Is Evolution Real? Please read MOD WARNING

That is not a true statement.

 

You apparently believe mathematics and science are the same thing.
They aren't. Mathematics is based on facts assumed. Science isn't.

Incorrect. Science has never proved anything. It's not the purpose
of science to prove.

 

I do understand hierarchies. Just because species had a virus doesn't mean
it's going to be a marker nor does it mean we're related.


Your deflecting again. Nobody says that all species are related just because they are all made from carbon.[/QUOTE]

- - - Updated - - -

Then you know that evolution hasn't been proven.

 

- - - Updated - - -


Then you know that evolution hasn't been proven.[/QUOTE]

Okay than you Deists come up with a better and scientifically sound theory, put it out there and it will be tested and peer reviewed like Evolution was. Until then popping some shots at the Theory of Evolution which is largely regarded as sound by the majority of scientists - stands. We don't need to fill in every detail as rational people just get enough of it explained to rule out the Supernatural as a likely option.

 

- - - Updated - - -


Then you know that evolution hasn't been proven.[/QUOTE]

Why do I even bother?

You have an appendix correct?

Unless you have had it removed.

It is a reminant of our ancient Genetic Past...just like our TAIL BONES.

Some people are BORN WITH TAILS.

This is because our Ancient Genetic Ancestors had them.

AboveAlpha

 

Not all viruses will leave a genetic marker, but when they do they are always passed down to the descendents. That's what makes them genetic markers.

 

Viral DNA ENCODING is one of the most prominant proofs of Evolution.

But with a Microscope, a few slides, sugar water, breach, eye dropper and Slide Bio-Harvesting Tools that cost about a $1.00....a person in one afternoon can visually see Evolutionary Development occur.

AboveAlpha

 

What does being a Deist have to do with this thread? Are you trying to change
the topic?

Let's keep this scientific.

Oy.

 

This means absolutely nothing and at the very best suggests a similarity.
Similarities do not mean evolution occurred.

Try again?

 

Now you're back this? Similarities don't mean they evolved from another species.
How do you expect someone to think you know something far more complex when
don't understand this?

 

No they claim Evolution the theory of biological advancement by natural selection is wrong when the evidence and the vast majority of scientists and rational people say its true so if the Deists have an issue and think they can do better its simple develop a counter theory and prove it to be a legitimate oppositional theory that can be evaluated using scientific principles.

 

This has nothing to do with anything I'm talking about. Please find someone who's
interested in deism and bother them.

 

That pile of old bones that "science" is looking at prove nothing other than that they are old bones.
DNA is universal, similar species = similar DNA

"Science" has been known to overlook whatever does not fit with what they are looking for and to fake what they find to make it fit.

"Lucy" is one of the most egregious of them - a put together monkey with bones gathered from as far as 8 miles apart and put before the public as the human mother ancestor. You can tell by looking at this thing that most of it has been filled in with plaster, fibreglass or whatever is used in place of missing bone. It looks like a monkey. Evolutionists have faith in their magic transformation the same as creationists have in theirs. Both are delusional. At some point they must admit that we will likely never know.

Has anyone considered that humans more likely came from some other planet or star system? Even then you will never know how it all began. So just live with it and stop making stuff up.

 

And the more similar the DNA, the more similar the species, just as people more closely related to you will have more similar DNA.

Sorry, apparently you're confusing creationism with science.

The fossil fragments called "Lucy" were discovered in a single section of a wash within a few feet (not miles) of each other, and are 40% of a complete skeleton with no duplication, supporting the hypothesis that they come from a single individual.

http://humanorigins.si.edu/evidence/human-fossils/fossils/al-288-1

Sure, but while possible, it is far from likely.

This sounds like faith, not science.

 

No, I'm not confusing science with creationism....Scientists DO their fakery to make the evidence fit the theoryl
Lucy Fails Test As Missing(*)Link
http://www.forerunner.com/forerunner/X0714_Lucy_fails_test.html

Watch this video on Lucy:
[video=youtube;yJ5VPmCHM0o]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yJ5VPmCHM0o[/video]

 

When it comes to determining if something pass or fails at basic science, I'll take the word of people who actually do science over creationist web sites and YouTube videos.

Age of Lucy and the First Family: Single-crystal 40Ar/39Ar dating of the Denen Dora and lower Kada Hadar members of the Hadar Formation, Ethiopia

Lucy's Flat Feet: The Relationship between the Ankle and Rearfoot Arching in Early Hominins

The locomotor anatomy of Australopithecus afarensis

 

I'm not the one trying to change the subject. Since I understand this topic far
better than you I guess you need to hijack the thread.

 

Imagine an America where the Creationists win....


and while the rest of the world advances on science and the lucrative world of bio-technology.....even geology....

our kids are taught that the Earth is only 6000 years old and all life is exactly as it was "created" 6000 years ago.


I guarantee no 21st Century bio-tech company or pharmacetuical company.....hell, no OIL AND GAS company...would hire such a kid.

 

You are very naive not to think for yourself on this. Have you looked at the pics of that put together skeleton? Have you read any of the debunking articles? You should you know, if you want to know both sides of the story.

Do look at the Video, it is very enlightening. It is short and to the point as is the article.

Here is a site showing the bones that went into the make up of the Lucy skeleton. Note that all of the lay outs show different bones. They are saying that there were as many as 30 individuals to whom the bones had belonged. So they could choose which ones most closely fit the desired outcome. You look at them and see if you see what they are telling you to see. http://www.omniology.com/LucySkeletons.html

I'm not christian and not a creationist. I'd like to ask a christian who believes that god did it....if they could see god creating a human what would they see? How did he do it? However they do have some excellent anti-evolution arguments. Too bad they don't carry this kind of reasoning power over into their fantasy of the "god did it" delusion.

There is much we do not know and may never know. Science has been wrong about so many things and they are arrogant about their findings, often ignoring what doesn't fit. I don't know why they are so desperate to prove their idea of evolution. They say that homo erectus and all the other homo this and homo that are extinct. Maybe they still live and this would explain "big foot" and the others we hear about from all over the world. Think about it.

 

You will note from the pics of Lucy's skeleton that there are NO FOOT BONES or ankle bones.

 

They ignore what scripture and Science says, though:

Chapters 4, 5, and 10 explain the correspondences of the Genealogy with the species of Paleontology:

 

Have any of the people who produced these articles or videos actually studying these fossils, or submitted their analysis and conclusions to other experts in the field for review? Thinking for yourself is important, but thinking that you know more than others who have spent their whole life researching the subject is a serious problem. After all, not all opinions are equal.

That you think the paper on the feet of early hominids was only talking about the one skeleton tells me you didn't bother to read or understand it.

Three of these things are not like the others.

 

Keep in mind that those “studying" the fossils have a vested interest in proving evolution and therefore are biased. From a neutral position you may actually be able to SEE what they do not or will not see. Why are you so willing to underestimate your own intelligence and powers of observation?

You are assuming that “Lucy” is and early hominid? You have seen the pics of the 3 skeletons they used to reconstruct this thing? How does the fact that there were other jaw bones for them to pick from - "U" shaped ones grab you? And that some of the pieces were found 200 feet beneath the others? Is that being "scientific"? Be honest with yourself.

 

Keep believing your silly conspiracy theories if it makes you feel better. From Archimedes, Copernicus and Galileo to Newton, Darwin, Einstein, and Bohr, no scientist was ever remembered for supporting the prevailing theory. If there was a theory that better explained the diversity of life on this planet, scientists would be racing to be the first to prove it. It is not an underestimate to accept that other people know more about certain subjects than you ever will. Wisdom is knowing who these people are.

Of the hundreds of fossilized bone fragments found at the "Lucy" site, there was not a single duplicate piece. Where are these other jaw bones you speak of? Who dug 200 feet below the wash where Lucy was found? If you are being honest, you would have a source to back up your statements.

http://iho.asu.edu/about/lucys-story

 

There is a very good program on PBS that details what they are calling the show.....YOUR INNER REPTILE.

I watched it today and it details out how when a Fetus begins to develop it has a YOLK which is an EVOLUTIONARY REMINANT from when our ancient Human Ancestors LAID EGGS.

The DNA MARKERS show that the Human YOLK SACK has been rendered useless but never the less anyone looking at a fetus through Ultrasound or High Def Picture Digital Camera can see this almost Fetus Head Sized Egg Yolk!!!

As a Human Fetus develops it goes through every stage of our ancient past as for a time a Human Fetus is almost a Fish...then Amphibian....then Reptilian.....we have tails which receed.....and a Newly Born Baby if WATER BIRTHED can use it's lungs to extract OXYGEN FROM WATER for a short time.

Evolution has been DEFINITIVELY PROVEN upon a Genetic Molecular/Atomic Scale.

AboveAlpha