9 Unscientific Excuses to Ignore Evolution.
Post Reply
 
Thread Rating:
  • 0 Votes - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
05-06-2014, 02:47 PM
RE: 9 Unscientific Excuses to Ignore Evolution.
Part 5 A:Scientific Fact No. 2 - Species Without a Link Prove Evolution Theory is Wrong


"The evolutionist will claim that the presence of many individual species proves evolution. This shallow statement is devoid of reason, logic, and scientific proof."

How so? First you can never prove anything in science. Second there is no one proof. There are many fossils, of many species, and many animals, of many species that give us insight on evolution.

"Evolutionists line up pictures of similar-looking species and claim they evolved one from another. The human "family tree" is an example of this flawed theory. Petrified skulls and bones exist from hundreds of species of extinct monkeys and apes."

The line up of pictures is to explain transitional fossils. For example when we line up the evolution of cetaceans like this diagram here:

[Image: 18_EVOW_CH03.jpg]

It is to make sense of the theory at hand.

When you bring up the human family tree you are forgetting many factors. For example their are many fossil monkeys but aegyptopithecus stand out from the rest. The reason is because it has characteristics of both old world monkeys and apes. Let us list them:

Ape traits:

Ape-like teeth including broad, flat incisors and sexually dimorphic canines

A low sagittal keel and strong temporalis muscles

Increased size in the visual cortex

Monkey traits:

Retained auditory features similar to Old world monkeys

Incapable of true brachiation unlike extant apes

Reduced capitular tail

This animal also appeared. 33mya. The oldest ape did not appear until 27mya.

So in turn not only does it appear before apes with traits of both, it existed before the first ape evolved. So out of the monkey fossils this seems to fit the tree better than the rest.

"Evolutionists line up the most promising choices to present a gradual progression from monkey to modern man. They simply fill in the big gaps with make-believe creatures to fit the picture."

Make believe? No, ignoring them won't make the fossils go away.

[Image: image017.jpg]

"Why do they claim the above discovery is "close to the missing link"? The answer is simple. Look at the picture: It is a monkey. A monkey species that has become extinct. Lots of species have become extinct. Millions of species have become extinct."

As I said before, it takes more than it just being a fossil to make it truly transitional.

The fossil in question is called Ardipithecus ramidus. Now, why in the world would this be a transitional fossil? What evidence do scientist have that this animal is a transitional fossil? Well lets take a look at the article they gave and see what they said:

"Ardi is closer to humans than chimps. Measuring in at 47 in. (120 cm) tall and 110 lb. (50 kg), Ardi likely walked with a strange gait, lurching side to side, due to lack of an arch in its feet, a feature of later hominids. It had somewhat monkey-like feet, with opposable toes, but its feet were not flexible enough to grab onto vines or tree trunks like many monkeys -- rather they were good enough to provide extra support during quick walks along tree branches -- called palm walking."

The article gives the reasons why it is a transitional fossil. So they are in fact justified in saying that it is one.

http://www.dailytech.com/Close+to+the+Mi...e16403.htm

"It is obviously not similar to a human. Look at the feet with the big toe spread away from the smaller toes exactly like a modern chimpanzee, not like people."

However, as I recently showed the human traits in the quotes from the article above.

"A newly discovered extinct species does not prove a "missing link" has been found."

Well if it fits this definition it does:

"Fossils or organisms that show the intermediate states between an ancestral form and that of its descendants are referred to as transitional forms. There are numerous examples of transitional forms in the fossil record, providing an abundance of evidence for change over time."

"Charles Darwin admitted that fossils of the transitional links between species would have to be found in order to prove his "Theory of Evolution." Well, these transitional links have never been found. We only find individual species."

Good thing we have found them. Like icthyostega.

"Evolutionists try to form these individual species into a link according to similar major features such as wings or four legs, but this simply proves the Theory of Evolution to be a fraud. Darwin was hopeful that future fossils would prove his theory correct, but instead, the lack of transitional links has proven his theory to be wrong."

How so? You can't say it make it flawed and give no reason. In fact what are we supposed to do? If we find an animal like tiktaalik and see it have traits of both tetrapods and fish and existed after primitive lobe fined fish and live with no tetrapods, but we are not allowed to show that these give a connection to evolution because it makes it flawed? You might as well say not use math in physics.

"The presence of individual species actually proves they were not developed by an evolutionary process. If evolution were true, all plants, animals, and insects would be in a continual state of change. No two creatures would be identical, because they would not be separate species. All life forms would be a continual blend of characteristics without a clear definition among the species. Everything would be changing, and every animal, insect, and plant would be different."

So fossils disprove evolution? How? Because of there not being a gap in each date of rock we find in an animals evolution?

As before their are fossils showing change in fact cetacians have the most complete one.

[Image: Figure_1.png]

All life forms are not a mix because of natural selection. This characteristic argument they are making is no different than asking for a crocoduck.

The cheetah above proves evolution does not exist. All species are locked solidly within their DNA code.

Population bottlenecks again? Population bottlenecks can be recovered from, if you don't believe me, ask the canine.

http://www.plosgenetics.org/article/info...en.1004016

Part A complete, here is your gecko.

[Image: 6887655749_e6d3aa7394_z.jpg]

[Image: get_some_by_addmedia-d78ip4k.gif] All request for metazoa info and my larger projects should be sent PM
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes Metazoa Zeke's post
16-06-2014, 02:13 PM
RE: 9 Unscientific Excuses to Ignore Evolution.
(05-06-2014 02:47 PM)ThePaleolithicFreethinker Wrote:  
Part 5 A:Scientific Fact No. 2 - Species Without a Link Prove Evolution Theory is Wrong


"The evolutionist will claim that the presence of many individual species proves evolution. This shallow statement is devoid of reason, logic, and scientific proof."

How so? First you can never prove anything in science. Second there is no one proof. There are many fossils, of many species, and many animals, of many species that give us insight on evolution.

"Evolutionists line up pictures of similar-looking species and claim they evolved one from another. The human "family tree" is an example of this flawed theory. Petrified skulls and bones exist from hundreds of species of extinct monkeys and apes."

The line up of pictures is to explain transitional fossils. For example when we line up the evolution of cetaceans like this diagram here:

[Image: 18_EVOW_CH03.jpg]

It is to make sense of the theory at hand.

When you bring up the human family tree you are forgetting many factors. For example their are many fossil monkeys but aegyptopithecus stand out from the rest. The reason is because it has characteristics of both old world monkeys and apes. Let us list them:

Ape traits:

Ape-like teeth including broad, flat incisors and sexually dimorphic canines

A low sagittal keel and strong temporalis muscles

Increased size in the visual cortex

Monkey traits:

Retained auditory features similar to Old world monkeys

Incapable of true brachiation unlike extant apes

Reduced capitular tail

This animal also appeared. 33mya. The oldest ape did not appear until 27mya.

So in turn not only does it appear before apes with traits of both, it existed before the first ape evolved. So out of the monkey fossils this seems to fit the tree better than the rest.

"Evolutionists line up the most promising choices to present a gradual progression from monkey to modern man. They simply fill in the big gaps with make-believe creatures to fit the picture."

Make believe? No, ignoring them won't make the fossils go away.

[Image: image017.jpg]

"Why do they claim the above discovery is "close to the missing link"? The answer is simple. Look at the picture: It is a monkey. A monkey species that has become extinct. Lots of species have become extinct. Millions of species have become extinct."

As I said before, it takes more than it just being a fossil to make it truly transitional.

The fossil in question is called Ardipithecus ramidus. Now, why in the world would this be a transitional fossil? What evidence do scientist have that this animal is a transitional fossil? Well lets take a look at the article they gave and see what they said:

"Ardi is closer to humans than chimps. Measuring in at 47 in. (120 cm) tall and 110 lb. (50 kg), Ardi likely walked with a strange gait, lurching side to side, due to lack of an arch in its feet, a feature of later hominids. It had somewhat monkey-like feet, with opposable toes, but its feet were not flexible enough to grab onto vines or tree trunks like many monkeys -- rather they were good enough to provide extra support during quick walks along tree branches -- called palm walking."

The article gives the reasons why it is a transitional fossil. So they are in fact justified in saying that it is one.

http://www.dailytech.com/Close+to+the+Mi...e16403.htm

"It is obviously not similar to a human. Look at the feet with the big toe spread away from the smaller toes exactly like a modern chimpanzee, not like people."

However, as I recently showed the human traits in the quotes from the article above.

"A newly discovered extinct species does not prove a "missing link" has been found."

Well if it fits this definition it does:

"Fossils or organisms that show the intermediate states between an ancestral form and that of its descendants are referred to as transitional forms. There are numerous examples of transitional forms in the fossil record, providing an abundance of evidence for change over time."

"Charles Darwin admitted that fossils of the transitional links between species would have to be found in order to prove his "Theory of Evolution." Well, these transitional links have never been found. We only find individual species."

Good thing we have found them. Like icthyostega.

"Evolutionists try to form these individual species into a link according to similar major features such as wings or four legs, but this simply proves the Theory of Evolution to be a fraud. Darwin was hopeful that future fossils would prove his theory correct, but instead, the lack of transitional links has proven his theory to be wrong."

How so? You can't say it make it flawed and give no reason. In fact what are we supposed to do? If we find an animal like tiktaalik and see it have traits of both tetrapods and fish and existed after primitive lobe fined fish and live with no tetrapods, but we are not allowed to show that these give a connection to evolution because it makes it flawed? You might as well say not use math in physics.

"The presence of individual species actually proves they were not developed by an evolutionary process. If evolution were true, all plants, animals, and insects would be in a continual state of change. No two creatures would be identical, because they would not be separate species. All life forms would be a continual blend of characteristics without a clear definition among the species. Everything would be changing, and every animal, insect, and plant would be different."

So fossils disprove evolution? How? Because of there not being a gap in each date of rock we find in an animals evolution?

As before their are fossils showing change in fact cetacians have the most complete one.

[Image: Figure_1.png]

All life forms are not a mix because of natural selection. This characteristic argument they are making is no different than asking for a crocoduck.

The cheetah above proves evolution does not exist. All species are locked solidly within their DNA code.

Population bottlenecks again? Population bottlenecks can be recovered from, if you don't believe me, ask the canine.

http://www.plosgenetics.org/article/info...en.1004016

Part A complete, here is your gecko.

[Image: 6887655749_e6d3aa7394_z.jpg]

I'm slowly reading through your information. Thanks for posting all this. It's amazing. One question. Have you read this book by Gregory Cochran, The 10,000 Year Explosion: How Civilization Accelerated Human Evolution? And if you have what do you think of this?

"If things aren't funny anymore then they're exactly what they are and life is just one long dental appointment interrupted occasionally by something exciting like waiting or falling asleep" Jason Robards in A Thousand Clowns
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
16-06-2014, 02:16 PM
RE: 9 Unscientific Excuses to Ignore Evolution.
(16-06-2014 02:13 PM)dancefortwo Wrote:  
(05-06-2014 02:47 PM)ThePaleolithicFreethinker Wrote:  
Part 5 A:Scientific Fact No. 2 - Species Without a Link Prove Evolution Theory is Wrong


"The evolutionist will claim that the presence of many individual species proves evolution. This shallow statement is devoid of reason, logic, and scientific proof."

How so? First you can never prove anything in science. Second there is no one proof. There are many fossils, of many species, and many animals, of many species that give us insight on evolution.

"Evolutionists line up pictures of similar-looking species and claim they evolved one from another. The human "family tree" is an example of this flawed theory. Petrified skulls and bones exist from hundreds of species of extinct monkeys and apes."

The line up of pictures is to explain transitional fossils. For example when we line up the evolution of cetaceans like this diagram here:

[Image: 18_EVOW_CH03.jpg]

It is to make sense of the theory at hand.

When you bring up the human family tree you are forgetting many factors. For example their are many fossil monkeys but aegyptopithecus stand out from the rest. The reason is because it has characteristics of both old world monkeys and apes. Let us list them:

Ape traits:

Ape-like teeth including broad, flat incisors and sexually dimorphic canines

A low sagittal keel and strong temporalis muscles

Increased size in the visual cortex

Monkey traits:

Retained auditory features similar to Old world monkeys

Incapable of true brachiation unlike extant apes

Reduced capitular tail

This animal also appeared. 33mya. The oldest ape did not appear until 27mya.

So in turn not only does it appear before apes with traits of both, it existed before the first ape evolved. So out of the monkey fossils this seems to fit the tree better than the rest.

"Evolutionists line up the most promising choices to present a gradual progression from monkey to modern man. They simply fill in the big gaps with make-believe creatures to fit the picture."

Make believe? No, ignoring them won't make the fossils go away.

[Image: image017.jpg]

"Why do they claim the above discovery is "close to the missing link"? The answer is simple. Look at the picture: It is a monkey. A monkey species that has become extinct. Lots of species have become extinct. Millions of species have become extinct."

As I said before, it takes more than it just being a fossil to make it truly transitional.

The fossil in question is called Ardipithecus ramidus. Now, why in the world would this be a transitional fossil? What evidence do scientist have that this animal is a transitional fossil? Well lets take a look at the article they gave and see what they said:

"Ardi is closer to humans than chimps. Measuring in at 47 in. (120 cm) tall and 110 lb. (50 kg), Ardi likely walked with a strange gait, lurching side to side, due to lack of an arch in its feet, a feature of later hominids. It had somewhat monkey-like feet, with opposable toes, but its feet were not flexible enough to grab onto vines or tree trunks like many monkeys -- rather they were good enough to provide extra support during quick walks along tree branches -- called palm walking."

The article gives the reasons why it is a transitional fossil. So they are in fact justified in saying that it is one.

http://www.dailytech.com/Close+to+the+Mi...e16403.htm

"It is obviously not similar to a human. Look at the feet with the big toe spread away from the smaller toes exactly like a modern chimpanzee, not like people."

However, as I recently showed the human traits in the quotes from the article above.

"A newly discovered extinct species does not prove a "missing link" has been found."

Well if it fits this definition it does:

"Fossils or organisms that show the intermediate states between an ancestral form and that of its descendants are referred to as transitional forms. There are numerous examples of transitional forms in the fossil record, providing an abundance of evidence for change over time."

"Charles Darwin admitted that fossils of the transitional links between species would have to be found in order to prove his "Theory of Evolution." Well, these transitional links have never been found. We only find individual species."

Good thing we have found them. Like icthyostega.

"Evolutionists try to form these individual species into a link according to similar major features such as wings or four legs, but this simply proves the Theory of Evolution to be a fraud. Darwin was hopeful that future fossils would prove his theory correct, but instead, the lack of transitional links has proven his theory to be wrong."

How so? You can't say it make it flawed and give no reason. In fact what are we supposed to do? If we find an animal like tiktaalik and see it have traits of both tetrapods and fish and existed after primitive lobe fined fish and live with no tetrapods, but we are not allowed to show that these give a connection to evolution because it makes it flawed? You might as well say not use math in physics.

"The presence of individual species actually proves they were not developed by an evolutionary process. If evolution were true, all plants, animals, and insects would be in a continual state of change. No two creatures would be identical, because they would not be separate species. All life forms would be a continual blend of characteristics without a clear definition among the species. Everything would be changing, and every animal, insect, and plant would be different."

So fossils disprove evolution? How? Because of there not being a gap in each date of rock we find in an animals evolution?

As before their are fossils showing change in fact cetacians have the most complete one.

[Image: Figure_1.png]

All life forms are not a mix because of natural selection. This characteristic argument they are making is no different than asking for a crocoduck.

The cheetah above proves evolution does not exist. All species are locked solidly within their DNA code.

Population bottlenecks again? Population bottlenecks can be recovered from, if you don't believe me, ask the canine.

http://www.plosgenetics.org/article/info...en.1004016

Part A complete, here is your gecko.

[Image: 6887655749_e6d3aa7394_z.jpg]

I'm slowly reading through your information. Thanks for posting all this. It's amazing. One question. Have you read this book by Gregory Cochran, The 10,000 Year Explosion: How Civilization Accelerated Human Evolution? And if you have what do you think of this?

No not yet, but is it any good?

[Image: get_some_by_addmedia-d78ip4k.gif] All request for metazoa info and my larger projects should be sent PM
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
16-06-2014, 04:03 PM
RE: 9 Unscientific Excuses to Ignore Evolution.
(16-06-2014 02:16 PM)ThePaleolithicFreethinker Wrote:  
(16-06-2014 02:13 PM)dancefortwo Wrote:  I'm slowly reading through your information. Thanks for posting all this. It's amazing. One question. Have you read this book by Gregory Cochran, The 10,000 Year Explosion: How Civilization Accelerated Human Evolution? And if you have what do you think of this?

No not yet, but is it any good?

It's next on my Kindle after I finish reading The Bible Unearthed. I'll let you know how it is. Love reading about history and science. The Cochran book throws the two subjects together.

"If things aren't funny anymore then they're exactly what they are and life is just one long dental appointment interrupted occasionally by something exciting like waiting or falling asleep" Jason Robards in A Thousand Clowns
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
04-09-2014, 01:59 AM
RE: 9 Unscientific Excuses to Ignore Evolution.
I guess you got bored trying to pick apart the mess from this article, I stop reading it too after the part about the thing about the neck and about it not eating, or whatever...
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
07-11-2014, 01:23 PM
RE: 9 Unscientific Excuses to Ignore Evolution.
I will say I'm definitely impressed. Thank you for what you've put into this.

I've read a lot of creationist literature trying to understand how they rationalize their beliefs, and I still can't fully wrap my mind around it. I remember one book I was particularly excited about that claimed to have reasoning from 50 scientists with PhDs. Certainly a book like that would have some good answers. NOPE. One of the "scientists" in particular really blew my mind. He told of an experiment he conducted in high school wherein he would use a razor blade to cut out of the Bible every passage that contradicted known science. His result: according to him, the Bible could no longer support its own weight due to the amount of literal holes he had cut into it. His conclusion: he believes in God anyway because the Bible says so. This was more or less the conclusion of every scientist in the book, and it is a mindset that I have to say I find terribly disturbing.

Celebrate Reason ● Think For Yourself
www.theHeathensGuide.com
[Image: heathens-guide.png]
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
Post Reply
Forum Jump: