbole. Why on earth would you continue to argue this in circles like this?

 

[The Barbarian]

Dude seriously, there is no text book, that was hyperbole.

To a person who spent a life in science, that makes no sense. It's true or it isn't. Hyperbole is exaggeration.

Hyperbole, from a Greek word meaning “excess,” is a figure of speech that uses extreme exaggeration to make a point or show emphasis. It is the opposite of understatement. You can find examples of hyperbole in literature and everyday speech.
https://www.google.com/search?q=hyperbole&ie=utf-8&oe=utf-8&client=firefox-b-1-ab

He's not exaggerating the truth. He making a claim which is either true or not true.

 

[mark kennedy]

To a person who spent a life in science, that makes no sense. It's true or it isn't. Hyperbole is exaggeration.

Hyperbole, from a Greek word meaning “excess,” is a figure of speech that uses extreme exaggeration to make a point or show emphasis. It is the opposite of understatement. You can find examples of hyperbole in literature and everyday speech.
https://www.google.com/search?q=hyperbole&ie=utf-8&oe=utf-8&client=firefox-b-1-ab

He's not exaggerating the truth. He making a claim which is either true or not true.

There is no text book quote here, let's not bother with the pointless semantics. I could say a text book definition of evolution is 'the change of alleles in populations over time', without bothering to find an actual quote and the statement would be accurate. Your chasing this through the weeds and apparently have no intention of making an actual point, why?

 

[The Barbarian]

Hmm... let's see... predictions of evolutionary theory...

"Fitness tends to increase in a population over time".... Verified

And decreased, and neutral...

I have no idea what you wanted to say here.

you think that's an actual point?

It's a prediction of evolutionary theory that was verified. Something you said didn't exist.

There were dinosaurs with feathers, I should care why?

It's another verified prediction of evolutionary theory. Something you said did not exist.

"There must have been transitionals between ungulates and whales" ... verified
(this one also verified for salamanders and frogs, apes and humans, wasps and ants, cockroaches and termites, fish and tetrapods, (very long list)

I'm still wondering what this has to do with comparative genomics.

It's another verified prediction of evolutionary theory. Something you said did not exist.

"The family tree first notices by Linnaeus will be verified by genetics"... verified

The a priori assumption first articulated by Lamarck was repeated by Darwin.

No. Neither of them had a clue about genetics. That came later.

"Evolution of useful new traits is by random mutation and natural selection"... verified

​

Nonsense, most adaptive traits don't come from genetic mutations,

Hall's bacteria were observed to evolve a new enzyme system by random mutation and natural selection. Reality beats anyone's denial.

Would you like to see some more, or more detail for the ones I've shown you?

You haven't said diddly squat.

I've shown you some examples of what you claim do not exist. Want to see more?

What you would expect is there to be chimpanzee ancestors in the fossil record,

Nope. Fossil record of forest-dwelling animals is very poor. Why? Acid soils from tree leaves, tend to dissolve bones.

And while they are hard to find...

First fossil chimpanzee

• Sally McBrearty
• & Nina G. Jablonski

Nature volume 437, pages 105–108 (01 September 2005
Here we report the first fossil chimpanzee. These fossils, from the Kapthurin Formation, Kenya, show that representatives of Pan were present in the East African Rift Valley during the Middle Pleistocene, where they were contemporary with an extinct species of Homo. Habitats suitable for both hominins and chimpanzees were clearly present there during this period, and the Rift Valley did not present an impenetrable barrier to chimpanzee occupation.

Notice that it wasn't in a forest, but in an area that was semi-arid at the time. They weren't common, but they were out there.

the sum total is 3 maybe 4 teeth. Then there are dozens, if not hundreds of human ancestors, most of which look like chimpanzees.

Except for large skulls, smaller teeth, different hips, feet, knees, hands, backs, etc. And some of them look a lot more like chimps than later ones. Pretty much what you'd expect if humans and chimps had a common ancestor.

 

[The Barbarian]

There is no text book quote here

There was, however, a specific claim about what was in a science textbook. I merely asked for some information on the book.

And nothing was forthcoming. It now appears that there was no such book. At least that's how we'll have to leave it.

 

[Brightmoon]

That is where the problem is. College level geology only teaches old earth. You need a graduate level understanding to cast doubt on that teaching.

juvie , I figured out that the earth was old by the time I was in middle school . I live in NYC and I can see where glaciers from the ice ages carved the enormous boulders in Central Park . I ride on the major deegan expressway and I can see schist sparkling. It’s metamorphic from a lot of heat and pressure and it’s now at the surface. No one TOLD me that the earth is old, I KNEW it.

 

[mark kennedy]

Hmm... let's see... predictions of evolutionary theory...

"Fitness tends to increase in a population over time".... Verified

And they can decline, or they can be neutral.

I have no idea what you wanted to say here.

Things evolve in different directions, evolution is simply the idea of change. Adaptive evolution is only one aspect.

It's a prediction of evolutionary theory that was verified. Something you said didn't exist.

I never said any such thing.

It's another verified prediction of evolutionary theory. Something you said did not exist.

I said no such thing.

"There must have been transitionals between ungulates and whales" ... verified
(this one also verified for salamanders and frogs, apes and humans, wasps and ants, cockroaches and termites, fish and tetrapods, (very long list)

It's another verified prediction of evolutionary theory. Something you said did not exist.

I never said that either.

"The family tree first notices by Linnaeus will be verified by genetics"... verified

I won't bothering you with the semantics of gradualism but Linnaeus was a geologist.

No. Neither of them had a clue about genetics. That came later.

They had many clues, they just didn't have the DNA double helix. Your chasing your tail here dude.

"Evolution of useful new traits is by random mutation and natural selection"... verified

​

That would depend on how you define a mutation:

In the living cell, DNA undergoes frequent chemical change, especially when it is being replicated (in S phase of the eukaryotic cell cycle). Most of these changes are quickly repaired. Those that are not result in a mutation. Thus, mutation is a failure of DNA repair. (Kimball Biology Pages, Mutations)
​

I like that definition, what's yours?

Among the mutations that affect a typical gene, different kinds produce different impacts. A very few are at least momentarily adaptive on an evolutionary scale. Many are deleterious. (Rates of Spontaneous Mutations)​

Hall's bacteria were observed to evolve a new enzyme system by random mutation and natural selection. Reality beats anyone's denial.

Characterize the mutation.

Would you like to see some more, or more detail for the ones I've shown you?

Go for it, after you define what a mutation is.

I've shown you some examples of what you claim do not exist. Want to see more?

I never said that.

Nope. Fossil record of forest-dwelling animals is very poor. Why? Acid soils from tree leaves, tend to dissolve bones.

No, we were contemporary with African Apes for millions of years. Most of the fossils look like chimpanzees. It's obviously a contrived theory.

And while they are hard to find...

First fossil chimpanzee

• Sally McBrearty
• & Nina G. Jablonski

Nature volume 437, pages 105–108 (01 September 2005
Here we report the first fossil chimpanzee. These fossils, from the Kapthurin Formation, Kenya, show that representatives of Pan were present in the East African Rift Valley during the Middle Pleistocene, where they were contemporary with an extinct species of Homo. Habitats suitable for both hominins and chimpanzees were clearly present there during this period, and the Rift Valley did not present an impenetrable barrier to chimpanzee occupation.

Notice that it wasn't in a forest, but in an area that was semi-arid at the time. They weren't common, but they were out there.

That was published along with the Chimpanzee Genome paper, it's three maybe four teeth. Apart from that evidence there would be no fossil evidence chimpanzees existed if they were not alive today.

Except for large skulls, smaller teeth, different hips, feet, knees, hands, backs, etc. And some of them look a lot more like chimps than later ones. Pretty much what you'd expect if humans and chimps had a common ancestor.

What is the average cranial capacity? Because until 2 mya they were consistent with Chimpanzees. The divergence is consistent with divergence, including the obvious transitional of Parantrhopos which is a transitional between chimpanzee and gorilla. That, by the way, is the only fossil evidence we have between 3 mya and 2 mya and it's universally agreed they are not hominid ancestors.

 

[mark kennedy]

There was, however, a specific claim about what was in a science textbook. I merely asked for some information on the book.

And nothing was forthcoming. It now appears that there was no such book. At least that's how we'll have to leave it.

Which you should have done in the first place.

 

[mark kennedy]

juvie , I figured out that the earth was old by the time I was in middle school . I live in NYC and I can see where glaciers from the ice ages carved the enormous boulders in Central Park . I ride on the major deegan expressway and I can see schist sparkling. It’s metamorphic from a lot of heat and pressure and it’s now at the surface. No one TOLD me that the earth is old, I KNEW it.

All we know about when the Heavens and the Earth, aka the universe, was created is that it was 'in the beginning'. That has nothing to do with the Christian doctrine of creation, the creation of life on the other hand is another matter entirely.

 

[Brightmoon]

Since life has been on this planet for 3.8 billion years I think it does have something to do with the age of the earth. Life has certainly been around long enough to evolve endless forms most beautiful

 

[Brightmoon]

how’s that evidence for an evolution preventative barrier coming along . I’m still waiting.

PS double talk and ignorance of the subject is not evidence

 

[The Barbarian]

Which you should have done in the first place.

It was the right thing to do, to give him a chance to make it right.

 

[USincognito]

I won't bothering you with the semantics of gradualism but Linnaeus was a geologist.

No he wasn't.

 

[mark kennedy]

It was the right thing to do, to give him a chance to make it right.

Yea right