Embarrassing Evolution proofs

[xianghua]

If cars could reproduce and mutations that moved them towards being a truck made them more likely to reproduce than other cars, yes, but I'm not sure what your point is. Also, you need to define what you mean by "robot" before answering the second question

yep. the problem with this argument is that there are no small steps from a car into an airplane. so this will never happen. and if so: a fish cant evolve into human and therefore evolution is actually false.

 

[Strathos]

Ok, I'll bite. Please 'splain me the "Antarctic circumnavigation problem"?

I'm aware that some think the circumnavigation of the continent of Antarctica is larger than the circumference of the equator. I personally, hold no opinion.

It's only a problem if you subscribe to the flat earth idea, like the OP of this thread does. So if you're not a flat earther it shouldn't concern you.

 

[Warden_of_the_Storm]

It was the peer review process and scientific method that revealed them as fakes, so yes

That's not what I was responding to. Go back and look at what I responding to.

 

[Warden_of_the_Storm]

yep. the problem with this argument is that there are no small steps from a car into an airplane. so this will never happen. and if so: a fish cant evolve into human and therefore evolution is actually false.

Except that you are completely wrong, as per usual, because you can't compare cars to biological organisms! Why is it so hard for you to get this?

 

[Larniavc]

He probably means 'Y-chromosomal Adam' and 'mitochondrial 'Eve' - though I don't see it as mocking, they just use the familiar Biblical names for an analogous concept.

No doubt.

Smh

 

[Jimmy D]

If cars could reproduce and mutations that moved them towards being a truck made them more likely to reproduce than other cars, yes, but I'm not sure what your point is. Also, you need to define what you mean by "robot" before answering the second question

I was joking with Xianghua, he considers such imaginary things as evidence for ID for some reason.

 

[majj27]

And did you know you can't spell "EVOLUTION" without "EVIL"????? Also bananas! And crocoducks! And why don't we all speak monkey????

Checkmate EVILutionists! WHERE IS YOUR DARWIN-GOD NOW?!?!?!111?!?!?!?!eleven!??

 

[Rivga]

they just use the familiar Biblical names for an analogous concept.

Do you think that scientists are being a little mischievous when doing this? I mean the first time I seen something on the "God particle" I would swear that the people in the lab would be laughing themselves silly by giving theists false hope be calling something "God".

 

[Rivga]

And did you know you can't spell "EVOLUTION" without "EVIL"????? Also bananas! And crocoducks! And why don't we all speak monkey????

Checkmate EVILutionists! WHERE IS YOUR DARWIN-GOD NOW?!?!?!111?!?!?!?!eleven!??

Yeah and You they keep saying Monkeys evolved into Humans over millions of years, Well a Monkey does not live for Millions of years ... Explain that!

 

[USincognito]

Yet, their own "magic" science books are written by wizards with alphabet soup after their name like, "PHD". Insert your own joke here.

The evidence for evolution is overwhelming for those actually take the time to look at it and to understand it.

"Evolved from the sea as some goo that evolved into a male and female human at the same time?"

Talk about magic!

Oh my, not this again. Evolution does not happen to individuals. There was no point in the past where an individual offspring of a species was so different from the rest of it's population that it could not mate with others of it's species. If one wishes to attack evolution, do so. But don't expect to be taken seriously if you're attacking a straw man.

 

[USincognito]

It's funny how the "scientists" now give a mocking nod to Adam and Eve of the bible because of mitochondrial DNA.

Before DNA, Adam and Eve was completely absurd to them!

Now, at least, it is a "mocking nod"!

Mitochondrial Eve who lived in a population of other H. sapiens 175,000 years ago and Y Chromosome Adam who lived in a population of other H. sapiens 125,000 years ago.

 

[loveofourlord]

Java Man 1891: $cientist admitted later they took the skull bone of a gibbon and the leg bone of a human to "recreate" and "prove$$$" evolution (Java Man - Wikipedia)

Piltdown Man 1912: After fooling many "unable to critical think, can only parrot, peer review process participant" scientists for more than 40 years and "establishing" evolution theory, it was found to be a hoax. Someone had painted some bone fragments and filed down ape teeth to make it look more human. Yes, a couple of bone fragments was used to "reconstruct" the entire image ( Piltdown Man - Wikipedia)

Nebreaska Ape Man 1922: Someone found a tooth in the ground and created a fantastic mi$$ing link. After fooling "unable to critical think, can only parrot" scientists and "establishing" evolution theory, it was later found out to be a tooth from a pig (Nebraska Man - Wikipedia)

Dino Bird 1999: A chinese farmer was able to fool many "unable to critical think, can only parrot" scientists and "establish" evolution theory (Dino Hoax Was Mainly Made of Ancient Bird, Study Says)

Coelacent fish: This was the "mi$$$" link that fooled many scientists and "establish" evolution theory....only later it was discovered it's still alive (Coelacanth - Wikipedia)


DNA has proven evolution, we're 98% similar to chimpanzees: $$$cientists excluded 1.3 billion letters and compared the remaining 2.4 billion to get the 98% similar figure, this further "establish" evolution theory.


How many more "couple of bones in the dirt" will $$$cientists find to create fantastic CGI creatures to advance $$evolution$$$ theory? It only takes 1 bone to create an entire creature.....where is the peer review process?!?!??!?!?

archeoraptor? You mean the one that was a combination of two animals, one that was a undiscovered feathered dinosaur and the other a unkown bird.

 

[loveofourlord]

Java Man 1891: $cientist admitted later they took the skull bone of a gibbon and the leg bone of a human to "recreate" and "prove$$$" evolution (Java Man - Wikipedia)

Piltdown Man 1912: After fooling many "unable to critical think, can only parrot, peer review process participant" scientists for more than 40 years and "establishing" evolution theory, it was found to be a hoax. Someone had painted some bone fragments and filed down ape teeth to make it look more human. Yes, a couple of bone fragments was used to "reconstruct" the entire image ( Piltdown Man - Wikipedia)

Nebreaska Ape Man 1922: Someone found a tooth in the ground and created a fantastic mi$$ing link. After fooling "unable to critical think, can only parrot" scientists and "establishing" evolution theory, it was later found out to be a tooth from a pig (Nebraska Man - Wikipedia)

Dino Bird 1999: A chinese farmer was able to fool many "unable to critical think, can only parrot" scientists and "establish" evolution theory (Dino Hoax Was Mainly Made of Ancient Bird, Study Says)

Coelacent fish: This was the "mi$$$" link that fooled many scientists and "establish" evolution theory....only later it was discovered it's still alive (Coelacanth - Wikipedia)


DNA has proven evolution, we're 98% similar to chimpanzees: $$$cientists excluded 1.3 billion letters and compared the remaining 2.4 billion to get the 98% similar figure, this further "establish" evolution theory.


How many more "couple of bones in the dirt" will $$$cientists find to create fantastic CGI creatures to advance $$evolution$$$ theory? It only takes 1 bone to create an entire creature.....where is the peer review process?!?!??!?!?

on the differences between humans and apes, thats what you would expect, humans don't have many if any major differences that require whole new genes and such and can be done by modifications to existing DNA and structures.

 

[USincognito]

Do you think that scientists are being a little mischievous when doing this? I mean the first time I seen something on the "God particle" I would swear that the people in the lab would be laughing themselves silly by giving theists false hope be calling something "God".

"God particle" actually a truncated version of the whole nickname which cannot be posted here.

 

[Strathos]

"God particle" actually a truncated version of the whole nickname which cannot be posted here.

Because it was so difficult to find... until they eventually did.

 

[USincognito]

Java Man 1891: $cientist admitted later they took the skull bone of a gibbon and the leg bone of a human to "recreate" and "prove$$$" evolution (Java Man - Wikipedia)

That literally never happened. Comparing the Trinil2 skullcap with Turkana Boy's skull is a perfect fit.

Piltdown Man 1912:

Questions were raised as early as 1913 and Piltdown was not as widely accepted outside of England. The hoax was uncovered as more and more legitimate finds contradicted the "big brain first" story that Piltdown told.

Nebreaska Ape Man 1922:

Nebraska "man" exists only in the minds of Creationists. H. haroldcookii was never claimed to be a human ancestor, only an anthropoid ape. The drawing of "Nebraska Man and His Family" was done by a newspaper artist, was based more on Java man and was rejected by Henry Osborn.

Dino Bird 1999:

Archaeoraptor, which was more of a forgery than a fraud, was promoted by the editorial staff at National Geographic magazine, not by paleontologists.

Coelacent fish:

Coelacanths were not considered to be "missing links". They were considered to be an extinct order of lobe-finned fish until they were found to be alive. Genetic evidence shows that lungfish, not coelacanths are most closely related to tetrapods.

 

[Tanj]

Do you think that scientists are being a little mischievous when doing this? I mean the first time I seen something on the "God particle" I would swear that the people in the lab would be laughing themselves silly by giving theists false hope be calling something "God".

Because it was so difficult to find... until they eventually did.

Three things, Firstly, it wasn't scientists, it was some journalist that coined the term "God particle". Secondly, in the lab, it was referred to the God <expletive almost identical to dam>ed particle because, as Strathos said, it was hard to find. Thirdly, most scientists are theists.

 

[Ophiolite]

I just wish to remind everyone what the topic is and to draw your attention to post#36 by USincognito, in which he demonstrates that Morse's OP is fatally flawed. It would be nice if Morse would concede this. It would be nice if I found a winning lottery ticket on the ground. Since there seems little chance of the former, I'm going out now in the hope of realising the latter.

 

[FrumiousBandersnatch]

Do you think that scientists are being a little mischievous when doing this?

No, I don't think so. It's a simple and obvious way to indicate that these two individuals were the direct ancestors of all living humans.

I mean the first time I seen something on the "God particle" I would swear that the people in the lab would be laughing themselves silly by giving theists false hope be calling something "God".

That name isn't popular with physicists - the name is potentially offensive to many people; the particle is called the Higgs boson, after the guy who predicted its existence, and that's the name they think should be used. Physicist Leon Lederman was writing a book about it, and wanted to title it 'The [censored by forum] Particle' because it had been so hard to find. The publishers decided otherwise, and changed it to 'The God Particle' presumably because it was important enough to have a book to itself. This caught the attention of the media and became a pop-physics meme. See 'What scientists really wanted to call the world’s most famous particle'.

Much the same thing happened with 'Big Bang', which was a dismissive, derogatory term coined by astronomer Fred Hoyle, who supported 'Steady State' theory. It was taken up by the media and eventually became ubiquitous.

This isn't to say scientists don't have a sometimes mischievous sense of humour when naming things, particularly small creatures, genes and proteins, but given that many religions are represented among scientists, they try to avoid giving offence.

 

[Ophiolite]

Much the same thing happened with 'Big Bang', which was a dismissive, derogatory term coined by astronomer Fred Hoyle, who supported 'Steady State' theory. It was taken up by the media and eventually became ubiquitous.

A small correction. It is almost certainly not the case that Hoyle intended it as derogatory. He denied it and said his use of the phrase on a BBC radio program in the 1940s was intended to convey the basic concept in simple terms that would be accessible to a lay audience.

Late edit of two typos!