Welcome, Guest. Please Login
YaBB - Yet another Bulletin Board
  Welcome to our forum.
  HomeHelpSearchLogin  
 
Pages: 1 2 3 4 
Send Topic Print
DNA Shows no Evolution! This is supposed to be a "pro" evolution video. (Read 30839 times)
GoodScienceForYou
YaBB Administrator
*****
Offline


The obvious isn't obvious
until it is obvious

Posts: 1361
United States
Gender: male
Re: DNA Shows no Evolution! This is supposed to be a "pro" evolution video.
Reply #45 - May 22nd, 2011 at 1:37pm
 
This video finishes this Evodelusionism crap once and for all time.



This destroys it more.  There is nothing but crap Evodelusional religious ideology in this "theroy of evolution".



This finishes the Radiometric dating of fossils, completely.  It shows that this is also a religious pile or mythology.

Back to top
 

"Putting your faith in humanity has historically not been a good concept. Why do you think it is "different" now?"
"Find the truth for yourself and don't succumb to indoctrination."
WWW  
IP Logged
 
GoodScienceForYou
YaBB Administrator
*****
Offline


The obvious isn't obvious
until it is obvious

Posts: 1361
United States
Gender: male
Re: DNA Shows no Evolution! This is supposed to be a "pro" evolution video.
Reply #46 - Jun 30th, 2011 at 10:31am
 
Flap Over Flight Evolution


Birds flap their wings when they run up ramps. It takes less energy than flying. This is uncontroversial; it is observable, and science can measure the energy cost. But for at least eight years now, Ken Dial at the University of Montana has been claiming that this behavior explains the origin of flight in birds (01/16/2003, 12/22/2003). When he first came out with this hypothesis in 2003, Elisabeth Pennisi in the journal Science said, "I imagine people will continue to argue about the origin of bird flight for a long time." There's been very little argument in the media over the years, though (05/01/2006, 9/22/2007, 1/25/2008); in fact, the BBC News just gave another plug for Dial's hypothesis with no criticism at all.

In her article "Flap-running in birds is key to flight evolution," reporter Victoria Gill cheerfully quoted Dial's colleague Brandon Jackson explaining the origin of flight:

"Flap running... lets young birds that cannot yet fly -- because of small muscles, small wings, weak feathers, etc -- get off the ground and away from some predators," Dr Jackson told BBC Nature."And if baby birds can perform these behaviours, benefit from them, and transition gradually to flight in their life-time, we think it's probable that dinosaurs with (similarly small wings) could have performed these behaviours, benefited from them, and transitioned towards flight over evolutionary time."
So watching birds learn to fly could allow us a glimpse of the stages of flight's evolution.
On the surface, this hypothesis sounds Lamarckian. Presumably it could be incorporated into neo-Darwinism this way: a mutation occurred that made a young dinosaur hold out its forelegs as it ran up a hill escaping a predator. All the other siblings were eaten. This dinosaur one day found a mate with the same mutation, and the trait spread through the population. It's a small start; were any other traits required after that to produce hummingbirds, eagles, ostriches, and great snipes flying 4,200 miles in 4 days?

Dr Jackson concluded: "Very small wings powered by small muscles had aerodynamic function and survival benefits when they were flapped."No more major steps were required after that, just gradual but beneficial steps. And we can actually observe [those steps] in developing birds today."
Now the explanation sounds Haeckelian. Jackson seems to be saying that chicks replay their evolutionary history. Not only that, he and Ken Dial overlooked a host of precision mechanisms needed to allow a dinosaur to become airborne with controlled flapping flight.

This just-so story is so lame, it should be a huge embarrassment to the Darwin Party. These guys don't understand evolutionary theory at all. You can't draw analogies between chick development to adult bird in a year, and say a similar transition occurs in evolutionary time over millions of years. Chick development is encoded in DNA and in numerous epigenetic regulatory codes, and is observable in the present. Are they believers in some mystical meta-Gaia belief, that the history of the life on Earth develops from embryo to adult? This hypothesis is a cross between Lamarckism and recapitulation theory, both of which have been tossed into the dustbin of history. Two wrongs don't make a right.
We laughed this hypothesis off the stage when it first appeared (01/16/2003), and even evolutionist Pennisi had her doubts. Now, eight years have gone by and Dial and Jackson are still promoting it. To make any progress toward sense in evolutionary circles, critics will have to at least get them to be consistent with their own belief system. Give us your suggestions for giving Jackson and Dial a much-needed red face. Reading them our 12/22/2003 commentary might be a start. If they are men of integrity, their faces will turn red with shame. If not, their faces will turn red with rage. (Note: federal funding, tenure, and media fame can have the unintended consequence of reducing integrity.)
Back to top
 

"Putting your faith in humanity has historically not been a good concept. Why do you think it is "different" now?"
"Find the truth for yourself and don't succumb to indoctrination."
WWW  
IP Logged
 
GoodScienceForYou
YaBB Administrator
*****
Offline


The obvious isn't obvious
until it is obvious

Posts: 1361
United States
Gender: male
Re: DNA Shows no Evolution! This is supposed to be a "pro" evolution video.
Reply #47 - Jun 30th, 2011 at 10:32am
 
Biology, Fossils, Humanity, Human Body, Mind and Brain, Origins, Darwin and Evolution, Early Man

Avoid Confusion: Disbelieve Paleoanthropologists

If you care about the true history of the human race, don't believe paleoanthropologists. They are clueless and confused. Every solution they come up with creates new problems, and their boastful announcements are likely to be overturned. That's the gist of a commentary in PNAS by Bernard Wood,1 who wrote, "The origin of our own genus remains frustratingly unclear." He ought to know; he's an eminent paleoanthropologist himself (see his comments in prior entries from 03/25/2011 bullet 5, 02/16/2011, 04/27/2006, 07/11/2002, 02/15/2002).

For decades, paleoanthropologists have declared to the world that human beings originated in Africa and migrated out to colonize Europe and Asia. Prepare for a surprise. Dr. Wood said:

Although many of my colleagues are agreed regarding the "what" with respect to Homo, there is no consensus as to the "how" and "when" questions. Until relatively recently, most paleoanthropologists (including the writer) assumed Africa was the answer to the "where" question, but in a little more than a decade discoveries at two sites beyond Africa, one at Dmanisi in Georgia and the other at Liang Bua on the island of Flores, have called this assumption into question. The results of recent excavations at Dmanisi reported in PNAS , which suggest that hominins visited that site on several occasions between ca. 1.85 and ca. 1.77 Ma, together with recent reassessments of the affinities of Homo habilis, are further reasons for questioning the assumption that Homo originated in Africa.

Wood continued by showing how the Dmanisi specimens are hard to classify (along with Homo erectus), but if they are H. erectus, they appear contemporaneous with African specimens. Then there are the Liang Bua specimens dubbed Homo floresiensis, that seem primitive yet overlap substantially with modern humans (dated between 17,000 and 74,000 years old by evolutionary methods). These miniature humans remain bewildering to paleoanthropologists.

As for "where" questions, Wood showed that the evidence could support opposite views: that our ancestors migrated either out of Africa or into Africa. He offered "scenarios" but admitted, "it would be misleading to claim that any of the scenarios are supported by that meager evidence." Then he moaned, "Another stumbling block for an ancestor-descendant relationship between H. habilis and H. erectus sensu stricto within Africa is that both the ancestor and the descendant overlap in time in East Africa for several hundred thousand years." Ann Gibbons wrote about the debates surrounding H. habilis in Science,2 leaving it unclear whether it should be considered inside Homo or outside; "The problem is that there are precious few fossils of either H. habilis or H. rudolfensis, especially from the neck down."

What is the lesson of this confusion? Wood hoped for more bones like those at Dmanisi, but ended with a worse admission of ignorance that extends beyond Homo erectus issues:

In the meantime we need to be realistic about what can, and what cannot, be deduced about hominin evolutionary history. It is sobering to realize that even in the case of a taxon such as Homo neanderthalensis that has an order of magnitude better fossil record than for early Homo, we still have much to learn about its origin and evolution.

That the problems are not merely the opinions of one paleoanthropologist can be seen by other recent early-man stories. Science Daily echoed the confusion, stating on June 22,

Africa is regarded as the center of evolution of humans and their precursors. Yet long before modern humans left Africa some 125,000 years ago, their antecedents migrated from Africa to Eurasia many times, as is documented in the fossil record. How often, when and why hominoids went "out of Africa" is still a hotly debated field of intense research.

The article proceeded to describe a tooth from another "hominoid" that appears to have migrated into Swabia 17 million years ago, nearly ten times earlier than the conventional "out of Africa" hypothesis. To fit it into evolutionary timelines, they had to conclude that the line of this tooth was a dead end.

A BBC News article asked an obvious question, "Why is there only one human species?" All humans today are interfertile and clearly of one blood. Michael Mosley pondered, "Not so very long ago, we shared this planet with several other species of human, all of them clever, resourceful and excellent hunters, so why did only Homo sapiens survive?" Chris Stringer was quoted puzzling over the same question: "Even 100,000 years ago, we've still got several human species on Earth and that's strange for us. We're the only survivors of all of those great evolutionary experiments in how to be human."

Those "evolutionary experiments" included Homo ergaster, who made tools, hunted skillfully, and "would have been a powerful runner, capable of speeds that would rival a modern Olympic athlete." Moreover, this Homo was hairless and capable of dealing with heat like a modern beach bum. What's the difference if "they're very like us in terms of their overall body shape and body build"? And these were predecessors of Homo erectus in the evolutionary story.

Mosley was clearly just storytelling as he described groups of Homo responding to droughts and volcanoes, putting dates on events no paleoanthropologist ever witnessed. The only difference he could allege between the various Homo beings was brain size, a theory-laden measurement fraught with interpretation. Bigger is not always better (as with computers, comparing 1950 and 2010 models). Maybe smaller-brained individuals packed more power in less space. An article on PhysOrg about a Chinese scientist who measures skull capacities of Homo erectus fossils noted quite a bit of metrical diversity in brain size, "not unexpected given the temporal and geographical range of the species."

Despite admitting that "Huge debates rage about human origins," Mosley proceeded to write like an eyewitness reporter, presenting the standard out-of-Africa view as a "broad consensus among scientists" (contradicting Bernard Wood, and begging questions about how valid any consensus is among raging debaters). Sometimes, though, the questions are more interesting than the claims. Mosley quoted John Shea, professor of palaeoanthropology at Stony Brook University in New York, making a remark that casts doubt on the whole evolutionary story: "There's such a huge gulf between ourselves and our nearest primate relatives, gorillas, chimpanzees and bonobos," he said, putting his faith in a big IF: "If that gap were populated by other hominids, we'd see that gap as not so much a gulf but rather a continuum with steps on the way." Too bad all the species of Homo that Mosley discussed in his article appear just as equidistant from chimpanzees as the rest of us. If he had read Wood's depressing commentary first, his claims might have been much less confident.

Now read Lund University's press release on PhysOrg and see if the triumphant claim that "Cutting edge training developed the human brain 80,000 years ago" fits with what Bernard Wood said, besides begging questions about whether training developed the brain, or the brain developed training. The paleoanthropologists who inferred brain evolution from some spear points in an African cave failed to describe what mutation began a "period of transformation" that led to Homo sapiens, "man the wise". Wise men learn to disbelieve scientists who, claiming to be wise, speak beyond the evidence.

1.Bernard Wood, Did early Homo migrate "out of " or "in to" Africa?, PNAS, 2011 ; published ahead of print June 15, 2011, doi:10.1073/pnas.1107724108.

2. Ann Gibbons, Who Was Homo Habilis -- and Was It Really Homo?, Science, 17 June 2011: Vol. 332 no. 6036 pp. 1370-1371, DOI: 10.1126/science.332.6036.1370.

Don't be alarmed by any of this. It's not a problem. Science is a self-correcting process. We are just watching science correct itself on its march toward Truth. Sooner or later, this long detour down the Darwin primrose path, with all its confusion, dead ends, just-so storytelling, contradictions, begged questions, fables masquerading as knowledge, paradigm shifts, raging debates, champion upsets, consensus overturns and pity parties will be swept away into the dustbin of failed theories, and science will once again acknowledge the Creator. (In this life or the next.)
Back to top
 

"Putting your faith in humanity has historically not been a good concept. Why do you think it is "different" now?"
"Find the truth for yourself and don't succumb to indoctrination."
WWW  
IP Logged
 
GoodScienceForYou
YaBB Administrator
*****
Offline


The obvious isn't obvious
until it is obvious

Posts: 1361
United States
Gender: male
Re: DNA Shows no Evolution! This is supposed to be a "pro" evolution video.
Reply #48 - Jun 30th, 2011 at 10:34am
 
Re: Re:Humans Are Devolving
Demystifying the Debate with PZ Myers' Over Evolution and Embryolog


Previously, I discussed how PZ Myers commonly attempts to shout down his opposition through name-calling and incendiary rhetoric. PZ's use of this methodology has become so extreme that he's shocked authors in mainstream scientific journals and left-leaning pro-evolution media outlets like the NY Times. Recently, PZ tried to use this method when attacking pro-intelligent design undergraduate student Jonathan M. at a talk before a skeptics group in Glasgow, Scotland.

Why does PZ resort to character assassination rather than simply allowing civil dialogue? I think the answer lies in the fact that the empirical evidence is not as clearly on PZ's side as he'd like it to be. He deflects from evidential weaknesses by turning up the volume via extensive name-calling and personal attacks.

And in the case of PZ's recent debate with Jonathan M., we're not just talking about any evidence. We're talking about evidence that is near and dear to PZ's heart because it pertains to the very existence of concept after which he chose to name his blog: the pharyngula.

Another tactic PZ commonly uses when debating embryology is to distort the arguments of intelligent design (ID) proponents by constantly claiming that they are simply attacking Haeckelian recapitulation theory. Recapitulation theory is the idea that as organisms develop, they replay their evolutionary history. Thus we have Haeckel's famous dictum, ontogeny [i.e. development] recapitulates [i.e. replays] phylogeny [i.e. evolutionary history] - a concept which has long been known to be false.

Since modern evolutionary biology has rejected Haeckel's recapitulation theory, PZ claims that ID proponents are only knocking down a straw man argument. The problem with PZ's rebuttal is that we're not attacking recapitulation theory, but rather the argument for common ancestry based upon shared similarities in development--an argument which appears in virtually every mainstream biology textbook, and one which PZ is known to make in various forms. (I realize PZ denies making this argument, but as we'll see throughout this series, he nonetheless makes it.) Though PZ accuses us of attacking a straw man, by misconstruing our arguments and wrongly claiming that our they only entail an attack on Haeckel's recapitulation theory, it is PZ who is promoting the straw man.

To summarize this debate, let's briefly review some of the main arguments on both sides:

Our Point (1): We are NOT arguing that modern evolution biology or embryology is based upon Haeckel's recapitulation theory. Although we do argue that textbooks should not use Haeckel's inaccurate drawings, which overstate the degree of similarity between vertebrate embryos, we recognize that the case for common ancestry no longer depends upon recapitulation theory. As Jonathan M. explains, "For those who want the bottom line, here it is. Myers thinks I'm worried about Haeckelian recapitulation. But that's completely wrong."
Our Point (2): Leading lights of evolutionary biology (in particular, mainstream biology textbooks) commonly claim that vertebrate embryos have a high degree of similarity in their early stages, and that this demonstrates their common ancestry. (If you doubt what I'm saying, all this will be amply documented in this series of articles.) We reply by observing that these claims are inaccurate since vertebrate embryos show many differences, including significant differences from their earliest stages of development to the later stages. Sometimes we point out that evolutionary biology has difficulty explaining supposedly homologous structures which are produced by non-homologous developmental pathways or supposedly homologous developmental pathways that produce widely divergent (even non-homologous) structures.
Our Point (3): Many textbooks and evolutionary authorities claim that one particular stage during vertebrate development is highly similar (or "conserved")--the pharyngular stage--and this provides good evidence that vertebrates do in fact share a common ancestor. We respond by noting that over the past decade or so, some extremely prominent evolutionary developmental biologists have published scientific papers finding that vertebrate development is so divergent that it's doubtful that a conserved "pharyngular stage" even exists.
It's worth reiterating the last sentence in point 3: Not only do vertebrate embryos show many differences early in development, but some leading embryologists argue that vertebrate embryos develop so differently that the pharyngular (also called "phylotypic" or "tailbud") stage may not exist.

For PZ, Point 3 is very problematic. Dr. Myers named his blog "Pharyngula," suggesting this concept is of great persuasive importance to him when it comes to the evidence for evolution. Thus, it comes as little surprise that whenever one debates embryology with PZ, he quickly descends into extensive public name-calling, incendiary rhetoric, and distortion of our arguments in order to avoid debating that last point. PZ's responses to our 3 points thus usually go something like the following:

PZ's Response to Point (1): PZ typically denies that we are making Point (1), and instead argues we are arguing precisely the opposite of Point 1, setting up Haeckelian recapitulation theory as the bedrock of modern evolutionary biology. On this point, he simply ignores our actual arguments. Extensive name-calling usually follows. As PZ wrote while misconstruing Jonathan M's arguments, "Evolution does not predict that development will conserve the evolutionary history of an organism, therefore your question is stupid." Even after Jonathan M. made it clear that this is not what he's arguing, PZ replied by misconstruing it as such, claiming that Jonathan M. is "completely ineducable."
PZ's Response to Point (2): Frankly, usually PZ raises such a ruckus in response to Point 1 that he doesn't often get around to addressing our Point 2. And depending on which day you catch PZ on, you might get a different answer. In the past PZ has responded to our Point 2 by denying that early stages of embryos show wide variation, and instead claiming that the differences between early stages of vertebrate embryos are merely "superficial." But in his recent response to Jonathan M., PZ changed his tune. He admitted that the early stages of development can "vary greatly" and even show "wide variation." PZ's more recent admission about greater variance among early vertebrate embryos also led him to explicitly take a weak stance on whether evolutionary biology predicts we should find similarities when comparing vertebrate embryos. Thus, another success of Jonathan M.'s recent debate with PZ before the Glasgow Skeptics was that Jonathan M. forced PZ to reply squarely to our Point 2. Here was PZ's reply: "I wish I could get that one thought into these guys heads: evolutionary theory predicts differences as well as similarities." This is rich: If PZ is right, and evolutionary biology predicts both similarities and differences between vertebrate embryos, then it would seem that evolutionary biology really predicts nothing at all about development and is unfalsifiable regarding the evidence from vertebrate development. According to PZ, evolutionary theory predicts whatever it predicts, conserves whatever it conserves, and modifies whatever it modifies. Some theory.
PZ's Response to Point (3): In light of PZ's response to our Point 2 (that "evolutionary theory predicts differences as well as similarities" in vertebrate embryos), one might reasonably presume PZ views evolutionary processes as so plastic and unpredictable that one cannot really make an argument for, or (lucky for him) against, common ancestry based upon the similarities (or differences) between vertebrate embryos. But this is wrong. In what appears to be another contradiction, in response to Point 3 PZ has argued that "substantial similarities" between vertebrate embryos during the pharyngula stage "are evidence of common descent." He has asserted these "substantial similarities" are "a fact," and levied his fury towards those who would cite scientific papers questioning the existence of the pharyngular stage. To my knowledge, PZ has yet to address the papers we've cited which challenge the existence of a pharyngular stage. PZ's use of incendiary rhetoric while avoiding our scientific arguments might indicate that our Point 3 hits close to home. Clearly, the evidence for the pharyngula is very important to PZ.
In some subsequent articles, I'll elaborate on the evidence regarding each of these 3 points.
Back to top
 

"Putting your faith in humanity has historically not been a good concept. Why do you think it is "different" now?"
"Find the truth for yourself and don't succumb to indoctrination."
WWW  
IP Logged
 
GoodScienceForYou
YaBB Administrator
*****
Offline


The obvious isn't obvious
until it is obvious

Posts: 1361
United States
Gender: male
Re: DNA Shows no Evolution! This is supposed to be a "pro" evolution video.
Reply #49 - May 12th, 2012 at 2:14am
 
This video is excellent against evolution. If these Evolutionists believe that the chimp is our cousin. if you study the DNA of this cousin and all the diseases it has and the fact that it is nearly extinct, show that the end result of "evolution" is only extinction. Chimps have at minimum 160,000 found so far negative mutations. There are 18 negative mutations just in the HAR-1 gene any more it would be extinct now. Humans have 50,000 found so far and zero positive mutations.

Back to top
 

"Putting your faith in humanity has historically not been a good concept. Why do you think it is "different" now?"
"Find the truth for yourself and don't succumb to indoctrination."
WWW  
IP Logged
 
GoodScienceForYou
YaBB Administrator
*****
Offline


The obvious isn't obvious
until it is obvious

Posts: 1361
United States
Gender: male
Re: DNA Shows no Evolution! This is supposed to be a "pro" evolution video.
Reply #50 - Jun 1st, 2012 at 3:49am
 
1/X A real scientist looks for is the obvious, from objective science, no assumptions. If the only "evidence" you have is someone's opinions based on what they think they see, & it is full of ambiguity, then it is not accepted as evidence, but just seen for what it is. The chronology is a mess, because there is no way to date fossils directly from any tissue or even original minerals. We have DNA now. It is irrefutable evidence. It only shows genetic degradation in all complex creatures.

2/X A real scientist waits for evidence that cannot be seen in any other way before making conclusions about all the evidence. In real science all the evidence only supports the irrefutable obvious evidence. A real scientist realizes that humans are prone to myths and want answers so bad that fits their beliefs, all humans are this way. When thousands or millions of them believe the same thing with no absolutely irrefutable physical evidence, it is a religion.

3/X I realized at a very young age that people are full of emotional issues and needs to fulfill, and that those ideas are almost never real or they contain a tiny bit of truth, mixed in with a lot of HEMG; human emotional mental garbage. It is everywhere, and in everyone. If you want a good goal for your life then get rid of all beliefs and only seek what is true.

4/X Now that we have DNA and it tells the real story, then all the hominids are degenerated humans that died out, just like the modern one on "evolutionforum.info".
The chimp, and all the apes are degenerated that did not degenerate to the point of extinction until now.
There is no possible evolution from simple life into complex. It has no evidence to support it. It only has faith and beliefs.
Back to top
 

"Putting your faith in humanity has historically not been a good concept. Why do you think it is "different" now?"
"Find the truth for yourself and don't succumb to indoctrination."
WWW  
IP Logged
 
Pages: 1 2 3 4 
Send Topic Print