Embarrassing Evolution proofs

[Zoii]

OP, did you actually read any of the links you provided? All of them explain quite clearly how these misidentifications and attempts to mislead were doubted very early on by scientists and then debunked by scientists in rather short order. Why didn't creationists catch and expose these hoaxes?

Because creationist refute science.... except when they want to drive their car, use their mobile phone, watch satellite tv, or write a post using their computer on the internet... apparently those scientists were ok.

 

[FrumiousBandersnatch]

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 convery the basic concept in simple terms that would be assessible to a lay audience.

Yes, you're right. It would be more accurate to say that it was taken to be derogatory by many other cosmologists. Hoyle was rather argumentative and not on good terms with many in the field who disagreed with his views; his assertive manner of speaking may have made it sound derogatory to ears expecting it. Whether he meant it and later regretted it, or never intended to offend, we can't know now.

 

[xianghua]

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.

i dont think so. apes dont have language for instance. so how many mutations we need to this change? also what make you think that there are about say 1000 small beneficial steps from ape to human at all?

 

[xianghua]

Because creationist refute science.... except when they want to drive their car, use their mobile phone, watch satellite tv, or write a post using their computer on the internet... apparently those scientists were ok.

since evolution isnt a scientific theory (because we cant test it) its not a part of science. so creationists actually accept science and reject non scientific theory. as they should do.

 

[majj27]

since evolution isnt a scientific theory (because we cant test it) its not a part of science. so creationists actually accept science and reject non scientific theory. as they should do.

Amazing. Just about every part of this post is wrong.

1) Evolution IS a scientific theory.
2) There are MANY ways evolution could be disproven. Hasn't been done yet.
3) It's part of science, because it's a scientific theory.
4) Creationists are not rejecting a non-scientific theory. They are rejecting a scientific theory.

 

[xianghua]

Amazing. Just about every part of this post is wrong.
1) Evolution IS a scientific theory.
2) There are MANY ways evolution could be disproven. Hasn't been done yet.
3) It's part of science, because it's a scientific theory.
4) Creationists are not rejecting a non-scientific theory. They are rejecting a scientific theory.

lets see. do you think that an ape-like fossil date to about 70 my will falsify evolution for instance?

 

[majj27]

lets see. do you think that an ape-like fossil date to about 70 my will falsify evolution for instance?

Since I'm not an expert in the field, I'd have to give the associated information a look over before saying yea or nay. Got a link?

 

[loveofourlord]

i dont think so. apes dont have language for instance. so how many mutations we need to this change? also what make you think that there are about say 1000 small beneficial steps from ape to human at all?

language isn't anything new, animals have language, ours is just far more complex then their own, and as I've mentioned before one of the thigns that allows our language is one gene we share with apes that was disabled.

It's a gene that allows for a stronger jaw muscles, it A) allows the brain to be bigger by less pressure on the skull, and B) allows more movement of the jaw making language more possible. There was/is a family that managed to regain through a mutation the gene and they have a hard time speaking.

 

[xianghua]

Since I'm not an expert in the field, I'd have to give the associated information a look over before saying yea or nay. Got a link?

but you said that : "There are MANY ways evolution could be disproven."-

so give me such a test in the fossil area.

 

[xianghua]

language isn't anything new, animals have language, ours is just far more complex then their own, and as I've mentioned before one of the thigns that allows our language is one gene we share with apes that was disabled.

so how we get the ability to speak? by how many mutations? if we assume about 100 new mutations to evolve a complex language from a simple one what make you think that every step was so beneficial that it get fixed in the entire population?

also consider this: we never seen an ape turn into human even in small steps (not at once because even evolutionists dont believe in such event) . so what make you think its possible at all?

 

[Speedwell]

so how we get the ability to speak? by how many mutations? if we assume about 100 new mutations to evolve a complex language from a simple one what make you think that every step was so beneficial that it get fixed in the entire population?

also consider this: we never seen an ape turn into human even in small steps (not at once because even evolutionists dont believe in such event) . so what make you think its possible at all?

Do you really think that genetic mutations cause the evolution of language?

 

[xianghua]

Do you really think that genetic mutations cause the evolution of language?

do you realy dont think so?

 

[Speedwell]

do you realy dont think so?

Yes, I really don't think so.

 

[FrumiousBandersnatch]

... consider this: we never seen an ape turn into human even in small steps (not at once because even evolutionists dont believe in such event) . so what make you think its possible at all?

We wouldn't expect to see that kind of change because it occurs over deep time, not a few hundred years.

 

[xianghua]

We wouldn't expect to see that kind of change because it occurs over deep time, not a few hundred years.

if so we cant test it and therefore its not scientific. just like any belief that cant be test.

 

[FrumiousBandersnatch]

if so we cant test it and therefore its not scientific. just like any belief that cant be test.

We can test it, and it has been tested many times. The theory makes predictions, for example in the fossil record, about what we should expect to find, in what places and at what geological time, and what we should not expect to find, in what places and at what geological time. It makes predictions in all the other fields it is relevant to, from molecular genetics to embryology, and so far observations have matched major predictions.

This doesn't mean there aren't surprises, but nothing remotely approaching falsification - or you'd be plastering it all over these forums.

 

[majj27]

but you said that : "There are MANY ways evolution could be disproven."

Such as:

• If it could be shown that organisms with identical DNA have different genetic traits.
• If it could be shown that mutations do not occur.
• If it could be shown that when mutations do occur, they are not passed down through the generations.
• If it could be shown that although mutations are passed down, no mutation could produce the sort of phenotypic changes that drive natural selection.
• If it could be shown that selection or environmental pressures do not favor the reproductive success of better adapted individuals.
• If it could be shown that even though selection or environmental pressures favor the reproductive success of better adapted individuals, "better adapted individuals" (at any one time) are not shown to change into other species.

That would do it nicely.

 

[xianghua]

It makes predictions in all the other fields it is relevant to, from molecular genetics to embryology, and so far observations have matched major predictions.

such as? here is a fail prediction for instance:

Tikiguania and the antiquity of squamate reptiles (lizards and snakes)


"Any acrodontan—let alone an advanced agamid—in the Triassic is thus highly unexpected in the light of recent studies."

"Tikiguania would have been evidence for an anomalously early (i.e. Triassic) age for what molecular studies suggest is a highly derived squamate clade (Acrodonta), implying that all major clades of squamates such as iguanians, anguimorphs, snakes, scincomorphs and gekkotans had diverged in the Triassic. However, none of these groups appear unequivocally in the fossil record until substantially later [5]. Indeed, some recent palaeontological and molecular studies of squamate divergence dates have not mentioned Tikiguania, presumably because of its problematic nature"

according to this logic even human with a dino fossil will not falsify evolution.

 

[loveofourlord]

do you realy dont think so?

Language is a learnt behaviour, the ability to speak could be facilitated by mutations like I mentioned, but it's not like there is going to be a specific gene for language, that is any different from the ape, again other animals speak, some have volcabularies fairly high like ravens, dogs, and such. Dogs understand many wrods they just lack the right vocal cords to speak. Apes are the same way most of the barrier to language is the ability to form words, and the understanding level to use them, both. Again there isn't that many changes from humans to ape,.

 

[Ophiolite]

also consider this: we never seen an ape turn into human even in small steps (not at once because even evolutionists dont believe in such event) . so what make you think its possible at all?

This observation of yours is frightening, as it raises the possibility that you have taken on board nothing in any response from any evolutionist on any thread in this forum, ever. Please help me by showing I am mistaken.

First, a clarification. We are apes, but I understand that by ape you mean a gorilla, or chimpanzee, or orang like creature.

Now, it has taken millions of years for humans to evolve from the primitive ancerstors that also gave rise to gorillas, and chimps and orangs. Gorillas, chimps and orangs have gone through just about as much evolution from that primitive ancestor as we have.

So, I have some questions for you.
1. How do you imagine today's apes, so different from that distant common ancestor could possibly give rise to humans? For the record it is not possible.
2. Given that the environmental conditions - you know, the ones that do the selection of phenotypes - are radically different today from what they were when the split occured, why would you think that apes today could give rise to humans.
3. Given that it took millions of years for the evolution of humans from our last common ancestor with the other apes, why would you expect that we would be able to observe this happening over the course of human history?

In other words, there are three reasons, each one sufficient by itself, to explain why we have never seen an ape evolve into a human. Now what is it about that you find so difficult to understand?
and they were not . Why would you expect humansto be able