In goes another nail: Pierolapithecus catalaunicus
- Thread starter Michael
- Start date
OKDavid F. said:
That’s fine but the real answer is evolution.David F. said:
See above picture OR look in mirror.David F. said:
Oh, so now you have the mind of God? This statement is wrong.David F. said:
David, do you read what I post or do you have no understanding of biology?David F. said:
Your entire statement has no bearing on what I wrote – see the article I attached.
A common designer aye?
Sorry to say you’re a few centuries out of date, that line of investigation has been superseded by a little something you may have heard of but not understood – evolution.
And why, as a designer, wouldn't I also reuse basic structural parts as well? If it works, then don't fix it. If it has to be modified slightly like the fingers in a bat's wing need to be longer than the fingers in a hand, then make a slight modification, but keep the basic structure the same. What's so hard to understand?sideshowbob said:
I did read what you wrote and I do understand basic biology - apparently at least as well as you do. I understand that variations in species is more about shuffling chromozones and less about mutation (mutation is usually fatal or at the least leads to malformation). Adaptability (MicroEvolution), the known ability of a species to adapt to its environment, is not the same as MacroEvolution and common ancestry. It actually seems quite amusing that the examples you cite are not even in common use by Evolution Scientists because they are known to be false (like the Miller experiment or the Archaeopteryx fossil or the forgeries of Haeckel's embyos or the Java Man hoax). MacroEvolution has been built on lies and hoaxes from its foundation and it continues to be so today. How can you believe in something when prestigeous groups like the National Geographic Society is itself participating in blatent deception (archaeoraptor) to try to shore up this dying theory?Michael said:
- There is no possible evolutionary/Darwinian path by which a cell can form from non-life.
- There is no possible evolutionary/Darwinian path by which a cell can mutate into a complex animal.
- There is no possible evolutionary/Darwinian path by which a reptile can become a bird.
You have provided nothing which even remotely argues these points. All you have given me is common chemicals and pictures of semi-common body structures. This could easily be proof of common design at least as much as you are trying to use it to show common ancestry. Without a transition path of millions of small steps, you have nothing at all. To change a limb into a wing would take millions of carefully planned and thought out changes to the DNA - an intelegent design, which is not even conceivably attributable to random chance. Random chance never, in any part of the universe, creates anything but chaos and entropy. You are just clinging to false hope in a theory which is going down the tubes. All you have to show me are common parts and common amino-acids. I answer your questions as to why a fly has some amino-acids in common with humans and then you try to tell me that isn't what you asked. It is what you asked. You are jumping all over the board trying to find something, anything which will show some semblance of support for Darwinism - and you are failing miserably. Why do you even care if Darwin fails? The fall of Evolution does not mean you have to accept Creation.
You must ask yourself - Does adaptability really lead to speciation? Can speciation really be used to explain common ancestory? Adaptability is like knowing whether or not to run when the batter hits a fly ball. Can this skill be translated to women's gymnastics? They are both athletic but they have little or nothing to do with each other. Adaptability is like having a skill in a particular unique sport. MacroEvolution is something quite different. They are both life, but the similarity ends there.
I understand your frustration. It is very hard to give up your Faith. I'm not even telling what is right. I am only telling you that what you believe is wrong. While I see evidence of design, I won't even pretend to be able to prove it - it just seems to be to be the logical alternative. Who did the design? I don't know for sure, and I will readily admit my ignorance on this fact. But, to keep slobbering fondly over a dead, decaying corpse of a theory like Darwinism is just sad.
Last edited:
For the same reason that we don't use a screen door in a submarine. Sometimes it just makes sense to redesign from scratch.David F. said:
Your super-human "designer" seems to have very low standards. Human engineers "reuse basic structural parts" for cost-effectiveness. Why is your "designer" similarly constrained?
Then why give a whale fingers at all? Why not a brand new design? Even human engineers don't use the same "basic structural parts" for submarines and aircaraft.
What's so hard to understand is: Why do you think such a limited, feeble-minded "designer" is necessary at all?
No David, your response was completely incoherent and had nothing whatsoever to do with my post. As such you could not have had any sort of an idea about what I had written. This can be because you don’t understand it or didn’t read it.David F. said:
Did you read the PubMed citation I posted – apparently not, so you can stop with your blathering until you have read it. And then AFTER YOU HAVE READ IT you can write your scathing critique and send it to the editors of PNAS, until such a time you can not say this with any amount of credibility because IT IS PEER REVIEWED AND PUBLISHED.David F. said:
Show me the critique David.
Where’s the critique David?
As they say: put up or shut up.
Proof? Haahahahaha . . . yeah David it’s PROOF (your words) of ALIENS visiting earth HAAAA hahahahahahah . . ..David F. said:
your funny
AND YET again, David can't read and comprehend what I wrote.David F. said:
Fall of Evolution! Hahahahaha . . . .David F. said:
OK David when is this supposed “fall” going to happen?
Set the date and we’ll see if ANY of the major Universities in the entire WORLD stop teaching it. Until such a time you’ll have to live with the simple FACT that you are wrong.
David you must ask your self – CAN I READ a post?David F. said:
Read the PNAS paper David, again you are wrong.
IN summary, Evolution is definitely alive and it must irk you so much to KNOW it will be taught this semester and the next and the next and the next . . . . . we can BOTH just sit back and SEE who it right.
ME or YOU?
Evolution alive or (as you say) dead.
If it is as YOU SAY, that evolution is "dead", we should expect to see Universities immediately begin to drop it from their curriculum. BUT we both know that isn’t going to be the case, don't we DAVoID . . . .
OMG, I see here it’s in next semesters curriculum . . . . .
So therefore you be secure in the knowledge that I am correct and you are, yet again, not.
"Why" is something you would have to ask the designer. Feeble minded is an interesting turn of phrase since the design is far beyond anything man could do. If the Designer is feeble-minded, what does that make man?sideshowbob said:
Why do I think there is a designer? Because nothing else you have suggested makes sense. When I see elegant structure and purpose, I automatically think design. When I see Eiffel's Tower, I don't believe it popped out of the ground or flew together by random chance - I think design. When I see the Brooklyn Bridge, I don't suspect that it has aquatic ancestors - I think design. But, then again, that is not the discussion. I can't prove a designer so this is all speculation, even on my part. What I can show is the absurdity of Random Chance theories such as Evolution. Life is far more complicated than a bridge or a tower. Life is far too complicated for such simple-minded ideas like random chance (maybe it is the feeble of mind who believe in random chance?). Why do I think there is a designer? Because I see what science has discovered. Random chance cannot explain what we see - no matter how many lies and hoaxes are foisted on the unsuspecting public and design seems like the best alternative. I would not believe the Eiffel Tower came together by chance, even in a billion times 4.5 billion years.
Plunk him down on my couch and I will.David F. said:
My point is: why do you postulate a super-human designer who is so lame-brained that he designs everything "just good enough" instead of doing it right? ("Yeah, just throw some spackle on that screen door. That'll keep the water out. That's good enough.")
We may not be able to design a better whale, bat, human, etc., but we can certainly see the flaws in the "design". What does that say about how far the "designer" is above us?
I didn't ask why you think there's a designer. I know why you think there's a designer.
I asked why your version of the "designer" is so hopelessly limited.
If there is a designer, why couldn't he design a system that develops itself? That would explain the flawed "designs" that we see in everything he "designed".
That's the basic flaw in your thinking. You think automatically instead of using reason. Thinking automatically is also known as "jumping to conclusions".
"Random chance" has a lot less to do with evolution than you think it does.
to you,David F. said:
to us and the rest of academic science the answer is evolution
The Blind Watchmaker: Why the Evidence of Evolution Reveals a Universe Without DesignDavid F. said:
This bit is a brilliant summation of your ignorance regarding evolution, David.David F. said:
selection David, selection
geesh how dense can one get???
Select what? You have to have things to select between. Evolution is about selecting the fittest organism between organisms which are different. Difference comes from changes in the organism. Changes, according to Evolution happen by random chance. The selection is to keep good changes and to reject bad changes. Selection cannot happen until there is first a random chance change!
You keep harping on your article, which I ignored since it does not have any relevence to the current discusion. Did you read the article at all? Your article is about a bacteria called Salmonella Typhimurium which secretes two bacterial toxins (proteins) which attack skin cells. The article is about how these are structured and how they work. The word Evolution is inserted in a couple of places, but not as a discussion of how they evolved, like: "Comparison with the eukaryotic Rac1–Tiam1 complex and evolutionary relationship". This does not at all describe the evolutionary process, but simply indicates the author's belief that evolution produced these compounds. I don't even argue with the ability of these organisms (and all organisms) to adapt to their environment, to change and be more productive. Microevolution is a known truth which was the starting point for Darwin's botched theory.
What does your article have to do with this thread - the Macroevolutionary path of man?
BTW, here is a response to your religious article about the blind watchmaker...
http://www.leaderu.com/real/ri9203/watchmkr.html
Quotes:
Edit: Here's another link about a leading Evolutionist, Professor Michael Ruse -who still believes in Evolution, who actually has the courage to admit, in a public forum, that Evolution is a religion and not science.
http://www.leaderu.com/real/ri9404/ruse.html
You keep harping on your article, which I ignored since it does not have any relevence to the current discusion. Did you read the article at all? Your article is about a bacteria called Salmonella Typhimurium which secretes two bacterial toxins (proteins) which attack skin cells. The article is about how these are structured and how they work. The word Evolution is inserted in a couple of places, but not as a discussion of how they evolved, like: "Comparison with the eukaryotic Rac1–Tiam1 complex and evolutionary relationship". This does not at all describe the evolutionary process, but simply indicates the author's belief that evolution produced these compounds. I don't even argue with the ability of these organisms (and all organisms) to adapt to their environment, to change and be more productive. Microevolution is a known truth which was the starting point for Darwin's botched theory.
What does your article have to do with this thread - the Macroevolutionary path of man?
BTW, here is a response to your religious article about the blind watchmaker...
http://www.leaderu.com/real/ri9203/watchmkr.html
Quotes:
"The subject in controversy, however, is my argument that the blind watchmaker thesis is not supported by the evidence-i.e., that science does not know how life could have evolved to its present complexity and diversity without the participation of preexisting intelligence. If Gould had a convincing answer to that argument, you may be sure that he would have stated the issues clearly and met the main line of reasoning head on."
. . .
In the end, the entire scientific community will have to acknowledge that honest discussion-with assumptions identified and terms precisely defined-is the only method for resolving disagreement that is consistent with the best traditions of science itself. When scientists defend a cherished doctrine by obscuring the issues and intimidating the critics, it is a sure sign that what they are defending isn't science.
Since I took the time to read your article and critique, please do me the same courtesy. I look forward to your thoughts after you read it. Note in particular the lack of equal time, due to peer review.. . .
In the end, the entire scientific community will have to acknowledge that honest discussion-with assumptions identified and terms precisely defined-is the only method for resolving disagreement that is consistent with the best traditions of science itself. When scientists defend a cherished doctrine by obscuring the issues and intimidating the critics, it is a sure sign that what they are defending isn't science.
Edit: Here's another link about a leading Evolutionist, Professor Michael Ruse -who still believes in Evolution, who actually has the courage to admit, in a public forum, that Evolution is a religion and not science.
http://www.leaderu.com/real/ri9404/ruse.html
Last edited:
??!!?!?_particlename
Registered Member
ok, i only read the first 3 pages of this thread, i don't have time to read all of it right now, but i would still like to throw this tidbit into the discussion.
Does anyone else see a profound similarity between the past Catholic Church practice of adopting local pagan ceremony into Christian religion, and science's penchant for holding onto outdated disproven "facts"?
Does anyone else see a profound similarity between the past Catholic Church practice of adopting local pagan ceremony into Christian religion, and science's penchant for holding onto outdated disproven "facts"?
Very Good Analogy!
Michael, Here's another response to the Dawkin's "Blind Watchmaker" book:
http://www.answersingenesis.org/docs/264.asp
Remember Michael, I read your link, now you read mine.
Michael, Here's another response to the Dawkin's "Blind Watchmaker" book:
http://www.answersingenesis.org/docs/264.asp
Remember Michael, I read your link, now you read mine.
I see some similarity between the Catholic Church's willingness to adapt and science's willingness to adapt.??!!?!?_particlename said:
When new evidence is obtained and verified, science incorporates it into existing theories. That's how science works.
Creationists, IDists, etc. think they already know everything, so they never have to adapt.
Sorry to disappoint you but this is not how science works. Ideally, scientists should never believe anything until it is proven by much evidence, and should reject or at least severely re-evaluate anything which has even the smallest evidence against it.
Science, however, is made of imperfect, irrational men who have pet ideas and theories which may not have anything at all to do with proof or truth. This has always been the way. Science is heirarchical and those at the top have the power to advance their ideas, even when wrong and obviously false. Truth always has to struggle to find its way out of the muck and turmoil and prejudice of the peer review system - like salmon swimming up stream. Usually, the only way truth can surface at all is by a ground-swelling of non-elitists rising up to overrule those in power. One must wonder how much truth never makes it into the light?
The Internet is changing all this since, for the first time in history, the elitists no longer control and filter the information highway.
Science, however, is made of imperfect, irrational men who have pet ideas and theories which may not have anything at all to do with proof or truth. This has always been the way. Science is heirarchical and those at the top have the power to advance their ideas, even when wrong and obviously false. Truth always has to struggle to find its way out of the muck and turmoil and prejudice of the peer review system - like salmon swimming up stream. Usually, the only way truth can surface at all is by a ground-swelling of non-elitists rising up to overrule those in power. One must wonder how much truth never makes it into the light?
The Internet is changing all this since, for the first time in history, the elitists no longer control and filter the information highway.
Sorry to disappoint you, buddy-boy, but science works by a preponderance of evidence. All evidence is considered, but the "smallest" evidence has to grow up before it can challenge the big picture.David F. said:
But every scientist has different pet ideas and theories. They can only become accepted by fitting into an oveall pattern. You seem intent on staring at one tree at a time and ignoring the fact that those trees make up a forest.
Most scientists would be ROFL at the idea that they have "power".
(By the way, what you describe is an oligarchy, not a heirarchy.)
Ha!
Name eight principles of modern science that arose in that way.
Ha!
While you're at it, name eight principles of modern science that originated on the Internet.
You may not have noticed this, but the Internet is full of whackos.
Please do not believe everything you see on the Internet.
That response is indicative of your maturity level.David F. said:
You have already shot yourself in the foot by admitting that you get all of your information from the Internet. Do you really need to make yourself look even more foolish by childish name-calling?
What name? Please quote where I have called you any name at all.
I did not admit to getting my information from the Internet. I was well versed in these subjects before there was an Internet. I do use the Internet in some cases but I am quite fond of books and it is hard to go into a bookstore and not come out with at least one. Actually many of my quotes on this thread have been typed in from books. When it comes to the science community, I do know what I am talking about.
I suppose you are now using the common Darwinist tactic - when you can't compete on ideas, start personal attacks and intimidation. These have been favorite tactics of prominent Darwinists, like Dawkins and Gould (I guess he knows the truth now doesn't he). Please feel free to continue, but I will not respond, unless you wish to move back into the realm of ideas - science or religion, I don't mind either but I find it best to keep them separate.
I did not admit to getting my information from the Internet. I was well versed in these subjects before there was an Internet. I do use the Internet in some cases but I am quite fond of books and it is hard to go into a bookstore and not come out with at least one. Actually many of my quotes on this thread have been typed in from books. When it comes to the science community, I do know what I am talking about.
I suppose you are now using the common Darwinist tactic - when you can't compete on ideas, start personal attacks and intimidation. These have been favorite tactics of prominent Darwinists, like Dawkins and Gould (I guess he knows the truth now doesn't he). Please feel free to continue, but I will not respond, unless you wish to move back into the realm of ideas - science or religion, I don't mind either but I find it best to keep them separate.