Don't like the implications?

[Armoured]

Just doing their job my hairy gluteus, he was a creationist plant, put there in the hopes of slipping rubbish past the radar.



Not quite. Its not the publication of this he was fired for, it was for telling students that the world is only 6000 years old - roughly akin to telling students that "2+2 = 119.6 and a pumpkin" - and misrepresenting himself as a 'biologist' working for California State University Northridge, in creationist talks, presentations and podcasts.



BS. Soft tissue has been known about for 15-20 years.

The creationist dino dig that Mr Armitage was involved in and published on found pliable osteocyte-like microstructures in a Triceratops horn. These were 20 nanometers long...

Many palentolgists have found similar structures in other bones, and their conclusions are radically different from Mr Armitage's - with good reasons.

As to that quote, well its classic creationist quote mining and misrepresentation. The individual reported to have said this was a Dr. Kwok, who is quoted as saying "We are not going to tolerate your religion in this department!! This is a science department and we will only have science here – none of your creationist projects or your religion."

This was said in June 2012, fully six months before the "soft tissue" paper was published and almost seven months before Mr Armitage was fired.

Me thinks that the university did mess up, but only in hiring Mr Armitage as a lab technician and letting him espouse 6,000 year old earth nonsense to undergraduate students.

Aww man, not facts...

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

I have questioned Genesis for decades. One by one, I ironed the question out. It is bullet proof now.

Having to ignore and deny 150 years worth of research by thousands of people resulting in a body of knowledge that is even to much to review in a single lifetime... just to be able to hang on to your belief... is not really what I would call "bullet proof".

 

[juvenissun]

Yes you do. You do it every time when you post a one-liner thinking you can reject 150 years worth of research, just like that, because "it doesn't agree with my personal interpretation of the bible"

I never do that.

 

[juvenissun]

[QUOTE="FrumiousBandersnatch, post: 70364496, member: 241055"
But whatever your God belief, and whatever your interpretation of the bible, the multiple, independent lines of physical real world evidence for evolution is still there to be accounted for. What you do with that evidence, how you manage to twist your beliefs around it, or shoehorn it into your worldview is up to you; but the evidence can't be denied - there's too much of it, and it's too consistent; it provides a foundation for all biology, and holds the key to some of the major biological challenges we face today.

To try and pretend otherwise is escapist fantasy.[/QUOTE]

EVERY piece of so-called "evidence" to evolution is limited and is arguable.
I am not a biologist, so I can only do quick argument to a certain degree. However, I can easily ask questions about evolution which nobody could answer.

That is why I don't believe in evolution.

 

[juvenissun]

Having to ignore and deny 150 years worth of research by thousands of people resulting in a body of knowledge that is even to much to review in a single lifetime... just to be able to hang on to your belief... is not really what I would call "bullet proof".

go to play politics. I have no room for that.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

I never do that.

You do. Even in the very next post you did after that one:

EVERY piece of so-called "evidence" to evolution is limited and is arguable.

That's literally saying that the more then 150 years of worth of work by thousands and thousands of scientists, is not to be taken seriously.

I am not a biologist, so I can only do quick argument to a certain degree.

First, why do you feel qualified to argue against the work done by thousands of people for more then 150 years... while you readily acknowledge that you aren't on par with these people when it comes to knowledge and understanding concerning the subject matter?

How can anyone here take your opinion seriously? How can YOU take yourself seriously?

However, I can easily ask questions about evolution which nobody could answer.

Such as? Give me your BEST question.

That is why I don't believe in evolution.

And you consider that a rational reason to throw 150 years worth of research by thousands of people, under the bus?

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

go to play politics. I have no room for that.

It seems like you have no room either for informing yourself first on the stuff you wish to argue against.

 

[Warden_of_the_Storm]

go to play politics. I have no room for that.

You arguing against over 150 years of scientific research is not politics.

 

[juvenissun]

You do. Even in the very next post you did after that one:



That's literally saying that the more then 150 years of worth of work by thousands and thousands of scientists, is not to be taken seriously.


First, why do you feel qualified to argue against the work done by thousands of people for more then 150 years... while you readily acknowledge that you aren't on par with these people when it comes to knowledge and understanding concerning the subject matter?

How can anyone here take your opinion seriously? How can YOU take yourself seriously?



Such as? Give me your BEST question.



And you consider that a rational reason to throw 150 years worth of research by thousands of people, under the bus?

If you talked about science, I will reply.
Otherwise, enjoy your political rubbish yourself.

 

[FrumiousBandersnatch]

EVERY piece of so-called "evidence" to evolution is limited and is arguable.

What did you expect, a piece of 'unlimited' evidence? and yes, it's all arguable and every bit has been argued over since the theory was first proposed - and the result is an overwhelming consensus among the people who've examined it, that it's overwhelming, beyond all reasonable doubt.

However, I can easily ask questions about evolution which nobody could answer.

You can easily ask questions that no-one can answer about any scientific theory - what matters is whether they're coherent and important to the validity of the theory.

So, why don't you give us an example of a coherent question you can ask about evolution that is important to its validity but nobody can answer?

 

[Warden_of_the_Storm]

If you talked about science, I will reply.
Otherwise, enjoy your political rubbish yourself.

How is he talking about you ignoring the evidence him talking about politics?

 

[juvenissun]

So, why don't you give us an example of a coherent question you can ask about evolution that is important to its validity but nobody can answer?

To give an unanswerable question to you should be easy.

Why do we have races in human?

 

[Warden_of_the_Storm]

To give an unanswerable question to you should be easy.

Why do we have races in human?

Geographic location. Being born in a certain environment means being exposed to different environmental pressures.
The classifications of 'race' is an anthropological question, not an evolutionary one though.

 

[juvenissun]

Geographic location. Being born in a certain environment means being exposed to different environmental pressures.
The classifications of 'race' is an anthropological question, not an evolutionary one though.

Listen to yourself. Do you really think you answered the question?

Suit yourself.

 

[Warden_of_the_Storm]

Listen to yourself. Do you really think you answered the question?

Suit yourself.

I blooming well did answer your question. Which is a lot more than I've ever seen you do on these threads.
Like for example, you have been ignoring my question as to how TagliatelliMonster stating (very correctly) that you are ignoring over 150 years of scientific evidence for evolution as him talking about politics. How is he talking about politics?

 

[FrumiousBandersnatch]

Why do we have races in human?

Because relatively isolated populations in different environmental conditions have adapted to those conditions over many generations in visible ways so that the average around which environmentally relevant traits vary has shifted in those populations.

 

[PsychoSarah]

To give an unanswerable question to you should be easy.

Why do we have races in human?

Oh, that's an easy one. Populations of humans became relatively isolated from each other all over the world, and the races represent which traits happened to be the most beneficial in terms for survival and reproduction in each given area. For example, light skin needs less sunlight to produce vitamin D, making it a benefit in areas with winters; times of covering up and exposing less skin to sunlight. However, around the equator, where it stays hot year round, the resistance to sunburns granted by darker skin provided more of a benefit than an unnecessary capacity to produce vitamin D would. The "races" produced by natural selection aren't entirely different species because these human populations didn't remain isolated from each other long enough for them to diverge into separate species.

 

[juvenissun]

Because relatively isolated populations in different environmental conditions have adapted to those conditions over many generations in visible ways so that the average around which environmentally relevant traits vary has shifted in those populations.

Is that the outline of the answer as we know it at the present? If it is, then it simply says that we do not know.

TOO MANY exceptions could be raised to that answer. It is laughable. I don't believe you are satisfied with that at all.

What are the conditions for the so-called "isolation"? You may go to the Himalayan region where one small tribe is separated from another by big mountains since the beginning of human history. Are they different races?

 

[juvenissun]

Oh, that's an easy one. Populations of humans became relatively isolated from each other all over the world, and the races represent which traits happened to be the most beneficial in terms for survival and reproduction in each given area. For example, light skin needs less sunlight to produce vitamin D, making it a benefit in areas with winters; times of covering up and exposing less skin to sunlight. However, around the equator, where it stays hot year round, the resistance to sunburns granted by darker skin provided more of a benefit than an unnecessary capacity to produce vitamin D would. The "races" produced by natural selection aren't entirely different species because these human populations didn't remain isolated from each other long enough for them to diverge into separate species.

Our children in public schools are spoiled exactly by fictional teaching like this. Sorry, I am not a child. So save this, many be, for your son.

Travel through a continent from equator to the north pole or the south pole, how many "race" could you find, if elements you listed are the determining factors?

 

[Warden_of_the_Storm]

Our children in public schools are spoiled exactly by fictional teaching like this. Sorry, I am not a child. So save this, many be, for your son.

Travel through a continent from equator to the north pole or the south pole, how many "race" could you find, if elements you listed are the determining factors?

Why are you getting so bent up on this? Your topic about races has absolutely nothing to do with the OP topic. If you want to be sincere about this topic, then start your own thread on it.