Evolutionist lies

[[serious]]

Evidence #1
There are no transitional links and intermediate forms in either the fossil record or the modern world. Therefore, there is no actual evidence that evolution has occurred either in the past or the present.

He seems to think transitional forms are not species that are complete in and of themselves. Every species that doesn't become extinct is a transitional form.

Evidence #2
Natural selection (the supposed evolution mechanism, along with mutations) is incapable of advancing an organism to a "higher-order".

A rehash of "information entropy" argument. Also indicative of a failure to understand evolution as he seems to imply that evolution goes only toward more complex.

Evidence #3
Although evolutionists state that life resulted from non-life, matter resulted from nothing, and humans resulted from animals, each of these is an impossibility of science and the natural world.

Humans are animals. We don't fit nearly as well in the other kingdoms. As far as life from non life, it isn't part of evolution. As far as matter from nothing, he seems to miss that there was no "before the big bang"

Evidence #4
The supposed hominids (creatures in-between ape and human that evolutionists believe used to exist) bones and skull record used by evolutionists often consists of `finds' which are thoroughly unrevealing and inconsistent. They are neither clear nor conclusive even though evolutionists present them as if they were.

A rehash of #1 with a bit more focus. points to a couple hoaxes the try and poison the well, misrepresents many others.

Evidence #5
Nine of the twelve popularly supposed hominids are actually extinct apes/ monkeys and not part human at all.

Deja vous all over again. In this one he misses that a common ancestor between us and other modern apes would in fact be relatives of another modern ape as well as us.

Evidence #6
The final three supposed hominids put forth by evolutionists are actually modern human beings and not part monkey/ ape at all. Therefore, all twelve of the supposed hominids can be explained as being either fully monkey/ ape or fully modern human but not as something in between.

#5.5 would be a more accurate system to use. I'll try to head back to finish this up, got to run for now

 

[EnemyPartyII]

abiogenesis has been observed in Germany. End of discussion.

http://lancelet.blogspot.com/2006/02/transition-from-chemical-to-darwinian.html

 

[Gwenyfur]

Holt Science 2005 PP 187

"As you can see from the embryonice development in these drawings, these gills slits allow the fetus to absorb oxygen from the placenta surrounding it"

Proven wrong in 1874 and yet, *still* taught in our schools today ...tsk tsk
I think I'd call that a lie

 

[EnemyPartyII]

"As you can see from the embryonice development in these drawings, these gills slits allow the fetus to absorb oxygen from the placenta surrounding it"

Proven wrong in 1874 and yet, *still* taught in our schools today ...tsk tsk
I think I'd call that a lie

Embryos DO have gill slits, although they dont absorb oxygen via them. However, even if we accept that this is a blunt, intentional lie, how, precidely, is it a lie in support of evolution?

 

[Smidlee]

Embryos DO have gill slits, although they dont absorb oxygen via them. However, even if we accept that this is a blunt, intentional lie, how, precidely, is it a lie in support of evolution?

One of the most clever ways for someone to lie (deceive someone) is lying by making a true statement. Thus a clever lawyers,car salemens, political, even scientist,etc. use this form of lying.

There's a TV ad which gives examples of running an ad to sell wrecked cars ... "New paint job" for example.
Another example was given by a friend. He was on one of those single website where he put down he was a long distance truckdriver (he actually does it part time). A woman wrote to him asking if he own his own truck. He reply was "Yes, I do own my own truck." This is a true statement as he did own a Ford F150 pick-up truck but he knew this wasn't what she was referring to.

Human embryos do has "gill slits" (by appearance only) but they are not really "gill slits" since they have nothing to do with forming gills. Thus trying to imply something from appearance that really isn't true. As I always noted 'appearance can be very deceiving '.

Even in scripture you find Satan often deceives using true statements (quoting scriptures himself).

 

[Late_Cretaceous]

But they are gill slits - branchial arches actually. In terrestrial animals brachial arches don't develop any further, in fish the branchial arches are where gill tissues go on to develop.

Branchial arches are also called pharyngeal arches.


Structually, they are the same. The arise from the same tissues in the same stages of embyonic development.

Medical references for branchial arches can be found

branchial a.’es paired arched columns that bear the gills in lower aquatic vertebrates and that, in the embryos of higher vertebrates, appear in comparable form before subsequent modification into structures of the head and neck. In humans they are usually called pharyngeal arches because gills do not develop. Each contains a cartilaginous bar, consisting of right and left halves. The first arch (mandibular a.) differentiates into the sphenomandibular and anterior malleolar ligaments, malleus, and incus; the second (hyoid a.) into the stapes, styloid process, stylohyoid ligament, lesser horn of the hyoid bone, and cranial part of the hyoid body; the third into the greater horn of the hyoid bone and the caudal part of its body; and the fourth and sixth into the laryngeal cartilages. In the human embryo, the sixth arch is actually the fifth in number but is so named for reasons of comparative anatomy and evolution; it does not appear on the surface. Called also visceral a's.

Also here, in this medical dictionary

branchial archn. Any of usually six embryonic arches that give rise to specialized structures in the head and neck in the higher vertebrates. Also called gill arch, pharyngeal arch, visceral arch.

And for the icing on the cake, here is a MEDICAL REFERENCE about the gill-pharyngeal arches, and contrary to what you say they are the same as gill slits.

Background: Branchial cleft cysts are congenital epithelial cysts, which arise on the lateral part of the neck from a failure of obliteration of the second branchial cleft in embryonic development.
Phylogenetically, the branchial apparatus is related to gill slits. In fish and amphibians, these structures are responsible for the development of the gills, hence the name branchial (branchia is Greek for gills).

Smidlee, I just don't know why you make statements and refuse to back them up with references. I am getting tired of doing your homework for you. The next time I have to look up a reference on your behalf I am going to have to charge you for my time. Just kidding. But you really should cite your sources.

 

[Assyrian]

So my Adam's Apple is a modified gill slit?

 

[rmwilliamsll]

So my Adam's Apple is a modified gill slit?

i don't know, so a googling we go:

thyroid cartilage: Encyclopedia II - Larynx - Structure
The structure of the larynx is mainly composed of cartilage bound by ligaments and muscle. At the front is the thyroid cartilage, creating the prominence of the Adam's apple in humans. The inferior horns (protrusions at the bottom rear of the thyroid cartilage) of the thyroid cartilage rest on a ring-shaped cartilage called the cricoid cartilage which connects the larynx to the trachea. The cricoid cartilage resembles a signet ring (narrow in front, broader in back). Above the larynx is the hyoid bone, by which (via various muscles and ligam ...

from: http://www.experiencefestival.com/a/Larynx_-_Structure/id/1566059


what does the thyroid cartilage derive from?

Branchial arch - Fourth to sixth pharyngeal arches
Skeletal contributions
thyroid cartilage, cricoid cartilage, epiglottic cartilage, arytenoid cartilages

http://www.experiencefestival.com/a/Branchial_arch/id/1937643

Fourth & sixth pharyngeal arch

Cartilaginous contributions to larynx derived from fusion: thyroid, cricoid, arytenoid, corniculate, and cuneiform

from:
http://tinyurl.com/y4ch3r

so it looks like you are kind of right, gill slit maybe the wrong words, i'm not sure......

 

[Late_Cretaceous]

Actually, your Hyoid bone and your jaw bone are modified gill arches.

 

[rmwilliamsll]

Actually, your Hyoid bone and your jaw bone are modified gill arches.

do you have a nice reference to read?
if you have a good human development site to bookmark, i'll get it into my notes.
tia

 

[seanHayden]

I would like to balk at evolution and its implications, but I find it hard to argue with it. It might be easier if I were in a scientific field that concerned itself with evolution—a point other non-scientist would do well to heed.

I don’t like to think I started as an ape! I like to think my ancestors were always what we are today, but obviously and more and more, this is not looking like how things work.

A monkey!

Well, if it is then so be it! A monkey! Lord, do you mock me!? Obviously today we are something far different then the monkey or ape and vastly different from our earliest ancestors, so I suppose we can take comfort in that. A monkey!

 

[rmwilliamsll]

I would like to balk at evolution and its implications,

what are the implications of evolution?
are they actually scientific implications?
or are they projections into the ethical or moral sphere?

 

[Mallon]

Making fun of monkeys now, eh? Don't know if the Lord would appreciate that -- he did create them, afterall.

 

[Late_Cretaceous]

Links regarding pharygeal (branchial) arches and jaws. (warning - some of these links are from MEDICAL sources and may induce the following type of behavior.in some individuals..)

http://anatome.ncl.ac.uk/tutorials/clinical/arch/text/page2.html
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/First_branchial_arch

http://www.facesofchildren.org/conditions/pharyngeal.html

Evolution of the jaw

The jaw is one of a series of segmentally reiterated structures called pharyngeal arche

 

[rmwilliamsll]

thank you very much.
i got:
anatomy tutorials
http://pharyngula.org/index/weblog/comments/evolution_of_the_jaw/
http://anatome.ncl.ac.uk/tutorials/index.html
http://www.med.unc.edu/embryo_images/unit-welcome/welcome_htms/contents.htm
http://www.med.howard.edu/anatomy/gas/

into my notes.
good resources.

 

[Smidlee]

Which comes back to my statement that "human have gill slits (by appearance) but they are not really "gill slits" as they have nothing to do with developing gills." ( A car and a rocket maybe build using the same materials but it still doesn't explain the differences) Thus the more clever deception uses true statements to deceive.
It's already a pretty ebstabilish fact that all life are extremely alike on the biochemical level as well genetics level. So the Hox genes as well as many other gens are universal. They are too universal to explain the huge difference we find in nature.

I'ts the same with Human embryos having tails .... yes, by appearance, Human embryros have tails but appearance is cause by how the embryro develops ... The spine cord grows faster than the rest of the body.

So it no surprise that similar genes especially hox genes are used to develop difference structures in many different creatures.

 

[seanHayden]

Making fun of monkeys now, eh? Don't know if the Lord would appreciate that -- he did create them, afterall.

Is that a real T-Rex skull?

 

[Mallon]

Which comes back to my statement that "human have gill slits (by appearance) but they are not really "gill slits" as they have nothing to do with developing gills."

The point is, they have everything to do with developing gills. The gills simply do not develop in humans -- they have been coopted for other functions.
A better example than your car and rocket scenario would be one involving nylon. Nylon was originally designed as a substitute for silk in WW2 parachutes, but its application has since been coopted for use in creating pantyhose, guitar strings, and machine parts.

So the Hox genes as well as many other gens are universal. They are too universal to explain the huge difference we find in nature.

Can you please elaborate on this a little more? What do you mean by "They are too universal to explain the huge difference we find in nature"?

 

[Mallon]

Is that a real T-Rex skull?

If you're referring to the one in my photo, the answer is that it's a cast of a real T. rex skull nicknamed "Stan".

 

[EnemyPartyII]

I'ts the same with Human embryos having tails .... yes, by appearance, Human embryros have tails but appearance is cause by how the embryro develops ... The spine cord grows faster than the rest of the body.

Your evidence for this?

Human embryuos not only have what APPEARS to be a tail, but what is ACTUALLY a tail... that is resorbed into the embryo as it grows.

Proof? Well, first of all, every human has a coccyx, or tail, it is just internal. Look at any chart of skeletal anatomy to find it.

Further proof? SOME humans are born with actual tails, where the resorbtion pocess never occured. So, take your pick, this is EITHER

a mutation resulting in new information,

OR

evidence of an evolutionary history where our ancestors had tails, with occasional throwbacks occuring.

Take your pick. Either suits the evolutionst POV, both are evidence against "as we are now creationism"