Evolution's evidences exposed I

[Gwenyfur]

Once again, it's still being presented in the KC Zoo as "proof" of evolution.
If it weren't still being presented somewhere as fact, it wouldn't be an issue to "debunk"

 

[Gwenyfur]

yes they do...
the actually use copies of the original drawings and credit him with the breakthrough of proving common ancestry through "gill slits"

It's again being presented as fact, instead of being cast aside as fraudulent...as Haekel himself finally admitted...

 

[laptoppop]

Do current evolution supporting text books currently use haekel's drawings, or rather, photographs?

Are inaccuracies in drawings the same as "fakes"

I'd characterize deliberate size variations and changes in the drawings in order to support your position as a kind of fakery, and yes, there are current textbooks still using the drawings. Googling will find lots of them - I quickly found a couple in this article: http://www.bible.ca/tracks/textbook-fraud-embryology-earnst-haeckel-biogenetic-law.htm

 

[EnemyPartyII]

It's again being presented as fact, instead of being cast aside as fraudulent...as Haekel himself finally admitted...

So... what, specifically, is fraudulent about comparative embryology? I mean... all chordate embryos DO kinda look similar...

 

[laptoppop]

The similarities were drastically exaggerated in order to defend a particular point. I'm sure everyone on the boards, including TEs, etc., would all agree that observations should be accurately recorded and presented without exaggeration.

 

[EnemyPartyII]

The similarities were drastically exaggerated in order to defend a particular point. I'm sure everyone on the boards, including TEs, etc., would all agree that observations should be accurately recorded and presented without exaggeration.

I absolutely agree that observations should be recorded as accurately as possible.

So, does anyone know what current embryologists position on the matter is?

 

[shernren]

Here's an example of a textbook's reaction to the issue:

http://www.millerandlevine.com/km/evol/embryos/Haeckel.html

 

[mark kennedy]

This one is my favorite, Scientists have been telling us for years that we are 98% to 99% the same in our DNA as chimpanzees. Finally when the comparative genomics research projects determined that it was actually more like 95% guess what they did?

Give up, they said it was 98% despite the fact that current empirical testing has demonstrated otherwise. Imagine you are working at a Government agency and they report that they spent 35 million dollars and after an audit you find that they actually spent more like 120 million? Don't you think that discrepancy should be addressed because apparently evolutionists don't think so.

Here's the clincher, they are still saying it and no one in the scientific community has a problem with it.

Scientists figured out decades ago that chimps are our nearest evolutionary cousins, roughly 98% to 99% identical to humans at the genetic level.
What Makes us Different? (Time Sunday, Oct. 01, 2006)​

This is not true and they know it, this is not an isolated incident. Type Chimpanzee Genome into your browser that this is at the top:

What makes us human? We share more than 98% of our DNA and almost all of our genes with our closest living relative, the chimpanzee. Comparing the genetic code of humans and chimps will allow the study of not only our similarities, but also the minute differences that set us apart. The chimpanzee genome, Nature Magazine Web Focus​

This is simply not true but don't take my word for it, I'm biased right? Take a look at the paper and you tell me what the level of divergence is.

Among these, he found that 99.4 percent were identical in humans and chimps. He found a lower correspondence for bases that could be changed without affecting the amino acid, with 98.4 percent identical for chimps and humans and the same for the "junk" DNA outside coding regions. Goodman believes the differences are larger for non-coding DNA because their sequences are not biologically critical. Chimps are human, gene study implies http://www.newscientist.com/article.ns?id=dn3744​

The 2% Difference Now that scientists have decoded the chimpanzee genome, we know that 98 percent of our DNA is the same. So how can we be so different? http://www.discover.com/issues/apr-06/features/chimp-genome/ Discover April 2006​

I read this Chromosome 22 paper and it did not say that it was 1.5% of the DNA that differed. Would you like to read it and hear what the researchers had to say about it?

In accumulation, tiny genetic changes could help account for the vast differences between humans and chimpanzees, researchers report in the journal Nature. Researchers have found that less than 1.5 percent of the DNA found on chromosome 22 in humans differs from the DNA on the same chromosome in chimps. But those small genetic variations could help explain human evolution. NPR's Joe Palca reports. (Chimp, Human DNA Maps Reveal Big Role of Tiny Changes, NPR Morning Edition May 27, 2004 )
http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=1912131​

Eventually they will find that the gorrila genome is a lot closer to the chimpanzee then we are. The chimpanzee might be more like us then the other African and Asian great apes but they are going to find that they are a lot more like one another then any of them are like us.

Ok, I'm going to get off of my soapbox now.

Grace and peace,
Mark

 

[MatthewDiscipleofGod]

I'm YEC now. I'm spending March as one, having been swayed by the arguments of dad, AV1611VET and carico... at the enbd of March I'll eval;uate my position and see how my spiritual welfare is going as a result

You are doing a terrible job of pretending to be a creationist. You support gill slits and insult creation arguments. I see nothing but you defending false evolutionist claims. I have reported you once again to the mods, I'll esculate it if I have to. You pretending to be a creationist is like me pretending to be an evolutionist and posting like you are except with everything in reverse within the evolutionist forum.

 

[Dannager]

You are doing a terrible job of pretending to be a creationist. You support gill slits and insult creation arguments. I see nothing but you defending false evolutionist claims. I have reported you once again to the mods, I'll esculate it if I have to. You pretending to be a creationist is like me pretending to be an evolutionist and posting like you are except with everything in reverse within the evolutionist forum.

Oh, please do! We wouldn't raise a fuss over there, promise!

Also, you might want to remove the accusations of rules violations from your post. Just a friendly pointer.

 

[Gwenyfur]

Please remember this sub forums is for creationists only.

TE's may question, but not debate...snide, baiting remarks will also be deleted and result in warnings.

 

[EnemyPartyII]

You support gill slits and insult creation arguments.

The debunked creation arguments, yes. I mean, what the heck is the point of saying "evolution is false because of Nebraska man"... when Nebraska man isn't part of the evolutionary theory?

Support gill slits? well, my flat mate's biology text book says, "human embryos have gill slits"... so... seems a fair thing to say. I mean, just because I want to deal wih actual empirical evidence doesn't mean I can't be a creationist, does it?

So, rather than whining to the mods because I'm pointing out the stupid parts of your arguments, why not come up[ with some better arguments? Using strawmen is the WORST thing a real YEC supporter can do. You make the rest of us look like fools who don't know anything about science.

So, lets stick to what evolution is REALLY based on, and debunk that, rather than coming up with garbage about Nebraska and Piltdown man, shall we?

 

[busterdog]

The debunked creation arguments, yes. I mean, what the heck is the point of saying "evolution is false because of Nebraska man"... when Nebraska man isn't part of the evolutionary theory?

Support gill slits? well, my flat mate's biology text book says, "human embryos have gill slits"... so... seems a fair thing to say. I mean, just because I want to deal wih actual empirical evidence doesn't mean I can't be a creationist, does it?

So, rather than whining to the mods because I'm pointing out the stupid parts of your arguments, why not come up[ with some better arguments? Using strawmen is the WORST thing a real YEC supporter can do. You make the rest of us look like fools who don't know anything about science.

So, lets stick to what evolution is REALLY based on, and debunk that, rather than coming up with garbage about Nebraska and Piltdown man, shall we?

Why don't you delete this on your own and make this argument in the general forum?

Remember the words of Joyce Meyers (though I said it first!) "being right is over-rated," assuming you are right.

 

[EnemyPartyII]

Why don't you delete this on your own and make this argument in the general forum?

Because its a creationist argument!

How are we ever going to show evolution is false if we don't deal with what the TOE ACTUALLY says?

Seems a simple enough, and relevant enough, question, and while I'm at it, every strawman posting of yet another debunked argument against evolution makes all of us look worse.

To win the debate, we need to show how scientific Creationism is supported by the evidence, instead of the same, tired, "Piltdown man" arguments

 

[mark kennedy]

The Piltdown scandle was perpetuated for close to 50 years and all anyone had to do was actually look at the fossil. The reason the Smithsonian suggested was that it was because people saw what they wanted to see.

Am I the only one that has noticed that there are no ape fossils from 2 million years ago but literally thousands from our ancestors? Every ape that is dug up in Africa and Asia is automatically the missing link, where are the chimpanzee and gorilla ancestors?

I'll tell you where they are, they are in natural history museums marked Homo XXX.

 

[Gwenyfur]

NO debating by TE's in the creationism forum

IF you wish to debate a topic found here...

OPEN a NEW thread in OT.

It's a simple rule...