Discussion:
Outraged Creationists Ready To Go On More Shooting Sprees!!! Ancient Infant Ape Skull Sheds Light on the Ancestor of All Humans and Living Apes
Add Reply
Kurt (Sphincter) Schlichter
2017-08-10 23:01:41 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
http://www.sciencemag.org/news/2017/08/ancient-infant-ape-
skull-
sheds-light-ancestor-all-humans-and-living-apes

*Ancient Infant Ape Skull Sheds Light on the Ancestor of All
Humans and Living Apes* by Michael Price
Aug. 9, 2017

Anthropologists have waited decades to find the complete
cranium of a Miocene ape from Africa -- one that lived in the
hazy period before the human lineage split off from the common
ancestors we share with chimpanzees some 7 million years ago.
Now, scientists in Kenya have found their prize at last: an
almost perfectly preserved skull roughly the size of a
baseball. The catch? It’s from an infant. That means that
although it can give scientists a rough idea of what the common
ancestor to all living apes and humans would have looked like,
drawing other meaningful conclusions could be challenging.

“This is the sort of thing that the fossil record loves to do
to us,” says James Rossie, a biological anthropologist at the
State University of New York in Stony Brook who wasn’t
involved with the study. “The problem is that we learn from
fossils by comparing them to others. When there are no other
infant Miocene ape skulls to which to make those comparisons,
your hands are tied”.

The remarkably complete skull was discovered in the Turkana
Basin of northern Kenya 3 years ago. As the sun sank behind the
Napudet Hills west of Lake Turkana, primate paleontologist
Isaiah Nengo of De Anza College in Cupertino, California, and
his team started walking back to their jeep. Kenyan fossil
hunter John Ekusi raced ahead to smoke a cigarette. Suddenly he
began circling in place. When Nengo caught up, he saw a
dirt-clogged eye socket staring up at him. “There was this
skull just sticking out of the ground,” Nengo recalls. “It
was incredible because we had been going up and down that path
for weeks and never noticed it”.

The team carefully extracted the fossil from the rocky ground
using small dental picks and brushes. Nengo knew immediately it
was a primate skull, but that he wouldn’t learn much more
until he and colleagues performed a more sophisticated
analysis.

At the Noble Gas Laboratory at Rutgers University in New
Brunswick, New Jersey, researchers measured argon
isotopes—which decay at a fixed, predictable rate—within
the fossil’s rock layer, revealing that it was about 13
million years old. Back then, the dry, rocky landscape of
today’s Turkana Basin was a lush rainforest.

Although the fossil looks a bit like a gibbon skull on first
blush, Nengo says, its dental pattern and teeth shape suggest
its closest relatives are other Miocene fossil primates from
the genus *Nyanzapithecus*, also found in Kenya. Yet its molars
are much larger than those of the known nyanzapithecines,
indicating a new species. The researchers named it *N. alesi*,
or Alesi for short, after the Turkana word for “ancestor”.

Extremely sensitive x-ray imaging performed at the European
Synchrotron Radiation Facility in Grenoble, France, allowed the
team to count growth lines in the fossil’s unerupted adult
teeth like tree rings, telling them Alesi was about 485 days
(or 1 year and 4 months) old when it died. The x-rays also
revealed the presence of bony ear tubes in the skull, which act
as a balance organ. Primatologists have long debated whether
the Nyanzapithecus genus belonged to the ape or monkey line,
but the presence of these tubes, combined with the size and
shape of the teeth, solidly mark Alesi -- and by extension the
other nyanzapithecines -- as apes
[http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v548/n7666/full/nature234
5
6.html?foxtrotcallback=true], the researchers report today in
'Nature'. What’s more, they claim, the ear tubes present
strong evidence that it’s an evolutionary cousin to the
ancestral line of apes from which humans and living apes
derive.

That could help answer a long-standing question in primate
evolution: Did the common ancestor to living apes and humans
evolve in Africa or Eurasia? Nengo says the new finding
supports an African origin. “Africa has been acting like a
petri dish for millions of years, conducting experiments in
evolution,” he says. “Humans and our close ape relatives
are just the latest evolutionary experiments to come out of
that petri dish.”

David Begun, an anthropologist at the University of Toronto in
Canada, isn’t convinced. He points to the fact that fossil
hominines—a group whose descendants include African apes and
humans—have been found in Europe dating to 12.5 million years
ago, but they don’t conclusively show up in the African
fossil record until 7 million years ago. To him, that suggests
the common ancestor evolved in Europe before heading back into
Africa. The discovery of N. alesi does nothing to change that.
“*Nyanzapithecus* is an early ape,” Begun says. “Whether
it’s the closest thing we know to the last common ancestor...
is questionable.” ----------


Another step forward in understanding ourselves.

. . .
Andrew
2017-08-11 00:17:56 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Kurt (Sphincter) Schlichter
Another step forward in understanding ourselves.
If you want to understand our origins, it helps to understand
that there is no mechanism for us to have evolved from some
lower life form to ourselves via the fantasized evolutionary
pathway.

Therefore the article you posted would be properly noted
to be labeled as fake news and fake science .

"To take a line of fossils and claim that they represent a
lineage is not a scientific hypothesis that can be tested,
but an assertion that carries the same validity as a bed
time story--amusing, perhaps even instructive, but not
scientific

"From our vantage point in the present, we arrange fossils
in an order that reflects gradual acquisition of what we
see in ourselves. We do not seek the truth; we create it
after the fact, to suit our own prejudices."

"Many paleontologists believe that ancestor/descendent
lineages can be traced from the fossil record, and my
book is intended to debunk this view..old-style, traditional
evolutionary biology -- the type that feels it must tell a
story, and is therefore more appealing to news reporters
and makers of documentaries -- is unscientific.

"New fossil discoveries are fitted into this preexisting
story. We call these new discoveries "missing links", as
if the chain of ancestry and descent were a real object
for our contemplation, and not what it really is: . . . . .
a completely human invention created after the fact,
shaped to accord with human prejudices.... Each fossil
represents an isolated point, with no knowable
connection to any other given fossil, and all float
around in an overwhelming sea of gaps."
~ Henry Gee, Senior editor, "Nature"

It's about time you folk esteemed truth
of greater worth than fantasized stories.
Scout
2017-08-11 03:11:57 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Kurt (Sphincter) Schlichter
Another step forward in understanding ourselves.
If you want to understand our origins, it helps to understand that there
is no mechanism for us to have evolved from some
lower life form to ourselves via the fantasized evolutionary
pathway.
Ok, so exactly what pathway can you find evidence of to explain how and why
we exist as we do today.

and don't try asserting fantasized processes which you have no evidence of,
or you will be in the same boat as you claim that evolution is.
Wally W.
2017-08-11 11:46:14 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Scout
Post by Kurt (Sphincter) Schlichter
Another step forward in understanding ourselves.
If you want to understand our origins, it helps to understand that there
is no mechanism for us to have evolved from some
lower life form to ourselves via the fantasized evolutionary
pathway.
Ok, so exactly what pathway can you find evidence of to explain how and why
we exist as we do today.
and don't try asserting fantasized processes which you have no evidence of,
or you will be in the same boat as you claim that evolution is.
False comparison.

Evolution claims to be science that is evidence-based.

Theistic creation claims the appearance of humans was a miracle.

Greenies claim the existence of *other* humans is a curse.
Scout
2017-08-13 04:41:14 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Wally W.
Post by Scout
Post by Kurt (Sphincter) Schlichter
Another step forward in understanding ourselves.
If you want to understand our origins, it helps to understand that there
is no mechanism for us to have evolved from some
lower life form to ourselves via the fantasized evolutionary
pathway.
Ok, so exactly what pathway can you find evidence of to explain how and why
we exist as we do today.
and don't try asserting fantasized processes which you have no evidence of,
or you will be in the same boat as you claim that evolution is.
False comparison.
No, perfectly valid comparison. If you're telling me they are wrong, then
you should have evidence that shows proof of another means.
Post by Wally W.
Evolution claims to be science that is evidence-based.
Are you saying your claims aren't based on evidence?
Post by Wally W.
Theistic creation claims the appearance of humans was a miracle.
Yep, that seems to be your proof. Point at the sky and say "He did it"
(HDI).

Why did the flower bloom? (HDI)

Why did the bridge collapse? (HDI)

Amazing curiousity there, you assert to know the answer before you even ask
the question.

Whatever you want to ask about....(HDI).

Why does the light turn on? (HDI).
Post by Wally W.
Greenies claim the existence of *other* humans is a curse.
I'm more concerned about your claims, that what you claim others believe.

So.....once again....other than pointing at a being who's even existence
hasn't been proven....what do you have to back up your claims on why and how
man is here?
Wally W.
2017-08-13 05:00:02 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Scout
Post by Wally W.
Post by Scout
Post by Kurt (Sphincter) Schlichter
Another step forward in understanding ourselves.
If you want to understand our origins, it helps to understand that there
is no mechanism for us to have evolved from some
lower life form to ourselves via the fantasized evolutionary
pathway.
Ok, so exactly what pathway can you find evidence of to explain how and why
we exist as we do today.
and don't try asserting fantasized processes which you have no evidence of,
or you will be in the same boat as you claim that evolution is.
False comparison.
No, perfectly valid comparison.
Yes, it is a false comparison.
Post by Scout
If you're telling me they are wrong,
I'm telling you that evolution is faith-based because it can't produce
the missing links.
Post by Scout
then
you should have evidence that shows proof of another means.
False demand.

It's like the greenies screeching about global warming and claiming it
is due to human emissions of CO2. If one is a "denier" and doesn't
accept their correlation (that is inconsistent and over a short time
span) then they will demand, "What else could it beeeee?"
Post by Scout
Post by Wally W.
Evolution claims to be science that is evidence-based.
Are you saying your claims aren't based on evidence?
They aren't based on *scientific* evidence.

Evolution claims to be based on scientific evidence. It is not. It is
faith-based.
Post by Scout
Post by Wally W.
Theistic creation claims the appearance of humans was a miracle.
Yep, that seems to be your proof. Point at the sky and say "He did it"
(HDI).
Why did the flower bloom? (HDI)
Why did the bridge collapse? (HDI)
It might have been because of some bad calcuations; or the contractor
might have cut corners.
Post by Scout
Amazing curiousity there, you assert to know the answer before you even ask
the question.
You are imagining what I know.
Post by Scout
Whatever you want to ask about....(HDI).
Why does the light turn on? (HDI).
Post by Wally W.
Greenies claim the existence of *other* humans is a curse.
I'm more concerned about your claims, that what you claim others believe.
Be as concerned as you choose to be.
Post by Scout
So.....once again....other than pointing at a being who's even existence
hasn't been proven....
What do you mean "proven?"
Post by Scout
what do you have to back up your claims on why and how
man is here?
The case for theistic creation is at least as good as the case for the
faith-based assertions about evolution.
Melzzzzz
2017-08-13 05:10:31 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Wally W.
The case for theistic creation is at least as good as the case for the
faith-based assertions about evolution.
It is not. Evolution explains how it happens. Theistic creaton does not
explains anything. `God willed into existence` is fairytale.
It does not even says how.
--
press any key to continue or any other to quit...
Andrew
2017-08-13 07:18:28 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Melzzzzz
Post by Wally W.
The case for theistic creation is at least as good
as the case for the faith-based assertions about
evolution.
It is not. Evolution explains how it happens.
That is true. The problem is, that it explains it
by taking the gullible listener into the realm of
fantasy.
Post by Melzzzzz
Theistic creaton does not explains anything.
It explains the impossibility of life creating
itself.
Post by Melzzzzz
`God willed into existence` is fairytale.
It does not even says how.
How? By act of Creation.

Your alternative is to join the gullible masses who
blindly accept origin myths that are concocted to
sound scientific, but are in fact fantasized stories.
Scout
2017-08-13 08:27:27 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Andrew
Post by Melzzzzz
Post by Wally W.
The case for theistic creation is at least as good as the case for the
faith-based assertions about evolution.
It is not. Evolution explains how it happens.
That is true. The problem is, that it explains it
by taking the gullible listener into the realm of fantasy.
Sort as you're suggesting the listener do with your claims of creation?
Post by Andrew
Post by Melzzzzz
Theistic creaton does not explains anything.
It explains the impossibility of life creating itself.
Post by Melzzzzz
`God willed into existence` is fairytale.
It does not even says how.
How? By act of Creation.
Your alternative is to join the gullible masses who blindly accept origin
myths that are concocted to sound scientific, but are in fact fantasized
stories.
Siri Cruise
2017-08-13 10:20:29 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Andrew
It explains the impossibility of life creating
itself.
Theories of evolution do not explain the origin of life. That's coverred by
abiogenesis hypotheses. Theories of evolution explain how life evolves to old
and new forms.

Theories of evolution remain just as valid if you assume the creation of the
first life was divine intervention.
--
:-<> Siri Seal of Disavowal #000-001. Disavowed. Denied. Deleted. @
'I desire mercy, not sacrifice.' /|\
Free the Amos Yee one. This post / \
Yeah, too bad about your so-called life. Ha-ha. insults Islam. Mohammed
Andrew
2017-08-13 12:29:52 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Siri Cruise
Post by Andrew
It explains the impossibility of life creating
itself.
Theories of evolution do not explain the origin
of life.
The context was:
__________________________________
Post by Siri Cruise
Theistic creaton does not explains anything.
It explains *the impossibility of* life creating
itself.
__________________________________
Post by Siri Cruise
That's coverred by abiogenesis hypotheses.
Is it covered by science? Or is it covered by
a ~fantasized story~ that is contrary to real
science?
Post by Siri Cruise
Theories of evolution explain how life
evolves to old and new forms.
Starting from the ~fantasized~ "first replicator".
Post by Siri Cruise
Theories of evolution remain just as valid if you assume
the creation of the first life was divine intervention.
The evolution model requires a fantasized "first replicator"
to get things going. But scientists have no idea how it may
have originated, 'except' by concocting insupportable and
unscientific stories that are not repeatable or observable.

And even if you had a "first replicator", there is *no proven
mechanism* for it to macro-evolve per the story they told
you.

The more we examine it, the more we see Creation as the
more plausible model for our origins.
Siri Cruise
2017-08-13 12:57:17 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Andrew
Post by Siri Cruise
That's coverred by abiogenesis hypotheses.
Is it covered by science? Or is it covered by
Yes, they are conjectures based on what the early earth was like and organic
chemistry. Because life might eaten all traces of pre-life, they might never get
beyond the hypothesis stage.
Post by Andrew
Starting from the ~fantasized~ "first replicator".
Even creationism has a first replicator. Everyone concludes the universe started
dead and in at least one place, here, life somehow clicked into existence.
Abiogenesis covers the dead earth to first assembly of molecules that can be
considerred alive. Once life is established it is then subject to biological
evolution.
Post by Andrew
The evolution model requires a fantasized "first replicator"
Who preceded Adam and Eve?
--
:-<> Siri Seal of Disavowal #000-001. Disavowed. Denied. Deleted. @
'I desire mercy, not sacrifice.' /|\
Free the Amos Yee one. This post / \
Yeah, too bad about your so-called life. Ha-ha. insults Islam. Mohammed
SeaSnake
2017-08-13 16:30:12 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Siri Cruise
Post by Andrew
The evolution model requires a fantasized "first replicator"
Who preceded Adam and Eve?
Um, plenty of races and peoples, so?
Scout
2017-08-13 23:56:34 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Andrew
Post by Siri Cruise
Post by Andrew
It explains the impossibility of life creating itself.
Theories of evolution do not explain the origin of life.
__________________________________
Post by Siri Cruise
Theistic creaton does not explains anything.
It explains *the impossibility of* life creating itself.
How? By stomping your feet and saying it didn't happen that way?
SeaSnake
2017-08-13 16:26:49 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Siri Cruise
Theories of evolution do not explain the origin of life. That's coverred by
abiogenesis hypotheses. Theories of evolution explain how life evolves to old
and new forms.
...of sparrows and fish....
Scout
2017-08-13 23:55:55 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Siri Cruise
Post by Andrew
It explains the impossibility of life creating
itself.
Theories of evolution do not explain the origin of life. That's coverred by
abiogenesis hypotheses. Theories of evolution explain how life evolves to old
and new forms.
Theories of evolution remain just as valid if you assume the creation of the
first life was divine intervention.
True, but so far we have no evidence to support 'divine intervention', as
such we're pretty much required to consider the possibility, or even
probability, that it's a natural occurrence under the laws of nature.
Certainly without evidence of such a 'divine being' there is no reason at
all to inject it into the theories.
SeaSnake
2017-08-13 16:20:33 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Andrew
Post by Melzzzzz
Post by Wally W.
The case for theistic creation is at least as good as the case for
the faith-based assertions about evolution.
It is not. Evolution explains how it happens.
That is true.
No, it is NOT!
Post by Andrew
The problem is, that it explains it
by taking the gullible listener into the realm of fantasy.
Same as fake science does with YOU.
Post by Andrew
Post by Melzzzzz
Theistic creaton does not explains anything.
It explains the impossibility of life creating itself.
That's a LIE!
Post by Andrew
Post by Melzzzzz
`God willed into existence` is fairytale.
It does not even says how.
How? By act of Creation.
EG: terraforming.
=
Post by Andrew
Your alternative is to join the gullible masses who blindly accept
origin myths that are concocted to sound scientific, but are in fact
fantasized stories.
While you believe your fantasy denials.

Intelligent design is real, proved, cope.
Scout
2017-08-13 23:51:56 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Andrew
Post by Melzzzzz
Post by Wally W.
The case for theistic creation is at least as good as the case for the
faith-based assertions about evolution.
It is not. Evolution explains how it happens.
That is true. The problem is, that it explains it
by taking the gullible listener into the realm of fantasy.
Like creationism does?
Post by Andrew
Post by Melzzzzz
Theistic creaton does not explains anything.
It explains the impossibility of life creating itself.
Ah, so if as you claim, despite the fact you can't prove it, that life just
doesn't happen......who created God?

Oops, looks like a little flaw there in your assertions. Clearly life must
be able to create itself or God wouldn't exist to create us.
Andrew
2017-08-13 12:31:19 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Melzzzzz
Post by Wally W.
The case for theistic creation is at least as good as the case for the
faith-based assertions about evolution.
It is not. Evolution explains how it happens. Theistic creaton does not
explains anything. `God willed into existence` is fairytale.
It does not even says how.
Exactly.
Science addresses 'how'
So does Creation.
theology claims 'who'
Yes.
They aren't necessarily contradictory.
That's right. Not necessarily.
Because I'm not aware that any details exist for exactly what method(s) God
used in creation.
The Bible gives a few details as to the methods He used for Creation.
SeaSnake
2017-08-13 16:29:41 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Andrew
Because I'm not aware that any details exist for exactly what
method(s) God used in creation.
The Bible gives a few details as to the methods He used for Creation.
Largely in ancient allegory which confounds the modern science crowd.
Scout
2017-08-13 23:59:17 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Andrew
Post by Melzzzzz
Post by Wally W.
The case for theistic creation is at least as good as the case for the
faith-based assertions about evolution.
It is not. Evolution explains how it happens. Theistic creaton does not
explains anything. `God willed into existence` is fairytale.
It does not even says how.
Exactly.
Science addresses 'how'
So does Creation.
Describe in detail the exact processes by which life was created.
Post by Andrew
theology claims 'who'
Yes.
They aren't necessarily contradictory.
That's right. Not necessarily.
Which means you've just admitted that evolution could be true.
Post by Andrew
Because I'm not aware that any details exist for exactly what method(s)
God used in creation.
The Bible gives a few details as to the methods He used for Creation.
Then you should have no problems telling us how life can be created so that
we can do the same.
de chucka
2017-08-14 00:51:53 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Scout
Post by Andrew
Post by Melzzzzz
Post by Wally W.
The case for theistic creation is at least as good as the case for the
faith-based assertions about evolution.
It is not. Evolution explains how it happens. Theistic creaton does not
explains anything. `God willed into existence` is fairytale.
It does not even says how.
Exactly.
Science addresses 'how'
So does Creation.
Describe in detail the exact processes by which life was created.
Post by Andrew
theology claims 'who'
Yes.
They aren't necessarily contradictory.
That's right. Not necessarily.
Which means you've just admitted that evolution could be true.
It is and is occurring now. The classic example being drug resistant
bacteria
Andrew
2017-08-14 07:05:51 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by de chucka
Post by Scout
Post by Andrew
Post by Melzzzzz
Post by Wally W.
The case for theistic creation is at least as good as the case for the
faith-based assertions about evolution.
It is not. Evolution explains how it happens. Theistic creaton does not
explains anything. `God willed into existence` is fairytale.
It does not even says how.
Exactly.
Science addresses 'how'
So does Creation.
Describe in detail the exact processes by which life was created.
Post by Andrew
theology claims 'who'
Yes.
They aren't necessarily contradictory.
That's right. Not necessarily.
Which means you've just admitted that evolution could be true.
It is and is occurring now.
Yes, depending on how you define the word.
Post by de chucka
The classic example being drug resistant bacteria.
The bacteria that become so, do so through a loss of
genetic information. Meaning that they incur what is
called a, "fitness cost".
de chucka
2017-08-14 08:23:47 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Andrew
Post by de chucka
Post by Scout
Post by Andrew
Post by Melzzzzz
Post by Wally W.
The case for theistic creation is at least as good as the case for the
faith-based assertions about evolution.
It is not. Evolution explains how it happens. Theistic creaton does not
explains anything. `God willed into existence` is fairytale.
It does not even says how.
Exactly.
Science addresses 'how'
So does Creation.
Describe in detail the exact processes by which life was created.
Post by Andrew
theology claims 'who'
Yes.
They aren't necessarily contradictory.
That's right. Not necessarily.
Which means you've just admitted that evolution could be true.
It is and is occurring now.
Yes, depending on how you define the word.
Define it for m so we are on your playing field
Post by Andrew
Post by de chucka
The classic example being drug resistant bacteria.
The bacteria that become so, do so through a loss of genetic
information. Meaning that they incur what is called a, "fitness cost".
Wrong they do so because they are genetically not vulnerable and
therefore don;t die
Siri Cruise
2017-08-14 11:20:06 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Andrew
The bacteria that become so, do so through a loss of genetic
information. Meaning that they incur what is called a, "fitness cost".
So collect DNA of bacteria and prove that the DNA is getting smaller over time.
Or an at least the encoding DNA. Then calculate the rate of genetic information
loss rate, the current genetic information, and predict how many years until
bacteria won't have enough DNA left to survive. Calculate backwards how many
kilograms of DNA each bacterium had six thousand years ago.
--
:-<> Siri Seal of Disavowal #000-001. Disavowed. Denied. Deleted. @
'I desire mercy, not sacrifice.' /|\
Free the Amos Yee one. This post / \
Yeah, too bad about your so-called life. Ha-ha. insults Islam. Mohammed
de chucka
2017-08-14 20:55:47 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Siri Cruise
Post by Andrew
The bacteria that become so, do so through a loss of genetic
information. Meaning that they incur what is called a, "fitness cost".
So collect DNA of bacteria and prove that the DNA is getting smaller over time.
Or an at least the encoding DNA. Then calculate the rate of genetic information
loss rate, the current genetic information, and predict how many years until
bacteria won't have enough DNA left to survive. Calculate backwards how many
kilograms of DNA each bacterium had six thousand years ago.
1) I didn't say that
2) What Andrew claims is BS
Andrew
2017-08-14 21:29:26 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by de chucka
Post by Siri Cruise
Post by Andrew
The bacteria that become so, do so through a loss of genetic
information. Meaning that they incur what is called a, "fitness cost".
So collect DNA of bacteria and prove that the DNA is getting smaller over time.
Or an at least the encoding DNA. Then calculate the rate of genetic information
loss rate, the current genetic information, and predict how many years until
bacteria won't have enough DNA left to survive. Calculate backwards how many
kilograms of DNA each bacterium had six thousand years ago.
1) I didn't say that
2) What Andrew claims is BS
This helps to explait it: https://tinyurl.com/ydewys7g
de chucka
2017-08-14 21:39:39 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Andrew
Post by de chucka
Post by Siri Cruise
Post by Andrew
The bacteria that become so, do so through a loss of genetic
information. Meaning that they incur what is called a, "fitness cost".
So collect DNA of bacteria and prove that the DNA is getting smaller over time.
Or an at least the encoding DNA. Then calculate the rate of genetic information
loss rate, the current genetic information, and predict how many years until
bacteria won't have enough DNA left to survive. Calculate backwards how many
kilograms of DNA each bacterium had six thousand years ago.
1) I didn't say that
2) What Andrew claims is BS
This helps to explait it: https://tinyurl.com/ydewys7g
No it doesn't the normal mix of actual science from which strange
conclusion are drawn. Of course there are straight out
mistakes/falsehoods eg the mechanism of resistance to ampicillin is by
the production of beta lactamases (The old BRL days)

Don't you love the Creation Research Society as a scientific organisation

The Bible is the written Word of God, and because it is
inspired throughout, all its assertions are historically and
scientifically true in the original autographs. To the student of nature
this means that the account of origins in Genesis is a factual
presentation of simple historical truths.
All basic types of living things, including man, were made by
direct creative acts of God during the Creation Week described in
Genesis. Whatever biological changes have occurred since Creation Week
have accomplished only changes within the original created kinds.
The great flood described in Genesis, commonly referred to as
the Noachian Flood, was an historic event worldwide in its extent and
effect.
We are an organization of Christian men and women of science
who accept Jesus Christ as our Lord and Savior. The account of the
special creation of Adam and Eve as one man and one woman and their
subsequent fall into sin is the basis for our belief in the necessity of
a Savior for all mankind. Therefore, salvation can come only through
accepting Jesus Christ as our Savior.
Andrew
2017-08-14 21:48:03 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by de chucka
Post by de chucka
Post by Siri Cruise
Post by Andrew
The bacteria that become so, do so through a loss of genetic
information. Meaning that they incur what is called a, "fitness cost".
So collect DNA of bacteria and prove that the DNA is getting smaller over time.
Or an at least the encoding DNA. Then calculate the rate of genetic information
loss rate, the current genetic information, and predict how many years until
bacteria won't have enough DNA left to survive. Calculate backwards how many
kilograms of DNA each bacterium had six thousand years ago.
1) I didn't say that
2) What Andrew claims is BS
This helps to explain it: https://tinyurl.com/ydewys7g
No it doesn't the normal mix of actual science from which strange
conclusion are drawn. Of course there are straight out
mistakes/falsehoods eg the mechanism of resistance to ampicillin is by
the production of beta lactamases (The old BRL days)
Do you think that bacterial resistance to antibiotics is a good
example of evolutionary change as per the Darwin paradigm?
Post by de chucka
Don't you love the Creation Research Society as a scientific organisation
The Bible is the written Word of God, and because it is
inspired throughout, all its assertions are historically and
scientifically true in the original autographs. To the student of nature
this means that the account of origins in Genesis is a factual
presentation of simple historical truths.
All basic types of living things, including man, were made by
direct creative acts of God during the Creation Week described in
Genesis. Whatever biological changes have occurred since Creation Week
have accomplished only changes within the original created kinds.
The great flood described in Genesis, commonly referred to as
the Noachian Flood, was an historic event worldwide in its extent and
effect.
We are an organization of Christian men and women of science
who accept Jesus Christ as our Lord and Savior. The account of the
special creation of Adam and Eve as one man and one woman and their
subsequent fall into sin is the basis for our belief in the necessity of
a Savior for all mankind. Therefore, salvation can come only through
accepting Jesus Christ as our Savior.
de chucka
2017-08-14 21:59:00 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by de chucka
Post by de chucka
Post by Siri Cruise
Post by Andrew
The bacteria that become so, do so through a loss of genetic
information. Meaning that they incur what is called a, "fitness cost".
So collect DNA of bacteria and prove that the DNA is getting smaller over time.
Or an at least the encoding DNA. Then calculate the rate of genetic information
loss rate, the current genetic information, and predict how many years until
bacteria won't have enough DNA left to survive. Calculate backwards how many
kilograms of DNA each bacterium had six thousand years ago.
1) I didn't say that
2) What Andrew claims is BS
This helps to explain it: https://tinyurl.com/ydewys7g
No it doesn't the normal mix of actual science from which strange
conclusion are drawn. Of course there are straight out
mistakes/falsehoods eg the mechanism of resistance to ampicillin is
by the production of beta lactamases (The old BRL days)
Do you think that bacterial resistance to antibiotics is a good example
of evolutionary change as per the Darwin paradigm?
Good? Don't know , it is an example of it.
de chucka
2017-08-14 22:00:59 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by de chucka
Post by de chucka
Post by de chucka
Post by Siri Cruise
Post by Andrew
The bacteria that become so, do so through a loss of genetic
information. Meaning that they incur what is called a, "fitness cost".
So collect DNA of bacteria and prove that the DNA is getting smaller over time.
Or an at least the encoding DNA. Then calculate the rate of genetic information
loss rate, the current genetic information, and predict how many years until
bacteria won't have enough DNA left to survive. Calculate backwards how many
kilograms of DNA each bacterium had six thousand years ago.
1) I didn't say that
2) What Andrew claims is BS
This helps to explain it: https://tinyurl.com/ydewys7g
No it doesn't the normal mix of actual science from which strange
conclusion are drawn. Of course there are straight out
mistakes/falsehoods eg the mechanism of resistance to ampicillin is
by the production of beta lactamases (The old BRL days)
Do you think that bacterial resistance to antibiotics is a good example
of evolutionary change as per the Darwin paradigm?
Good? Don't know , it is an example of it.
Sorry I should of added that mutation is not the only way that bacteria
can gain a resistance
Siri Cruise
2017-08-14 23:00:21 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Yeah, you're unravelling. The first step in healing is acknowledging the disease.
--
:-<> Siri Seal of Disavowal #000-001. Disavowed. Denied. Deleted. @
'I desire mercy, not sacrifice.' /|\
Free the Amos Yee one. This post / \
Yeah, too bad about your so-called life. Ha-ha. insults Islam. Mohammed
Just Wondering
2017-08-14 09:24:27 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by de chucka
Post by Scout
Post by Andrew
Post by Melzzzzz
Post by Wally W.
The case for theistic creation is at least as good as the case for the
faith-based assertions about evolution.
It is not. Evolution explains how it happens. Theistic creaton does not
explains anything. `God willed into existence` is fairytale.
It does not even says how.
Exactly.
Science addresses 'how'
So does Creation.
Describe in detail the exact processes by which life was created.
Post by Andrew
theology claims 'who'
Yes.
They aren't necessarily contradictory.
That's right. Not necessarily.
Which means you've just admitted that evolution could be true.
It is and is occurring now. The classic example being drug resistant
bacteria
Not a different species of bacteria. Evolution = evolution of species,
not adaptation within species.
Siri Cruise
2017-08-14 10:49:33 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Just Wondering
Not a different species of bacteria. Evolution = evolution of species,
not adaptation within species.
No, biological evolution is any change in life over time.
--
:-<> Siri Seal of Disavowal #000-001. Disavowed. Denied. Deleted. @
'I desire mercy, not sacrifice.' /|\
Free the Amos Yee one. This post / \
Yeah, too bad about your so-called life. Ha-ha. insults Islam. Mohammed
Just Wondering
2017-08-15 01:39:27 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Siri Cruise
Post by Just Wondering
Not a different species of bacteria. Evolution = evolution of species,
not adaptation within species.
No, biological evolution is any change in life over time.
Evolutionists claim evolution is how species is
created. Adaptation within a species is not
evidence of creation of a new species.
Siri Cruise
2017-08-15 01:45:28 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Just Wondering
Post by Siri Cruise
Post by Just Wondering
Not a different species of bacteria. Evolution = evolution of species,
not adaptation within species.
No, biological evolution is any change in life over time.
Evolutionists claim evolution is how species is
created. Adaptation within a species is not
evidence of creation of a new species.
I see. So the difference of 'necessary' and 'sufficient' is quite beyond your
limitted mental capacity.
--
:-<> Siri Seal of Disavowal #000-001. Disavowed. Denied. Deleted. @
'I desire mercy, not sacrifice.' /|\
Free the Amos Yee one. This post / \
Yeah, too bad about your so-called life. Ha-ha. insults Islam. Mohammed
de chucka
2017-08-15 02:22:26 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Just Wondering
Post by Siri Cruise
Post by Just Wondering
Not a different species of bacteria. Evolution = evolution of species,
not adaptation within species.
No, biological evolution is any change in life over time.
Evolutionists claim evolution is how species is
created.
No that is what you claim
Scout
2017-08-15 03:32:32 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Just Wondering
Post by Siri Cruise
Post by Just Wondering
Not a different species of bacteria. Evolution = evolution of species,
not adaptation within species.
No, biological evolution is any change in life over time.
Evolutionists claim evolution is how species is
created. Adaptation within a species is not
evidence of creation of a new species.
http://www.newsmax.com/TheWire/poodle-cat-fluffy-feline/2013/06/24/id/511461/
de chucka
2017-08-14 20:56:37 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Just Wondering
Post by de chucka
Post by Scout
Post by Andrew
Post by Melzzzzz
Post by Wally W.
The case for theistic creation is at least as good as the case for the
faith-based assertions about evolution.
It is not. Evolution explains how it happens. Theistic creaton does not
explains anything. `God willed into existence` is fairytale.
It does not even says how.
Exactly.
Science addresses 'how'
So does Creation.
Describe in detail the exact processes by which life was created.
Post by Andrew
theology claims 'who'
Yes.
They aren't necessarily contradictory.
That's right. Not necessarily.
Which means you've just admitted that evolution could be true.
It is and is occurring now. The classic example being drug resistant
bacteria
Not a different species of bacteria. Evolution = evolution of species,
not adaptation within species.
Does it?
Scout
2017-08-15 03:26:44 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Just Wondering
Post by de chucka
Post by Scout
Post by Andrew
Post by Melzzzzz
Post by Wally W.
The case for theistic creation is at least as good as the case for the
faith-based assertions about evolution.
It is not. Evolution explains how it happens. Theistic creaton does not
explains anything. `God willed into existence` is fairytale.
It does not even says how.
Exactly.
Science addresses 'how'
So does Creation.
Describe in detail the exact processes by which life was created.
Post by Andrew
theology claims 'who'
Yes.
They aren't necessarily contradictory.
That's right. Not necessarily.
Which means you've just admitted that evolution could be true.
It is and is occurring now. The classic example being drug resistant
bacteria
Not a different species of bacteria. Evolution = evolution of species,
not adaptation within species.
http://www.newsmax.com/TheWire/poodle-cat-fluffy-feline/2013/06/24/id/511461/
Wally W.
2017-08-15 11:49:16 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Scout
Post by Just Wondering
Post by de chucka
Post by Scout
Post by Andrew
Post by Melzzzzz
Post by Wally W.
The case for theistic creation is at least as good as the case for the
faith-based assertions about evolution.
It is not. Evolution explains how it happens. Theistic creaton does not
explains anything. `God willed into existence` is fairytale.
It does not even says how.
Exactly.
Science addresses 'how'
So does Creation.
Describe in detail the exact processes by which life was created.
Post by Andrew
theology claims 'who'
Yes.
They aren't necessarily contradictory.
That's right. Not necessarily.
Which means you've just admitted that evolution could be true.
It is and is occurring now. The classic example being drug resistant
bacteria
Not a different species of bacteria. Evolution = evolution of species,
not adaptation within species.
http://www.newsmax.com/TheWire/poodle-cat-fluffy-feline/2013/06/24/id/511461/
It's still a cat.

Scientists might draw (or erase) lines between categories for a
variety of reasons.

Do you remember when Pluto was a planet?
Scout
2017-08-16 00:16:49 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Wally W.
Post by Scout
Post by Just Wondering
Post by de chucka
Post by Scout
Post by Andrew
Post by Melzzzzz
Post by Wally W.
The case for theistic creation is at least as good as the case for the
faith-based assertions about evolution.
It is not. Evolution explains how it happens. Theistic creaton does not
explains anything. `God willed into existence` is fairytale.
It does not even says how.
Exactly.
Science addresses 'how'
So does Creation.
Describe in detail the exact processes by which life was created.
Post by Andrew
theology claims 'who'
Yes.
They aren't necessarily contradictory.
That's right. Not necessarily.
Which means you've just admitted that evolution could be true.
It is and is occurring now. The classic example being drug resistant
bacteria
Not a different species of bacteria. Evolution = evolution of species,
not adaptation within species.
http://www.newsmax.com/TheWire/poodle-cat-fluffy-feline/2013/06/24/id/511461/
It's still a cat.
Yes, but it's a new species of cat, one that has different genetics and
which will breed true.
Post by Wally W.
Scientists might draw (or erase) lines between categories for a
variety of reasons.
You mean like the fact it's genetically different?
Post by Wally W.
Do you remember when Pluto was a planet?
Did we find the DNA of Pluto was that of a moon?
Gronk
2017-08-15 19:27:16 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Scout
Post by Just Wondering
Post by de chucka
Post by Scout
Post by Andrew
Post by Melzzzzz
Post by Wally W.
The case for theistic creation is at least as good as the case for the
faith-based assertions about evolution.
It is not. Evolution explains how it happens. Theistic creaton does not
explains anything. `God willed into existence` is fairytale.
It does not even says how.
Exactly.
Science addresses 'how'
So does Creation.
Describe in detail the exact processes by which life was created.
Post by Andrew
theology claims 'who'
Yes.
They aren't necessarily contradictory.
That's right. Not necessarily.
Which means you've just admitted that evolution could be true.
It is and is occurring now. The classic example being drug resistant
bacteria
Not a different species of bacteria. Evolution = evolution of species,
not adaptation within species.
http://www.newsmax.com/TheWire/poodle-cat-fluffy-feline/2013/06/24/id/511461/
Ok, and? A breed is not a species.
Scout
2017-08-16 00:57:13 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Gronk
Post by Scout
Post by Just Wondering
Post by de chucka
Post by Scout
Post by Andrew
Post by Melzzzzz
Post by Wally W.
The case for theistic creation is at least as good as the case for the
faith-based assertions about evolution.
It is not. Evolution explains how it happens. Theistic creaton does not
explains anything. `God willed into existence` is fairytale.
It does not even says how.
Exactly.
Science addresses 'how'
So does Creation.
Describe in detail the exact processes by which life was created.
Post by Andrew
theology claims 'who'
Yes.
They aren't necessarily contradictory.
That's right. Not necessarily.
Which means you've just admitted that evolution could be true.
It is and is occurring now. The classic example being drug resistant
bacteria
Not a different species of bacteria. Evolution = evolution of species,
not adaptation within species.
http://www.newsmax.com/TheWire/poodle-cat-fluffy-feline/2013/06/24/id/511461/
Ok, and? A breed is not a species.
Yep, but it does show that such changes do occur....when enough such changes
occur and breed true, then you have a new species.

Let's imagine if we will that instead of strange fur, it was feathers. Now
the smaller lighter kittens would find that they could possibly leap and
glide away from danger, particularly if they were in a high place. Survival
would reinforce the characteristics of the most successful of these. So such
cats would get smaller and lighter. Existing mutations/variations which
hence this would become concentrated and added to the genome. Additional
mutations that can breed true could also occur. In time....you have a new
set of animals that even you would admit were a new species.

I will simply note the "poodle cats" are already being recognized as a new
species due to the fact they are genetically unique from other cat species
and their unique genetic characteristic not only breeds true, but is a
dominate gene thus even crosses will exhibit this characteristic. In time,
ordinary cats may all but disappear as their hair type now becomes the
recessive gene and could in time simply disappear from the genome of cats.

This is a clear example of evolution in action. Sure, it's a small step and
limited, but it demonstrates, in reality, the very process that evolution
says can occur. You asked for evidence, it's here.
Wally W.
2017-08-16 02:22:24 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Scout
Post by Gronk
Post by Scout
Post by Just Wondering
Post by de chucka
Post by Scout
Post by Andrew
Post by Melzzzzz
Post by Wally W.
The case for theistic creation is at least as good as the case for the
faith-based assertions about evolution.
It is not. Evolution explains how it happens. Theistic creaton does not
explains anything. `God willed into existence` is fairytale.
It does not even says how.
Exactly.
Science addresses 'how'
So does Creation.
Describe in detail the exact processes by which life was created.
Post by Andrew
theology claims 'who'
Yes.
They aren't necessarily contradictory.
That's right. Not necessarily.
Which means you've just admitted that evolution could be true.
It is and is occurring now. The classic example being drug resistant
bacteria
Not a different species of bacteria. Evolution = evolution of species,
not adaptation within species.
http://www.newsmax.com/TheWire/poodle-cat-fluffy-feline/2013/06/24/id/511461/
Ok, and? A breed is not a species.
Yep, but it does show that such changes do occur
No, it does not.

"Such changes" need to be on the order of a pigeon becoming an
elephant.

Do you have any examples of that?
de chucka
2017-08-16 02:29:24 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Wally W.
Post by Scout
Post by Gronk
Post by Scout
Post by Just Wondering
Post by de chucka
Post by Scout
Post by Andrew
Post by Melzzzzz
Post by Wally W.
The case for theistic creation is at least as good as the case for the
faith-based assertions about evolution.
It is not. Evolution explains how it happens. Theistic creaton does not
explains anything. `God willed into existence` is fairytale.
It does not even says how.
Exactly.
Science addresses 'how'
So does Creation.
Describe in detail the exact processes by which life was created.
Post by Andrew
theology claims 'who'
Yes.
They aren't necessarily contradictory.
That's right. Not necessarily.
Which means you've just admitted that evolution could be true.
It is and is occurring now. The classic example being drug resistant
bacteria
Not a different species of bacteria. Evolution = evolution of species,
not adaptation within species.
http://www.newsmax.com/TheWire/poodle-cat-fluffy-feline/2013/06/24/id/511461/
Ok, and? A breed is not a species.
Yep, but it does show that such changes do occur
No, it does not.
"Such changes" need to be on the order of a pigeon becoming an
elephant.
Do you have any examples of that?
Did you need a truck to move the goalposts so far?
Wally W.
2017-08-16 02:43:25 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by de chucka
Post by Wally W.
Post by Scout
Post by Gronk
Post by Scout
Post by Just Wondering
Post by de chucka
Post by Scout
Post by Andrew
Post by Melzzzzz
Post by Wally W.
The case for theistic creation is at least as good as the case for
the
faith-based assertions about evolution.
It is not. Evolution explains how it happens. Theistic creaton does not
explains anything. `God willed into existence` is fairytale.
It does not even says how.
Exactly.
Science addresses 'how'
So does Creation.
Describe in detail the exact processes by which life was created.
Post by Andrew
theology claims 'who'
Yes.
They aren't necessarily contradictory.
That's right. Not necessarily.
Which means you've just admitted that evolution could be true.
It is and is occurring now. The classic example being drug resistant
bacteria
Not a different species of bacteria. Evolution = evolution of species,
not adaptation within species.
http://www.newsmax.com/TheWire/poodle-cat-fluffy-feline/2013/06/24/id/511461/
Ok, and? A breed is not a species.
Yep, but it does show that such changes do occur
No, it does not.
"Such changes" need to be on the order of a pigeon becoming an
elephant.
Do you have any examples of that?
Did you need a truck to move the goalposts so far?
No, I am just fed up with diddling in the shallow end of the gene pool
being extrapolated to the emergence of whales, trees, and people from
a single-celled organism.

I am not as easily impressed as you are.
Scout
2017-08-16 03:03:40 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Wally W.
Post by de chucka
Post by Wally W.
Post by Scout
Post by Gronk
Post by Scout
Post by Just Wondering
Post by de chucka
Post by Scout
Post by Andrew
Post by Melzzzzz
Post by Wally W.
The case for theistic creation is at least as good as the case for
the
faith-based assertions about evolution.
It is not. Evolution explains how it happens. Theistic creaton
does
not
explains anything. `God willed into existence` is fairytale.
It does not even says how.
Exactly.
Science addresses 'how'
So does Creation.
Describe in detail the exact processes by which life was created.
Post by Andrew
theology claims 'who'
Yes.
They aren't necessarily contradictory.
That's right. Not necessarily.
Which means you've just admitted that evolution could be true.
It is and is occurring now. The classic example being drug resistant
bacteria
Not a different species of bacteria. Evolution = evolution of species,
not adaptation within species.
http://www.newsmax.com/TheWire/poodle-cat-fluffy-feline/2013/06/24/id/511461/
Ok, and? A breed is not a species.
Yep, but it does show that such changes do occur
No, it does not.
"Such changes" need to be on the order of a pigeon becoming an
elephant.
Do you have any examples of that?
Did you need a truck to move the goalposts so far?
No, I am just fed up with diddling in the shallow end of the gene pool
being extrapolated to the emergence of whales, trees, and people from
a single-celled organism.
Right, instead we're suppose to believe they just leaped into existence from
piles of dust.

Have you ever seen that happen?

Has anyone?

How do you know it works that way then?
Post by Wally W.
I am not as easily impressed as you are.
Apparently all it takes to impress you is a book and some people in robes.
Wally W.
2017-08-16 03:28:19 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Scout
Post by Wally W.
Post by de chucka
Post by Wally W.
Post by Scout
Post by Gronk
Post by Scout
Post by Just Wondering
Post by de chucka
Post by Scout
Post by Andrew
Post by Melzzzzz
Post by Wally W.
The case for theistic creation is at least as good as the case
for
the
faith-based assertions about evolution.
It is not. Evolution explains how it happens. Theistic creaton
does
not
explains anything. `God willed into existence` is fairytale.
It does not even says how.
Exactly.
Science addresses 'how'
So does Creation.
Describe in detail the exact processes by which life was created.
Post by Andrew
theology claims 'who'
Yes.
They aren't necessarily contradictory.
That's right. Not necessarily.
Which means you've just admitted that evolution could be true.
It is and is occurring now. The classic example being drug resistant
bacteria
Not a different species of bacteria. Evolution = evolution of species,
not adaptation within species.
http://www.newsmax.com/TheWire/poodle-cat-fluffy-feline/2013/06/24/id/511461/
Ok, and? A breed is not a species.
Yep, but it does show that such changes do occur
No, it does not.
"Such changes" need to be on the order of a pigeon becoming an
elephant.
Do you have any examples of that?
Did you need a truck to move the goalposts so far?
No, I am just fed up with diddling in the shallow end of the gene pool
being extrapolated to the emergence of whales, trees, and people from
a single-celled organism.
Right, instead we're suppose to believe they just leaped into existence from
piles of dust.
Have you ever seen that happen?
Has anyone?
How do you know it works that way then?
I didn't say I know how it works.

You claim to know how evolution works ... and that it is *science*.

I say evolution is as at least as faith-based as Creationism is.

If it isn't, show us more than one kind of flu becoming more prevalent
than another kind of flu from year to year.

Or more than a cat with curly hair being born by another cat.
Post by Scout
Post by Wally W.
I am not as easily impressed as you are.
Apparently all it takes to impress you is a book and some people in robes.
All it takes to impress you is some hand-waving.
Wally W.
2017-08-16 03:33:16 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Wally W.
Post by Scout
Post by Wally W.
Post by de chucka
Post by Wally W.
Post by Scout
Post by Gronk
Post by Scout
Post by Just Wondering
Post by de chucka
Post by Scout
Post by Andrew
Post by Melzzzzz
Post by Wally W.
The case for theistic creation is at least as good as the case
for
the
faith-based assertions about evolution.
It is not. Evolution explains how it happens. Theistic creaton
does
not
explains anything. `God willed into existence` is fairytale.
It does not even says how.
Exactly.
Science addresses 'how'
So does Creation.
Describe in detail the exact processes by which life was created.
Post by Andrew
theology claims 'who'
Yes.
They aren't necessarily contradictory.
That's right. Not necessarily.
Which means you've just admitted that evolution could be true.
It is and is occurring now. The classic example being drug resistant
bacteria
Not a different species of bacteria. Evolution = evolution of species,
not adaptation within species.
http://www.newsmax.com/TheWire/poodle-cat-fluffy-feline/2013/06/24/id/511461/
Ok, and? A breed is not a species.
Yep, but it does show that such changes do occur
No, it does not.
"Such changes" need to be on the order of a pigeon becoming an
elephant.
Do you have any examples of that?
Did you need a truck to move the goalposts so far?
No, I am just fed up with diddling in the shallow end of the gene pool
being extrapolated to the emergence of whales, trees, and people from
a single-celled organism.
Right, instead we're suppose to believe they just leaped into existence from
piles of dust.
No, they were willed into creation by a being with a brain bigger than
yours.
Post by Wally W.
Post by Scout
Have you ever seen that happen?
Has anyone?
How do you know it works that way then?
I didn't say I know how it works.
You claim to know how evolution works ... and that it is *science*.
I say evolution is as at least as faith-based as Creationism is.
If it isn't, show us more than one kind of flu becoming more prevalent
than another kind of flu from year to year.
Or more than a cat with curly hair being born by another cat.
By "more," I mean a ***lot*** more.
Post by Wally W.
Post by Scout
Post by Wally W.
I am not as easily impressed as you are.
Apparently all it takes to impress you is a book and some people in robes.
All it takes to impress you is some hand-waving.
Scout
2017-08-16 03:02:20 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Wally W.
Post by Scout
Post by Gronk
Post by Scout
Post by Just Wondering
Post by de chucka
Post by Scout
Post by Andrew
Post by Melzzzzz
Post by Wally W.
The case for theistic creation is at least as good as the case
for
the
faith-based assertions about evolution.
It is not. Evolution explains how it happens. Theistic creaton
does
not
explains anything. `God willed into existence` is fairytale.
It does not even says how.
Exactly.
Science addresses 'how'
So does Creation.
Describe in detail the exact processes by which life was created.
Post by Andrew
theology claims 'who'
Yes.
They aren't necessarily contradictory.
That's right. Not necessarily.
Which means you've just admitted that evolution could be true.
It is and is occurring now. The classic example being drug resistant
bacteria
Not a different species of bacteria. Evolution = evolution of species,
not adaptation within species.
http://www.newsmax.com/TheWire/poodle-cat-fluffy-feline/2013/06/24/id/511461/
Ok, and? A breed is not a species.
Yep, but it does show that such changes do occur
No, it does not.
"Such changes" need to be on the order of a pigeon becoming an
elephant.
Ah, likewise I expect a similar level of evidence from you for creationism.
Let's see the video of a pile of dust being made to come alive because
someone breathed on it.
Post by Wally W.
Do you have any examples of that?
Well, we have evidence of reptiles turning into birds and elephants. Is that
close enough?
Andrew
2017-08-16 02:54:06 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Scout
This is a clear example of evolution in action. Sure, it's a small step and
limited, but it demonstrates, in reality, the very process that evolution
says can occur. You asked for evidence, it's here.
Variation and the ability for adaptation have been programmed
into the original Creation. And that is exactly what we see today.
Scout
2017-08-16 03:05:06 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Andrew
Post by Scout
This is a clear example of evolution in action. Sure, it's a small step
and limited, but it demonstrates, in reality, the very process that
evolution says can occur. You asked for evidence, it's here.
Variation and the ability for adaptation have been programmed
into the original Creation. And that is exactly what we see today.
So evolution is now accepted as taking place.

Now that's settled tell me again by what exact chemical, electrical, and
physical processes does a pile of dust suddenly develop into a living
creature.
SeaSnake
2017-08-13 16:16:32 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Wally W.
Post by Wally W.
The case for theistic creation is at least as good as the case for the
faith-based assertions about evolution.
It is not.
Yes it is!
Post by Wally W.
Evolution explains how it happens.
In sparrows.
Post by Wally W.
Theistic creaton does not
explains anything.
Of course it does.
Post by Wally W.
`God willed into existence` is fairytale.
Or allegory.
Post by Wally W.
It does not even says how.
True, the Bible doesn't cover terraforming in modern scientific terms.
Scout
2017-08-13 08:21:57 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Wally W.
Post by Scout
Post by Wally W.
Post by Scout
Post by Kurt (Sphincter) Schlichter
Another step forward in understanding ourselves.
If you want to understand our origins, it helps to understand that there
is no mechanism for us to have evolved from some
lower life form to ourselves via the fantasized evolutionary
pathway.
Ok, so exactly what pathway can you find evidence of to explain how and why
we exist as we do today.
and don't try asserting fantasized processes which you have no evidence of,
or you will be in the same boat as you claim that evolution is.
False comparison.
No, perfectly valid comparison.
Yes, it is a false comparison.
How so? You assert they make claims without evidence. Which is no less than
what you're doing.
Post by Wally W.
Post by Scout
If you're telling me they are wrong,
I'm telling you that evolution is faith-based because it can't produce
the missing links.
And yours is different how?

Meanwhile, on a side note are you aware of how many missing links have been
found....only for those on your side to demand new links on each side of the
link just discovered?

Exactly what level of evidence do you demand?

A piece of land that has never been subject to any upheavals, and never
disturbed in any way, where every creature laid down on top of their
parents to die?

Meanwhile, exactly WHAT evidence do you have to support your claims?
Post by Wally W.
Post by Scout
then
you should have evidence that shows proof of another means.
False demand.
Oh, so it's wrong that they don't have any proof, but asking you to supply
it isn't acceptable?

Talk about a double standard.

If you find their evidence inadequate, then present stronger evidence that
you're right.


<snip lame attempt to change the subject>
Post by Wally W.
Post by Scout
Post by Wally W.
Evolution claims to be science that is evidence-based.
Are you saying your claims aren't based on evidence?
They aren't based on *scientific* evidence.
So what evidence are they based on?
Post by Wally W.
Evolution claims to be based on scientific evidence. It is not. It is
faith-based.
No, there seems to be evidence to support it, and while I agree it's
somewhat limited and to some degree inconclusive, it is far better evidence
than anything you've brought to the table to support your assertion which is
PURELY a matter of faith.

Seems, you like evidence that is based in faith.....but only if it's YOUR
faith.

I don't really care either way. So far, your attempts to claim they are
wrong and you're right because of your faith in your beliefs....I find to be
unconvincing. At least they are actually trying to find out if they are
right or wrong and willing to change their minds if they can find evidence
to do so. You on the other hand seem utterly content to believe what you
believe without evidence, investigation or even doubt.
Post by Wally W.
Post by Scout
Post by Wally W.
Theistic creation claims the appearance of humans was a miracle.
Yep, that seems to be your proof. Point at the sky and say "He did it"
(HDI).
Why did the flower bloom? (HDI)
Why did the bridge collapse? (HDI)
It might have been because of some bad calcuations; or the contractor
might have cut corners.
Oh, really? God makes bad calculations or hires contractors that cut
corners?
Post by Wally W.
Post by Scout
Amazing curiousity there, you assert to know the answer before you even ask
the question.
You are imagining what I know.
I have to, since you refuse to back up your claims with any sort of
evidence.
Post by Wally W.
Post by Scout
Whatever you want to ask about....(HDI).
Why does the light turn on? (HDI).
Post by Wally W.
Greenies claim the existence of *other* humans is a curse.
I'm more concerned about your claims, that what you claim others believe.
Be as concerned as you choose to be.
I am, and right now, my concern for your blind beliefs is less than it was.
Those you argue against, at least they are looking for evidence of whether
they are right or wrong.
Post by Wally W.
Post by Scout
So.....once again....other than pointing at a being who's even existence
hasn't been proven....
What do you mean "proven?"
The same level of proof you would demand for evolution.

After all, if the standard is good enough for that, then it should be just
as good for your claims.
Post by Wally W.
Post by Scout
what do you have to back up your claims on why and how
man is here?
The case for theistic creation is at least as good as the case for the
faith-based assertions about evolution.
Not really. Because while science can show linkages, though admittedly
incomplete, they can track changes over time and even within the human body
there exists structures and organs that are poorly 'designed' or even
utterly useless in the form we exist in now. While, not proof, it is
evidence which suggests creatures change over time due to natural causes.

Heck, you can't even produce scientific evidence of the being you assert
what you claim.

For example.

Let's say I postulate that flowers are a result of the work of fairies.
When challenged on that, I simply point to the flowers as proof that they
were created by fairies.
Thus, by what seems to be your standards for your evidence, I have proven
fairies exist.

Here's a thought to blow your mind: What if God used evolution to create
life?

If that statement is true, then your denial of how he created life is at
odds with your assertion that he did so.

And what evidence do you have that evolution wasn't his method for creating
life?
Wally W.
2017-08-13 10:40:50 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Scout
Post by Wally W.
Post by Scout
Post by Wally W.
Post by Scout
Post by Kurt (Sphincter) Schlichter
Another step forward in understanding ourselves.
If you want to understand our origins, it helps to understand that there
is no mechanism for us to have evolved from some
lower life form to ourselves via the fantasized evolutionary
pathway.
Ok, so exactly what pathway can you find evidence of to explain how and why
we exist as we do today.
and don't try asserting fantasized processes which you have no evidence of,
or you will be in the same boat as you claim that evolution is.
False comparison.
No, perfectly valid comparison.
Yes, it is a false comparison.
How so? You assert they make claims without evidence. Which is no less than
what you're doing.
If evolution is a science, it needs *scientific* evidence.
Post by Scout
Post by Wally W.
Post by Scout
If you're telling me they are wrong,
I'm telling you that evolution is faith-based because it can't produce
the missing links.
And yours is different how?
Theis isn't a science.

We can't put God in a test tube.
Post by Scout
Meanwhile, on a side note are you aware of how many missing links have been
found....only for those on your side to demand new links on each side of the
link just discovered?
Exactly what level of evidence do you demand?
Continuity in the chain evolutionist claim exists.
Post by Scout
A piece of land that has never been subject to any upheavals, and never
disturbed in any way, where every creature laid down on top of their
parents to die?
Meanwhile, exactly WHAT evidence do you have to support your claims?
Testimonial evidence of millions of people.

This same kind of evidence is adequate for some purposes in a court of
law.
Post by Scout
Post by Wally W.
Post by Scout
then
you should have evidence that shows proof of another means.
False demand.
Oh, so it's wrong that they don't have any proof, but asking you to supply
it isn't acceptable?
I don't claim theist creation is a science. You say evolution is a
science. They require different kinds of proof.
Post by Scout
Talk about a double standard.
Talk about muddying the waters.
Post by Scout
If you find their evidence inadequate, then present stronger evidence that
you're right.
That's not how science works. The burden of proof is on the
"scientists" who put forth the theory of evolution. Show us continuity
in the record.
Post by Scout
<snip lame attempt to change the subject>
You snipped another example of faith-based spew that wants to call
itself "science."
Post by Scout
Post by Wally W.
Post by Scout
Post by Wally W.
Evolution claims to be science that is evidence-based.
Are you saying your claims aren't based on evidence?
They aren't based on *scientific* evidence.
So what evidence are they based on?
See above about testimonial evidence.
Post by Scout
Post by Wally W.
Evolution claims to be based on scientific evidence. It is not. It is
faith-based.
No, there seems to be evidence to support it, and while I agree it's
somewhat limited and to some degree inconclusive, it is far better evidence
than anything you've brought to the table to support your assertion which is
PURELY a matter of faith.
You are being quite dogmatic even though you admit your "scientific"
evidence is "somewhat limited and to some degree inconclusive.' One
could interpret your dogmatism as arising from an article of faith.
Post by Scout
Seems, you like evidence that is based in faith.....but only if it's YOUR
faith.
I don't really care either way. So far, your attempts to claim they are
wrong and you're right because of your faith in your beliefs....I find to be
unconvincing. At least they are actually trying to find out if they are
right or wrong and willing to change their minds if they can find evidence
to do so.
To what do you suppose they would change if they find out they are
wrong?
Post by Scout
You on the other hand seem utterly content to believe what you
believe without evidence, investigation or even doubt.
My belief doesn't need scientific evidence, because it isn't science.
Post by Scout
Post by Wally W.
Post by Scout
Post by Wally W.
Theistic creation claims the appearance of humans was a miracle.
Yep, that seems to be your proof. Point at the sky and say "He did it"
(HDI).
Why did the flower bloom? (HDI)
Why did the bridge collapse? (HDI)
It might have been because of some bad calcuations; or the contractor
might have cut corners.
Oh, really? God makes bad calculations or hires contractors that cut
corners?
God doesn't build bridges. People do.
Post by Scout
Post by Wally W.
Post by Scout
Amazing curiousity there, you assert to know the answer before you even ask
the question.
You are imagining what I know.
I have to, since you refuse to back up your claims with any sort of
evidence.
Again, the burden of proof is on those who want to be dogmatic about
the Truth of evolution: show us continuity in the record.
Post by Scout
Post by Wally W.
Post by Scout
Whatever you want to ask about....(HDI).
Why does the light turn on? (HDI).
Post by Wally W.
Greenies claim the existence of *other* humans is a curse.
I'm more concerned about your claims, that what you claim others believe.
Be as concerned as you choose to be.
I am, and right now, my concern for your blind beliefs is less than it was.
Those you argue against, at least they are looking for evidence of whether
they are right or wrong.
Are *you* looking for evidence that evolution is wrong?

If so, please describe your most recent search.
Post by Scout
Post by Wally W.
Post by Scout
So.....once again....other than pointing at a being who's even existence
hasn't been proven....
What do you mean "proven?"
The same level of proof you would demand for evolution.
Again, faith in a creator is not science. Neither is evolution, but
you won't admit that your belief in evolution is faith-based.
Post by Scout
After all, if the standard is good enough for that, then it should be just
as good for your claims.
Post by Wally W.
Post by Scout
what do you have to back up your claims on why and how
man is here?
The case for theistic creation is at least as good as the case for the
faith-based assertions about evolution.
Not really. Because while science can show linkages, though admittedly
incomplete, they can track changes over time and even within the human body
there exists structures and organs that are poorly 'designed' or even
utterly useless in the form we exist in now. While, not proof, it is
evidence which suggests creatures change over time due to natural causes.
Heck, you can't even produce scientific evidence of the being you assert
what you claim.
Look up at night.

Where did the stars come from?

From the big bang?

That's another faith-based view that is spewed with dogmatism:
"In the Beginning there was nothing,
which exploded." - Terry Pratchett
Post by Scout
For example.
Let's say I postulate that flowers are a result of the work of fairies.
When challenged on that, I simply point to the flowers as proof that they
were created by fairies.
Thus, by what seems to be your standards for your evidence, I have proven
fairies exist.
Here's a thought to blow your mind: What if God used evolution to create
life?
You think that never came up before? It is called theistic evolution.
Some believe that.
Post by Scout
If that statement is true, then your denial of how he created life is at
odds with your assertion that he did so.
And if it isn't, it is not.
Post by Scout
And what evidence do you have that evolution wasn't his method for creating
life?
He spoke the various parts of creation into existence. See Genesis
chapter 1:
https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Genesis+1
Scout
2017-08-14 00:04:37 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Wally W.
Post by Scout
Post by Wally W.
Post by Scout
Post by Wally W.
Post by Scout
Post by Kurt (Sphincter) Schlichter
Another step forward in understanding ourselves.
If you want to understand our origins, it helps to understand that there
is no mechanism for us to have evolved from some
lower life form to ourselves via the fantasized evolutionary
pathway.
Ok, so exactly what pathway can you find evidence of to explain how
and
why
we exist as we do today.
and don't try asserting fantasized processes which you have no
evidence
of,
or you will be in the same boat as you claim that evolution is.
False comparison.
No, perfectly valid comparison.
Yes, it is a false comparison.
How so? You assert they make claims without evidence. Which is no less than
what you're doing.
If evolution is a science, it needs *scientific* evidence.
It has some. What evidence does your theory have?
Post by Wally W.
Post by Scout
Post by Wally W.
Post by Scout
If you're telling me they are wrong,
I'm telling you that evolution is faith-based because it can't produce
the missing links.
And yours is different how?
Theis isn't a science.
Ah, so it's a matter of faith. Yet you complain that others have a different
faith.

Makes you a bit of a hypocrite then, doesn't it?
Post by Wally W.
We can't put God in a test tube.
Then your theories are empty noises which lack any supporting evidence
within reality.

Meanwhile science attempts to produce theories that match the known
evidence. While religions on the other hand attempts to ignore evidence that
conflicts with their beliefs.

Who is more interested in discovering the truth?

Heck, if Religion has it's way, the Sun would be orbiting the Earth and the
rest of the universe would be doing the same.
SeaSnake
2017-08-13 16:21:11 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Scout
Here's a thought to blow your mind: What if God used evolution to create
life?
If that statement is true, then your denial of how he created life is at
odds with your assertion that he did so.
And what evidence do you have that evolution wasn't his method for
creating life?
Ding!

Nailed it.
Siri Cruise
2017-08-13 10:05:14 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Wally W.
I'm telling you that evolution is faith-based because it can't produce
the missing links.
Evolution is an observed process in both wild and domestic life. Theories of
evolution are developped with the scientific method.

The scientific method is based on assumptions about the nature of the universe.
For some people those might be considerred beliefs or a religion, however
everything based on experimental science is based on those same assumptions. It
is inconsistent to accept the scientific method only when you like the results.

(The universe is objectively real, mechanical, explicable, consistent.)

I personally don't see fossils as evidence of evolution, but the reverse,
something explained by the theories. For anything too old for DNA convergent
evolution is very improbable but possible explanation.

There's more than enough evidence looking at life as she is spoken here and now
and analyzing DNA over the last tens (hundreds?) of thousands of years.
Post by Wally W.
Post by Scout
then
you should have evidence that shows proof of another means.
False demand.
True, you cannot be forced to justify your statements. I cannot be forced to
agree with them. Do you care enough if I agree with you?
Post by Wally W.
It's like the greenies screeching about global warming and claiming it
Diversion.
Post by Wally W.
Post by Scout
Post by Wally W.
Evolution claims to be science that is evidence-based.
Are you saying your claims aren't based on evidence?
They aren't based on *scientific* evidence.
Evolution can be observed in your yard. In your home. In a flowerpot. On a farm.
Anywhere there's life.
Post by Wally W.
Post by Scout
Post by Wally W.
Theistic creation claims the appearance of humans was a miracle.
Or the creation of Hutts was a miracle, and humans were an accident.
Post by Wally W.
Post by Scout
what do you have to back up your claims on why and how
man is here?
The case for theistic creation is at least as good as the case for the
faith-based assertions about evolution.
I can construct a consistent creationism. I don't know if you can.

However consistency is not sufficient for believability. A consistent
creationism requires a trickster god who made people very intelligent but
punishes us if we use that god-given intelligence.
--
:-<> Siri Seal of Disavowal #000-001. Disavowed. Denied. Deleted. @
'I desire mercy, not sacrifice.' /|\
Free the Amos Yee one. This post / \
Yeah, too bad about your so-called life. Ha-ha. insults Islam. Mohammed
Scout
2017-08-13 10:18:23 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Siri Cruise
Post by Wally W.
I'm telling you that evolution is faith-based because it can't produce
the missing links.
Evolution is an observed process in both wild and domestic life. Theories of
evolution are developped with the scientific method.
The scientific method is based on assumptions about the nature of the universe.
For some people those might be considerred beliefs or a religion, however
everything based on experimental science is based on those same assumptions. It
is inconsistent to accept the scientific method only when you like the results.
(The universe is objectively real, mechanical, explicable, consistent.)
I personally don't see fossils as evidence of evolution, but the reverse,
something explained by the theories. For anything too old for DNA convergent
evolution is very improbable but possible explanation.
There's more than enough evidence looking at life as she is spoken here and now
and analyzing DNA over the last tens (hundreds?) of thousands of years.
Post by Wally W.
Post by Scout
then
you should have evidence that shows proof of another means.
False demand.
True, you cannot be forced to justify your statements. I cannot be forced to
agree with them. Do you care enough if I agree with you?
Post by Wally W.
It's like the greenies screeching about global warming and claiming it
Diversion.
Post by Wally W.
Post by Scout
Post by Wally W.
Evolution claims to be science that is evidence-based.
Are you saying your claims aren't based on evidence?
They aren't based on *scientific* evidence.
Evolution can be observed in your yard. In your home. In a flowerpot. On a farm.
Anywhere there's life.
Post by Wally W.
Post by Scout
Post by Wally W.
Theistic creation claims the appearance of humans was a miracle.
Or the creation of Hutts was a miracle, and humans were an accident.
Post by Wally W.
Post by Scout
what do you have to back up your claims on why and how
man is here?
The case for theistic creation is at least as good as the case for the
faith-based assertions about evolution.
I can construct a consistent creationism. I don't know if you can.
However consistency is not sufficient for believability. A consistent
creationism requires a trickster god who made people very intelligent but
punishes us if we use that god-given intelligence.
Bravo!
Wally W.
2017-08-13 10:20:07 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Siri Cruise
Post by Wally W.
I'm telling you that evolution is faith-based because it can't produce
the missing links.
Evolution is an observed process
You observed dinosaurs morph to birds?
Post by Siri Cruise
in both wild and domestic life. Theories of
evolution are developped with the scientific method.
The scientific method is based on assumptions about the nature of the universe.
For some people those might be considerred beliefs or a religion, however
everything based on experimental science is based on those same assumptions. It
is inconsistent to accept the scientific method only when you like the results.
(The universe is objectively real, mechanical, explicable, consistent.)
I personally don't see fossils as evidence of evolution, but the reverse,
something explained by the theories. For anything too old for DNA convergent
evolution is very improbable but possible explanation.
There's more than enough evidence looking at life as she is spoken here and now
and analyzing DNA over the last tens (hundreds?) of thousands of years.
Post by Wally W.
Post by Scout
then
you should have evidence that shows proof of another means.
False demand.
True, you cannot be forced to justify your statements. I cannot be forced to
agree with them. Do you care enough if I agree with you?
Post by Wally W.
It's like the greenies screeching about global warming and claiming it
Diversion.
Post by Wally W.
Post by Scout
Post by Wally W.
Evolution claims to be science that is evidence-based.
Are you saying your claims aren't based on evidence?
They aren't based on *scientific* evidence.
Evolution can be observed in your yard. In your home. In a flowerpot. On a farm.
Anywhere there's life.
Post by Wally W.
Post by Scout
Post by Wally W.
Theistic creation claims the appearance of humans was a miracle.
Or the creation of Hutts was a miracle, and humans were an accident.
Post by Wally W.
Post by Scout
what do you have to back up your claims on why and how
man is here?
The case for theistic creation is at least as good as the case for the
faith-based assertions about evolution.
I can construct a consistent creationism. I don't know if you can.
However consistency is not sufficient for believability. A consistent
creationism requires a trickster god who made people very intelligent but
punishes us if we use that god-given intelligence.
Siri Cruise
2017-08-13 10:29:45 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Wally W.
You observed dinosaurs morph to birds?
We have observed the evolution of wheat, pigs, influenza, and other life over
the last five thousand years. We can observe the evolution of DNA over multiple
thousands of years.

These observations support the explanation that fossils show an evolution of
dinosaurs to birds.
--
:-<> Siri Seal of Disavowal #000-001. Disavowed. Denied. Deleted. @
'I desire mercy, not sacrifice.' /|\
Free the Amos Yee one. This post / \
Yeah, too bad about your so-called life. Ha-ha. insults Islam. Mohammed
Wally W.
2017-08-13 10:46:05 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Siri Cruise
Post by Wally W.
You observed dinosaurs morph to birds?
We have observed the evolution of wheat, pigs, influenza, and other life over
the last five thousand years. We can observe the evolution of DNA over multiple
thousands of years.
Selective breeding of pigs is not random evolution making complexity
from lesser forms.

The influenza has not evolved. It is still influenza.
Post by Siri Cruise
These observations support the explanation that fossils show an evolution of
dinosaurs to birds.
As with the greenie faith-based spew about CO2, correlation is not
causation.
Siri Cruise
2017-08-13 11:31:06 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Wally W.
Post by Siri Cruise
Post by Wally W.
You observed dinosaurs morph to birds?
We have observed the evolution of wheat, pigs, influenza, and other life over
the last five thousand years. We can observe the evolution of DNA over multiple
thousands of years.
Selective breeding of pigs is not random evolution making complexity
from lesser forms.
Thanks for admitting the reality of selection.
Post by Wally W.
The influenza has not evolved. It is still influenza.
And one year's flu shot will protect you forever more.
--
:-<> Siri Seal of Disavowal #000-001. Disavowed. Denied. Deleted. @
'I desire mercy, not sacrifice.' /|\
Free the Amos Yee one. This post / \
Yeah, too bad about your so-called life. Ha-ha. insults Islam. Mohammed
SeaSnake
2017-08-13 16:28:55 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Siri Cruise
Post by Wally W.
The influenza has not evolved. It is still influenza.
And one year's flu shot will protect you forever more.
Wow, that's an incredible LIE!

Btw flu doesn't "evolve", it morphs - but it remains functionally the same.

You dumb cunt.
Wally W.
2017-08-13 16:47:05 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Siri Cruise
Post by Wally W.
Post by Siri Cruise
Post by Wally W.
You observed dinosaurs morph to birds?
We have observed the evolution of wheat, pigs, influenza, and other life over
the last five thousand years. We can observe the evolution of DNA over multiple
thousands of years.
Selective breeding of pigs is not random evolution making complexity
from lesser forms.
Thanks for admitting the reality of selection.
I admitted the reality of Mendelian genetics, not astronomically
improbable sequence of events whereby random mutations started with a
single-cell organism and followed only beneficial mutations to result
in complex, bipedal humans with a large, complex brains, binaural
multifrequency hearing that provides direction-finding, binocular
color-vision that provides range-finding, etc., ... and elephants ...
and tigers ... and fish ...
Post by Siri Cruise
Post by Wally W.
The influenza has not evolved. It is still influenza.
And one year's flu shot will protect you forever more.
You missed (or refused to acknowlege) the point. One still gets a
*flu* shot the next year. One doesn't get a "mystery-organism shot"
because last year's flu did not evolve into "mystery-organism."
SeaSnake
2017-08-13 16:51:46 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Wally W.
Post by Siri Cruise
And one year's flu shot will protect you forever more.
You missed (or refused to acknowlege) the point. One still gets a
*flu* shot the next year. One doesn't get a "mystery-organism shot"
because last year's flu did not evolve into "mystery-organism."
Precisely!
Just Wondering
2017-08-14 09:17:05 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Siri Cruise
Post by Wally W.
Post by Siri Cruise
Post by Wally W.
You observed dinosaurs morph to birds?
We have observed the evolution of wheat, pigs, influenza, and other life
over the last five thousand years. We can observe the evolution of DNA over
multiple thousands of years.
Selective breeding of pigs is not random evolution making complexity
from lesser forms.
Thanks for admitting the reality of selection.
Come back when pigs have evolved into something that is not a pig.
Post by Siri Cruise
Post by Wally W.
The influenza has not evolved. It is still influenza.
And one year's flu shot will protect you forever more.
Come back when influenza has evolved into something that is not influenza.
Siri Cruise
2017-08-14 10:55:56 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Just Wondering
Post by Siri Cruise
Post by Wally W.
Post by Siri Cruise
Post by Wally W.
You observed dinosaurs morph to birds?
We have observed the evolution of wheat, pigs, influenza, and other life
over the last five thousand years. We can observe the evolution of DNA over
multiple thousands of years.
Selective breeding of pigs is not random evolution making complexity
from lesser forms.
Thanks for admitting the reality of selection.
Come back when pigs have evolved into something that is not a pig.
Are domestic pigs the same as wild pigs? I don't visit pig farms; do they still
have tusks? Do domestic sheep have the same kind of horns as wild cousins? Are
dogs wolves? How easily can you collect the grains of wild grass to make bread?
What do wild apples taste like?
Post by Just Wondering
Post by Siri Cruise
Post by Wally W.
The influenza has not evolved. It is still influenza.
And one year's flu shot will protect you forever more.
Come back when influenza has evolved into something that is not influenza.
It's not spanish influenza.

And you're still an idiot.
--
:-<> Siri Seal of Disavowal #000-001. Disavowed. Denied. Deleted. @
'I desire mercy, not sacrifice.' /|\
Free the Amos Yee one. This post / \
Yeah, too bad about your so-called life. Ha-ha. insults Islam. Mohammed
Just Wondering
2017-08-15 01:50:13 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Siri Cruise
Post by Just Wondering
Post by Siri Cruise
Post by Wally W.
Post by Siri Cruise
Post by Wally W.
You observed dinosaurs morph to birds?
We have observed the evolution of wheat, pigs, influenza, and other life
over the last five thousand years. We can observe the evolution of DNA over
multiple thousands of years.
Selective breeding of pigs is not random evolution making complexity
from lesser forms.
Thanks for admitting the reality of selection.
Come back when pigs have evolved into something that is not a pig.
Are domestic pigs the same as wild pigs?
As a species, yes.
Post by Siri Cruise
I don't visit pig farms; do they still have tusks?
Superficial "racial" differences: Are hirsute men and bald men
different species?
Post by Siri Cruise
Do domestic sheep have the same kind of horns as wild cousins?
Can the two breed and have fertile offspring?
Post by Siri Cruise
Are dogs wolves?
Actually, except for people with strange definitions of what is a
species, they can interbreed and their offspring are fertile, so yes.
Post by Siri Cruise
How easily can you collect the grains of wild
grass to make bread? What do wild apples taste like?
Irrelevant.
Post by Siri Cruise
Post by Just Wondering
Post by Siri Cruise
Post by Wally W.
The influenza has not evolved. It is still influenza.
And one year's flu shot will protect you forever more.
Come back when influenza has evolved into something that is not influenza.
It's not spanish influenza.
It hasn't evolved into something that is not influenza.
In fact, you can't come up with proof of a single example
where ANY one species actually came into existence because
it evolved from a different species.
Post by Siri Cruise
And you're still an idiot.
And you don't realize what a great deal of faith it
requires to believe in evolution.
Scout
2017-08-14 00:16:58 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Wally W.
Post by Siri Cruise
Post by Wally W.
You observed dinosaurs morph to birds?
We have observed the evolution of wheat, pigs, influenza, and other life over
the last five thousand years. We can observe the evolution of DNA over multiple
thousands of years.
Selective breeding of pigs is not random evolution making complexity
from lesser forms.
But who says evolution is purely random?

Oh, and we've seen evolution in action.

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2346408/Cats-sheeps-clothing-The-poodle-cat-quirky-gene-declared-breed-own.html

The gene for this just appeared, it is transferable and dominate, and should
it provide some sort of evolutionary benefit then it will spread and become
the norm for cats.

That's called E V O L U T I O N.

Now, such genes could appear by random, or it could be something that
regularly occurs based on some unknown mechanism. After that whether the
gene succeeds or fades out all depends on whether it provides an
evolutionary advantage.

It also shows how dominate characteristics can become recessive and may even
be eventually 'weeded out' of the gene pool.

Here is a recent example which we can trace back to it's exact origin.

By the way, as noted in the article these cats are classified as their own
species., because we have an evolutionary branch that just formed.
SeaSnake
2017-08-13 16:27:34 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Siri Cruise
We have observed the evolution of wheat, pigs, influenza, and other life over
the last five thousand years.
But not humans, cope.
Scout
2017-08-14 00:21:53 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by SeaSnake
Post by Siri Cruise
We have observed the evolution of wheat, pigs, influenza, and other life over
the last five thousand years.
But not humans, cope.
Actually according to the bible, man has evolved.

Otherwise, we would be living to well over 900 years old.

or stepping forward a bit in the bible, we would be living over 400 years
old.

Stepping forward a bit more.....200 years old...

Sorry, but even the bible shows evolution in man......unless you want to
tell us the Bible is wrong?
Just Wondering
2017-08-14 09:20:22 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Scout
Post by SeaSnake
Post by Siri Cruise
We have observed the evolution of wheat, pigs, influenza, and other life over
the last five thousand years.
But not humans, cope.
Actually according to the bible, man has evolved.
Otherwise, we would be living to well over 900 years old.
or stepping forward a bit in the bible, we would be living over 400
years old.
Stepping forward a bit more.....200 years old...
Sorry, but even the bible shows evolution in man......unless you want to
tell us the Bible is wrong?
Evolution refers to the evolution of species, not differences within a
species. Shoot, biologists have a hard enough time just defining what a
species IS.
SeaSnake
2017-08-13 16:26:07 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Wally W.
I'm telling you that evolution is faith-based because it can't produce
the missing links.
Evolution is an observed process in both wild and domestic life...
...of sparrows...you dumb meth whore.
Just Wondering
2017-08-14 09:14:16 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Siri Cruise
Post by Wally W.
I'm telling you that evolution is faith-based because it can't produce
the missing links.
Evolution is an observed process in both wild and domestic life.
Please provide an example where scientists have observed a solution of
non-live chemical compounds evolve into a living organism.
Please provide an example where scientists have observed a single-celled
organism evolve into a multi-celled organism.
Please provide an example where scientists have observed am asexually
reproducing organism evolve into an organism that produces sexually.
Please provide an example where scientists have observed an organism
without a circulatory system evolve into an organism with a circulatory
system.
Please provide an example where scientists have observed two separate
organisms that once lived just fine without each other evolve into a
symbiotic relationship where neither organism can live without the other.
Once you have provided those examples, I have a few thousand others to
request.
Siri Cruise
2017-08-14 11:10:46 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Just Wondering
Post by Siri Cruise
Post by Wally W.
I'm telling you that evolution is faith-based because it can't produce
the missing links.
Evolution is an observed process in both wild and domestic life.
Please provide an example where scientists have observed a solution of
non-live chemical compounds evolve into a living organism.
Evolution cannot explain abiogenesis. They're separate studies.
Post by Just Wondering
Please provide an example where scientists have observed a single-celled
organism evolve into a multi-celled organism.
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4071512/

One of the predictions of game theory is that cooperative behaviours are
vulnerable to exploitation by selfish individuals, but this result seemingly
contradicts the survival of cooperation observed in nature. In this review, we
will introduce game theoretical concepts that lead to this conclusion and show
how the spatial competition dynamics between microorganisms can be used to model
the survival and maintenance of cooperation.
Post by Just Wondering
Please provide an example where scientists have observed am asexually
reproducing organism evolve into an organism that produces sexually.
Anyway this will be your evolving list of 'Yes, they observed all these other
things, but as long as I can list something that hasn't been observed, I'll
pretend they haven't observed anything.'

You used to have 'but they haven't observed speciation' on the list. But then
when speciation was observed, you changed it new 'kinds', this time refusing to
objectively define 'kinds' so you can keep this on your list much longer. We've
seen you slip the ace out of your sleeve: your game is over. You're only fooling
yourself.
--
:-<> Siri Seal of Disavowal #000-001. Disavowed. Denied. Deleted. @
'I desire mercy, not sacrifice.' /|\
Free the Amos Yee one. This post / \
Yeah, too bad about your so-called life. Ha-ha. insults Islam. Mohammed
de chucka
2017-08-14 20:58:14 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Just Wondering
Post by Siri Cruise
Post by Wally W.
I'm telling you that evolution is faith-based because it can't produce
the missing links.
Evolution is an observed process in both wild and domestic life.
Please provide an example where scientists have observed a solution of
non-live chemical compounds evolve into a living organism.
Define living
!! Atheist ------------------------------
2017-08-15 00:36:50 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Just Wondering
Post by Siri Cruise
Post by Wally W.
I'm telling you that evolution is faith-based because it can't produce
the missing links.
We can see the evidence that evolution has occurred, but we don't yet know
exactly how it occurred. So much evidence that we now know it is *fact*.
Post by Just Wondering
Post by Siri Cruise
Evolution is an observed process in both wild and domestic life.
Big fat lie. Never observed (a new species appeared).
Post by Just Wondering
Please provide an example where scientists have observed a single-celled
organism evolve into a multi-celled organism.
Never been observed.
Post by Just Wondering
Please provide an example where scientists have observed am asexually
reproducing organism evolve into an organism that produces sexually.
Never been observed.
Post by Just Wondering
Please provide an example where scientists have observed an organism
without a circulatory system evolve into an organism with a circulatory
system.
Never been observed.
Post by Just Wondering
Please provide an example where scientists have observed two separate
organisms that once lived just fine without each other evolve into a
symbiotic relationship where neither organism can live without the other.
Never been observed.
--
There is no verifiable evidence of any god(s). None whatsoever.
Extortion (Believe or Burn) is *THE* foundation of Christianity.
Siri Cruise
2017-08-15 01:38:29 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by !! Atheist ------------------------------
Post by Siri Cruise
Evolution is an observed process in both wild and domestic life.
Big fat lie. Never observed (a new species appeared).
You really aren't the sharpest crayon in the box, are you?
--
:-<> Siri Seal of Disavowal #000-001. Disavowed. Denied. Deleted. @
'I desire mercy, not sacrifice.' /|\
Free the Amos Yee one. This post / \
Yeah, too bad about your so-called life. Ha-ha. insults Islam. Mohammed
george152
2017-08-15 05:07:45 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Siri Cruise
Post by !! Atheist ------------------------------
Post by Siri Cruise
Evolution is an observed process in both wild and domestic life.
Big fat lie. Never observed (a new species appeared).
You really aren't the sharpest crayon in the box, are you?
Well, there's always gliding tree snakes as an evolutionary proof

---
This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software.
https://www.avast.com/antivirus
Scout
2017-08-15 03:32:09 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Siri Cruise
Post by !! Atheist ------------------------------
Post by Siri Cruise
Evolution is an observed process in both wild and domestic life.
Big fat lie. Never observed (a new species appeared).
Well, then let's solve that little issue for you

http://www.newsmax.com/TheWire/poodle-cat-fluffy-feline/2013/06/24/id/511461/
Post by Siri Cruise
You really aren't the sharpest crayon in the box, are you?
--
'I desire mercy, not sacrifice.' /|\
Free the Amos Yee one. This post / \
Yeah, too bad about your so-called life. Ha-ha. insults Islam. Mohammed
de chucka
2017-08-15 01:42:25 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
snip
Post by !! Atheist ------------------------------
Post by Siri Cruise
Evolution is an observed process in both wild and domestic life.
Big fat lie. Never observed (a new species appeared).
https://www.wsj.com/articles/scientists-observe-wasps-evolving-into-new-species-1446229404
Just Wondering
2017-08-15 02:45:15 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by de chucka
Post by !! Atheist ------------------------------
Post by Siri Cruise
Evolution is an observed process in both wild and domestic life.
Big fat lie. Never observed (a new species appeared).
https://www.wsj.com/articles/scientists-observe-wasps-evolving-into-new-species-1446229404
Etymologists-observe-scientist-redefine-the-word-"species"
de chucka
2017-08-15 02:48:08 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Just Wondering
Post by de chucka
Post by !! Atheist ------------------------------
Post by Siri Cruise
Evolution is an observed process in both wild and domestic life.
Big fat lie. Never observed (a new species appeared).
https://www.wsj.com/articles/scientists-observe-wasps-evolving-into-new-species-1446229404
Etymologists-observe-scientist-redefine-the-word-"species"
That is pathetic even for you
Scout
2017-08-15 03:29:12 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Just Wondering
Post by Siri Cruise
Post by Wally W.
I'm telling you that evolution is faith-based because it can't produce
the missing links.
Evolution is an observed process in both wild and domestic life.
Please provide an example where scientists have observed a solution of
non-live chemical compounds evolve into a living organism.
So much for creationism then.
Andrew
2017-08-15 05:52:14 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Scout
Post by Just Wondering
Post by Siri Cruise
Post by Wally W.
I'm telling you that evolution is faith-based because it can't produce
the missing links.
Evolution is an observed process in both wild and domestic life.
Please provide an example where scientists have observed a solution of
non-live chemical compounds evolve into a living organism.
So much for creationism then.
Here's what happened:

"And the Lord God formed man of
the dust of the ground, and breathed
into his nostrils the breath of life;
and man became a living being."

"God created man in His own image,
in the image of God created He him;
male and female created He them."


Can scientists do something like that?

Absolutely not.

Therefore Creationism wins.

Why is that so difficult for
you to see that?
de chucka
2017-08-15 06:07:19 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Scout
Post by Just Wondering
Post by Siri Cruise
Post by Wally W.
I'm telling you that evolution is faith-based because it can't produce
the missing links.
Evolution is an observed process in both wild and domestic life.
Please provide an example where scientists have observed a solution
of non-live chemical compounds evolve into a living organism.
So much for creationism then.
"And the Lord God formed man of the dust of the ground, and breathed
into his nostrils the breath of life; and man became a living being."
"God created man in His own image, in the image of God created He him;
male and female created He them."
Can scientists do something like that?
Absolutely not.
Therefore Creationism wins.
That is your religious cosmology. Maybe Mbomba vomiting out the world is
correct or Atum who wanked out life or Neith who created it on her loom.
Maybe Kamuy who built the world on the back of a trout is right.

Lots of creationism ideas that you could follow there isn't only one as
you suggest. Maybe these should all be taught in US schools
Gronk
2017-08-15 19:27:47 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Scout
Post by Just Wondering
Post by Siri Cruise
Post by Wally W.
I'm telling you that evolution is faith-based because it can't produce
the missing links.
Evolution is an observed process in both wild and domestic life.
Please provide an example where scientists have observed a solution of
non-live chemical compounds evolve into a living organism.
So much for creationism then.
"And the Lord God formed man of the dust of the ground, and breathed
into his nostrils the breath of life; and man became a living being."
"God created man in His own image, in the image of God created He him;
male and female created He them."
Can scientists do something like that?
Absolutely not.
Therefore Creationism wins.
Why is that so difficult for you to see that?
Any evidence for breathing on dirt and making a human?
Siri Cruise
2017-08-15 20:12:19 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Gronk
Any evidence for breathing on dirt and making a human?
There's no evidence for any alternative.
--
:-<> Siri Seal of Disavowal #000-001. Disavowed. Denied. Deleted. @
'I desire mercy, not sacrifice.' /|\
Free the Amos Yee one. This post / \
Yeah, too bad about your so-called life. Ha-ha. insults Islam. Mohammed
Scout
2017-08-16 00:15:01 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Siri Cruise
Post by Gronk
Any evidence for breathing on dirt and making a human?
There's no evidence for any alternative.
There is as much, if not more, than for this method.

Maybe man exists because some birds landed here carrying babies.

After all, isn't that were babies come from.....I know I saw that in a book
at some time.
Andrew
2017-08-16 02:53:50 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Scout
Maybe man exists because some birds l
anded here carrying babies.
This is what happened:

"And the Lord God formed man of
the dust of the ground, and breathed
into his nostrils the breath of life;
and man became a living being."

"God created man in His own image,
in the image of God created He him;
male and female created He them."

Can scientists do something like that?

Absolutely not.

Can evolution do something like that?

Absolutely not.

Therefore evidence points to >Creation<.

Why is that so difficult for you to see?
Scout
2017-08-16 02:58:10 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Scout
Maybe man exists because some birds l
anded here carrying babies.
"And the Lord God formed man of the dust of the ground, and breathed
into his nostrils the breath of life; and man became a living being."
Great, when you can breath life into a pile of dust....then we can talk
about your theory.
'
Until then I've got a book that says that storks bring humans to life.

It's in a book, so it must be true....right?
Scout
2017-08-16 00:13:47 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Gronk
Post by Scout
Post by Just Wondering
Post by Siri Cruise
Post by Wally W.
I'm telling you that evolution is faith-based because it can't produce
the missing links.
Evolution is an observed process in both wild and domestic life.
Please provide an example where scientists have observed a solution of
non-live chemical compounds evolve into a living organism.
So much for creationism then.
"And the Lord God formed man of the dust of the ground, and breathed
into his nostrils the breath of life; and man became a living being."
"God created man in His own image, in the image of God created He him;
male and female created He them."
Can scientists do something like that?
Absolutely not.
Therefore Creationism wins.
Why is that so difficult for you to see that?
Any evidence for breathing on dirt and making a human?
Heck, ,I'm waiting for him to show it can even cause life....
Scout
2017-08-16 00:13:12 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Scout
Post by Just Wondering
Post by Siri Cruise
Post by Wally W.
I'm telling you that evolution is faith-based because it can't produce
the missing links.
Evolution is an observed process in both wild and domestic life.
Please provide an example where scientists have observed a solution of
non-live chemical compounds evolve into a living organism.
So much for creationism then.
"And the Lord God formed man of the dust of the ground, and breathed
into his nostrils the breath of life; and man became a living being."
So, I can form a pile of dust into something, breath into the nostrils and
make it become a living being?

And babies are brought by big birds....

After all, I read that in a book too.
SeaSnake
2017-08-13 16:14:57 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Wally W.
The case for theistic creation is at least as good as the case for the
faith-based assertions about evolution.
Well yes, yes it is!
Scout
2017-08-13 23:48:44 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Wally W.
Post by Scout
Post by Wally W.
Post by Scout
Post by Kurt (Sphincter) Schlichter
Another step forward in understanding ourselves.
If you want to understand our origins, it helps to understand that there
is no mechanism for us to have evolved from some
lower life form to ourselves via the fantasized evolutionary
pathway.
Ok, so exactly what pathway can you find evidence of to explain how and why
we exist as we do today.
and don't try asserting fantasized processes which you have no evidence of,
or you will be in the same boat as you claim that evolution is.
False comparison.
No, perfectly valid comparison.
Yes, it is a false comparison.
No, but you've shown you aren't interested in facts.
Post by Wally W.
Post by Scout
If you're telling me they are wrong,
I'm telling you that evolution is faith-based because it can't produce
the missing links.
Except it has produced missing links. The problem is that creates more
missing links. You discount the evidence that exists because you feel
everyone should lie down on their parents to die.

Meanwhile what about the missing links in creationism? When are you going to
find ANY of them?
Post by Wally W.
Post by Scout
then
you should have evidence that shows proof of another means.
False demand.
IOW, you've got nothing to back up your theories, and you complain the other
theories are missing evidence.

That's still more than your theory has to offer.

Come back when you can produce any evidence to support the theory of
creationism.

Until then, I think I will just stick with science, even though it's
incomplete and fragmented, but at least they are looking for and have found
evidence to support their theories.
Gronk
2017-08-15 19:23:08 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Kurt (Sphincter) Schlichter
Another step forward in understanding ourselves.
If you want to understand our origins, it helps to understand that there
is no mechanism for us to have evolved from some
lower life form to ourselves via the fantasized evolutionary
pathway.
Therefore the article you posted would be properly noted
to be labeled as fake news and fake science .
There is no mechanism for breathing on dirt and making a male human, nor
for taking a rib from said male and making a female human.

There, this bible stuff is #FakeFakeFake
Scout
2017-08-16 00:23:08 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Gronk
Post by Kurt (Sphincter) Schlichter
Another step forward in understanding ourselves.
If you want to understand our origins, it helps to understand that there
is no mechanism for us to have evolved from some
lower life form to ourselves via the fantasized evolutionary
pathway.
Therefore the article you posted would be properly noted
to be labeled as fake news and fake science .
There is no mechanism for breathing on dirt and making a male human, nor
for taking a rib from said male and making a female human.
There, this bible stuff is #FakeFakeFake
Actually that last one, I could see some possible basis for.

After all, a male is defined by the XX chromosome. If you remove a rib from
that you end up with an XY chromosome which results in a female.

Sometimes, I think the issue is that people take the language of the Bible
far to literally.

I often wonder if the difference is more in the limitations of the language
the Bible was written in, and even the conceptual limitations of the person
putting down the vision they saw.

Or it could just be seeing something that really doesn't exist.

Either way, I like to keep an open mind, and am willing to look at what both
sides have to offer.

There is more in the Universe than man knows or has even thought of.
Tracy12
2017-08-11 11:58:26 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Kurt (Sphincter) Schlichter
http://www.sciencemag.org/news/2017/08/ancient-infant-ape-
skull-
sheds-light-ancestor-all-humans-and-living-apes
*Ancient Infant Ape Skull Sheds Light on the Ancestor of All
Humans and Living Apes* by Michael Price
Aug. 9, 2017
Anthropologists have waited decades to find the complete
cranium of a Miocene ape from Africa -- one that lived in the
hazy period before the human lineage split off from the
common ancestors we share with chimpanzees some 7 million
years ago. Now, scientists in Kenya have found their prize at
last: an almost perfectly preserved skull roughly the size of
a baseball. The catch? It’s from an infant. That means that
although it can give scientists a rough idea of what the
common ancestor to all living apes and humans would have
looked like, drawing other meaningful conclusions could be
challenging.
“This is the sort of thing that the fossil record loves to
do to us,” says James Rossie, a biological anthropologist
at the State University of New York in Stony Brook who
wasn’t involved with the study. “The problem is that we
learn from fossils by comparing them to others. When there
are no other infant Miocene ape skulls to which to make those
comparisons, your hands are tied”.
The remarkably complete skull was discovered in the Turkana
Basin of northern Kenya 3 years ago. As the sun sank behind
the Napudet Hills west of Lake Turkana, primate
paleontologist Isaiah Nengo of De Anza College in Cupertino,
California, and his team started walking back to their jeep.
Kenyan fossil hunter John Ekusi raced ahead to smoke a
cigarette. Suddenly he began circling in place. When Nengo
caught up, he saw a dirt-clogged eye socket staring up at
him. “There was this skull just sticking out of the
ground,” Nengo recalls. “It was incredible because we had
been going up and down that path for weeks and never noticed
it”.
The team carefully extracted the fossil from the rocky ground
using small dental picks and brushes. Nengo knew immediately
it was a primate skull, but that he wouldn’t learn much
more until he and colleagues performed a more sophisticated
analysis.
At the Noble Gas Laboratory at Rutgers University in New
Brunswick, New Jersey, researchers measured argon
isotopes—which decay at a fixed, predictable rate—within
the fossil’s rock layer, revealing that it was about 13
million years old. Back then, the dry, rocky landscape of
today’s Turkana Basin was a lush rainforest.
Although the fossil looks a bit like a gibbon skull on first
blush, Nengo says, its dental pattern and teeth shape suggest
its closest relatives are other Miocene fossil primates from
the genus *Nyanzapithecus*, also found in Kenya. Yet its
molars are much larger than those of the known
nyanzapithecines, indicating a new species. The researchers
named it *N. alesi*, or Alesi for short, after the Turkana
word for “ancestor”.
Extremely sensitive x-ray imaging performed at the European
Synchrotron Radiation Facility in Grenoble, France, allowed
the team to count growth lines in the fossil’s unerupted
adult teeth like tree rings, telling them Alesi was about 485
days (or 1 year and 4 months) old when it died. The x-rays
also revealed the presence of bony ear tubes in the skull,
which act as a balance organ. Primatologists have long
debated whether the Nyanzapithecus genus belonged to the ape
or monkey line, but the presence of these tubes, combined
with the size and shape of the teeth, solidly mark Alesi --
and by extension the other nyanzapithecines -- as apes
[http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v548/n7666/full/nature2
3
Post by Kurt (Sphincter) Schlichter
4 5
6.html?foxtrotcallback=true], the researchers report today in
'Nature'. What’s more, they claim, the ear tubes present
strong evidence that it’s an evolutionary cousin to the
ancestral line of apes from which humans and living apes
derive.
That could help answer a long-standing question in primate
evolution: Did the common ancestor to living apes and humans
evolve in Africa or Eurasia? Nengo says the new finding
supports an African origin. “Africa has been acting like a
petri dish for millions of years, conducting experiments in
evolution,” he says. “Humans and our close ape relatives
are just the latest evolutionary experiments to come out of
that petri dish.”
David Begun, an anthropologist at the University of Toronto
in Canada, isn’t convinced. He points to the fact that
fossil hominines—a group whose descendants include African
apes and humans—have been found in Europe dating to 12.5
million years ago, but they don’t conclusively show up in
the African fossil record until 7 million years ago. To him,
that suggests the common ancestor evolved in Europe before
heading back into Africa. The discovery of N. alesi does
nothing to change that. “*Nyanzapithecus* is an early
ape,” Begun says. “Whether it’s the closest thing we
know to the last common ancestor... is questionable.”
----------
Another step forward in understanding ourselves.
. . .
The only sensible answer is that science is a lying because we
were created by a giant bearded white Christian Conservative
capitalist God who lives in the sky.. Send all your money to
Benny Hinn, John Hagee, Franklin Graham and Pat Robertson.
They have a special magic that gives them the power to talk
with the God.
Loading...