Fossil Record Shows Evolution as an Errant Fabricated Mess

[Ophiolite]

Posting Record Shows Evolution Deniers as Responsible for an Errant Fabricated Mess

 

[OldWiseGuy]

they’re always interfering with the teaching of science . And it’s not just evolution, they interfere with teaching all of these: the Big Bang, the age of the earth, the age of the universe, global warming . On a government level they interfere with funding for research and they refuse to acknowledge science based problems

Interfere? I think you mean disagree don't you?

 

[tas8831]

In your reply "tiny gap" illustrates the conjecture evolutionists stand on.

Explain scientifically, please.

In this case you state the conjecture is "tiny".

Who says tiny?

Those in the know?

And who faces up to all the other conjecture, emphased as tiny or minor .........?

Who spells words incorrectly? Who keeps using phrases like "faces up" when in fact THEY run away from evidence that demolishes their naive proclamations?

Who declares gaps to be large premised on their ignorance of the relationship between genotype and phenotype?

YOU DO!

So far I find on CF people not facing up the how evolution has hit a brick wall of missing evidence. That evolution is based on conjecture, not fossil record proof.

So far, I find the people that are the most ignorant of evolution stooping to such levels as embellishing their education, ignoring evidence that demolishes their claims, pontificating on things they are clearly ignorant of, etc., all the while pretending to possess superior knowledge.

It is sad, to be sure, but they give us great examples of the Dunning-Kruger effect, as seems to be required to be a creationist these days.

Since you want to make people think that you know about science, how about you EXPLAIN, logically and scientifically, why a supposed gap is NOT small, or why a gap IS relevant.

No bible verses, please - posting bible verses in a science-related discussion screams "I HAVE NOTHING OF MERIT TO OFFER!!!"

 

[tas8831]

Can’t trust them to talk about facts, they prefer their fantasies....

This is rich, coming from the fellow that thought, up until a few weeks ago, that "alleles" were "allies", who thought a book about a guy researching his family history proved that the term "genetic strand" was a legitimate scientific term, who claims speciation results solely from hybridization - that new alleles are made during reproduction; that mutations do not make new alleles; that Asian+African=Afro-Asian but cannot tell us what hybridized to produce Asian or African in the first place... etc....etc..... etc...

Again - this is the couch potato screaming 'you suck!' at the professional athlete thing we see in so many creationists...

 

[OldWiseGuy]

Explain scientifically, please.



Those in the know?


Who spells words incorrectly? Who keeps using phrases like "faces up" when in fact THEY run away from evidence that demolishes their naive proclamations?

Who declares gaps to be large premised on their ignorance of the relationship between genotype and phenotype?

YOU DO!

So far, I find the people that are the most ignorant of evolution stooping to such levels as embellishing their education, ignoring evidence that demolishes their claims, pontificating on things they are clearly ignorant of, etc., all the while pretending to possess superior knowledge.

It is sad, to be sure, but they give us great examples of the Dunning-Kruger effect, as seems to be required to be a creationist these days.

Since you want to make people think that you know about science, how about you EXPLAIN, logically and scientifically, why a supposed gap is NOT small, or why a gap IS relevant.

No bible verses, please - posting bible verses in a science-related discussion screams "I HAVE NOTHING OF MERIT TO OFFER!!!"

tas, even valid scientific arguments are dismissed by evolutionists, not because they are flawed but because they are a threat.

Evolution is "your baby" and you will defend it to the death.

The fundamental position against evolution is the sheer impossibility of it on it's face. You cannot even conceive of the successful changes that must occur (accidently) for even the smallest of evolutionary changes to take place, thus the broad sweeping proclamations given as evidence. The whole theory is a giant house of cards that gets shakier every minute.

It is a clever theory of ever changing "dazzling with brilliance" and "baffling with BS."

 

[tas8831]

tas, even valid scientific arguments are dismissed by evolutionists, not because they are flawed but because they are a threat.

Your projection is cute and predictable, but premised on fantasies.

I have yet to see a creationist argument that was not premised on ignorance, desperation, dishonesty, or incompetence. And that is not hyperbole. And that is just the "professional" creationists, going back to Morris' cropping of pictures of geological features in his 1971 book.

Surely no arguments presented in this forum since I have been here have been legitimate. Your laughable claims about 'vocalizations' are a case in point; justatruthseeker's mantra-based 'folk genetics' is another.

Your (creationists') arguments are flawed and barely scientific.

Evolution is "your baby" and you will defend it to the death.

More projection from the fellow that admitted rejecting evolution because you could not understand it (btw - was that you that whined to the admin about my use of that quote from you in my signature?).

I defend against distortions, unwarranted attacks, phony arguments, etc.

If you are aware of a valid scientific argument against evolution or for creation that I dismissed without reason, please show me.

The fundamental position against evolution is the sheer impossibility of it on it's face.

And here is a great example.

You are declaring evolution impossible despite admitting that you do not understand it, and despite proving through your posts on this forum that you have no relevant understanding or background in any of the relevant science. For crying out loud, you do not even seem to understand how neurons work, yet you have pontificated about how the nervous system works!

"How do you think unconscious vocal signals get to the brain so fast when a person, or a giraffe, is suddenly surprised or frightened? "


You claim that 'the gut' and the 'aorta' generate vocalization impulses that get to the larynx via the RLN. I demonstrate that this is nonsense. You come back with 'science doesn't know everything.' I explain that mutations can produce cascades of effects, and give an example, showing that 'millions' of specific changes are not actually required, and you come back with a demand that I provide details on millions of changes. I say sure - after you provide evidence for your goofy aorta=vocalizations (no brain activity needed), and you sleaze out of it - 'gee, golly, it was just a guess.'

My gosh, grow some humility, won't you!

You cannot even conceive of the successful changes that must occur (accidently) for even the smallest of evolutionary changes to take place, thus the broad sweeping proclamations given as evidence.

No idea what that is supposed to mean, but considering that this is coming from a chap that believes, without question or skepticism, what you do, I have to chuckle to myself.

That you keep writing things like you do, after admitting (and demonstrating) ignorance of all of the relevant science is something I only ever see from creationists. Actually, not only can I conceive what you declare I cannot, I understand HOW it can happen and why.

So please stop projecting.

The whole theory is a giant house of cards that gets shakier every minute.

And still more projection.

How is it, exactly, that a person can draw such confident conclusions on a topic that he has admitted ignorance of?

What sort of hubris drives the creationist to show themselves the way they do?

It is a clever theory of ever changing "dazzling with brilliance" and "baffling with BS."

And how would you even know, were that the case?

Every time I have confronted you on an evolution-related topic, I have demonstrated (usually repeatedly) your sad, desperate arrogant ignorance. From what a tissue is, to how the nervous system works, to etc.

And you actually want to accuse others of "dazzling with brilliance" and "baffling with BS"? My gosh, how you project.

But please, do show me an example where I have merely dismissed a creationist's scientific argument out of fear.

Or will this be another example of your dishonesty?

 

[Ophiolite]

tas, even valid scientific arguments are dismissed by evolutionists, not because they are flawed but because they are a threat.

Provide an example (in detail) of what you consider to be the best example of such a valid argument and I shall give it serious, open-minded consideration. The detail I am requesting can either be a citation, or citations, to a specific study, or your own concise, yet comprehensive presentation of the argument and the supporting evidence, or any other equivalent suite of material.

 

[OldWiseGuy]

Your projection is cute and predictable, but premised on fantasies.

I have yet to see a creationist argument that was not premised on ignorance, desperation, dishonesty, or incompetence. And that is not hyperbole. And that is just the "professional" creationists, going back to Morris' cropping of pictures of geological features in his 1971 book.

Surely no arguments presented in this forum since I have been here have been legitimate. Your laughable claims about 'vocalizations' are a case in point; justatruthseeker's mantra-based 'folk genetics' is another.

Your (creationists') arguments are flawed and barely scientific.


More projection from the fellow that admitted rejecting evolution because you could not understand it (btw - was that you that whined to the admin about my use of that quote from you in my signature?).

I defend against distortions, unwarranted attacks, phony arguments, etc.

If you are aware of a valid scientific argument against evolution or for creation that I dismissed without reason, please show me.

And here is a great example.

You are declaring evolution impossible despite admitting that you do not understand it, and despite proving through your posts on this forum that you have no relevant understanding or background in any of the relevant science. For crying out loud, you do not even seem to understand how neurons work, yet you have pontificated about how the nervous system works!

"How do you think unconscious vocal signals get to the brain so fast when a person, or a giraffe, is suddenly surprised or frightened? "


You claim that 'the gut' and the 'aorta' generate vocalization impulses that get to the larynx via the RLN. I demonstrate that this is nonsense. You come back with 'science doesn't know everything.' I explain that mutations can produce cascades of effects, and give an example, showing that 'millions' of specific changes are not actually required, and you come back with a demand that I provide details on millions of changes. I say sure - after you provide evidence for your goofy aorta=vocalizations (no brain activity needed), and you sleaze out of it - 'gee, golly, it was just a guess.'

My gosh, grow some humility, won't you!

No idea what that is supposed to mean, but considering that this is coming from a chap that believes, without question or skepticism, what you do, I have to chuckle to myself.

That you keep writing things like you do, after admitting (and demonstrating) ignorance of all of the relevant science is something I only ever see from creationists. Actually, not only can I conceive what you declare I cannot, I understand HOW it can happen and why.

So please stop projecting.

And still more projection.

How is it, exactly, that a person can draw such confident conclusions on a topic that he has admitted ignorance of?

What sort of hubris drives the creationist to show themselves the way they do?

And how would you even know, were that the case?

Every time I have confronted you on an evolution-related topic, I have demonstrated (usually repeatedly) your sad, desperate arrogant ignorance. From what a tissue is, to how the nervous system works, to etc.

And you actually want to accuse others of "dazzling with brilliance" and "baffling with BS"? My gosh, how you project.

But please, do show me an example where I have merely dismissed a creationist's scientific argument out of fear.

Or will this be another example of your dishonesty?

Did I say these signals are passed by neurons?
Did I say these signals originate in the aorta?
Do you not believe that the heart and gut have "minds of their own" and send signals to the brain?"
How do these signals reach the brain?
Do you believe there are spontaneous involuntary vocalizations not directed by the brain? If so what does that mean?

 

[Heissonear]

You're the one who is making the claim, that 'evolutionist' claims about the fossil record are a lie, so the onus is on you to prove it right. All I see from any of your posts is just a willing ignorance of the fossil record and a complete refusal to listen to what anyone else is saying to you.

You are applying conjecture. And evolution has no fossil record to prove evolution every happened.

You stand by naturalistic faith.

Without God in the center of His Creation.

Evolution is a godless proposed by godless men.

You have the picture now. It took a while.

 

[Heissonear]

Provide an example (in detail) of what you consider to be the best example of such a valid argument and I shall give it serious, open-minded consideration. The detail I am requesting can either be a citation, or citations, to a specific study, or your own concise, yet comprehensive presentation of the argument and the supporting evidence, or any other equivalent suite of material.

U turn the table.

Show us the fossil record that shows detailed morphological changes inbetween any of the underlined.

Otherwise remove their association - it is conjecture-based.

As per OP topic.

 

[Heissonear]

Your projection is cute and predictable, but premised on fantasies.

I have yet to see a creationist argument that was not premised on ignorance, desperation, dishonesty, or incompetence. And that is not hyperbole. And that is just the "professional" creationists, going back to Morris' cropping of pictures of geological features in his 1971 book.

Surely no arguments presented in this forum since I have been here have been legitimate. Your laughable claims about 'vocalizations' are a case in point; justatruthseeker's mantra-based 'folk genetics' is another.

Your (creationists') arguments are flawed and barely scientific.


More projection from the fellow that admitted rejecting evolution because you could not understand it (btw - was that you that whined to the admin about my use of that quote from you in my signature?).

I defend against distortions, unwarranted attacks, phony arguments, etc.

If you are aware of a valid scientific argument against evolution or for creation that I dismissed without reason, please show me.

And here is a great example.

You are declaring evolution impossible despite admitting that you do not understand it, and despite proving through your posts on this forum that you have no relevant understanding or background in any of the relevant science. For crying out loud, you do not even seem to understand how neurons work, yet you have pontificated about how the nervous system works!

"How do you think unconscious vocal signals get to the brain so fast when a person, or a giraffe, is suddenly surprised or frightened? "


You claim that 'the gut' and the 'aorta' generate vocalization impulses that get to the larynx via the RLN. I demonstrate that this is nonsense. You come back with 'science doesn't know everything.' I explain that mutations can produce cascades of effects, and give an example, showing that 'millions' of specific changes are not actually required, and you come back with a demand that I provide details on millions of changes. I say sure - after you provide evidence for your goofy aorta=vocalizations (no brain activity needed), and you sleaze out of it - 'gee, golly, it was just a guess.'

My gosh, grow some humility, won't you!

No idea what that is supposed to mean, but considering that this is coming from a chap that believes, without question or skepticism, what you do, I have to chuckle to myself.

That you keep writing things like you do, after admitting (and demonstrating) ignorance of all of the relevant science is something I only ever see from creationists. Actually, not only can I conceive what you declare I cannot, I understand HOW it can happen and why.

So please stop projecting.

And still more projection.

How is it, exactly, that a person can draw such confident conclusions on a topic that he has admitted ignorance of?

What sort of hubris drives the creationist to show themselves the way they do?

And how would you even know, were that the case?

Every time I have confronted you on an evolution-related topic, I have demonstrated (usually repeatedly) your sad, desperate arrogant ignorance. From what a tissue is, to how the nervous system works, to etc.

And you actually want to accuse others of "dazzling with brilliance" and "baffling with BS"? My gosh, how you project.

But please, do show me an example where I have merely dismissed a creationist's scientific argument out of fear.

Or will this be another example of your dishonesty?

The truth that evolution is without fossil record evidence is something one immature cannot face bias group-think crowds with.

 

[Heissonear]

stop lying. It doesn’t reflect well on Christians that fundies lie about easily confirmed facts . The so called gaps in the fossil record are being filled in mainly because unlike Darwin or Cope, and other 19th century naturalists , we know where to look for the intermediates and approximately what age they’d be. Geological layering and dating of the layers is that well understood . And that’s just fossils. We also have genetics and evolutionary development as well as others of the biological sciences. The only fantasies involved are coming from creationists in denial

Another opportunity to prove evolution is true and you onlu divert.

Show the fossils inbetween the below underlined that is suppose to link then or face conjecture created hierarchy.

Evolution is based on conjecture. Look at the below and realize there are no fossils inbetween them. It is an errant fabrication.

 

[Heissonear]

tas, even valid .......

Evolution is "your baby" and you will defend it to the death.

The fundamental position against evolution is the sheer impossibility of it on it's face. You cannot even conceive of the successful changes that must occur (accidently)

When one steps back and looks at the claims verses proofs, including the over 600 million years of accidental mutations, Evolution is an errant belief.

What has come out of a pit for deceiving has got on a lot of people that cannot shake it.

 

[Brightmoon]

Heiss these are entire families of genera and species not single organisms . Please stop acting like you understand biology cuz you don’t seem too. Whales are Artiodactyla. This was determined genetically BEFORE a lot of protowhale fossils were found . And when the genetic answer of whales being related to deer came back people were inclined to laugh. It’s accepted now because, whales ARE Artiodactyla . All lines of evidence support this not just genetics and paleontology

 

[tas8831]

Did I say these signals are passed by neurons?

That is how 'signals' are passed on, so if you didn't, you are even more out of your depth then I thought. How do you propose they are passed? Magic? Smoke signals?

Did I say these signals originate in the aorta?

That is my shorthand - you actually claim they originated 'in the heart'. You declared:

"Mine is a product of brainstorming the function of the left RLN (no details available at this time)."

and

" If the larynx needs a signal from the aortic arch that loop is a great way to facilitate the 'my heart was in my throat' response."

Which was silly, because a great deal is understood about the function of the RLN, had you the ability to learn about it. Instead, you prefer to "brainstorm" with no facts to try to rescue your unwarranted and fantasy-driven notions of 'great design.'

Of course, regarding 'vocalizations' such as when startled you wrote:

" This is a visceral reaction (the 'mind' of the body) influencing the function of the throat and voice box without the direction of the brain."

So the notion that you think that motor impulses to the larynx can be generated anywhere but the brain is just another example of your writing from ignorance.

In the thread linked below, I went to great lengths to try to educate you on these issues. Being a Dunning-Krugerite, however, you seemed to think you knew it all and/or to save face (and protect your religion) refused to admit your ignorance. And in desperation, you did what all creationists end up doing - silly keyword Google searches to try to find an out (like your 'HeartMath Institute' link...), all in half-baked attempts to "prove" that the larynx can be made to produce 'vocalizations' by structures other than the brain.

It was a sight to behold.

Now, it is possible to produce sound mechanically without the input of the brain - like getting punched in the gut can force enough air through the larynx that there could be a 'whoosh' or a 'oooh' sort of sound, not really a 'vocalization', but a sort of sound. Had you made THAT argument, I would have agreed. Instead, you tried so so hard to find a way to rescue the 'design' of the RLN. Silly.



It was especially something to see how you tried to claim 'vocalizations' such as when startled or scared are "reflexes", then supplied a definition of reflex to 'prove' that these 'gut feelings' did not have to go through the brain. And even if these 'gut feeling' based vocalizations were reflexive, they would STILL go through the brain because THAT IS THE PATHWAY OF INNERVATION.

My gosh.. And all to try to proclaim the RLN as a masterpiece of 'Creation.'

Do you not believe that the heart and gut have "minds of their own" and send signals to the brain?"

No. I do not believe that. I do know that you think they do because you take metaphorical talk as literal when it suits you. But I do note that you are acknowledging the brain's role in producing 'vocalizations' - it only took you 5 years (if we count the posts you made in 2013 on the same general topic)?

By the way, since you don't know anatomy at all, the heart and the gut (and large blood vessels) have various types of receptors associated with them. Primarily stretch and pain receptors, though the aortic arch and the carotid sinus and a few other places contain some chemoreceptors. Receptors are not "minds", they simply respond to various stimuli. No afferent fibers from the gut, the heart, or the aorta go to other specific structures like the larynx. They may travel through, next to, alongside them, but not 'to' them. I saw in a search that you were using terms like "afferent" back in 2013, in discussions on this topic, and misused it then, too.
Do you know what afferent means? I mean without doing a search to pretend you do?

How do these signals reach the brain?

The way that I explained and provided several links for verification for a few months ago that you dismissed or ignored.
Why do you ask? It is not like you actually want to know.

Do you believe there are spontaneous involuntary vocalizations not directed by the brain? If so what does that mean?

No, I do not, though I suspect you might try to play games by using "directed" as a weasel word.

Here is what happens in real life - say you ate some bad food, and your intestines start to rapidly distend with fluid. This activates stretch receptors. You interpret the signals sent by these stretch receptors TO THE BRAIN as discomfort. Maybe the distension continues to the point that pain receptors are activated. They send signals TO THE BRAIN which you interpret as pain in the gut, and you respond with various actions, some reflexive, others based on past experience, emotional states, etc. You might moan with discomfort, bend over, place your hands on your gut.
None of those responses are "directed" by the gut. The gut merely tells the brain 'hey, something is wrong down here', the brain then responds.

Not sure why you have such a hard time with this, though as an electrician or whatever you claim to have been, I suppose you just don't know anything about anatomy or physiology and your ego prevents you from acknowledging this..


Quotes/info found here:
https://www.christianforums.com/threads/does-science-actually-admit-design.8057974/

 

[tas8831]

Show the fossils inbetween the below underlined that is suppose to link then or face conjecture created hierarchy.

Explain why there must be others. Use your science words.
Explain how you think phylogenies are produced. I am pretty sure that you have no idea.

I also have no idea what you intend to convey with your red lines. Inbetween what?

Why do you ignore the fact that your ignorance of how genotype and phenotype operate is not an argument?

Evolution is based on conjecture.

Repeated false claims are based on the inherent dishonesty of the creationist.

 

[tas8831]

When one steps back and looks at the claims verses proofs, including the over 600 million years of accidental mutations, Evolution is an errant belief.

Nice assertion.

A dopey, unwarranted, evidence-free assertion.

I especially like how you use the word "accidental" as if that has some kind of special meaning for you - after all, in the creationist mythology, you all are special 'creations' and the 'chosen' folk.

What has come out of a pit for deceiving has got on a lot of people that cannot shake it.

I know, creationism is just horrible, isn't it? And its adherents? My gosh, what a bunch.

 

[tas8831]

The truth that evolution is without fossil record evidence is something one immature cannot face bias group-think crowds with.

Again, you simply fail to respond in an intelligent fashion.

Pity that your egotism and desperation prevents you from realizing how dishonest and sad your posts are on this forum.

 

[Warden_of_the_Storm]

You are applying conjecture. And evolution has no fossil record to prove evolution every happened.

You stand by naturalistic faith.

Without God in the center of His Creation.

Evolution is a godless proposed by godless men.

You have the picture now. It took a while.

No, the picture I have is that you're the one making lots and lots of claims, but have absolutely ZERO evidence to back up your claims.
You have presented nothing to prove that evolution is false because you HAVE NOTHING.

 

[OldWiseGuy]

That is how 'signals' are passed on, so if you didn't, you are even more out of your depth then I thought. How do you propose they are passed? Magic? Smoke signals?

Sorry, I was referring to chemical, not mechanical, neurons. That would be the 'smoke signals'.

That is my shorthand - you actually claim they originated 'in the heart'. You declared:

"Mine is a product of brainstorming the function of the left RLN (no details available at this time)."

and

" If the larynx needs a signal from the aortic arch that loop is a great way to facilitate the 'my heart was in my throat' response."

The LRN 'sheds' tiny nerve fibers to the aortic arch as it passes beneath it. I theorize that this might be a pathway for communications from the heart to the larynx (many great discoveries begin with a theory).

What is the purpose of the heart sending signals directly to the esophagus?

"The extrinsic cardiac ganglia, located in the thoracic cavity, have direct connections to organs such as the lungs and esophagus and are also indirectly connected via the spinal cord to many other organs, including the skin and arteries."

Does the heart have to communicate with the brain to both manage itself and the function of other organs?

Many articles about the "mind of the heart" state that the heart sends more signals to the brain than it receives from the brain, and that in many cases the brain is subservient to the 'wishes' of the heart.

It is also elsewhere suggested that the 'gut' has much the same powers.

http://noeticsi.com/thinking-from-the-heart-heart-brain-science/