Evolution is a Joke part XII

Where's your Nobel prize? You know, the one you'd get for overturning one of the most important theories in science and ushering in an entirely new intellectual paradigm? Oh, that's right. You don't have one. Huh, how'd that happen?

Seriously, I think Dawkins got it completely right.

I welcome any of you to actually do the scientific legwork, and publish your arguments in a significant peer-reviewed journal. You know, the kind of thing new discoveries in evolutionary biology have been doing for over a century. At which point you too may become respectable enough to be worth debating. Until then... Nah. Waste of my (*)(*)(*)(*)ing time, rehashing the same long-debunked bull(*)(*)(*)(*) points. I recommend everyone else in this thread to ask the same question, and just ignore them to death. Where's your (*)(*)(*)(*)ing Nobel?

 

Take a (*)(*)(*)(*)ing 101 in evolutionary biology?

 

Once more from that Dawkins letter I linked above:

...Creationists in a nutshell.

 

Are you seriously going to pretend that in the other ELEVEN threads nobody has ever shown you evidence of evolution? You and I both know that's bull(*)(*)(*)(*).

 

This isn't nearly as entertaining when the author only shows up once every two weeks with one-liner posts to try to keep his thread alive.

 

I'm sure he's too busy with his job in practical field biology (yeah (*)(*)(*)(*)ing right).

 

As I said, I spent some time on the Wiki site and I note that all the very old models of alleged human ancestors look very much like apes and were found in various parts of Africa.
I note that the later models were found in Europe and Asia.
This is not consistent with the theory.
Predmost man is shown as Homo Sapiens also a "pre-human".
Well I got news for you. He is/was totally modern.
And here he is:

 

He claims to work for the government. To be sustaining the antiquated beliefs and lacking the ability to evolve with the general populations, fits perfectly

The thread title is proof positive.

 

what about the genetic aspects? Gestation aspects of coming from a single celled contribution of each parent (sperm/egg) and evolving from there to the respective infants, are they similar?

could you tell the difference if you watched them develop from single celled lives, to perhaps 3 months from birth?

Try practical application, versus wiki.

the monkeys?

The yellow and white of mankinds races are from each side of the himalayas.

kind of like the black are rooted from africa and red, americas.

4 colors of mankind; red, yellow, black and white (the four horsemen)

which theory? Lots of theories. Which one is your favorite?

Do you believe martians dropped off people? Perhaps 'designed'?

i like evolution, dont you? It means our future generations can be better than 'we' are. It's a fine fact!

Definitely pre creationism, pre design-a-man (scientology) or any martian man?

Predmost is just proof that there are still bunches of missing links in the soil still. If you really want to help, go pick up a shovel.

kind of late for that.

He's gone and nothing written (modern) from his opinion on the matter.

does that 'he' have anything to do with evolution, other than provide evidence that man has ancestors?

I like the comprehension, that every one of us, no matter which who, has lineage to 'them days' or you would not be here.

 

It's important to periodically publish scientific peer-reviews for the online chat forum community.

 

Then you're not looking at them right. Here's one example - Lucy. Massive, significant differences between all known species of ape and humans, but also similarities. Or how 'bout Homo Habilis? This claim falls flat on its face on account of being completely and utterly wrong by biological standards. Do you have any understanding of morphology?

 

First off - "Lucy" is a fraud.
"But hold on, the story gets better. Dr. Johanson gave a lecture at the University of Missouri in Kansas City, Nov. 20, 1986, on Lucy and why he thinks she is our ancestor. It included the ideas already mentioned and that Lucy’s femur and pelvis were more robust than most chimps and therefore, “could have” walked upright. After the lecture he opened the meeting for questions. The audience of approximately 800 was quiet so some creationists asked questions. Roy Holt asked; “How far away from Lucy did you find the knee?” (The knee bones were actually discovered about a year earlier than the rest of Lucy). Dr. Johanson answered (reluctantly) about 200 feet lower (!) and two to three kilometers away (about 1.5 miles!). Continuing, Holt asked, “Then why are you sure it belonged to Lucy?” Dr. Johanson: “Anatomical similarity.” (Bears and dogs have anatomical similarities)."
http://www.forerunner.com/forerunner/x0714_lucy_fails_test.html

Also: http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-backroom/1651429/posts
"Lucy's actual remains did not included hands or feet ......."

Yes I understand about "morph"

 

Nope, not gonna bother. We're done here. The issue of Lucy's knee joint is an age-old lie, long since debunked. Not a single reputable paleontologist today denies the legitimacy of Australopithecus Afarensis or the importance of the Lucy fossil. You also didn't address Homo Habilis, Homo Erectus, Homo Heidelbergensis, Homo Neanderthalis, or any number of the countless other species that form a clear go-between from human to ancient ape. You have no clue what you're talking about.

 

Of course he hasnt a clue what he's talking about. Show us a creo who
doesnt just spout lies, distortions, misrepresentations and so forth, and we will show you a creo who has nothing at all to say.

The joke involving evolution here is the silly nonsense that
the creos, aka creotheologists make up, or parrot from their
creosites. They operate on the level of a child who wanders into a math conference and laughs because they are using letters and squiggles instead of numbers!

 

I'm not a "creao"
I just don't think man evolved on Earth. and all these skulls are either fully human or they are fully "ape".
And logically laying out all of them on a table in no way shows proof that one morphed into the other.

Here's a page that shows all of them side by side.
Tell me how exactly that this is proof that one morphed into the next.
http://darwiniana.org/hominid.htm

The human skull of the various races is differently shaped.
Further the skulls of any race can change shape in only a few hundred years.
This does not make them a morphed specimen.
Here is the skull of a Gladiator. Would you say he is a transitional specimen?

 

And then there is this one:
http://www.s8int.com/giants11.html



Where would you say he fits into your evolution scam.

 

Oh, but you and they believe that these old bones prove that modern man "evolved" from them, don't you?
Man has been on this planet for as long as any of those bones have.
Hundreds of thousands and maybe even millions of years ago he had a high tech society.
We may have come from another planet, but I wouldn't waste time trying to prove it.
We're here, let's just get on with it.
Earth has gone thru many cataclysms that destroyed most life on the planet and we humans and animals had to start over.

I don't think it matters where we "evolved", and too much time is wasted on the subject, that could be spent doing something useful.
The fairy tales of the mindless religious and their god with his majik wand zapping things into existence is even worse.

 

No proof, just substantial evidence.

Why the hell would you believe this?

You can't prove it, nor can you provide good evidence for it, that's why you won't waste your time.

Don't lie, you think we should spend time on some other endeavor because you don't believe it happened. That's been made clear.

 

How are those old bones "substantial evidence"?
You mean as in "proof"?
How is spending a lot of time trying to prove evolution in anyway useful, other than entertainment?

Are you unfamiliar with "ooparts"? There are plenty of anomalies that suggest that man has been here a long time and had high tech.

The Rig Veda and even the Bible suggests that there were flying machines and high tech weapons, such as swords of light.
http://www.bibliotecapleyades.net/ancientatomicwar/esp_ancient_atomic_07.htm
http://suite101.com/article/vimanas-the-flying-machines-of-ancient-india-a163971

http://www.bibleufo.com/

 

Here's the problem: you can't just look at images as a layperson and expect to understand what you're lookin at without any classes dealing with comparative morphology.

You think it's a waste of time to understand the history of our species and how we relate to every other organism on this planet?

Yes, according to people who want them to be "out of place". Paranormal enthusiasts and ancient alien advocates. I feel for people who fall for this crap because they are natural born skeptics, but use their skepticism in misguided avenues.

You see what you want to see. Have you ever pondered that there just might be a different explanation?

 

It is entertaining to realize that if Evolution is true, then scripture will be seen as confirmed by that evidence in that the genealogy in Genesis parallels the general idea and finds a number of very specific details that would defy coincidence, such as the mention of inbreeding with Neanderthal, a recent fact also verified.

That in our ascent, we related to two different lines of ascent, one through meat eating Anthrop's, and the other, a vegetarian which competed for territory like Abel and Cain.

 

And of course you'll never stick around to back up your claims.

 

Yeah I will.

What do you want backed up????



By the way, George Carlton was ignorant of the democracy of American Corporation which are owned by millions of little shareholders who can vote the CEO out of office, the same way they can elect some other politician if they want.

In both the Political Institution and the Economic Institution, "we the people are the governing body."

 

One would hope you eventually understand that by using evolution to disprove evolution......you seem rather foolish.