Embarrassing Evolution proofs

[DogmaHunter]

what are you afraid of?

What are you afraid of that you must change my prediction?
Can't you find a non-primate that shares more erv's with humans then a primate?

you made a prediction so lets check this prediction. unless you think that we can falsify evolution by your own prediction?

Ok.

So can you find a non-primate that shares more erv's with humans then a primate?

 

[DogmaHunter]

and that theory will still be a kind of evolution and natural selection

Well, yes .... indeed, it's not like refuting the theory of evolution, is going to make the facts of evolution disappear.

 

[DogmaHunter]

its seems that you are the one who worry about it

We don't know about any non-primate that shares more ervs with humans then primates.
Do you?

 

[Larniavc]

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!

I’ve never seen a monkey in Zoo transform into a human.

Explain that!

 

[Larniavc]

but it's not like there is going to be a specific gene for language, that is any different from the ape,

You have to understand that that for some in this Fora the level of knowledge about genes is at the level of the X-Men.

So there is a gene for invisibility, a gene for laser eyes, a gene for walking through walls and so on and so forth.

 

[Larniavc]

i think we need at least 10-20 new mutations for such a change but lets say that you are correct. again: what make you think that an ape will evolve into human? if we will have a self replicating car. do you think it will change into a truck? think about transformers. they can change into another structure. but we both agree that such a system require a sophisticated intelligence:

(image from Bumblebee Camaro - Transformers)

My mistake.

It’s seems it is the Transformers, rather than the X-Men that is the basis for the knowledge of how genes work for some in this Fora.

I’m happy to make that correction.

 

[majj27]

My mistake.

It’s seems it is the Transformers, rather than the X-Men that is the basis for the knowledge of how genes work for some in this Fora.

I’m happy to make that correction.

MUTANT Transformers. Crossover madness!

 

[xianghua]

Where to begin?

Consider ammonites, an extinct group of marine cephalopods that existed from the Devonian to the Cretaceous. These were a shelled creature with the animal living in the last chamber. As the animal grew it formed a new chamber and closed off the previous one with a septum, or wall. The intersection of the septa with the inner part of the shell produced a suture.

This suture in the older ammonites is quite simple, but over time, these sutures become increasingly complex. The simplest explanation is that this suture geometry has evolved over time. Indeed, I know of no other rational explanation for what is observed.

If you wish I can develop a four week study program for you that would let you understand this example in a way that is not possible from my simple explanation.

can you give any reference with more information about this specific example?

 

[xianghua]

What are you afraid of that you must change my prediction?
Can't you find a non-primate that shares more erv's with humans then a primate?


Ok.

So can you find a non-primate that shares more erv's with humans then a primate?

why such a case will falsify evolution? explain, and then i will show you why even such a case will not falsify evolution at all.

 

[DogmaHunter]

why such a case will falsify evolution? explain, and then i will show you why even such a case will not falsify evolution at all.

Because shared identical ERV's are the result of that virus inserting itself in the genome of a common ancestor.

The more closely related, the more shared identical ERV's are expected.

It's that pesky nested hierarchy thingy again.

So, do you know of a non-primate that shares more erv's with humans then the other primates?

 

[majj27]

Because shared identical ERV's are the result of that virus inserting itself in the genome of a common ancestor.

The more closely related, the more shared identical ERV's are expected.

It's that pesky nested hierarchy thingy again.

So, do you know of a non-primate that shares more erv's with humans then the other primates?

I'm half expecting the answer to be Optimus Prime. Or a self-replicating watch.

 

[xianghua]

The more closely related, the more shared identical ERV's are expected.

so human should not have more shared ervs with orangutan then chimp, since human is closer to chimp then to orangutan. right?

 

[Ophiolite]

can you give any reference with more information about this specific example?

Yes, but it may take some time to locate it and figure out the best way of presenting it. In the meantime you could have a look at the wikipedia article to get you started on general background information.

As I noted in my previous post there are just so many examples one might choose - many more than I am actually directly aware of. I opted for ammonites and their sutures for unscientific reasons: in well preserved and prepared specimens the sutures are quite beautiful; the trend from simple to complex suture was a really convenient way of getting a rough feel for the age of any specimen and the rock it was from that one might find.

 

[Skreeper]

I'm half expecting the answer to be Optimus Prime. Or a self-replicating watch.

Don't tempt him, Frodo!

 

[xianghua]

Yes, but it may take some time to locate it and figure out the best way of presenting it. In the meantime you could have a look at the wikipedia article to get you started on general background information.

As I noted in my previous post there are just so many examples one might choose - many more than I am actually directly aware of. I opted for ammonites and their sutures for unscientific reasons: in well preserved and prepared specimens the sutures are quite beautiful; the trend from simple to complex suture was a really convenient way of getting a rough feel for the age of any specimen and the rock it was from that one might find.

are you refer to this one?:

Ammonitida Ammonite Ammonites

 

[Arius]

I apologize, slander was completly incorrect. You didn't speak out loud. I guess libel would be the correct term.

As to the false witness, you implied that scientists know that evolution is pseudoscience and the revealing of fakes was to cover this.

This is both incorrect about the nature of science and the people who work in it. It is a lie.

See, this is why BB-Evolutionists have taken over science, so they could be protected under the umbrella of "science".

The nature of science, and the people who work in science are not all cosmologists and Richard Dawkins, .. I was referring to these pseudoscientists.

Richard Dawkins:
Atheist, God hater

Cosmology:
the science of the origin and development of the universe. Modern astronomy is dominated by the Big Bang theory, which brings together observational astronomy and particle physics.

 

[Skreeper]

See, this is why BB-Evolutionists have taken over science, so they could be protected under the umbrella of "science".

The nature of science, and the people who work in science are not all cosmologists and Richard Dawkins, .. I was referring to these pseudoscientists.

Richard Dawkins:
Atheist, God hater

Cosmology:
the science of the origin and development of the universe. Modern astronomy is dominated by the Big Bang theory, which brings together observational astronomy and particle physics.

You must really hate Richard the way you go on and on about him.

 

[Shemjaza]

See, this is why BB-Evolutionists have taken over science, so they could be protected under the umbrella of "science".

They didn't take over science, the added to it. You don't get to claim the prestige of science while ignoring it's methods and results.

Research and experiment have generated evidence for an old Earth, a Big Bang and a universal common ancestor for all life.

You strongly disagree with these points, but you don't have scientific evidence... so you are left with sneering in place of debate.

The nature of science, and the people who work in science are not all cosmologists and Richard Dawkins, .. I was referring to these pseudoscientists.

Richard Dawkins:
Atheist, God hater

Cosmology:
the science of the origin and development of the universe. Modern astronomy is dominated by the Big Bang theory, which brings together observational astronomy and particle physics.

Nonsense.

Dawkins and Cosmology has nothing to do with Piltdown man or any other evolutionary fake or forgery.

Dawkins was once a very successful scientist, and is now a very outspoken atheist. I'm not a fan personally, but I'd like you to actually present some evidence that his beliefs about evolution are in any way pseudoscience.

In addition is what way is the very practical and evidenced use of observational astronomy and particle physics not legitimate science?

 

[Kylie]

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)

Which part of that article has the scientist admitting that they had the skull of a gibbon? I did a CTRL-F on the wiki page and while the similarity to gibbons is mentioned, there is nothing that states that the fossils consisted of a modern gibbon skull.

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)

The fossil was viewed with suspicion almost from the moment it was discovered. To suggest that it had the scientific community completely fooled for 40 years is not accurtae.

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)

From your own source: "From its initial description, Hesperopithecus was regarded as an inconclusive find by a large portion of the scientific community."

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)

Once again, you didn't even read your own source. "It was fairly quickly exposed as bogus, a composite containing the head and body of a primitive bird and the tail and hind limbs of a dromaeosaur dinosaur, glued together by a Chinese farmer."

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)

Irrelevant. The species alive today is not the same species that was left as fossils. Thgis is not inconsistent with evolution. The fact that it has not changed much is perfectly plausible with evolutionary theory.

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.

Got a source for this claim?

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?!?!??!?!?

In the cases you cite, it was the scientific process which proved right. Your post shows (once again) that when it comes to evolution, you have no idea what you are talking about.

Also, you conveniently ignore the mountains of evidence that supports evolution, instead only paying attention to the handful of events that would seem at first glance to support your own position. Cherry picking is intellectually dishonest.

Also, you resort to name calling and childish insults. $cientists, really? Grow up.

 

[DogmaHunter]

See, this is why BB-Evolutionists have taken over science, so they could be protected under the umbrella of "science".

The nature of science, and the people who work in science are not all cosmologists and Richard Dawkins, .. I was referring to these pseudoscientists.

Richard Dawkins:
Atheist, God hater

Cosmology:
the science of the origin and development of the universe. Modern astronomy is dominated by the Big Bang theory, which brings together observational astronomy and particle physics.

You know Richard Dawkins is a retired evolutionary biologist, right?
He's been retired for quite some time now....

His "god hating" publications and lectures came after his science carreer and have literally nothing to do with it.