Evolution Question

[Vehementi Dominus]

Ok I'm not a complete idiot, although I know some here beg to differ.

The bottom line is you believe we originated from monkeys, fine. I do grasp the concept of evolution. As far as the complete process, no I can honestly say I am not interested in learning the step-by-step process scientist claim for evolution to take place.

BUT even if you explained to me the step-by-step process of evolution, I still would not believe it. And we all know why.

No. Again. we did not come from monkeys.

Infact, the first fossils of our evolutionary past to have been found to have hip joints constructed to stand bipedal, is australopithicus.

I could provide you with irrefutable evidence of evolution. Stacks and stacks, from dolphins with legs and humans with tails to transitional fossils for whole species. Just check my sig for a few small bits of evidence. But if you won't even consider the evidence, then why in smegs name are you even posting here?

Yeah, I guess we do all know why you'll never accept the truth, no matter how much evidence there is for it, ignorance is bliss, and you must enjoy being the most blissfully ignorant person in the world, no matter how wrong you are.

Like I said before, perhaps you'd feel more at home amongst the 500BC streets of knee-deep human exrement and "doctors" who are also priests, that also carry out trepanning for migrane. But you won't care, because everyone will accept the bible as truth, without the need for evidence, because the only evidence they'll ever get would be being burned alive at the stake.

 

[LifeToTheFullest!]

Ok I'm not a complete idiot, although I know some here beg to differ.

The bottom line is you believe we originated from monkeys, fine. I do grasp the concept of evolution. As far as the complete process, no I can honestly say I am not interested in learning the step-by-step process scientist claim for evolution to take place.

BUT even if you explained to me the step-by-step process of evolution, I still would not believe it. And we all know why.

This is the juncture one comes to when what they know to be fact conflicts with what they want to be fact, or feel to be true. This is the crisis of belief. This is succinctly explained in Shermer's (former evangelical creationist) book "Why People Believe Weird Things."

We tend to look for that which supports our position, and are able to reject that which comes into conflict with our belief system. This is the way in which religions and cults flourish. There is something about the human psyche that allows for willing suspension of disbelief, and rather than honest seek out answers, it is intellectually easier to accept the more fantastic explanation (i.e. and invisible deity so powerful and beyond question can do anything he wills to, etc.) for some, and for others not.

Personally, I tend to think that irrational psyche will be selected against in future generations.

Naive bible thumping creationists who put more value in a collection of stories written by nomadic sheepherders four thousand years ago rather than what science has discovered is something I understand, but wish didn't exist today.

 

[GuidanceNeeded]

Sounds to me like you've already found your Source for guidance ---

You know what AV your right

 

[GuidanceNeeded]

No. Again. we did not come from monkeys.

Well obviously there are some that would disagree with you, evolutionist to boot. Take a look at the first page and their postings.

 

[Vehementi Dominus]

Two ancient hominoids. Both of which we have ample fossils for.

Neither of which are anatomically human.

Neither of which are anatomically "monkeys".

I do believe they're your "missing link".

 

[Vehementi Dominus]

People with tails, through a process known as atavism. In which an animal's genes revert back to an older generation. Much the same thing as when you have a feature, say... a certain shaped nose, that was not present in your parents, but present in your grand or great grand parents.

More exaples include snakes with legs, chicken with teeth and dolphins with hind flippers, remniscent of hind legs. (They evolved from land mammals, hence why they have no gills, need to breath air from the surface and swim with an up and down motion, like any other mammal running, also why its flipper bones are the same bones as in all other mammal's hands and feet.):

 

[GuidanceNeeded]

People with tails, through a process known as atavism. In which an animal's genes revert back to an older generation. Much the same thing as when you have a feature, say... a certain shaped nose, that was not present in your parents, but present in your grand or great grand parents.

Your not say these people were showing signs of regressing are you? Because I believe I was told on page 4 that we will not regress.

And those pictures look as real as a $3 bill.

 

[Vehementi Dominus]

Your not say these people were showing signs of regressing are you? Because I believe I was told on page 4 that we will not regress.

And those pictures look as real as a $3 bill.

Oh, they're real. Of course it won't look real to you, though, you're both not used to seeing people with tails and don't want to see people with tails because it'll contradict what you believe. It'll burst your little bubble of ignorance and you'll cry.

But atavism happens. It can be observed. It's even possible to force certain atavisms to occur.

But naturally, without human intervention, atavism is rare, and it's not a genetic mutation, because the genes aren't mutating, the data to create tails is already stored in there.

Also, you only find atavisms occuring that you can accurately predict. We know birds evolved from dinosaurs, so it's not supprising to find atavism giving a chicken some teeth, or snakes with legs, or dolphins with hind legs, because it fits in with what their evolutionary history was.

Yet we never get atavisms of things that never happened. ie, we'll never get a whale with feathers, or a fish with elephant tusks, because that's never happened.

Just to clarify, it is regressing slightly, but it's rare, and even then the next generation of the one with the atavism is likely to return to normal.

 

[LifeToTheFullest!]

Your not say these people were showing signs of regressing are you? Because I believe I was told on page 4 that we will not regress.

And those pictures look as real as a $3 bill.

Atavistic trait expression is not regression. ToE never makes claims that species "digress or progress." And yes, those photos are real. They're not 'doctored' in the Paluxy river dino/human footprint sense.

 

[GuidanceNeeded]

And you both took these pictures yourselves, so of course thats how you know with 100% certainty that they pics weren't altered, right?

 

[Vehementi Dominus]

Even if they were, which it's quite clear they're not, there are cases of people with tails. Again, I know you won't research it yourself, you're too arrogant and/or lazy to risk being proven wrong, but you can look it up.

Might I suggest starting here: atavism definition | Dictionary.com

Just to add, I'm way past bothering trying to convince you, now I'm just having fun showing everyone else how wrong you are.

 

[LifeToTheFullest!]

And you both took these pictures yourselves, so of course thats how you know with 100% certainty that they pics weren't altered, right?

You're missing the point there kid, I don't know specifically if those photos have been doctored or not. I don't have to, they could be caricatures for all I care. Atavistic trait expression is WELL documented and can even be found in PEER reviewed journals and textbooks.

Here's the thing, even you could make a trip to the local library (big building with alot of books written by mostly smart people that have interesting and important things to say) and check it out for yourself.

In fact, don't believe a word of anything I've said, CHECK IT OUT FOR YOURSELF.

 

[TemperateSeaIsland]

And you both took these pictures yourselves, so of course thats how you know with 100% certainty that they pics weren't altered, right?

Why would they be altered? Atavism is pretty well known and studied.

 

[Mystman]

The human tail: rare lesion with occult spinal dys...[J Pediatr Surg. 2008] - PubMed Result

Again, you'll need university access or something to see the full article.

It includes pictures. Pretty similar to the pictures posted. (only here it's a baby with a tail..)

(I'm not going to post the pictures since it would break a few billion rules... copyright, usage terms of my university access, child-pornography (the naughty bits of the baby are visible...) etc.)

 

[LifeToTheFullest!]

Typical creationist thread:

Ask strawman question.
Only respond to those posters who answer aforementioned strawman question.
Respond with typical creationist 'gotcha.'
Become confused when presented with much data that blows strawman out of water.
Continue posting with sarcastic remarks.//

 

[GuidanceNeeded]

Even if they were, which it's quite clear they're not, there are cases of people with tails. Again, I know you won't research it yourself, you're too arrogant and/or lazy to risk being proven wrong, but you can look it up.

Might I suggest starting here: atavism definition | Dictionary.com

Just to add, I'm way past bothering trying to convince you, now I'm just having fun showing everyone else how wrong you are.

Ok, at least your honest why your here.

I'm wrong because I don't follow the evolution theory. Well I say you are wrong because you don't believe in what the Bible says. Sound fair enough to you?

 

[Vehementi Dominus]

Typical creationist thread:

Ask strawman question.
Only respond to those posters who answer aforementioned strawman question.
Respond with typical creationist 'gotcha.'
Become confused when presented with much data that blows strawman out of water.
Continue posting with sarcastic remarks.//

Nailhead, meet Hammer. I'm sure the two of you will get along perfectly.

 

[LifeToTheFullest!]

Ok, at least your honest why your here.

I'm wrong because I don't follow the evolution theory. Well I say you are wrong because you don't believe in what the Bible says. Sound fair enough to you?

No. That you want to give equal scientific weight to an allegorical account of creation compared to 150 years of a theory that has enough peer reviewed falsifiable evidence the size of Mt. Everest is ludicrous.

Do you even have a clue how arrogant and demeaning this sounds to the millions of scientists worldwide who have devoted thier entire career to study this??

Wow.

 

[Vehementi Dominus]

Ok, at least your honest why your here.

I'm wrong because I don't follow the evolution theory. Well I say you are wrong because you don't believe in what the Bible says. Sound fair enough to you?

No. I say you're wrong because you have no evidence of your own, yet admit that you're choosing to ignore the stacks of evidence we're giving you, because it contradicts what you want to believe.

That sounds about right to me.

 

[Vehementi Dominus]

No. That you want to give equal scientific weight to an allegorical account of creation compared to 150 years of a theory that has enough peer reviewed falsifiable evidence the size of Mt. Everest is ludicrous.

Do you even have a clue how arrogant and demeaning this sounds to the millions of scientists worldwide who have devoted thier entire career to study this??

Wow.

You missed the best bit.

If you head back a few pages, you'll see where she said she'll look at the evidence, but no matter what it says, she won't believe it if it contradicts what she already believes.